Bin Laden's Rumored Death

Five years after President Bush promised to get those responsible for September 11 Osama Bin Laden is still at large. Five years! If he did die without being brought to justice what a terrible legacy that would be for the Bush Administration, which let him go and Tora Bora and did nothing to get him after that so that they could then pursue a war in Iraq, which had nothing whatsoever to do with September 11, a war that has only made terrorism worse according to a report by their own intelligence experts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

What a shameful record of failure and incompetence.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you zimzo.

Number of times bin Laden successfully attacked the US during the Clinton administration: 3 (4 if you count Mogadishu)

Number of times bin Laden successfully attacked the US during the Bush administration: 1 (less than a year after he took over from Clinton)

Number of al Qaeda terrorists killed or captured by the Clinton administration: none that I know of. Correct me if I am wrong.

Number of al Qaeda terrorists killed or captured by the Bush administration: thousands, or more even, including Kalid Sheik Mohammed and al Zarqawi.

The fact is, since September 11, al Qaeda has not pulled off a single act of terror on the US. No we haven't been able to get bin Laden himself, but we have pretty much destroyed his organization, making the US much safer than before.

Correction: We did catch the actual perpetrators of the '93 World Trade Center bombing.

number of times al-qadea killed 2973 people in a single day, after the president was briefed about "UBL" being determined to attack America during the Clinton admin.: 0

that really makes all the difference, doesn't it.

can you site reputable sources for:

"Number of times bin Laden successfully attacked the US during the Clinton administration: 3 (4 if you count Mogadishu)"

also, do you know anything about Bush's pre-9/11 plan to capture UBL? like, did it exist? Do you know anything about the current admin.'s pre-9/11 counter-terrorism initiatives?

Reputable sources? Was that a joke?

World Trade Center in 1993, US Embassies in 1998, and USS Cole in 2000 are pretty much common knowledge. Al Qaeda has also been linked to the 1993 attack on US forces as depicted in "Black Hawk Down".

Here's a reputable source, if it will give you a warm fuzzy. I aim to please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3618762.stm

And the answers to your last three questions are yes, yes, and yes. If you could say the same for the Clinton administration, I can tell you none of them worked.

Al Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with Mogadishu just as Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. None of the attacks you cite killed anywhere near the number of people 9/11 did, which happened on George Bush's watch.

If you had read the article I linked to you would see that Bush's only intelligence service says that terrorism is worse now than it was before Bush invaded Iraq. Your attempts to blame Clinton for Bush's incompetence take an amazing amount of either chutzpa or stupidity.

Zimzo, The only legacy for the Bush administration so far is there has not been a single attack on U.S. soil in five years despite numerous attempts and promises by al Qaida. The U.S. military is fighting them over there so the citizenry is not under attack over here.

The Bush administration has not been perfect in the war on Islamic fascism, I admit, but I guess my critiques would differ markedly from yours.

I think the president himself deserves intense criticism for certain things, which will be written about here. The war on the Muslim extremists is not one of them, however. After the fiasco over interrogation techniques I think every American is fully aware the administration is trying to keep the country safe despite the best efforts of the Left in this country.

By the way, No Relation - good post!

You must remember that there were 8 years between the world trade center attacks.

I don't think that being safe or safer will have anything to do with another attack.

I believe they are taking their time and carefully selecting just the right people to blend in among us.

Had Enough is right. The fact that there have been no new attacks on U.S. soil yet is meaningless. There is also no evidence that any credible attacks were stopped. Meanwhile, there has been an increasing number of attacks around the world. Once again I point you to the article about the report from Bush's own intelligence experts that the invasion of Iraq has made the risk of terrorism worse:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

Apparently, you are all too afraid to read this article. Once again I point out that Bush let Osama Bin Laden go when they had him surrounded in Tora Bora because he refused to commit the troops to get the job done.

And once again I point out that Osama Bin Laden is still at large thumbing his nose at a significantly weakened and impotent United States led by a failed and incompetent President who not only was at the helm during the first major attack on the U.S. mainland in our history but who presided over the near destruction of an entire U.S. city by Hurricane Katrina.

Seriously, you guys are worse than the Japanese they found 20 years later on remote islands still fighting World War II. When are you dead-enders going to admit that President Bush has made the country significantly less safe with his spectacular incompetence?

I don't know. If Bush was truly committed to taking a cautious, softball approach to the terrorists I'd think all the Progressives would be hailing him as our best president ever.

Zimzo:

Funny how you put so much faith in this NIE, when the article you cite also says:

"An NIE drawn up in the fall of 2002 concluded that Iraq had "continued its weapons of mass destruction [WMD] programs," possessed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and 'probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.' All of those judgments, which provided the political and national security underpinnings for the Iraq invasion, turned out to be false."

oh, I cut-and-pasted the wrong part of your post...