Why didn't Clinton catch Bin Laden?
108285
Clinton didn't even have enough balls to stay in Somalia and finish the job and you ask why he couldn't catch Bin Laden?
362715
As much as we'd like to go along with the conspiracy theory/Jack Bauer/black helicopter stuff, the answer is NO. For starters, there's no reason to hide Osama...finding and capturing him would be the best PR boost for Bush's administration since the capture of Saddam Hussein...who was also rumored to be in protective custody, etc, before he was found. Don't fall for the conspiracy theory stuff. If he was in custody he would be paraded around like a huge trophy for all to see. Guaranteed.
604121
None.  Bin Laden/Al Qaeda did.
493608
Bull-shit!Musharraf is making fool of Mr Bush. Actually he is the one who is playing games with him. He knows the where about of laden. Bin Laden is in viziristan which is a tribal area of Pakistan.Musharraf and Laden are hand in glove with each other. The statements are to misguide Bush.
770397
Man do some more research. It was a U.S. Government failure under Both Clinton and Bush. Or are you too partisan to see failures on Clinton's watch?\n\nIn 1995, the CIA and the FBI learned that Osama bin Laden was planning to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as bombs to attack important targets in the U.S. This scheme was called Project Bojinka. It was discovered in the Philippines, where authorities arrested two of bin Laden's agents, Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad. They were involved in planting a bomb on a Philippine airliner. Project Bojinka, which Philip-pine authorities found outlined on Abdul Murad's laptop, called for planting bombs on eleven U.S. airliners and hijacking others and crashing them into targets like the CIA building.
1038549
because when he got elected president\n\nthe shady little deal that clinton had with the \n\nterrorists was no longer good
347447
Yes, the buildings were insured for an unheard off amount a month before the event and there were numerous other things that point towards this type of theory bin laden and the bush family have had business deals in the past as well as the other players within the New World Order and other secret societies, The rest of the world are just pawns in a game of a chosen few. If a leader of a country denies what is expected of them, they are ejected in one form or another.\nI try not to read too much into it because there is nothing I can do nor anyone else\n\nI also have to add that clinton is in on it as well, from the same group.\n\nDo you really think that it was a matter of fate that the buildings fell like that of a controlled implosion.\n\nI also found it interesting that chaney was hidden away while bush was talking through a blow horn at ground zero
15833
It is not known where Bin-Laden is, but it is true he is often believed to be in Pakistan. \n\nPakistan is not necessarily cooperating with the US. On a large scale, they are. But at the local levels, there is widespread sympathy for Bin-Laden and terrorists. Remember that Pakistan is near many of the Middle Eastern trouble spots- Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq. \n\nFor a clear example of what I mean, recall the al-Zarqawi near-capture. Pakistan's troops surrounded a village believed to house al-Zarqawi, the number one man in the Iraq insurgency. US politicians and military leaders asked to send American troops to capture him. Pakistan refused. A day later, when the Pakistan Army moved in, they found Zarqawi had escaped through their lines. This could not have happened without sympathizers. Also, the fact Pakistan refused to cooperate shows shaky loyalties.\n\nYou are right in saying Iran is very hostile. But everyone is watching Iran because of nuclear weapons now, and Iran knows it. They are fanatics, but they are not stupid. I doubt Iran would want the immense world pressure of housing Bin-Laden, because no country REALLY wants an all-out war with the United States of America.\n\nI think, also, that questioned villagers in Afghanistan are mostly indicating that Bin Laden is in Pakistan. \n\nRemember, civilians are not told everything. I bet the CIA and military intelligence has a lot more data on Bin Laden than we do. US troops conduct regular sweeps for terrorists in Afghanistan, and their information brings us steps closer to finding the mastermind of 9/11.
1020955
Of course Our people on the USS COLE matter, and yes I believe that the weakness that Clinton portrayed of Our country throughout his whole Presidency caused 911. He let those Muslim extremist kill Americans over and over without any retaliation. He was a disgrace to Our nation in my opinion!
545507
If there is anyone to blame for 6/11, it is Bill Clinton. So much has been written about his failure in securing this country, that it would almost be in bad taste to keep beating on the guy.  This man was a dismal failure when it came to doing anything that required even the minimum amount of courage. I can recount each and everyone of his missteps, beginning with Somalia, the first WTC bombing, the Saudi Arabia attacks, the two embassy attacks, the USS Cole attack, the failure to capture bin Laden when we had the chance.\nHow can anyone with half a brain say this man was a good president?  How can anyone say this president was a good man?  And to think there are people out there that would even consider another Clinton in the White House.  God help us if that ever happens!
1064904
Yes, absolutely.  Did you see the interview with Larry King?  Gore said that he and Clinton were all over Al Queida and told Bush that they should do the same, implying that the Bush administration ignored the warning.  Maybe 9/11 would have never happened.  Certainly, we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq.  I think that a lot of things would be better and different
418241
Apparently Clinton and his advisors looked at Osama and his merry band as a law enforcement problem instead of a military problem.  This concept is enforced by Clinton's own words saying he didn't beleive he had the legal authority to take custody of OBL when he was offered up on at least two seperate occasions.
14183
No, but Clinton had a chance to send in special forces operatives to track him down in Afghanistan about 7-8 years ago and he refused because he didn't want to commit ground troops. So instead he bombed an aspirin factory. He had a chance to avoid a lot of pain and suffering.
1029742
If you were cognizant of reality, you would realize just how uneducated your question is.\n\nAfter 9/11, the US and a coalition of nations went into Afghanistan because the Taliban government there was hosting and supporting al-Qaeda and Osama.\n\nBush had also said that he was generalizing the war on terror, and supported going after countries (like Iraq) that supported, hosted and supplied terrorists, including al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc.\n\nAdditionally, Saddam had refused to comply with the UN resolutions in destruction of his WMD (see link).\n\nWe were not OK with Iraq under Clinton; Clinton created the US policy of regime change in Iraq. On 12/16/1998, Clinton attacked Iraq with almost 400 stand-off weapons (cruise missiles) and 600 aircraft bombing sorties in response to his failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors.\n\nYour 'knowledge' of recent history is wrong.
769090
As some one once pointed out "the big difference between Bin Laden and Saddam is that we don't have Bin Laden's zip code" i.e. The USA couldn't find him, so they opted to go after some one else who they knew where to find.
637153
I wonder if you'll get one intelligent liberal answer to this question...or just ignorant name calling and Bush bashing.\n\nI had asked what would Clinton have done if the towers were attacked (knowing full well they were Feb of 1993). You'd be surprised at the ignorant answers.
78251
I think they knew there was a threat, but didn't do anything because they didn't take the threat seriously, not for political gain.  Plus, the Bush family has a long history with the Bin Ladens.