Bush's Security Council Fails to Pull the Trigger -3 TIMES
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
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...
(SNIP)
?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 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.
On three seperate occassions the Pentagon wanted to take out the terrorist camp before the war started... but the Security Council shot it down everytime... they needed it as an excuse to go into Iraq. How many U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed because they waited too long?
How far will the administartion go to make a case? Will they wait for an attack in the U.S. to say..."see we need to attack (target of choice)"
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...
(SNIP)
?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 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.
On three seperate occassions the Pentagon wanted to take out the terrorist camp before the war started... but the Security Council shot it down everytime... they needed it as an excuse to go into Iraq. How many U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed because they waited too long?
How far will the administartion go to make a case? Will they wait for an attack in the U.S. to say..."see we need to attack (target of choice)"
Comments
Maybe that would be helpful and not so one sided. But we wouldn't want that right?
"Bush's Security Council Kills Suspected Terrorists With No Provocation!"
And it's pretty clear in the article why some people think they didn't attack the camp... they needed as an excuse... so they could say "There's ties between Saddam and Al-Qaida". A drum that Cheney was pounding even yesterday on Wolf Blitzer.
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.
I have a new term in case some here haven't noticed. It's called "Politically Convenient". That's exactly what quote is.
Once again you make my point for me.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Really...this is now getting ridiculous. It's ironic that the same people who accuse the Bush Administration of twisting and sexing up intelligence to go to war are now sexing up news stories and selectively finding "facts" that serve no other purpose than bashing the President.
I have a new term in case some here haven't noticed. It's called "Politically Convenient". That's exactly what quote is.
Politcally convenient indeed. I remember how fascinated I was by all the "convenience" of all the GOP hoopla over Clinton's "twisting and sexing up intelligence to go to war".
So, when Sean Hannity makes his claims that Clinton passed up an opportunity to take Osama out, he isn't partaking in "selectively finding facts that serve no other purpose than bashing the President."
Gotcha.
I didn't selectively quote something out of context.
"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."
There were at least two sources... he reported what he was told.
That's what a reporter does.
Maybe the NSC and the White House chose not to comment.
It's not an op-ed piece. The reporter isn't giving an opinion.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Since when is a journalist supposed to get all sides?
There were at least two sources... he reported what he was told.
That's what a reporter does.
Maybe the NSC and the White House chose not to comment.
It's not an op-ed piece. The reporter isn't giving an opinion.
Since when is a journalist supposed to get two sides? Are you serious? You're correct, there were two sources--against the Administration--with no response from the Administration and no notification if the Administration was contacted or declined comment.
Quote:
"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."
If there is no response by the Administration in the article then how does the writer know what the Administration is thinking? The writer takes the word of a former NSC member whom we have no idea why he is not a current member? Did he resign? Was he fired? That is speculation and opinion and belongs on the op-ed page. If you can't see this then you are blinded by your own partisanship.
If you were on the NSC... you worked for the administration... and you heard what their representatives wanted to do.
Then you have a military source saying they were ready on 3 seperate occassions to attack the camp.
It's not the democrats coming out with this stuff...
The administration COULD respond... but it's more likely they want the whole issue to go away. If they respond it gets MORE press.
Get a grip! Every criticism of the way things went down isn't necessarily partisan... sometimes it comes from within.
The chart that accompanies it is very telling too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/09/opinion/09KRUG.html
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 9, 2004
Despite a string of dismal employment reports, the administration insists that its economic program, which has relied entirely on tax cuts focused on the affluent, will produce big job gains any day now. Should we believe these promises?
Each February, the Economic Report of the President forecasts nonfarm payroll employment ? generally considered the best measure of job growth ? for the next several years. The black line in the chart above (inspired by a joint report from the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) shows the actual performance of employment, both before and after its peak in March 2001. The gray lines show the forecasts in the 2002, 2003 and 2004 reports. Notice that the February 2004 forecast, which, as in previous years, is based on data only through the preceding October, is already 900,000 jobs too high.
CONT.