2007-11-12 09:16:11 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's inane, Bin Laden wasn't the #1 criminal during Clinton's Era. That would be like saying Teddy Roosevelt didn't Catch Al Capone.
2007-11-12 09:23:16 · update #1
Bush just gives pointless orders that confuse military leaders. If he tried to physically catch Bin Laden, that would be a new reality TV show.
2007-11-12 22:31:28 · answer #1 · answered by Ray H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Bush has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has deliberately allowed bin Ladin to remain at large.
The motive is obvious--the cabal--of which Bush is only the mouthpiece--that created this mess in the Mideast has been using it--and bin Ladin--as a scare tactic to frighten Americans into giving up their constitutional rights. The lates example of theis effort is the treasonous demand by richard Kerr that Americans "redefine" (surrender) their rights to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.
And how does bin Ladin--running around loos--serve the Bush cabal's drive toward dictatorship? Simple: a "bobeyman" is useful only as long as he is at large and so can be portrayed as a looming threat to frighten people. Captured or killed, bin ladin loses hs value--he's no longer a threat.
2007-11-12 09:26:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Funny you should mention that. Bill Clinton is the only President to have the luxury of CIA assassins with Osama in their cross hairs. They just needed the word from Bill. Bill was on the line and still didn't give the order. Osama got away. That was before 9/11. My source is the book "Dereliction of Duty", by Colonal Robert Patterson, he was the Airforce Officer who carried the nuclear football for the president. He witnessed the whole thing and wrote about it in his book.
The Clintons are a disgusting couple, I suggest you read about them in his book.
2007-11-12 11:59:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
He's capable of catching Bin Laden. The U.S. is capable of it.
Bush doesn't WANT to catch Bin Laden.
2007-11-12 09:22:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Notice how he used to drop OBL's name all the time when we first went into the region looking for him, then after several months of no success...you never hear that name from the administration anymore!
I would like to ask W that myself.
2007-11-12 09:43:21 · answer #5 · answered by Mikey 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Its kinda hard to find the worst mass murderer in US history when you have 85% of your available overseas military assets fighting his people in the wrong country.
Also, why catch the boogyman, when it is much easier to use him as a scare tactic for the limp-wristed neocons and get votes as a result?
2007-11-12 09:21:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
unless this country can muzzle nancy pelosi and the pelosi;reid regime so that WORKING americans who understand and can comprehend the threat of al qaeda can allow the soldiers the freedome and funding to fix it, the answer is bush wont have the opportunity to do his best despite a laudable and correct effort.
2007-11-12 09:35:08 · answer #7 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He has only proven that you can't let politicians run the military!!! USMC 60-68
2007-11-12 09:46:46 · answer #8 · answered by grizzlytrack 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What Bin Laden? Bin Laden is dead. So called "Bin Laden tapes" are made in USA, Langley, VA.
2007-11-12 09:21:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
To a couple answerers above: At least Clinton's admin caught Ramsey Yousef's team that was directly responsible for the attacks in '93.
I'm not so sure about that. He might be able to. But he sure isn't trying very hard.
"We will hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice". We won't see that happen until 2009, at the earliest.
2007-11-12 09:19:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