Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has anybody in the M$M talked about this Zarqawi story?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 11:23 AM
Original message
Has anybody in the M$M talked about this Zarqawi story?
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 11:24 AM by Gabi Hayes
You know, the one about about his camping out for more than a YEAR in Kurdish controlled Iraq, with full knowledge of our intel services, discussed both by former chief CIA BinLaden hunter Michael Scheuer and right wing NBC reporter Jim Miklaszewski:

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


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

....................


“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.

......................

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 story discusses that there were at least THREE plans to kill Zarqawi, but they were nixed every time, for the reason cited above.

Scheuer on why we didn't go after him:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1627197.htm

"The reasons the intelligence service got for not shooting Zarqawi was simply that the President and the National Security Council decided it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers," he said.

"Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq."




even Andrew Sullivan, big supporter of the war at the time, was shocked at the revelation:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_29_dish_archive.html#107837833223213964

LETTING ZARQAWI GO: I'm at a loss to understand how the Bush administration failed to act decisively to take out Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi when it had several opportunities to do so. This report is deeply disturbing. I wonder how killing Zarqawi could have conceivably impeded our bid to topple Saddam; and why the White House aborted the military operations.

>>>>cites MSNBC report here<<<<<<<<

The administration flubbed several subsequent opportunities subsequently - and hundreds are now dead as a result. Maybe there is some explanation here that I don't yet know. But it seems to me that if we blame Clinton for not getting Osama when he could have (and we should), then the blame on the Bush team for letting Zarqawi through the net should be just as intense. What exactly is the real excuse?


do you think any of this will be discussed in the celebration over the apparent killing of Al Zarqawi, seeing as how it points out the complete dishonesty of the regime's approach to the war run-up, the THOUSANDS of Iraqi deaths that could have been avoided (by their own count), had they not acted when they could have?

think any M$Mers will have the temerity to bring this up?







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. Abso-positively!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. Before the invasion we probably counted him as an ASSET for the CIA
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 11:26 AM by kenny blankenship
and its long frustrated hopes of deposing/killing Saddam Hussein (another sometime CIA asset).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. They didn't need to kill him until an election year. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. He -- or the inflated version of him -- was very useful for a while.
With Osama dead or hiding basically off the radar, we needed a new villain.

Now -- more useful as a dead face on TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. Condi was a failure as the nat. security cheiftess.


......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.’
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demigoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
6. my NPR had somebody say that it was interesting that
AFTER 2 500 LB BOMBS they could still identify the body. My thoughts exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
7. We're so loyal to our allies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack from Charlotte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
8. This article in The Atlantic says the same.....
Several times The White House axed military plans to nail him.

Want to read this guy's bio check out this article. He was a nobody until Colin Powell named him a link between Sadam and Al Quieda. He wasn't in Iraq either until Bush attack Iraq.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200607/zarqawi?ca=9hloQUJamUfhaPsPg%2B9E5USZvqSqBDKyXpAE9U9Gsng%3D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. the link does not appear to be working
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I read it earlier...let's see....
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 06:28 PM by Gabi Hayes
working for me


Sam Seder is reading from the MSNBC article as I type
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. Al Franken and Joe Conason discussed this today on AAR
still no mention in mainstream outlets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC