Invade two Islamic countries, dispose of two ruthless dictatorships, liberate 50 Million muslims from Tyranny and to this day track down and kill their terrorists on a massive scale?
Or do you think they thought we would just lob a couple of bombs into Baghdad like Clinton did and forget about it?
2007-11-28 11:40:55 · 14 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Please come up with some new material...you have asked this question at least ten times
2007-11-28 11:44:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 4⤋
actually the Taliban and Al Qaedia asked themselves the same thing. In several meeting over the few weeks before American bombers and SF troops started our counterattack that was asked highly in Al Qaedia circles. The prevailing attitude was that America might launch a longer air campaign, and it might be more intense than just the cruise missile strikes Clinton launched but that was it.
2007-11-28 19:48:52 · answer #2 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most people don't like doing the differcult things to accomplish great things. Bush has not done everything great, but isn't he entitled to perfection, he is only an man. As for the question yes I do believe they thought he would. They have tried multiple times to kill americans and when you hit a dog enough times, he will bite you.They thought it would entice others around the world to join their cause, many people have. It is an honorable goal to liberate 50,000,000 people from suffering under cruel dictators. Osama is only one person, why is Bush still out there, when you have people protecting you its hard to do anything to find them. Besides hes hides in caves and Bush is traveling around the world. Bush was lied to by people whom had suffered under a cruel dictator, not his fault, besides democrats voted to go to war in both countrys.
2007-11-28 19:53:27 · answer #3 · answered by jeffery d 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I get it now, she's a 21 year old college student. Of course she would be so clued in to how the world really works. Keep on preaching whatever Fox News tells you and enjoy your little bubble of righteousness. You said Clinton, I think you mean George H.W. Bush, didn't invade Iraq because it was a terrible idea. Bush knew it and Colin Powell knew it, along with probably just about any other military tactician.
2007-11-28 19:47:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
did the neo-con fascists think that by 2007 the national press of several countries e.g Italy and Norway would publish extensive articles about 9/11 being an insidejob/ false flag attack?- bet they didn't!!
2007-11-28 19:52:13 · answer #5 · answered by celvin 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't think even they thought that Bush would let bin Laden remain free for 6 years after the fact.
2007-11-28 19:46:40 · answer #6 · answered by brian2412 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
so where is osama then?
all we did was replace tyranny with American tyranny!
where are the wmd's why did we attack a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11?
2007-11-28 20:53:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Actually, I'm sure they bet money on it. It allowed OBL to hide in Pakistan, where he is currently and allowed the US to demonstrate its imperialism and thus increase Al Qeada membership.
2007-11-28 19:46:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
More importantly, do you think that is what the Bush is doing? You are giving blonds a bad name.
2007-11-28 19:50:31 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no i think they atually like that"i'm glad they're over here on our sands,makes it easier to kill them"-osama bin laden
2007-11-28 19:48:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
option 2.
and Bush knew what he was getting into. We all knew this would be an unpopular war that if not fought correctly, could not be won.
We are winning, and he is a strong man for sticking through all this political bs.
2007-11-28 19:44:55 · answer #11 · answered by normajean_81 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