We’ve had 11 years to get Osama and his base since they declared war on us. Sorry I’m a bit impatient, Unlike Clinton who did nothing to find him after he attacked us and unlike Bush who gave up months after 9/11, Paul actually still wants to hunt him down and I’d like a President who is committed to that.
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Hunting for one guy, a guy who might be dead and would immediately be replaced by another experienced Islamist terror leader, is a really stupid use of resources compared to using our intel resources to (brace yourself) actually detect and prevent terror attacks. Also, deploying forces to kill this guy is a waste of resources, when the same troops can be tracking and killing Al Qaida. Though bin Laden's death or capture would be a victory, it is far, far more urgent to dismantle the force he uses to strike.
To use a historical analogy, it's as if Wendell Wilkie slammed FDR for placing a higher priority on tracking Axis ships, planes and armies than he did on figuring out exactly where Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini were at any given moment.
"Why haven't we gotten bin Laden" is a talking point straight out of the Dem playbook, and I'm sure that if we got him tomorrow, Dr. Paul, his supporters and the anti-American Left would immediately switch to "Why haven't we got Zawahiri?" That's because the only other "strategy" they have is running away from the enemy like a scalded dog.