English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why didn't President Clinton catch Osama bin Laden since the towers were attacked in 1993?

2007-09-30 02:41:37 · 22 answers · asked by loisaida chica 2 in Politics & Government Politics

22 answers

Clinton wasn't allowed to give the order to apprehend Osama bin Laden because the Republican-majority Congress wouldn't authorize the funds to send the troops to go get him.

The National Rifle Association sponsored a Republican bill to defeat Clinton's effort to pass a mandate to add a distinctive chemical "fingerprint" to all manufactured explosive compounds, in order to trace from where they came. The fissible material in US nuclear weapons all have a "fingerprint" of where the uranium was enriched, some labs leave in too much dueteranium, some too little cobalt, etc. This would have gone a long way toward shutting down places which manufacture C-4 and other plastic explosives illicitly.
3 YEARS before Sept 11, 2001, the Republican Congress defeated a measure (heavily influenced by the airline industry as being much too costly) to install better scanning equipment, train more security personnel and to restrict some forms of personal knives (TO INCLUDE BOX CUTTERS) and cutting implements. Airlines said it would be too expensive to put in place. Of course, with Republicans in charge, any time it's a corporate question of safety or profit, WHICH choice do YOU think CEOs are going to make?

You might remember the World Trade Center was first bombed just 39 DAYS after President Clinton took office. Why didn't George HW Bush catch Osama bin Laden, who was obviously planning this attack on US soil while Bush HIMSELF was in office? By contrast, George W Bush had TEN MONTHS to do something about the reports he was getting regarding the plans Muslims were making to attack the WTC again. His response to a National Intelligence Estimate entitled, "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the US"?

Go on vacation to Texas.

Of course, AFTER Sept 11, 2001, George W. Bush was on TV every night, saying, "I Want Osama bin Laden, dead or alive" and "we're gonna smoke bin Laden outa his cave", neither of which he's accomplished at this point, over 6 years after the attacks. Did Clinton ever go on TV and say such "cowboy movie" drivel? Of course not. Did Clinton ever go on TV and declare it was "Mission: Accomplished" even though the Taliban militia still controls vast portions of Afghanistan? Did Clinton stop looking for the admitted murderer of almost 3,000 US citizens and tell the American People, "I just don't think about him that much anymore"?

After the attacks, it wasn't Clinton's Justice Department who stopped relatives of the victims from suing relatives of the Saudi terrorists', it was Bush's Justice Dept. It was also Bush who resisted allowing an independent 9/11 Commission from forming to investigate the attacks, it was Bush who refused to turn over essential files until forced to by court order, and it was Bush who refused to testify to that commission under oath or on the record, as to why he ignored so many warnings from both the FBI and the CIA, not Clinton. It was also Bush who, during an FAA ban on air travel immediately after 9/11, allowed hundreds of members of bin Laden's family and their entourages to fly out without so much as getting a statement from them on the record in the bin Laden investigation. It's Bush who gives the Iraqi people BILLIONS of your hard-earned tax dollars, while threatening to veto a plan to insure another 5 million low income children here in the US, who gives Iraq HUNDREDS of millions for rebuilding, while most of New Orleans sits underwater two years after Hurricane Katrina, public schools, bridges and levees all over the country are collapsing left and right, almost 3/4 of the average US citizens do not have access to reasonable, cost effective healthcare, our kids are placing in the high-30th position for education worldwide, CEOs outsource hundreds of millions of jobs to India and Mexico while Bush congratulates himself for creating less than a million jobs per year here in the US, over 70% of which are service-sector entry level positions, during Bush's tenure, mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies have almost tripled, gas prices are at historic highs, people cannot afford prescriptions, often choosing between getting well and getting fed, not to mention a ridiculous "War on Terror", a war which was supposed to last 6 months and cost the US taxpayer no more than $87 Billion, is now in its 4th year and has cost over half a trillion dollars, that's TRILLION, with a TEE, dollars, money borrowed from Communist China (and which of course must be eventually repaid, but not by BUSH, oh no, he's great at BREAKING it, but when it comes to BUYING it, that's the next President's [and the taxpayers, naturally] headache), how Republicans are the only party who understand security, but 6 years after Sept 11, the US borders are less secure now than they were THEN, because Bush seems to think it makes sense to jail US Border Patrol guards who do their jobs, but pardon bureaucrats who keep CIA agents from doing their jobs, by telling the enemy who they are in a time of war (this used to be known as TREASON, but when your patriotic "War President" is a "man" who couldn't be bothered to finish his OWN military obligation during a time of war either, I guess this is the bizarro world we live in nowadays).

