[FoRK] The administration feared destroying the terrorist camp
in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
owen at permafrost.net
Mon May 17 08:05:02 PDT 2004
Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>The found that lobbing a few cruise missiles only empowered the
>terrorists, thus they changed the policy. But more interesting, are
>you saying you buy into the idea that al-qaeda related terrorists
>were setting up chemical weapons labs in Iraq? If so, that
>would be the first time anyone has acknowledged the link.
Ha ha. They found that advancing whatever rationale that Republican base
would lap up was a successful strategy. Apparently it still works for you.
"Empower the terrorists" - thats what they are best at.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fork-bounces at xent.com on behalf of Owen Byrne
> Sent: Mon 5/17/2004 6:32 AM
> To: fork at xent.com
> Subject: [FoRK] The administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
> Is that a killer sentence or what. Its in slate's link here:
> to this story:
> They were laughing at you folks. The white house that is. "Can you
> believe that the morons that live in this country actually bought this
> Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
> Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq
> By Jim Miklaszewski
> NBC News
> Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 02, 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
> 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
> — Roger Cressey
> Terrorism expert
> “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
> FoRK mailing list
>FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK