Neo cons and republicans, why didn't Bush go after Osama Bin Laden?

Question

Do you now believe, like Bush says, that he's not a threat?

Answer 1

Well, I 'm a liberal-but I'm also a historian/sociologist--andthis is really a straigtforward question-so:

One of the means of getting/legitimizing power--especially increasing the power of a ruler--is to use fear. Thus, a threatening figure, like Osama, can (and its obvious, has) be sued to justify thingslike curtailing civil liberties.

But--that works only if the threat remains "out there." Osama is a boogeyman--supposedly sending "terror cells" to the US, subverting young people, etc., etc., etc.

If we actually caught Osama, his value to the Bush administration wouuld be at an end.

Answer 2

His organization is in tatters and he is in hiding. My question is why didn't Clinton go after Osama when he had the chance? Strike that at least 6 chances? Why didn't he do something in 96 when he was told about the 9-11 attack?

Answer 3

It is true that bin Laden is not much of a current threat, but it is not true that Bush has lost any interest in nailing his hide to the door. Unfortunately, bin Laden has lots of friends who are good at hiding him.

Answer 4

I don't know why they have not because the CIA confirmed that they have reformed in Pakistan and are back to pre-9/11 strength.

Answer 5

It was more important to Saddam because he did have the bomb. We don't want the smoking gun to be the shape of a mushroom cloud...oh thats right he doesn't have WMD and Bin Laden who?

Answer 6

You mean the dems had caught OBL. Whoops! My bad. They didn't either.

Answer 7

clinton cigars? at least he didn't use them on male undercover cops.