I have an idea. No more Republicans can be elected until they pay the US citizens back the over $NINE TRILLION they squandered in the last 7 years.

2007-09-30 03:16:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

That isn't smart. Kerry does not comit troops if we've been invaded much less to search out Bin Ladin. So Bin Ladin had a vested pastime in Bush dropping the election. except there replaced into some very secret deal between countless Arab leaders who needed Saddam long previous and have been keen to sacrafice terrorists to do away with Saddam, then there is definitely no clarification for Bin Ladin to desire Bush to win the warfare. no longer that Bush has been particularly effectual. it somewhat is greater the fault of the U. S. severe command than Bush who has no administration over each and on a daily basis operations in Iraq. As for what Bin Ladin asserting being spun for the Bush marketing campaign, that would make large propoganda against Kerry. as a results of fact that Kerry is taken under consideration one of these pretend, wishy washy pacifist and terrorism has esculated to the point the place the existance of humanity is at stake. Then something anit-Bush pronounced by using Bin Ladin performed impressive into Bush's palms. Bin Ladin has shown no skills for politics. in all probability has no comprehending of ways his statements would be taken. He has made many anti-Bush statements. Many Anti-US statements. the guy is basically posturing and attempting to shore up his very own help base. If there replaced into any crafty in the back of the timing it replaced into that Bin Ladin knew his fact might get performed alot for the period of the election thus achieving hundreds of thousands of yankee Muslims.

2016-10-10 01:21:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because Clinton was a pussy who was too afraid to do what was needed while getting a hummer in the oval office.

We have that technology yes, to see you in your backyard, but A) It is not like it is on TV and B) There is a lotta space up there and only so many satillites to go around looking. Any one with a vague understanding of the principles behind recon like that can avoid being seen by it.

2007-09-30 03:12:02 · answer #3 · answered by Tom K 2 · 0 1

1) The world is a big place.
2) An image to focus hate onto. It unites people. Its also nice to have him at large in case any other countries need to be invaded in the future. A reason to justify almost anything.

2007-09-30 02:47:30 · answer #4 · answered by -=Seta San=- 6 · 2 1

Because of the refusal of the Repubs to support his attempts to get him. They weren't interested. Now ask yourself why Bush let Osama get away after 9-11 and went after Saddam Hussein instead? Now Osama is hiding in the millions of caves somewhere in Afghanistan where it is next to impossibe to find him.

Put the blame where it belongs.

2007-09-30 02:46:26 · answer #5 · answered by notyou311 7 · 3 1

Osama is the Islamo Fascist boogey man Bush needs to maintain support for his war on terra. More valuable free and alive than incarcerated or dead.

2007-09-30 02:46:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

It's because President Clinton did not want to make any trouble with him as he is very powerful. He has lots of followers around the world and he can affluence lots of idiots to say "I WILL FOLLOW YOU". Thats why.

2007-09-30 02:47:58 · answer #7 · answered by Kingston D 7 · 0 1

Don't be a fool. They know where he is, and are perfectly capable of getting him and bringing him to justice. They have technology at thier disposal that can take a picture of you nude sunbathing in your backyard sharp enough to see that cute little birthmark you have you-know-where (LOL). Yeah, they know where he is, but they arent going to bring him in or bomb him to his 70 some odd virgins in paradise. He serves a purpose, maintains the agenda they have to continue this atmosphere of fear we live in today, though he is not the only one we have to worry about. We are gleefully signing away all the rights and liberties we have for the promise of safety from ppl like Bin Laden, which is what our government wants. That pesky old constitution that stands in thier way, they are well on thier way to being rid of that and we are going right along with it, because that fear factor is still out there free as a bird to carry out his personal agenda to subjugate the world to Allah. Funny thing is, the more we give away in the name of safety, a safety that they have promised in exchange but cannot ever hope to back up, will make us easy converts or victims of Radical Islam.

2007-09-30 02:55:28 · answer #8 · answered by buckstopshere27 3 · 4 3

that would be because the American government were probably behind the 1993 bombing of the WTC...

don't believe me?? it's well documented...

New York Times did a story on it..

look up Emad Salem WTC recordings..

It wasn't Osama who was behind the first bombing or the second...

2007-09-30 03:34:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

Osama is a smart guy heck he was CIA trained and stuff for a long while. But you cant really find someone your not looking for and i dont think he is just gonna hop into our laps and go BOOGA IM HERE!

2007-09-30 02:54:46 · answer #10 · answered by SS4 Elby 5 · 2 1

Bush doesn't care, and Clinton was never given the abundance of resources that were given to and squandered by Bush...

2007-09-30 02:54:41 · answer #11 · answered by The Idealist 4 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers