Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I certainly don't think he forgot about it but things change. They correctly knew Bin Laden was on the run and unable to coordinate further attacks. And he was probably in Pakistan anyway. Were/are you in favor of us running into Pakistan after him?
Yes.
You're not? You're fine and dandy with Bin Laden getting away?
If someone murdered your wife/sister/mother/brother, and they were on the run, and the cops said "eh, he's on the run, he won't be able to kill anyone else, it's not a major concern of ours", would you just accept that as fine and dandy?
I certainly don't think he forgot about it but things change. They correctly knew Bin Laden was on the run and unable to coordinate further attacks. And he was probably in Pakistan anyway. Were/are you in favor of us running into Pakistan after him?
Do you think we shouldnt waste time bothering with him?
You're not? You're fine and dandy with Bin Laden getting away?
If someone murdered your wife/sister/mother/brother, and they were on the run, and the cops said "eh, he's on the run, he won't be able to kill anyone else, it's not a major concern of ours", would you just accept that as fine and dandy?
I don't recall I said I was fine and dandy with Bin Laden not being captured. But I am certainly not in favor of inavding Pakisyan to capture him.
Wow lefties are suddenly becoming very muscular in their approach to terrrorism. So I guess you are very disappointed in Obama for not invading Pakistan to get him. I suppose it is fine and dandy with Obama for him to get away with it?
I don't recall I said I was fine and dandy with Bin Laden not being captured. But I am certainly not in favor of inavding Pakisyan to capture him.
Wow lefties are suddenly becoming very muscular in their approach to terrrorism. So I guess you are very disappointed in Obama for not invading Pakistan to get him. I suppose it is fine and dandy with Obama for him to get away with it?
Obama has said multiple times that Bin Laden is our principal focus and target. Obama has been in office for less than 6 months, and needs to work with countries that could be harboring Bin Laden to assist in his capture.
I have always been very muscular in the approach to capturing Bin Laden, absolutely. In that aspect - we have full and good reason to go after him - we were attacked first.
Hopefully the window of opportunity has not passed. My gripe with Bush is the pressure and focus should have been placed on Bin Laden IMMEDIATELY after 9/11 until he was caught, while we still had the backing of the majority of the world.
"It is silly in the extreme to think that catching Bin Laden wasn't a priority for that administration."
But we invaded Iraq.
See?
Yes, and some things are higher priority than others. Too bad "catching bin Laden" was way down the list.
Oh, that's so sad and blind.
US News / Special: Empire Builders / Spheres of influence: Neocon think tanks and periodicals | Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.html - broken link)
Yes we invaded Iraq because intelligence told us they were trying to build WMDs. And that relates to Bin Laden how? Are you saying because we invaded Iraq we couldn't catch Bin Laden. Don't you recall we were in Afghanistan at the same time.
I prefer preventing terrorist attacks in the US being the top priority.
Huh? And you link prooves what?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.