or has he given up because he knows America is no longer fooled?
2007-08-31 06:05:02 · 7 answers · asked by Dream Realized 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He's changed his mind on that, apparently you didn't get the memo
-- Sept. 17, 2001 - Remarks by the President to Employees at the Pentagon:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-3.html
"I want justice. There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive."
-- Sept 11, 2006 - President's Address to the Nation:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060911-3.html
"No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice."
-- Sept. 13, 2006 - Inside the Oval Office: President Bush gives journalists a "heads up" about the mid-term elections, among other things.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/696wnfcp.asp
"This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work."
Yes, two days after addressing the nation, Bush changed his mind. There's a pattern here, he handled the issue of the CIA leaks the same way. He went from "they would be dealt with" to "it's water under the bridge". I'd write more, but must look up 'irony' and 'dichotomy' in on-line dictionaries to see if a picture of Bush has been added for illustration.
2007-08-31 10:12:13 · answer #1 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah he should and that Bil Laden is still at large is another big stain on the already miserable legacy of this over ambitious pseudo Christan anti intellectual.
But all his supporters have to say to this will probably be but Clinton.While it was the reactionary right that time and time again frustrated and undermined efforts of Bill Clinton to take out Bin Laden before he could strike the US.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Thanks Republicans!
2007-08-31 13:26:44 · answer #2 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
YES!!! God knows that we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now had Bush focused on bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein. It's also a pity that the 3,000 who died on 9/11 will never get justice.
2007-08-31 13:25:46 · answer #3 · answered by tangerine 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
he prefers to "protect" himself and his cronies by making money from the war in Iraq.
I thought we all knew that by now.
2007-08-31 14:03:49 · answer #4 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Giving him credit for having half a brain are we?
2007-08-31 15:06:14 · answer #5 · answered by Suzanne 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe we should FUND him not find him. If other countries pay him to leave them alone maybe we can outbid them and maybe get him to harass Iran or No. Korea.
2007-08-31 13:13:29 · answer #6 · answered by Rja 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why on earth would he want to find him? I think this question would be significantly more appropriate.
2007-08-31 13:28:19 · answer #7 · answered by Page 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