We could have had Osama in our hands years ago...?
926654
Osama was a bit of a spent force already then. He's always been the paymaster of the organisation rather than its Supreme Commander, so I'm not sure that much would have been achieved (except for a propaganda blow to al-Queda) by simply napping him. I agree with the administration's decision that the whole network in Afghanistan had to be crushed, not just a few figureheads. That said, though, I blame Bush & Co. for letting Osama get away with how many top men and active fighters when they had them holed up in Tora Bora. All because they feared massive American losses if they had to fight up hill. So they allied themselves with cash-hungry local warlords. Lesson one: if people can be bought once, they can be bought twice...
184292
You think youre pretty clever coming up with this. Ok, now let me tell you something. Not long before 9-11, Bin Laden was treated at the American Hospital in Dubai, where he was also visited by a local chief of the CIA. Also, throughout the 80s Bin Laden was funded and armed by the CIA to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Al Queda has communicated with government leaders from Russia to Pakistan. Communications prove nothing. By the way, I highly suggest you watch this video on 9-11:\n\nhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848\n\n\nPeace
353733
I also tire of the constant updates of Osama bin Laden.  However, (not defending him in any way whatsoever) wouldn't you hide if the United freakin States was after YOU?
473759
We wouldn't be involved in a war we have no business waging. Chances are, the September 11 attacks wouldn't have even happened if Clinton had still been in power. We would have a surplus instead of a deficit. And we would have a president with a brain!
41514
I don't know. They haven't involved in military activities since WW2 until recently. But I think we can give them a chance, besides do you think we can fully trust USA? It's a good way to make a balance of power (without having a cold war).
899103
I meant what I said before, I would help anyone who was in immediate danger, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't turn them in afterwards... Funny you should mention bush and Osama, both of them were probably responsible for 9-11.
1184109
Oh I just laugh at how they think we killed Zarqawi months ago and froze him so that we could announce his death at the time that it was best for us. Or how we have Bin Laden in a cage and we're waiting for the perfect time to say that we caught him. Or how Bush stole the election. Funny, do democrats still say all of this stuff when a Democrat is in office? I think the answer is obvious.
891702
Highly doubtful.  We are likely to keep a "garrison" there for quite some time.  We still have bases in Saudi Arabia etc.  Which btw- is one "sore point" with Osama on why he declared jihad against the US.
549261
no because that would have made us as bad as them, but your right Americans are hypocrites they've been funding terrorism for years and then complain when it affects them
1041617
nope never.. if u read their past, they r trained by USA only earlier, Osama for Afghanistan and Saddam for Iran...remember 1 thing, few Trainees r smarter then their Trainer.  Osama is 1 of them.
61378
Yes, the first bush administration are the ones that trained Bin Laden and supplied them with arms. Then The US Government screwed them over.
874188
~Yeah, and Osama felt the same way about the US, and for more justifiable reasons.  Kill for peace, I say.  Worked on the redskins, but backfired with  the gooks and dinks, so let's try again with the camel jockeys.    I presume you are a good neocon christian and can understand the wisdom and justice of pre-emptive annihilation.  Let's party.  PTL
469751
I think you should ask our genius of a president. He did a good job of letting us forget Osama by attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Also, don't forget that all the terrorists that day were Saudi's, the Bush family best friends.
1165522
The US has been over there off & on since the first World War.  Lately, we've been over there since 9-11 happened back in 01.
660846
You are so right.\nI personally think we have Bin Laden.  Bush will produce him when he needs him.
1105353
How can we know for sure.  Odds are fairly good 9/11 may not have happened.  Even if it did, we would have invaded Afghanistan but we would have never fabricated the case to invade Iraq.  \n\nSo 2500 families would have their sons and daughters and tax payers would not have sent $500B to Iraq, with that number growing by $8B a month.  There would be no Zarqawi and no AlQueada in Iraq...\n\nThanks to the Invasion of Iraq, what we know about the Middle East now is the Taliban is growing in power in Afghanistan and Pakistan...The Muslim Brotherhood has gained power in Egypt...The Iranians may not have felt pressured to elect a hard line Ruler...Syria and Palestine would also not have felt the pressure to elect Islamic governments...Heck, Gore may have even held Saudi Arabia, Yemen and all our other Middle Eastern Allies to the same criteria we're holding Iran and Syria.\n\nInstead of this ineffectual GOP controlled, House, Senate, Supreme Court and Presidency, we'd have another Clinton where the government worked together.  Newt Gingrich met with Bill Clinton almost daily.  To my knowledge, W has never met with Harry Reid alone...While the Democrats look to accomplish through concensus and inclusion, the GOP has fostered exclusion and dictatorial rule.  \n\nUnfortunately, we as Americans have paid the price for this ineefectiveness.  Well except the Top 1% that benefited greatly from W's last Dividend Tax cut.  \n\nInteresting question that should get good feedback...However, my guess is you'll get the Coulter crowd that loves to deal in the world of insecurity, prejudice and fear mongering.
461060
OK, I'm a Progressive, not a publican, but here's my 2 cents:  \nWith the circus that is Iraq, and Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?) the amount of resources that the US has to spare for the project is a lot less.\n\nAlso international good will is getting thin.\n\nPakistani government doesn't have a lot of control over the area that Osama is said to be in, but we owe them something for helping us, or at least not standing in our way in Afghanistan.  If we just went into that area, the citizens would probably overturn the Pakistani government and put one in that's more sympathetic to Osama.\n\nOr maybe it's that Pakistan doesn't have a lot of oil.  The invasion of Iraq didn't make a lot of sense once we found out that the WMD's were a paranoid fantasy of the administration, but oil might explain it all.  Or at least the opportunity to claim some, which didn't work out yet for Haliburton, but might happen in the future.\n\nOh, yeah, I hear that Pakistan DOES have a nuke or two...