Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why did George W. Bush refuse to go after Osama Bin Laden?

Why does he coddle terrorists?

22 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Well terrorists are one thing, but the Bin Ladens? They're family!

  • 1 decade ago

    you really have no idea what you're talking about. Osama bin Laden is a man without a country now. His little band of terrorist have been scattered to the winds. I love how it is so easy to forget history. Sudan offered bin Laden on a silver platter!!! Bill Clinton said no you keep him. I love how all of Bill Clinton's failures, get blamed on somebody who had nothing to do with it. you got to love liberals, screw everything up don't take responsibility for it and blame it on other people. Do you know how viciously attacked Bill Clinton would be if he was a Republican or conservative. But the question should be why did the Democrats refuse to go after Osama bin Laden. Maybe it was politically incorrect we might hurt somebody's feelings. So if you look a history and honestly look at it, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party are to blame for 9/11. Because they had a chance to get Osama bin Laden and refuse to do it.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because if he did Pakistan would of had a rebellion far stronger that would have certainly toppled the already teetering government there.A government doing a balancing act attempting to assist in the war on terror and keeping extremist elements pacified. The extremist are capable of creating civil war there now but they need a safe haven. They are in a place of Pakistan that is ideal, a place they can hunker down. The more Mushariff pushes them, the harder they will try to create chaos and unrest. If he gave the American government permission to put boots on the ground much blood would be spilled and another extremist government would take root there. Unless we sacrifice countless thousands of American casualties, a sacrifice the terrorist know the American people are not willing to make.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Huh? Bush has gone after Bin Laden. It was the President before him that refused. Yall remember Clinton???

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I believe you got the names wrong. Clinton actively pushed Osama deeper into the underground and refused to go after him, even when advised by intelligence that they had him in their sites.

    December, 2000 Bill Clinton was presented with reliable intelligence pinpointing the whereabouts of World Trade Center terrorist Osama Bin Laden, along with the U.S. Military's plan to take him out. Bill Clinton declined to green-light the operation

    Reported by The Associated Press, Sept, 13, 2001

    Sandy Berger admitted there was intelligence indicative of Bin Ladens whereabouts, from "eyes on intelligence," meaning he was spotted by a tipster via satellite surveillance.

    ~

  • 1 decade ago

    Bush needs Bin Laden just like Bin Laden needs Bush. Bush policies make Bin Laden's recruitment of terrorists much easier. Bin Laden's existence made Bush's power grab easier.

  • 1 decade ago

    It isn't cost effective. Realize that the Bin Ladens are related to the Saudi royal family and they are big investors in Bush's business deals and a major donor to his election war chests.....he doesn't want to bite the hands that stuff his pockets. That and Bin Laden doesn't have oil reserves in Afghanistan, Iraq does, so if you go into Iraq, make it open to no bid contracts to Haliburton and their minions, it makes $en$e to the Bush handlers to let Bin Laden go.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Put this next to:

    why is Saudi Arabia our ally? They train most of the terrorists in the Middle East... something the Bush faithful always defend by saying, "Yeah, but we wouldn't want them to cut off the oil..."

    Well your values dictate the outcome. Put oil before security and you get what we have: the US supporting the largest terrorist states while claiming to do otherwise.

  • 1 decade ago

    Where did you get that idea? Our troops have been looking for Bin Laden since pretty soon after 9/11 (invasion of Afghanistan.) The problem is the rugged border terrain between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Though Musharraf is our ally in that region of the world, his nation has its own problems (assassination of Bhutto is a recent example) and to invade their sovreign territory without his assistance and say-so would have created another international incident that the US was not prepared to deal with. That if anything should show people that Bush is exercising restraint in dealing with the sovreign nations of the Middle East and not just war-mongering and occupying as many have claimed.

    Do your homework before you post something like this that is so blatantly false and misleading.

  • 1 decade ago

    One of the great mysteries of our time. In Afghanistan, he chose to leave hunting Bin Laden to the local warlords, who of course had other interests; and apparently so did Bush. He needed to settle a personal score with Saddam Hussein for trying to kill his daddy. So to Heck with Bin Laden.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because he is needed in Washington as the elected President But the Marines and others are looking for him. And the coddleing of terrorists belongs to those that oppose Gitmo and waterboarding

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.