Why Did Bush Let al Zarqawi Go?

Remember yesterday, when I told you about the Ashura bombings in Iraq, and how the prime suspect behind the attack was Jordanian terrorist Abu Mussab al Zarqawi?

Today NBC News is reporting that, in the months leading up to the war, the Bush Administration had several chances to capture or kill al Zarqawi and shut down his little operation — but they never got around to acting on any of them!

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…
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.

So let me get this straight. We have a known terrorist, manufacturing biological weapons, who the Pentagon asks three times for permission to take out — and they’re told that Iraq (which had no WMDs, and no connection to al Qaeda, remember) is more important? So we should just let this guy keep cooking up his batches of ricin in peace while we get down to the business of taking out Saddam Hussein?

Where the hell are our priorities?

Seriously, if Bush plans to run on 9/11 (and all the indications are that he does), I hope Kerry stuffs this sort of thing in his face. What kind of “War on Terra” is this guy running if he lets terrorists run around unmolested? Especially terrorists who go on to blow up hundreds of innocent civilians in highly sensitive parts of the world?



March 4, 2004
12:15 pm

Look, I’m tired of people misspelling things just to take a jab at this President. It’s the “War on Tara”, that bitch from Gone with the Wind. I think we can all agree that the world is better off without her. Anything else is just defeatist, unpatriotic traitor-talk.


March 4, 2004
3:07 pm

Leadership and 9-11

Bush-Cheney presidential campaing started airing 9-11 ads, and it seems that their campaign will hinge on handling the Septermber 11, 2001 events. The 9-11 ads are win-win for both Republicans and Democrats. For Republicans because they want to show th…


March 5, 2004
4:58 pm

Tara was actually the name of the plantation, not the bitch.

Jason Lefkowitz

March 5, 2004
5:10 pm

Well, I’m glad that’s settled.
Can we get back to the part about how the President let a terrorist with a lethal bioweapon go on his merry way so that he could prosecute an unnecessary war now?