What's more important then getting the man responsible for the worst act of terrorism on American soil in the history of the USA?
2007-12-02 11:21:07 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Lamplighter, you know they can't fight a war on Terrorism without Terrorists. If they captured him right away, Bush would have had no excuse to invade Iraq. The reason they don't capture bin Laden NOW is because they need him on the loose to justify invading Iran next, after that, Jordan, after that, Syria.
As long as bin Laden is free, they can say he's ANYWHERE, and get a gullible Republican citizenry to swallow any justification Bush-League makes for invading ANY country.
They CAN'T capture bin Laden, because any trial they have for the murders of almost 3,000 US citizens will reveal the fact that Bush was completely asleep at the switch for the first 9 months of his Presidency (course, its hard to read intel briefs when you're teeing off on the back nine and that was obviously more important than protecting Americans)
2007-12-02 11:31:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Republicans would like to see his head more than anyone. The difference is that they realize that Bin Laden is just one terrorist i n a world of many more.
Sure we can focus all of our resources finding him, but what would that gain us? Right now, he has to hide in caves for the rest of his life. He can't communicate using anything but human messengers for fear of being found. He is almost completely cut off from his own organization, which is pretty much as good as him being dead.
2007-12-02 11:38:18 · answer #2 · answered by mvpposada20 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
What's more important than getting the Perp- a-traitors??? .....The sweet smell of money and the perfect opportunity to " hijack the hijack " .
2007-12-02 12:46:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
u know all the oil in Iraq is more important than finding Bin Laden. That's why Bush said he's not even thinking about him.....
2007-12-02 11:24:19 · answer #4 · answered by complicated 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
They have moved on, he's no longer "relevant" and they have decided he's "Impotent." I just love that.
They are fighting a war on terrorism and the main bad guy is no longer considered relevant by the Bush administration and no one sees a problem with that.
Unbelieveable.
2007-12-02 11:30:07 · answer #5 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
We haven't moved on and to assume that, well.... you know what happens when one assumes, right?
Bin Laden should be at the top of the list but the terrorists throughout the world have made it impossible to focus on him 100%. Boy, that's a no brainer.
2007-12-02 11:29:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
Because their leader has spoken and told them to "Shut the F*ck Up!"
Also they need a boogie man to continue to justify this occupation and their horrible Middle East policies.
Kinda like why they will never outlaw abortion because they need that wedge issue every election cycle.
2007-12-02 11:32:46 · answer #7 · answered by Alex G 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
If we find him, we find him. In he meantime we are destroying his organization as best as we can. Would you feel better if we took all our resources just to maybe find him, or better utilize our resources and kill the organization which he leads? What is so hard about simple logic and resource allotment that you can't understand?
Hows that search going for Heinrich Mueller? We've been searching for him since 1946. It took the Israeli's 15 years to find Adolph Eichmann.
2007-12-02 11:28:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
There's no profit in catching Bin Laden, but there is plenty of profit in scaring the American people, oil ventures, and war.
2007-12-02 11:27:51 · answer #9 · answered by . 5 · 6⤊ 6⤋
nothing more important not even the invasion of iraq.
2007-12-02 11:23:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