Why was it so much easier for Bush & Co. to capture Saddam Hussein instead of Osama bin Laden?

Question

Whenever we liberals bring up the fact that Osama bin Laden is STILL a free man 6 YEARS after the 9/11 attacks, Bush's defenders argue that capturing bin Laden is no easy task. If that's the case, then why did we manage to capture Saddam Hussein? After all, we've got the best soldiers and spy agencies in the world, so surely if Bush had REALLY wanted to capture bin Laden as badly as he wanted to capture Saddam, it would have happened by now!

Answer 1

Well, our soldiers were about to capture bin Laden, but Bush diverted numerous resources to Iraq and the phantom WMDs. Iraq was supposedly his original goal all along, and he wasn't going to listen to Clinton's advisors screaming at him that bin Laden was the threat. Heck,he barely paid attention to the August 6, 2001, PDB!

After Bush outsourced the capture of bin Laden to contractors who are just as bad as the Talibastards, bin Laden escaped to Pakistan in order to have a better measure of protection. The man Bush wanted captured "dead or alive" six years ago just isn't that important.

I doubt the guy in the newest videotape is Osama bin Laden, anyway.

Answer 2

OK, First Bush has never been more concerned about capturing Saddam than bin Laden. Second we already have Saddam. You seem to be making the claim that the WAr on Terror is only for vengence on the 9/11 collaberators. That is a load of crap. The War On Terror is a campagain against those who would terrorize their people with rape, murder, and coruption, use WMD's against humanity, try to destroy countries and fragment economies, and force an exremist ideology on people who don't want it. This includes Saddam Hussein, Osama, the Mullahs of Iran, Kim Jong Il, Huego Chavez, among others. Even more Iraq has not taken precedence over Afgahnistan and the hunt for bin laden. It is the American media's portryal of Iraq that makes it seem like nothing is happening in Afgahnistan. Don't think we are not trying. Osama is an expert at hiding in mountains. Also just a few quick items to clear up: 1) Iraq was a threat to the US. Saddam routinely shot at American fighters enforceing the no fly zone in Iraq, he had a 2 million man army, this army was the 5th strongest in the world just a few years ago. 2) Iraq had a terrorist connection. Put aside those misconceptions about the War on Terror only being about al-qaeda! Saddam Hussein had trained PKK terrorists in plane takeover tactics, meet with al-qaeda officials through the 90's, and gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. 3) Iraq had WMD's. If you watch the news at all (Not the liberal media of CNN and CBS but the fair media like NBC ABC and MSNBC) then you would know that 3000 tons of chemical munitions were found in Iraq. Although the shell caseings in which many of the munitions were found had expired; the toxins inside had a good 15yrs of shelf life left and could have been put in new shells. Iraq also had scud missiles, a missile program to develop missiles that exceeded UN limits, and an additional 6000 tons of precursor chemicals needed to make WMDS. 4) Oil is not a motive for war. If it was then we would have seen massive maounts of Iraqi oil and then gas prices would not be high. So because Iraq is an OPEC member oil was not amotive. 5) To the person who said watch ferinheight 9/11 as a source of facts about Bush. BAD BAD BAD IDEA!!! First the creator of the movie is a far far far left liberal nutcase. Second the movie is mostly fake. IT EVEN STEALS IMAGES USED IN BLACK HAWK DOWN. Although the Bush administration did have some connections to the bin laden family, so did half of the world leaders. Bin Laden's family is a very important construction mogal in the Middle East and around the world. Of course there was a connection.

Answer 3

There was a great article about the search for Bin Laden 2 weeks ago in the NY times sunday magazine. At one point, a platoon was within several hundered yards of his cave hideout and an al qaeda guard nearly gave the command to commit suicide (Bin Laden has told his men that he, and those protecting him, should commit suicide in leau of being captured).

Fact is, Bin Laden is considered a cleric, and, as such, local tribesman and village leaders in the area Bin Laden is located, will not "give him up" due to deeply felt religous reasons.

Bush is not the hunter, our troops on the ground are. There have undoutedly been mistakes, but, all human ebdeavors have them, and, I do not see a free Bin Laden as a partisan issue.

Answer 4

I believe if the same effort was made to catch Bin Laden as it was for Hussein we would've gotten Bin Laden at least by now.

I've heard excuses like "there's nothing there" or "it's too mountainous" or even "he's not part of the bigger plan any more".
Hearing these excuses saddens me. It just reinforces the assumption that we can't get the job done anymore.

Answer 5

Well, if you marched 10,000 troops towards me from 1,000 miles away, and took 2 months to get to my position. I'm pretty sure you'll never find me as awell.

Bush and the army stratagists could not have advertised thier search any more if they tried.

Bush never intended to capture OBL, he's a perfect excuse to persue a war that they have wanted to start for many years.

Adn of course while at war, its "unpatriotic" to criticise the goverment - its all fallen perfectly into Bush's hands and in his interest to drag this out for as long as possible.

Shame so many innocents are dying on both sides just to prop up white house agendas.

Answer 6

Saddam was the leader of one country and his location was known. Once his regime fell he didn't have anywhere to hide. He had tortured and killed so many of his own people that someone was bound to turn him in quickly. His capture was aided by information gathered from his enemies.

Osama is the leader of a terrorist group. The structure of the group is disjointed so that only a small number of people actually know his location. These people are trusted aids that will never divulge where he is at any given time. He is also not bound to any particular country and there are many countries in the region that would be willing to "overlook" his presence there.

Answer 7

He failed to contain him in Afghanistan when it might of been possible. Instead he for reasons only known to the Bush and his circle decided it was best to establish a democracy in Iraq and I certainly believe they actually wanted to believe in their own assessments and plan of action so badly they became obssessed and oblivious to differing opinions. In my opinion he has seriously misunderstood the number and dedication of the fanaticism of radical Islam. I believe victory in Iraqwould include years of cmmitment of troops and the capture of bin Laden and the success of a free Afghanistan.

Answer 8

It was considered a long term plan with long range goals from the start. It was thought that Saddam would be taken out quickly, and he was, as we all saw.

Afghanistan is not free of US troops, I will remind you, but it was not chosen for the long range planning because of its Islamic entrenchment and opium crops.

The war on terror is the result of decades of failed diplomacy. I think it is time for Americans to get honest and see it the way it is, instead of using the war to sell political points of view.

Answer 9

Saddam was a sitting duck. Osama is hiding out in Pakistan which we can't/won't invade becasue right now they're on our side and we don't want to ruin that. I don't agree with that plan. I say we go in and get him anyway, but no one asked what I'd do.

That's the real reason why.

Answer 10

Because our military is structured for wars between states, not terrorism. Plus Bin Laden wisely fled to Pakistan, where we couldn't get to him. Saddam jumped in a hole in Iraq.