Bush has put the feelings of others ahead of our own national security interests. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB109866031609354178,00.html?mod=todays_free_feature As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country. Another factor, though, was fear that a strike on the camp could stir up opposition while the administration was trying to build an international coalition to launch an invasion of Iraq. Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq."
Probably Bush's man in Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi, convinced the Admin that he could bring Zarqawi to the good side of the Force.
********, I haven't even finished laughing at the puppies ad. Sincerely, Joe Lockhart The Luckiest Man In Politics
Just some nobody who can't even have his candidate 5 points ahead in the polls despite getting every gift in Santa's sleigh from the incumbent morons.
It's tough to beat a wartime president to begin with. Then remember that Bush has raised $200M and never had a primary battle. THEN remember that the media were completely in the tank for him from about June 2000 until about three weeks ago. We'll see what happens next week.
I thought it was generally accepted that BushCo. never hit Zarqawi's camp because they wanted to keep alive the reality of the "existence of Al Quaeda camps inside Iraq." Just looking at how Franks, Cheney, Rummy, and Bush have repeatedly used that phrase, it's clear that this myth was a prime aspect of their propaganda strategy against Iraq. That in reality Zarqawi's camp was in an area of Iraq outside of Saddam's control just made the myth that much easier to manage.
Believe me, Gringo, I'm no fan of the War, or George Bush - but at least three ODAs of the US Special Forces led a combined task force of both major Kurdish militias on the attack on Ansar el Islam at the beginning of the war. It was largely successful, although the airstrikes came too soon before the actual ground forces could be marshalled, allowing many of the AEI to slip away - though plenty remained on the ground to put up a stiff battle that lasted several days.
So they were wrong for "rushing" to war. They were wrong for not striking quickly enough. They were wrong not getting an allianc together. They were wrong for trying to get an allaince together. When you read the article you back the word of Lisa Hagerty who condemns the administration for not striking, although she was not part of the working group of the NSC. When you read the article you disparage the word of the NSC spokesman, Jim Wilkinson who stated "there was never any real-time, actionable intelligence that placed Zarqawi at Khurmal." Kerry trashed Bush yesterday over explosives that the IAEA wanted secured. NBC reported today that their newsmen were in Iraq with the troops that went to the site and explosives of the sort Kerry espoused were not there. Funny thing, the NY Times that broke the story yesterday dropped it today. There might be some of you readers out there that think these guys offer some real insight into issues, but they are so one-sided, it's incredible that they continue to keep banging away at thier keyboards day in and day out with this stuff. Thank goodness I don't share their NEEEEEED to be on these boards to the tune of 10,000 posts. I'll let you guys go back to your normally scheduled circle thing you got going on.
I'm confused. Can you clear something up for me? Did Bush not strike Zarqawi because a) he needed live terrorists in Iraq to justify war? b) he was worried about what France and the UN thought? c) he had other priorities? American soldiers are dying to know the answer. Literally.
If you do not know the answer, which one -- a, b or c -- do you believe is the answer? In either case, what evidence do you base your choice upon?
Me? I'd guess a variation of (c) - Bush had other priorities, and (d) - all of the above. AZ was not public enemy #1, Saddam was. Osama was #2(maybe). AZ was at best a way distant 3rd. BUT...AZ was a useful tool for justifying war, so, no, Bush would not have dropped a few missles on his butt before the real war started. Doing so might eliminate one of the war's justifications - couldn't risk that - NOR risk any international pressure/backlash while trying to drum up support for the invasion. Evidence? articles supporting (a) and (b) have already been cited. I'm just tying them together into one neat package that isn't black and white.
