Quantcast

Why did the US go after Iraq before we caught Bin Laden?

pixelninja

Turbo Monkey
Jun 14, 2003
2,131
0
Denver, CO
This is something that has puzzled me for some time, but I've yet to find a real answer to. Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong and I'd like to hear from both the left and the right on this one. Didn't Bin Laden claim to be behind the 9-11 attacks? Didn't President Bush vow to track him down and not stop until he was brought to justice? Why then did we (meaning, the US gov't) decide to divert a majority of our military (and military spending) to Iraq before we had caught Bin Laden? Wouldn't the billions of dollars that we've spent in Iraq have been better served in this "war on terror" by pursuing Bin Laden and his organization?

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with our invasion of Iraq. WMD or not, I think Saddam is a bastard and deserves what he got. What I do have a problem with is the timing. In my opinion, if Bush had single-mindedly hunted down Bin Laden and captured or killed him, this would have shown all the other terrorists in the world that we mean business. We would still have the support of the world that we had immediately after 9-11, and then we could have gone into Iraq and taken care of business.

What am I missing? Did I miss a press conference on this? Has Bush ever given any reasons for giving more importance to Sadam and his now-fictional WMD than to the man who claimed responsibility for 9-11? I really must have missed something, because nobody seems to be talking about Bin Laden any more. Seems weird since he was the one who claimed responsibility for 9-11, not Saddam.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,412
0
SF
pixelninja said:
This is something that has puzzled me for some time, but I've yet to find a real answer to. Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong and I'd like to hear from both the left and the right on this one. Didn't Bin Laden claim to be behind the 9-11 attacks? Didn't President Bush vow to track him down and not stop until he was brought to justice? Why then did we (meaning, the US gov't) decide to divert a majority of our military (and military spending) to Iraq before we had caught Bin Laden? Wouldn't the billions of dollars that we've spent in Iraq have been better served in this "war on terror" by pursuing Bin Laden and his organization?

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with our invasion of Iraq. WMD or not, I think Saddam is a bastard and deserves what he got. What I do have a problem with is the timing. In my opinion, if Bush had single-mindedly hunted down Bin Laden and captured or killed him, this would have shown all the other terrorists in the world that we mean business. We would still have the support of the world that we had immediately after 9-11, and then we could have gone into Iraq and taken care of business.

What am I missing? Did I miss a press conference on this? Has Bush ever given any reasons for giving more importance to Sadam and his now-fictional WMD than to the man who claimed responsibility for 9-11? I really must have missed something, because nobody seems to be talking about Bin Laden any more. Seems weird since he was the one who claimed responsibility for 9-11, not Saddam.
There really is no connection. Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator which did not support Al Queda in anyway. Bin Laden was a Saudi zealot who fought the Russians in Afganistan.

It is not like Bin Laden has been forgotten, but obviously it is difficult to track down a man hiding in US-unfriendly countries.

The only connection is the Axis of Evil, which is a Bush myth.
 

pixelninja

Turbo Monkey
Jun 14, 2003
2,131
0
Denver, CO
sanjuro said:
There really is no connection. Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator which did not support Al Queda in anyway. Bin Laden was a Saudi zealot who fought the Russians in Afganistan.

It is not like Bin Laden has been forgotten, but obviously it is difficult to track down a man hiding in US-unfriendly countries.

The only connection is the Axis of Evil, which is a Bush myth.
I would argue that Bin Laden HAS been forgotten, at least by our current adminstration. When was the last time Bush talked about the hunt for him?

Once again, didn't Bush promise that he would not stop until Bin Laden had been captured? Hell, with our current situation in Iraq, we barely have enough resources to help with US disaster relief, much less hunt for a man hiding in unfriendly countries. I guess I just feel that if he had thrown as much money at trying to find BL as he has at Iraq, the bastard would have been caught by now.

Makes me think this whole "war on terror" is a complete sham. Hmm. Go figure...
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
^ good summary. EDIT: Sanjuro's summary. Damn PN posted before me :blah:

Another reason is that this admin had an agenda before it got into office... google "PNAC"

They're two seperate subjects and finding Bin Laden WITH a massive military operation would require US to essentially "invade" every country, so it's not like an either/or situation.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
pixelninja said:
I would argue that Bin Laden HAS been forgotten, at least by our current adminstration. When was the last time Bush talked about the hunt for him?

Once again, didn't Bush promise that he would not stop until Bin Laden had been captured? Hell, with our current situation in Iraq, we barely have enough resources to help with US disaster relief, much less hunt for a man hiding in unfriendly countries. I guess I just feel that if he had thrown as much money at trying to find BL as he has at Iraq, the bastard would have been caught by now.

Makes me think this whole "war on terror" is a complete sham. Hmm. Go figure...
uhh, it is a sham. The war on terror is an excuse for this admin to conduct the activities it wants. If BL was caught, they'd have a hard time arguing for more military, homeland security, etc.

