March NBC story said White House turned down chances to go after Zarqawi

Since Zarqawi is top news now, the media should be looking into this March 2 MSNBC story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601

Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind

(snip)

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.

(snip)

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.

‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’


— Roger Cressey
Terrorism expert


“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.

(snip)

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.

(snip)

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.

"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."

They didn't want to take out the real terrorists in a limited strike because then they might not have a good enough reason to attack and ruin the whole fucking country? Tell me I'm hallucinating...

:grr:

it too.

had HIS piorities, and 'war on terror' wasn't at the top.

Gosh, you'd think that fact alone would get Bushco run out of town on a rail, tarred AND feathered, and maybe later thrown into jail.

Hmmmmm.

Where's the justice?

;)
I was just about to repost this story.
It was originally posted here on DU on March 3 at this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=8924

My response at that time:
For PaisAn (922 posts) Thu Mar-18-04 03:43 AM
Response to Original message

5. This administration is a bunch of despicable lying sacks of shit. This should be the number one story that all Democrats get out to the public. Sorry, but Democrats don't know how to chose the right issues to push. Too much defense and not enough offense. And as much as I hate those Bush Ads politicizing September 11th, they're just not as strong an issue that would offend all Americans. This story would enrage all Americans and truly expose the farce that Bush is "tough on terrorists" and Kerry is not.

This paragraph says it all
"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."




:D

For some reason this story hasn't exploded. I'm going to spend the weekend writing to news outlets in hopes that this gets more play. Somebody told me it was in CNN Inside Politics today. No transcripts yet.

This should be the number one story and issue. It's the best chance for the Democrats to deflate the bloated, bogus Bush "Tough on Terrorism' Platform.

again.

They do nothing right. Ever.

Ever. Ever. Ever.

MzPip
:dem: