Bush avoided attacking terrorist mastermind

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
96
Tokens
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
You Bush-bashers (including the liberal media)are unbelievable. If the USA would have taken this guy out in Northern Iraq without unanimous international consent,you would say this further proves that Bush is a reckless cowboy.

Since the opportunity to get him occurred during the period when we were pleading our case to our UN "allies", you accuse Bush of missing his chance.

This is just selective Monday Morning quarterbacking in order to serve your political agenda.

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
I kinda agree with K on this one. However, it does remind me of all the Repubs blaming Clinton for not taking Osama out.

After 9/11 it was easy to criticize but where were they before 9/11? as an example, did you ever here Bush even mention in his 2000 campaign speeches such terms as terrorism, al-qaeda, obl, etc. never mind criticize Clinton for not aggressively going after them?

the main thing he criticized clinton for was being too interventionist and spreading American troops too thin. Pretty ironic when you think about it.

But I am with you on this one, K. I don't think White House deserves criticism for this. Hind sight is always 20/20.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
It's hard to blame President Bush for this especially since the article says it was declined by the National Security Council. no where does it say that Bush declined to strike.

Another attempt to blame Bush for the political process..
icon_rolleyes.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
96
Tokens
So you're saying that Bush doesn't have control over the national security apparatus?

I can't believe how we've sunk from "the buck stops here" to "it's all Clinton's fault".
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
Buck Fush, make up your mind. Are you saying Bush is overzealous or too inactive on the Iraq invasion. Unlike Kerry, you can't have it both ways.

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
303
Tokens
the point he was making is a simple one. if we attacked northern iraq with cruise missiles to wipe out the chem lab; it would have jeapordized the upcoming war with iraq. whether you are democrat, republican, liberal or conservative you have to realize we were going to find a way to launch a full scale attack against iraq no matter what, once the state of florida declared governor bush the winner in 2000.

the simple truth is politicians LIE from both parties if they believe it will help them stay in power or further there agenda. it is a distorted "the ends justifies the means philosophy".

try to remember or look back at how we became involved in a "hot" war in vietnam. remember the gulf on tonkin "lie".

WMD and gulf of tonkin are "wag the dog" strategies employed when the decision is already made to go to war.

lastly history will decide whether iraq was a good decision or not probably in 20 years or so. there is too much work left to do there. there is no question in my mind we have national interests in iraq and for that reason im glad we went in and took out saddam, but plz stop being naive and talking about "wmd" and "war on terror" in regards to iraq because those are blatant "LIES"
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
96
Tokens
What I am saying is that Bush is guilty of TREASON (and the murder of hundreds of Iraqis) for allowing a sworn enemy of the United States to escape because it would endanger his invasion of a country that was NO threat to us, merely because he wanted to steal their oil. He said he would hunt the bastards down and "smoke them out of their holes" but that was just one more lie in a long string of Bush lies.

One more example of how the Iraq War has hurt the War Against Terrorists (the real ones).
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
345
Tokens
Clinton had many opportunities to kill Bin Laden. Instead he bombed a pharmacy killing innocent afhanistani employees.

I do not know what is worse, avoiding the Iraqi fiasco or avoiding 9/11.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
Alex,

I'm still waiting for evidence of Bush's criticism or the Republican Party criticism of Clinton's handling of terrorism prior to 9/11.prior.

They were quick to pile on after the fact, which is why I find the Brookings Institute statement just as offensive. after

From now on call me, "Fair and balanced".
icon_biggrin.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
345
Tokens
Well, at this point in time. There shouldn't be people pointing fingers instead just focus on the problem.

Nevertheless, if Bush catches OBL than you can guarantee a victory come Nov.

Bush....2004-2008!!!!!!!!!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,967
Messages
13,575,642
Members
100,889
Latest member
junkerb
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com