Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "The Criminal always returns to the Scene of the Crime."] [Archive Index] [>>"Spine."]
03/03/2004 Archived Entry: "'President (blank) had (blank) chanes to catch (blank)...'"
'President (blank) had (blank) chanes to catch (blank)...'
Listen up, conservatives. I don't want to hear about Clinton having chances to capture bin Laden and not taking them. Not after this.
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.
‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’
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.
[...]
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.
Got it? Don't hand me that 'Clinton could have caught bin Laden' bullshit. Not. Ever. Again.
Replies: 9 people speak up
GOOD damn job getting the transcript; I saw the newscast but hadn't tracked the copy down yet.
And I don't have a detailed Iraqi map in front of me but if this is where the other Ansar al-Islam camps were, up in Kurdish territory, it was already in the northern no-fly zone, meaning we didn't need no steeking permission from ANYBODY to strike it with impunity or even large explosives. Military strikes were made in that area on a regular basis and were reported on TV, no big deal.
Wonder where the leak on this one came from..."US officials" could be anybody, but my money is split between pissed-off CIA people or irate military tired of getting "support" of a moral rather than practical sort.
Posted by Xan @ 03/03/2004 02:07 AM NY
But for the REALLY scary stuff, see Seymour Hersh's article, in part, on the game of Politically Expedient Footsie being played by Bush and Musharraf.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact
The rest makes you want to book passage on that first trip to Mars.
Posted by Vicki @ 03/03/2004 07:51 AM NY
well, they couldnt kill him before the war... if they did that, how could they capture him later and show what a good job they are doing... besides, they needed to make sure that there were at least a couple terrorists in iraq, just in case it turned out saddam no longer had all that mustard gass we sold him in the 80's. gotta have some reason for the war...
Posted by justin @ 03/03/2004 10:53 AM NY
Reaction of this story on Bush supporters: la-la-la-la-la.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, will ever penetrate their cast-iron, happy face bubble. To the NASCAR, super-size my fries crowd Bush stands for Gods, Guns, and Old Glory. The facts be damned!
Posted by Metropolitan99 @ 03/03/2004 11:11 AM NY
GOD, guns and glory. bush supporters would stone you for even acknowledging the idea that there might be god-S
Posted by justin @ 03/03/2004 11:15 AM NY
Bill Maher made the comment last Friday on his show that he expected the Republicans to cart Osama into the arena in a cage, just like Mighty Joe Young, at their convention next September in New York.
Posted by Stentor @ 03/03/2004 02:40 PM NY
Good catch, Justin. That was a Freudian slip on my part. I meant to write "God."
I am an unrepentant heathen. Hear that, Mel?
Stentor: I prefer King Kong in chains to Mighty Joe Young in a cage. You think Bush will play Fay Wray?
Posted by Metropolitan99 @ 03/03/2004 04:08 PM NY
Isn't it a pussy-passive headline too? "Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind"
It should read:
White House avoided attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Posted by Larry Dean @ 03/03/2004 08:05 PM NY
Larry Dean, that has to be the WORST headline I've read in years, if not of all time. It's awkward; it's pussy; and it's UNREADABLE. We all know that it's a ridiculous attempt to offend the White House as little as possible, hence its pretzel-twist grammar and logic.
How about this one: ...the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
Does this make ANY SENSE AT ALL? How in hell does bombing a terrorist camp in Iraq NOT support the war against Saddam? Even if, as suggested above, this camp was outside Saddam's sphere of control, why didn't they just spin it otherwise, claiming terrists were being harbored any way at all? What exactly were those debates in the NSC about, anyway? Like the coup d'etat in Haiti, it just doesn't make sense, and these people are about as competent as...as...I can't think of a simile STRONG ENOUGH to describe their UTTER STUPIDITY. I just can't.
Later,
Posted by Daddy-O @ 03/03/2004 10:55 PM NY
