Why is George Bush so soft on terrorism?

Question

After all these years, why is Bush so happy to allow Bin Laden to roam free... while Al Qaeda becomes more powerful than ever before?

"INTELLIGENCE REPORT *AL QAEDA STRONGER THAN EVER!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blF04rs0CcI

Answer 1

This is actually a serious point. Consider that he ignored the Clinton's administration warnings about Bin Laden, that he did not do anything to help implement the 9-11 commissions recommendations, that he was originally against the 9-11 commission in the first place, as well as the creation of the homeland security department. He did not return form vacation when he got the intelligence report 'Bin Laden will strike in the US' or whatever the name was. And his response to the 9-11 attack was to keep reading 'My Pet Goat'. Later, he tries to pin the whole thing on Saddam Hussein, a government who was an enemy of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

His pitiful 'solutions' including putting a few hundred thousand people on watch lists and violating the constitution by using surveillance nets of millions of people.

I think the answer is that he made a deal with his friends the Saudis. He after all did what Bin Laden wanted: Bush made the price of oil go up to $90 a barrel and take US troops out of Saudia Arabia. The training base in Iraq was just a bonus, I suppose.

Another piece of the puzzle is that Bush is sort of right: Al Queda and the terrorists are really not a threat to this country, nor any country. The chance of getting killed by a terrorist is less than getting hit by a vending machine falling on you.

Al Queda is a minor two-bit player in the Iraq war, but are terribly useful ghosts to help destroy our constitution and give us reason to invade countries that are no threat to us.

Answer 2

If bin Laden is declared to be found and caught, there would be no excuse to continue the war on terror, at least to the majority of Americans. Personally, I am well aware that terrorism did not start and will not end with one person. I understand that the 9/11 attacks were a perfect example of what can happen if terrorists are not stopped before they execute their plans. I am smart enough to know that many people aside from bin Laden wish to carry out future attacks on America. Unfortunately, most Americans' vision is too narrow for such type of thinking. They'd rather wait until they are attacked again, then blame the president, then go out and seek 1 person to capture/punish, and repeat the process over and over until all of America is destroyed.

Answer 3

Poor Bush has become the poster child for the cliche' "danged if you do, danged if you don't"! He hasn't "allowed" Bin Laden to roam free, but it's pretty complicated as you should now be seeing with current events to walk the fine line with a nation attempting to be an ally in the War on Terror. Musharif has his hands full trying to keep himself from getting assassinated as well as holding the country together, and doesn't need U.S. troops crossing the border from Afghanistan into his sovreign Pakistan. Yes, I would love to capture Bin Laden, but Bush is pretty much doing all that U.N. rules and other nations would allow him to get by with.

The people who want to criticize Bush will continue to twist and interpret stories however they want to make everything somehow his fault. He didn't help New Orleans enough; he helped California too much. He is fighting war in Iraq; he isn't doing enough in Afghanistan.. Does anyone but me see how disingenuous this is?

It's almost (but not quite) enough to make me want a Democrat in office next time so people might see that they couldn't do any better!

Answer 4

His Neocon administration went after Iraq leaving too little forces to deal with al quaida.

The CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught...
In his book—titled "Jawbreaker"—the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members.

It's like this.Neocons get into the white house with an agenda to attack Iraq
http://zfacts.com/p/775.html

The threat of Alquaida and OBL is ignored until he attacks on 9/11.After that the Neocons did everything in their power to convince Bush to attack Iraq even before Afghanistan
By the afternoon on Wednesday [after Sept. 11], Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting Iraq." Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al Qaeda. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Colin Powell. "I thought I was missing something here," I vented. "Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."
Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet." Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secy. Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.
Source: Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke, chapter 1
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Against_All_Enemies_War_+_Peace.htm
Bush attacked Afghanistan anyway,he couldn't really do anything else with the eyes of the world on him but forces inside the administration were and are still focused on their PNAC agenda and in that agenda OBL isn't important.It's about states,think Iran.It also benefits them having him out there to keep people afraid and more willing to go along with war retoric.

When he said that dead or alive it was just cowboy talk without sunstance.If he wanted he could have gotten him long ago.He and his administration have set different priorities.

Answer 5

Soft you say.
Whom was following the money through the banks with the help of the banks until the lib media New York Post exposed the whole deal.
Same with every program that has come up to stop OBL and Company.
As is once again being proved you can not win a war by tying both hands and one of your own feet together behind your back and leaving your enemy alone to grow and prosper.

Answer 6

He spends all of his time and energy and OUR money Making himself, Cheney and their cronies richer than God by stealing oil from Iraq, waging war in Iraq and creating chaos in the Middle East. The next president will have to take down Bin Ladin as well as clean up the mess Bush is making of the world.

Answer 7

because al qaeda is hand made of bush!!! read the history of Al Qaeda and America during the Afghan war against Russia

Answer 8

It has nothing to do with Bush, he hasn't got a bl**dy clue what day it is for goodness sake, he may as well be a cardboard cut out held up by the people really holding the power and (try and) manipulate us all into believing complete nonsense... Bush is a confused bunny in the headlights and nothing more.

Answer 9

Wow! A source from Youtube.... Why is it libs believe that catching Bin Ladden will end all terrorism? If that were the case Billy boy Clinton could have ended all terrorism when TWICE he was offered Bin Ladden. And no, you are incredibly WRONG that Al Queda grows stronger. We have taken out countless numbers of the hierarchy. We are fighting a great number of Iranians over there as well. It just isn't in the media's political agenda to share the honest facts with you.

Why is it libs think our military can't do the job?

Answer 10

Senior Bush wasn't mushy on terrorism, in case you examine into his dealings in lots of situations he actual "in a roundabout way" funded it. humorous how we glance at different international locations as terrorist international locations while truly the US has been illegally and immorally occupying Afghanistan through fact it "freed" Afghanistan from the soviets. And now they are interior the middle east overthrowing leaders that don't adjust to their foreign places coverage. in case you look at american historic previous they have actual overthrown democratic governments in international locations they have had effect in and positioned dictators on top of issues only through fact they adjust to american foreign places coverage the US has in no way been stressful on terrorism, through fact it dedicated terrorism itself...