Is it bad that the United States can't catch these Osama Bin Laden & Saddam Hussien?

The US doesn't have any interest in finding them and never really did. It's amazing how fast we forgot about bin Laden and will forget about Saddam just as quickly.

We really need to keep our "eyes on the prize". The prize is not OBL or Saddam, but a dismantling of the mechanizations that these guys represent.

Sure, eliminating them would be a blow to the overall structure, but it would not fully complete the objective.

Similarly, actually finding these guys would probably lead some to throw up their hands and say "Job's done, let's go home" when this would only be a small victory. That attitude would be a bad thing to the general effort.

Criminals have remained "on the lam" in the US for decades. It took weeks to find the DC snipers, even while they were active. It took months to find Elizabeth Smart, even with her picture plastered all over the TV. It took months to find the Unabomber, and now he's back here on AD (sorry, unabomber ). It took years to find those who planned the first WTC bombing. It took decades to bring the Achille Laurel terrorists to justice.

We will find these guys eventually.

I dont think the u.s will ever get OBL, i do think its likely that saddam hussain will be captured/killed.

I'd love to see some factual sources for this statement.....so would our guys in Iraq conducting a record setting number of raids.

So the daily raids in Iraq that our troops are conducting is the way we ignore Saddam? The purpose of those raids is to find him or find people who know where he is.


Here is my 2 cents: It isn't bad. It might come to be a slight bruise to our ego if the world's superpower can't catch a terrorist with bad kidneys and a man without power. But in the end, it is not suprising that we can't catch them.

Osama & Saddam have one thing in common: Experience of surviving.

How has Saddam survived all those coup attempts and assassination attempts for 20 years? By not sleeping in the same place more than 2 nights, having a food taster, making sure that his security detail stay loyal, multiple doubles and having underground bunkers & tunnels to escape to.

How has Osama survived the U.S. hunt? He has been in Afghanistan since the Taliban has ruled. He knows the mountains like the back of his hand. Our troops don't.

As there is absolutely no connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, goamerica, you are asking two very different questions. So: two answers...

I think not catching bin Laden is "bad" for a number of reasons. First, unlike, Saddam Hussein, he is tied to international terror and, as long as he remains at large, continues to pose a potential threat to US citizens and property around the world. Second, I doubt any of the "evidence" linking al-Qaeda to the September 11 attack will ever be released (to anyone except Tony Blair) - for security reasons, of course - until after he is caught or killed. And, unlike most Americans, I would like to know that we're after the right perps (which is, perhaps, why he hasn't been caught or killed ). Finally, I think his capture - and proof of his guilt - is essential for a sense of national closure. Until the planners and perpetrators of that attack are brought to justice, with their guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt, this will remain, for many Americans, an unsolved crime on the grandest possible scale - with the perpetrators still at large. As Osama bin Laden has been demonized to such an extent that the crimes of Hitler and Stalin combined apparently pale by comparison, bringing him to justice would be a very potent coup for the American people, even if largely symbolic.

That said, I suspect it is unlikely bin Laden will ever be caught and tried - and almost as unlikely that he will be found and killed. If we're still looking in Afghanistan, we're looking in the wrong place, in my opinion. I doubt he has set foot on Afghan soil since before September, 2001. Most likely he's hiding out with our friends in Pakistan - or, possibly, our even better friends in his homeland, Saudi Arabia. And now that the Bin Laden Group's finances are more secure than ever - especially after the Bechtel Group was given the Iraqi reconstruction contract for a potential $680 million - they have more than enough loose change to keep their wayward sibling out of harm's way. In any event, Osama bin Laden has been in virtual hiding for years - he's used to it and good at it. He's extremely well-funded and has a clandestine network of support throughout the world. He will be - has been - extremely difficult to track down, never mind apprehend.

Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, may well be caught eventually - and most likely killed in the process (he's not a man anyone in this administration wants to hear testifying in his own defense) - and so what? He is out of power and unlikely ever to regain any. Failing to catch him would not be "bad", though it would be a tad embarrassing.

