NBC Nightly News: Bush* adm. had two chances to get Zarqawi

[spanone]

Abu Musab Zarqawi is suspected of masterminding the explosions in Iraq today killing over 140 people. He is blamed for over 700 killings. Yet when the bush* administration was faced with hard targets they failed to pull the trigger. They feared that this would undercut going to war against Saddam. This get wierder and wierder everyday. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

[DU9598]

1. Wow

I wonder how the WH will try to spin this? Did Clinton leave them a note about not taking this guy out. JK

This is HUGE and will get bigger as the debate over national security intensifies as we go toward November.

[librechik]

2. great story--makes Clinton look good for only missing OBL twice! n/t

pass this one along, everyone!

[orwell]

3. Blow Up

We may be witnessing open warfare between the US Intelligence community and the White House.

If so, anyone care to guess who has more firepower...

O

[spanone]

4. If it's not about terrorism, what is it about??? Oil??? Power???

War for wars sake makes no sense.

[maggrwaggr]

9. here's what the war in Iraq was about:

Three reasons we invaded Iraq:

From a DIA analyst who was there:
(for those who have already seen me post this, sorry!)

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

(snip)
One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.

The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter — to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important — that is, if you hold that is America’s role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in.

The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 — selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren’t very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.
The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but it’s not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May <2003> switched trading on Iraq’s oil back to the dollar.
(snip)

[salin]

13. Not sure... think it might be a setup

I read the article two times to get at the "why" of not acting.

The only references are to... the desire to build an international coalition to support the war.

Now the thing is - one of these points in time is summer 2002, when parts of team bush still think they can go it alone (before challenged down to HAVE to go the UN and try to get international support). The framing of the argument in the article doesn't make sense.

What makes more sense (based on the timing) - for the pull back - but is not said... is that the info was being used to try to create propoganda for public consumption for the war. In the mid summer there were reports of Al Qeada in Iraq... (ala "see... a connection to 9-11). After a period - when news organizations started pointing out that sadam had NO control over this region... Rummy makes one last statement on the topic... that "it was still in the country and Saddam would have at least KNOWN alqeada was there" (a wierd nonresponse) and the story was dropped.

But as we now see... there was very little intel to use to sell us (the public) the war... so perhaps the nonaction on this front was because the info was more useful to sell the war?

My point being... the whole article reads as if the problem was the pressure on the president (from democrats in Congress? from the colin/condi group in the admin? from the europeans in the UN?) to build a coalition to go into Iraq... ala - if he "hadn't been forced to ask permission" (the admins own words)... then he could have ordered a strike when they knew where he was.

[grasswire]

5. OMG

This is enormous. I'm afraid it will get lost in the sea of chaos churning now.

Yet look at this, about the third Pentagon plan to take out the target:

"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."

[spanone]

6. This was in the leading story by Brokaw tonight

in conjunction with the bombings today.

[Doctor_J]

8. wow

"detroying the terrorist cell would undercut the case for war"

Save your vacation days to watch the impeachment on TV

[SeveneightyWhoa]

7. NBC is liberal media!

Or better even,
IT WAS CLINTON'S FAULT!

[maggrwaggr]

10. WOW. This is a Big One.

Almost as good as this one (Karen Kwiatkowski):

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/vv/20040220/lo_laweekly/51202&cid=891&ncid=1501

[maggrwaggr]

11. late night kick

:kick:

[HydroAddict]

12. Kicking this up.

When I woke up this morning I was expecting this story to be kicked a hundred times or more.

Bush* is a treasonous bastard. Throw the whole cabal in jail, NOW!

Maybe I'm reading to much into this, but IMO, is hard evidence of him breaking the oath of office.

[ComerPerro]

14. I can't believe that most Americans

actually believe that this fucko has their safety, security, and best interests in mind.

I can't believe that they don't scream "LIAR" at every word he says

I can't believe that they aren't outraged.

He doesn't give a shit about anything but making money and helping push the agenda of his puppeteers

[seabeyond]

15. i hope kerry

uses this kinda stuff. this is what the people need to learn about. adn look at chance that i learned, here and now a couple years later. and when bush says something about protecting the people kerry needs to clearly and sucinctly tell this story. and say where is the protecting the american people or, protecting your agenda

[leftchick]

16. Imus was talking with Jim Mik this AM...

about this. I only caught the tail end but it sounds as if Jim has turned in his bush*-ho uniform. At least for today...