If they really wanted to go after terrorism, they'd start in Saudi Arabia... who they're friends with.

BL will become a topic again when the admin needs it's next diversionary tactic.

You don't think Harriett Miers was anything but that, do you? She was there to distract us while the Libby indictment was going on. She "stole" headlines from that problem, then Bush got to distract us further when he appointed his next SCOTUS guy who is actually qualified.
 

pixelninja

Turbo Monkey
Jun 14, 2003
2,131
0
Denver, CO
LordOpie said:
They're two seperate subjects and finding Bin Laden WITH a massive military operation would require US to essentially "invade" every country, so it's not like an either/or situation.
When we invaded Afghanistan in our hunt for BL, the world was behind us. I believe that if we'd continued this campaign, i.e. You hide BL, We Come and Kick Your Ass, the world would have continued to support us in our cause and we'd have the bastard by now.

Bush could have then extended that to You Hide Terrorists, We Come and Kick Your Ass and he could have had his way with Iraq, regardless of his real intentions.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,480
2,152
In my pants
fluff said:
I'm surprised anyone gave that thread the time of day...
Well as usual n8 made one or two stupid non-answers but then got out of the way.

I put some stuff in there about PNAC like opie done said.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,412
0
SF
pixelninja said:
I would argue that Bin Laden HAS been forgotten, at least by our current adminstration. When was the last time Bush talked about the hunt for him?

Once again, didn't Bush promise that he would not stop until Bin Laden had been captured? Hell, with our current situation in Iraq, we barely have enough resources to help with US disaster relief, much less hunt for a man hiding in unfriendly countries. I guess I just feel that if he had thrown as much money at trying to find BL as he has at Iraq, the bastard would have been caught by now.

Makes me think this whole "war on terror" is a complete sham. Hmm. Go figure...
Well, I can't argue with this. It is possible that Bin Laden has been forgotten...
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
pixelninja said:
When we invaded Afghanistan in our hunt for BL, the world was behind us. I believe that if we'd continued this campaign, i.e. You hide BL, We Come and Kick Your Ass, the world would have continued to support us in our cause and we'd have the bastard by now.

Bush could have then extended that to You Hide Terrorists, We Come and Kick Your Ass and he could have had his way with Iraq, regardless of his real intentions.
You're assuming that Bush wants to stop terrorism. I think they like the excuse. As for invading Iraq, I'm not sure there was enough evidence of their terrorist activities to go after them. Seems like yesterday's bombing -- which intiated in Iraq -- is the first noise on the subject loud enough to support action against Iraq.

Besides, BL is Saudi's puppet and if we kill their puppet, they may get mad at us.

I'm just thinking randomly, so I'm probably wrong. But let's just say that I think this admin is too smart and clever to have thought this through anyway than it is. I believe they like the direction it's going. Much distraction while the Cabal operates.
 

pixelninja

Turbo Monkey
Jun 14, 2003
2,131
0
Denver, CO
LordOpie said:
You're assuming that Bush wants to stop terrorism. I think they like the excuse. As for invading Iraq, I'm not sure there was enough evidence of their terrorist activities to go after them. Seems like yesterday's bombing -- which intiated in Iraq -- is the first noise on the subject loud enough to support action against Iraq.

Besides, BL is Saudi's puppet and if we kill their puppet, they may get mad at us.

I'm just thinking randomly, so I'm probably wrong. But let's just say that I think this admin is too smart and clever to have thought this through anyway than it is. I believe they like the direction it's going. Much distraction while the Cabal operates.
<sigh> Sadly, I don't think that Bush really wants to defeat terroristm. In fact, I think just the opposite. I guess this is really what I'm getting at. If Bush really cared about defeating terrorism, he would have continued the hunt for BL until captured. He didn't, so this tells me that he's more concerned with his own agenda than doing what's right for the American people, especially those who died on 9-11.

It baffles me, though, that the Democrats haven't been harping on this constantly over the past few years. If I'd been in Kerry's shoes, I'd have been using this every chance I got. His campaign slogan could have been, "I'll get the bastard 'cause Bush won't!". He would have won in a landslide. Then again, Kerry is a career politician also, so I guess that's expecting too much from him also.

I really need to lower my expectations of all politicians...
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
Bush needs the spectre of terrorism to persue his agenda. No Osama = no public face of terror. Osama gets to live until Bush is out of office.

Bush said he doesn't think about Osama much anymore. As you guys pointed out above, this shows the reality of the situation fairly well.
 

pixelninja

Turbo Monkey
Jun 14, 2003
2,131
0
Denver, CO
And let me just state for the record, I think Clinton also dropped the ball on Bin Laden. al Qaeda did some henious sh*t on his watch.