While I accept that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were worth addressing if we must declare war on all international terrorists everywhere, whether they were involved with the September 11 attack or not, I have no idea what Amlord means by the "dismantling of the mechanizations" that Hussein represents. The "mechanization" of being a tinpot dictator who violates human rights within his own country and who has been known to wage local warfare? There have been a lot of them - many of them waging their wars and violating human rights with US complicity, training, finance, arms, and intelligence (including, gee, Saddam Hussein). So he can't mean that. Maybe it's such tinpot dictators who also happen to be unfriendly to American business - this year. He certainly can't mean the "mechanization" of being involved in international terror - the ostensible raison d'être of this whole campaign - because Saddam Hussein was not involved with international terror on any level and never has been. So, whether Hussein lives, dies, is captured or is restored to power and thrives, there will be no impact whatsoever on international terrorism. Even if his head adorns a pike outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until the next election, we can't even claim a minor victory in the "war on terror".

The answers to GA's questions then, in short: I feel that failing to catch bin Laden is "bad" - and we probably won't catch him; I feel that failing to catch Hussein is irrelevant - and we probably will catch him.

Oh, give him some time. After all, Bush went from:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

- George Bush 9/13/01

to

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

- George Bush, 3/13/02

In a couple months, Bush won't care where Saddam is either.

By contrast, Bush downplayed concern on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, saying the accused terrorist mastermind is on the run and "I truly am not that concerned about him."
~George W. Bush March 14, 2002

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/...ews.conference/

Gosh, it had only been 6 months since 9/11 when Bush said that.

Just because we haven't caught Osama yet, doesn't mean Bush should just ignore all other items of business and worry about where Osama is

The one thing I don't understand is why aren't we after OBL? Why isn't Bush that worried about him? Personally I was neutral about the war in Iraq. I saw it as a war that needed to be done, but on the other hand that he was doing Daddy's work. That's not the point...I think that finding OBL is probably more detrimental to our country. He is the one who instructed the al-Qaeda to attack us (although like Wertz said

However, on the other hand, finding Saddam is something we need to do...not for Bush's daddy but for this country to be somewhat safe again. Letting both criminals go is going to destroy this country in someway or another... I just hope that they are caught before that happens.

Edited to actually answer the question
I think it's horrible that we can't catch them...and hopefully if A.D.D affected Bush doesn't forget about them...we'll get them. I know the soliders won't forget them...

Then I'm afraid we can not effectively conduct our "War on Terrorism" to produce any positive victory. The lack of interest expressed by GW Bush to capture and bring to justice the man who masterminded the horrible assault on America back on September 11, 2001 brings great solace to me. I have not forgotten that day where we, as an entire country, stood behind President Bush who vowed to bring those terrorists who had done us wrong to justice. But that comittment by Mr. Bush was short lived as he focused his attention on Iraq's non-existent WMD while undermining the support of the U.N. And while a hospital blows up in Russia and a Hotel blows up in Indonesia, Bush is about ready to lead us into the middle of a civil war in Liberia. When Charles Taylor goes on the run will our search for Saddam become less of a priority as it was for OBL? As an American who feels pain, I personally have nothing against Saddam Hussein or Charles Taylor. They have not done me wrong the way OBL has and I am greived that our President has forsaken his promise to me. I can not be appeased by his show of shock and awe retrobution upon a soverign nation that has no evidence of being in connection with OBL or had shown any aggression toward my fellow citizens. The only true way to progress in our war on terrorism is to show the entire world that we have the strong resolution and ability to capture a terrorist mastermind such as OBL who at the moment exists like a ghost in the mountains.

For fairly meaningless reasons, yes. Its far from the end of the world, but it would certainly help Iraqis to see Saddam's corpse, and now that Bin Laden's network is virtually dismantled, I think his capture would be little more than a trophy.

People can quote Bush until the cows come home. Our Armed Forces are very active in searching for OBL and Saddam.
The official line is not going to state that we MUST capture both for there to be success, because if by chance we don't, why then we will have failed right? At least in the court of world opinion, or to those who wish to see us fail.

Yes, and no. In some ways it is good, because they are on the run, and have a hard time organizing any "strikes" and bad because obviously, they aren't dead.


CP

Who said he had any lack of interest? He isn'rt gonna make it a big deal. When info on his possible location comes up, he'll take the necessary steps. Until then, all our troops in afghanistan can do is keep searching.



The hospital was not al-queda. it was a chechnyan bomber. The Hotel we can blame on Indonesia because they still are in denial over their terrorist problem. I heard a report on CNN they had intel via the CIA on a possible attack in that area but didn't do squat. Kinda like the Saudis and the Ryidah bombing.



Until we catch Osama, we just have to stay one step ahead of terrorists and prevent attacks

Actions speak louder than words and this President is all about tracking down terrorist, OBL being numbero uno.

The reporters hounded Bush daily after 9/11 and our Aghanistan invasion with "Where is Osama?" "Can the war be a success without capturing Osama?' "Why haven't you found Osama yet?" It was enough to drive me batty.

Over 100 terror attacks prevented since 9/11, thousands of terrorists rounded up and detained and some people believe the war on terror isn't successful because we haven't caught Osama yet, because we haven't stop EVERY attack.

Puleeeeze.

Got a better plan?

Do you have a source for these numbers? Now, do you have a source that lacks a vested interest in inflating them and that doesn't hide the raw data behind a veil of secrecy so nobody can verify them?

Short of one story about a possible attack planned against the Brooklyn Bridge, I never heard any details supporting administration claims of more than one hundred attacks prevented and thousands of terrorists detained. The reports I did see regarding detainees was that the large majority were innocent of any wrong doing, and those that were guilty were so of immigration violations rather than terrorist conspiracies.

Like Platypus I too would love to see some support for this claim of terror attacks prevented and terrorists brought to justice.

In regards to The Notorious OBL and Saddam, I think it is important to capture them both, but not for the same reasons. Osama bin Laden is important for the safety of populations all over the world as he is known to be a leader of terrorist actions. I have skepticism as to what he can and can't take credit for in recent years, but that doesn't make him any less of a threat to the United States or other nations not in his favor.

Saddam, I think, is important only in the sense of intelligence. It is because of this that I feel speculation abounds that he will not, despite what the circumstances may be, be captured alive. I doubt if his capture or death will halt the guerilla attacks on our soldiers in Iraq because I doubt if he has the means of communicating orders across the whole of the country to resistance fighters. His only use now would be for intelligence regarding possible weapons of mass destruction... assuming he has anything to say on that subject.

Yes, the source is John Ashcroft. Can you prove he inflated the numbers?

Poisoning the well doesn't suit you, btw.

Mueller: 100 terrorist attacks foiled



And many others abroad by their gov'ts

Well, gosh... if they say they've stopped over 100 attacks they must be telling us the truth! Is there any support for the claim that over 100 terrorist attacks have been stopped goamerica? Simply saying so, especially after the trouble intelligence agencies seem to have lately, is just a bit too Orwellian for me.

I think that saying that our gov't is lying about terrorism warrants a link or two also Abs .

CP

What would you settle for as proof? What percentage of the 101 would you need to see documentation for before you believe the claim valid? Who would the documentation need to be from?

Someone other than the gov't, I guess....

I would settle for 30% if you or anybody else has it, beladonna. And Conservpat, I didn't make the claim of over 100 terrorist attacks prevented. The burden of proof is upon those making the claim, namely FBI Director Mueller and others in the law enforcement community echoing such claims. If indeed they didn't prevent any there isn't going to be a link or an article lying around documenting the lack of terrorist prevention.

As for the source of documentation, I'll settle for Mueller himself and the FBI. I'll take documentation from credible news agencies. From the information I have seen over the last year or so, there was never anything to support his claim when it was made. Out of the blue we were just told that they had prevented over 100 terrorist attacks, nothing more. There was no news of multiple arrests, thwarted plans or future trials for alleged perpetrators.