I'll go with the answer given by the NSC. NSC spokesman, Jim Wilkinson who stated "there was never any real-time, actionable intelligence that placed Zarqawi at Khurmal." But why would you do that when your fantasies can dream up other answers. Additionally, at this point in time, the US was working with the UN to get weapons inspectors into Iraq. If we bombed a place in Iraq where we weren't sure we would succeed, wouldn't we have given Saddam a valid reason for not co-operating with the un inspectors. In other words, Bush would be damned whether he went after Zarqawi or Bush would be damned if he didn't. In other words, Mr. Poopypants, it's like asking you if you beat your wife today? The Kerry argument of arguing both sides of every action has succeeded with you, Mr. Poopypants. The Kerry argument of arguing both sides of every action has succeeded with you, Mr. Poopypants. The Kerry argument of arguing both sides of every action has succeeded with you, Mr. Poopypants. If Sen. Kerry wins, will he follow thru on his UNSTATED PROMISE. What is Kerry's UNSTATED PROMISE? Well, he's ridiculed Bush for not having enough troops in the theater. What does he call it? An Unbelievable blunder. So how many MORE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS DOES KERRY want to commit to die at the hands of 380 tons of explosives? From Kerry's rhetoric, he's beside himself over the 380 tons of explosives, even though noone knows who has them or when they were moved. He's like the chicken that says that the sky is falling, the sky is falling. In case Kerry doesn't realize it yet, these explosives were in Saddam Hussein's hands prior to the war that in his words were the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." If it were left to Sen. Kerry, Hussein would still posess the weapons. So what's the bottom line per Mr. Kerry's group. We're not safer today, because we don't know where these explosives are? But Kerry now knowing that these explosives may be in terrorist's hands is going to send another 50,000 soldiers to Iraq? GWB is not 100% consistent. But, Kerry will do or say anything to get elected and he's been doing that since he switched to Howard Dean's side back in Feb., broke back for the convention and back again in Sept. Actually, since the First Gulf War, when he wanted a strong coalition and voted against the 1st Gulf War which featured his model coalition, actually since he was on the intelligence committee and didn't bother going to the meetings.
Well, for the record, no, I did not beat my wife today. Did you perhaps mean to ask when I stopped beating my wife? Is that the no-win question, much like "is Bush evil or just retarded"? But anyway, can you clarify So if we bombed a terrorist training camp in the no fly zone where Saddam had no influence, that would be a valid excuse for Saddam to not cooperate with inspectors? Why not just claim that some anti-aircraft battery was there, targeted our plane, and attracted a missle of ours? Cuz that was happening everyday for the past 10 years or so, and that didn't stop the inspections. I can usually at least recognize logical arguments, even if I don't agree. But I'm drawing a blank here.
That is a great post, NY. Kerry's "leadership" and "consistency" are laughable. He's a dishrag. I think its funny how so many people are so overty "for" him. And yet -- for me -- that matters much less than Bush's decision to invade Iraq. I have never been a one-issue voter until now, but Bush's mistaken judgement is too epic, and has harmed our country too much to ignore. I am not so much "for Kerry" as I am "against Bush". No matter how it turns out for Iraqis, the Iraq War will never be worth the opportunity costs for Americans; -- what we could have done with billions of Iraq-war dollars -- every week -- to make our country more secure against the true threat -- how better prepared our over-extended military could have been for a real need in the interest of our security -- what 1100+ dead and thousands of physically and emotionally maimed Americans could have done with their lives No matter how much I disapprove of Kerry, Bush must go. Loyalty to a political party is simply nothing compared to loyalty to the country.
You can go to a lot of places to have posts fixed. But for quality you can depend on, go to Mr. Goodwrench.
This is a bunch of crud. The NSC also figured in August 2001 that Osama bin Laden was not a threat, told Bush as much, and we all saw the outcome. NSC has zero credibility. In fact, we would be more secure to do the exact opposite of what they suggest. The 380 tons were under IAEA seal, well documented and contained. They were "liberated" after the invasion, due to lack of security on the ground. If Kerry wins, his job is not to implement a rational Middle East policy and an effective war on terror. His job is to start un-fvcking-up the mess created by the Bush administration's mind numbing incompetence. He seems to think that means putting more troops on the ground. He has consensus from a number of knowledgeable people, including McCain and Shinseki. The release of the 380 tons of explosives is the fault of the Bush administrationl. The false rational for invading Iraq is the fault of the Bush administration. The poor intelligence on WMD in Iraq is the fault of the Bush adminsitration. The lack of adequate troops to secure the peace in Iraq is the fault of the Bush administration. If you vote for Bush, you are complicit in their incompetence.