[eDebate] why did w purposively NOT KILL al-zarqawi years ago?

Old Strega oldstrega
Thu Jun 8 11:18:08 CDT 2006

b/c he's the worst president ever and killing al-zarqawi would have further 
weakened their weak ass case for the war that is purposively killing 
thousands of civilians.  simple: BUSH SUCKS:


Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind

Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq

By Jim Miklaszewski
Pentagon Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:14 p.m. MT March 2, 2004

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.
Story continues below ?

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 

?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.

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.
? 2006 MSNBC Interactive

More information about the Mailman mailing list