There was nothing but a sudden conjuring up of:

Count me in for seeing support, but I don't think it'll happen. After all, how do you prove that any prevented attacks were actually planned in the first place? You'd have to trust the Bush administration, the same people who have already demonstrably lied to us about WMDs. Sorry, I trust their claims about terrorism about as far as I'd trust a claim of communists under the bed.



Getting rid of OBL won't stop terrorism. It's pretty silly to think that if we capture one man, the whole world will be rosy again and everyone will be safe. Whether or not we ever capture him (and I think Bush knows exactly where he is and is purposely leaving him alone), terrorism will continue to be a threat to the US so long as the US keeps acting like the schoolyard bully.



Which, of course, he doesn't. There never were any WMDs in Iraq, as claimed by the Bush administration. Saddam won't be brought to justice because he represents a potential embarassment to Bush, who can't afford him telling the truth and upsetting the apple cart. The attacks in Iraq won't stop any time soon either, regardless of whether Saddam gets his head blown off, any more than you'd expect guerilla attacks by loyal American citizens to stop if a foreign power invaded the US. It's foolish to expect them to just give up and bend over because the US wants them to.

Yeah, good call, but I figured after the hundred times someone did it to me I should be allowed to do it just once.

Platy,

OK, but just this ONE time.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;

OK Abs,

Try this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=...t+attack+foiled

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=...+foiled&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=...attack+thwarted

"I truly am not that concerned about him."
And
“…I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority

I’m wondering how it is what Bush says can convey a completely different meaning to you. Does this mean Bush should be looked upon as a Victorian red-headed child: seen and not to be heard? Me thinks those synapses aint clicking properly…hmmmm.



I’m sorry, I guess I was under the impression that we were trying to combat terrorism around the world by all terrorist groups. Not just Al Queda alone. If it is any consolation to you, a large number of Al Queda is/was chechen and Al Queda is in support for chechen rebels. I don’t see why it is so difficult to make the connection. Incidently I never said the hospital was blown up by Al Queda, but that does not absolve the situation from being a terrorist attack.



Now that’s interesting. The Marriott, an international hotel, bombed and Indonesia is to blame? Do you blame yourself for 9-11? After all the Philippines gave us information relating to the 9-11 attacks prior to it happening and we didn’t do squat.

ABS:

Don't like my source of info? Fine. Go look for something yourself.


LoraX:



Indonesia had proof that terrorists were going to do something and they did NOTHING to protect it. It is on THEIR soil, they have the obligation to deal with the threats. They failed.

Cephus:



Almost all of the Islamic terrorist networks in the world are connected to Al-Queda right? Who do you think makes the partnerships? OBL. So if OBL goes down, Al-queda will be disconnected with their partners. You figure the rest out

I think Saddam will be captured or killed within the year. Most of those in his regime who were wanted have already been rounded up, and his sons are now taking dirt naps. I don't think he will be far behind. OBL may be on the run for much longer, but I think eventually he will also face justice. IMO he's most like in Pakistan, and I think it is only a matter of time before someone turns him in for the cash, or he is located by Pakistani Intelligence.

Or if Osama gets cocky and plays a game of chicken with Coalition Troops

goamerica - it is very difficult to debate one-liners. Please be constructive in your posts.

Oh please - Islamic terror networks are not part of some command and control, top-down organisation like you might get in a James Bond movie, with OBL as Ernst Stavro Blofeld. They are a complex web of independent organisations that have "links" in the same way that all the companies in a single industry might have "links". i.e. Some of the same people have interests in more than one company; some people invest their money in more than one place; some people's sectional interest in one area doesn't stop them having a wider hope that their whole industry will continue to move forward.

Assuming that the death or capture of OBL would cause the collapse of al-Quaeda, let alone wider Islamic terrorism, is like assuming that Microsoft or the wider computer industry would disappear the minute Bill Gates drops dead - indicative of a lack of understanding and, in one or both cases , wishful thinking.