Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

metalbot

(1,058 posts)

3. I don't think that's quite fair

Reply to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 10:52 PM

Sep 2012

I'm certainly not going to jump to the defense of Bush, who was a disaster.

However, Osama Bin Laden as an icon in the "terrorist world" would have been far more high value to Bush than to Obama. Had Bush had the ability to hit Bin Laden definitively, I have zero doubt that he would have. He'd have hit him in his first term if he could have (and that would have probably sealed his re-election beyond any doubts of voter fraud in Ohio).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama killed Bin Laden. Bush relied on him for 're-election.' nt [View all] onehandle Sep 2012 OP

More than anything Bush needed him to go into Iraq. yourout Sep 2012 #1

he's more valuable to us dead than alive now. TeamPooka Sep 2012 #2

I don't think that's quite fair metalbot Sep 2012 #3