Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

What would be different if we captured Osama?

– Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.

The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.

Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_go_co/us_tora_bora_bin_laden

 
sweet-a-kins

Asked by sweet-a-kins at 11:40 PM on Nov. 28, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (30)
  • I doubt it would have made much difference in OBL had been captured or killed. He would have been a martyr and someone else would have stepped up.


    IMO, ALL of the presidents since Raygun have their hands in our current problems with terrorists. Clinton did a lot about terrorism, when the Rep congress didn't fight him, but even he has admitted he could have done more. Dubya did NOTHING till after 9/11, even with the attacks under Clinton and with all the intel and warnings Bushco was given they did NOTHING.

    Friday

    Answer by Friday at 12:30 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • Personally, I think it is absolutely ridiculous not to go after and kill the man no matter what the consequences of pursuing him might be. Fact is, he is behind the 9/11 attacks and deserves to die. I'm sick and tired of hearing about failures in the previous administrations to capture him... Why do we constantly look back and point fingers and place blame and then let that control how we're going to act in the future... Let's just go after the guy and kill him!!!!!
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:15 AM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • ....Let's just go after the guy...


    I have a hard time understanding WHY he wasn;t the FIRST priority ??? But what I really want to know is would that have changed anything? I don't see Bush just pulling out after catching him as he stated HE wasn;t the ONLY reason for us being there...So WHAT would be different?

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 12:20 AM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • I thought the Bush reasoning for being in IRAQ was more WMD's more than Osama. If so, I dont think it would have changed much. There are many who believe it was all about oil. Maybe it was. I think it probably would have made a difference in GWB's approval ratings!! LOL

    momof030404

    Answer by momof030404 at 1:31 AM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • The only thing that would be different is that someone else would be the head of Al Qaeda.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 4:22 AM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • Go back a little further. The mistake was when Bill Clinton had Bin Laden offered to him several times after the 1st bombing of the World Trade Center and he turned him down. If he had brought him to trial then, we wouldn't be a "post 9/11" world. This discussion wouldn't be happening. We wouldn't be at war on two fronts (probably) and 3,000 people wouldn't have died that day. Thank you Clinton.


    http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 8:12 AM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • THIS REPORT IS ALSO BS. Anyone that has worked in Afghanistan knows what went on during that time frame and Kerry's report reflects lots of "misleading" information. SHAME, SHAME SHAME ON THOSE THAT FABRICATED INFORMATION TO THROW OUT TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. The American public deserves more.
    And of course, I expect no more from Sweets than to follow the crumbs and lies of this democratic party by posting such garbage!
    pvtjokerus

    Answer by pvtjokerus at 8:37 AM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • I thought the Bush reasoning for being in IRAQ was more WMD's more than Osama. If so, I dont think it would have changed much. There are many who believe it was all about oil. Maybe it was. I think it probably would have made a difference in GWB's approval ratings!! LOL


    This is referring to Afghanastan, and I am in now way bashing Bush (although I have for this decision) but this is about the article and the report stating things would be different...but I really don't think they would be all that much different...Except if WE the people got sick and tired of the war AFTER his capture to DEMAND we leave....

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 9:15 AM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • And of course, I expect no more from Sweets than to follow the crumbs and lies of this democratic party by posting such garbage!


    Follow the crumbs back to Clinton!!!!!!! Oh, oops, that would mean blaming a democrat. This might not happen.

    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 9:52 AM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • And of course, I expect no more from Sweets than to follow the crumbs and lies of this democratic party by posting such garbage!


    What garbage? are you saying this didn't happen?

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 9:55 AM on Nov. 29, 2009

close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN