Woulda Shoulda Coulda
For the Bush supporters who think that taking out Al Zarqawi is a major victory in the Iraq war, let's take a little trip down memory lane.
It appears as if the Bush administration decided that it would be better to wait until we invaded Iraq, putting American troops in the position to be attacked, wounded, and slaughtered by this madman, only then to claim victory when he was finally taken out earlier this month (surrounded by women and children), than to eliminate him prior to his becoming a real threat to the troops. All in the name of politics. How many lives could have been spared if Bush hadn't put Al-Zarqawi on the back burner?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi-Wikipedia
In Colin Powell's famous February 2003 speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was cited as an example of Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism. In his speech, Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian, but Powell and the Bush administration continued to stand by statements that Zarqawi linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.
At the time, Zarqawi's group was a rival of bin Laden's. A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved or aware of this medical treatment, and that "There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi."[13] [14] One U.S. official summarized the report: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."[15] However, Jordan's King Abdullah stated in an interview that Jordan had detailed information of where in Iraq Zarqawi lived. Jordan attempted to have Zarqawi extradited, "but our demands that the former regime [of Saddam Hussein] hand him over were in vain," King Abdullah said.[16]
According to NBC News [17] the Pentagon had pushed to "take out" Zarqawi's operation at least three times prior to the invasion of Iraq, but had been vetoed by the National Security Council. The council reportedly made its decision in an effort to convince other countries to join the US in a coalition against Iraq. "People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists," said former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In May 2006, former CIA official Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004, corroborated this. Paraphrasing his remarks, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) stated Scheuer claimed that "the United States deliberately turned down several opportunities to kill terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war." ABC added that "a plan to destroy Zarqawi's training camp in Kurdistan was abandoned for diplomatic reasons." Scheuer explaimed that "the reasons the intelligence service got for not shooting Zarqawi was simply that the President and the National Security Council decided it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers" in an effort to win support for ousting Saddam Hussein.
It appears as if the Bush administration decided that it would be better to wait until we invaded Iraq, putting American troops in the position to be attacked, wounded, and slaughtered by this madman, only then to claim victory when he was finally taken out earlier this month (surrounded by women and children), than to eliminate him prior to his becoming a real threat to the troops. All in the name of politics. How many lives could have been spared if Bush hadn't put Al-Zarqawi on the back burner?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi-Wikipedia
posted by Tootsie Farklepants at 8:57 AM
7 Comments:
Ok T.F. Lets get it on.
The soldiers get a really bad guy and you dismiss it and blame politicians. How about giving credit to the soldiers for getting him. This evening it was announced that 500 chemical weapon bombs where found in Iraq. Possibly pre 1991 made. What will be your take on that? Probably the same as everything else. Dismiss it with some obscure logic. If they find a nuclear bomb in one of Sadams X palaces you will dismiss that too. Oh, it was made BEFORE the 1991 war so it doesnt matter.
So, when it comes to ANY good news I cant take you serious when all you do is dismiss everything as a politcal ploy.I am not saying you are a moderate, but you are surely not thinking with common sense all the time. Your strong emotions get in the way of logic. Or your passion. Which I respect the hell out of in ya.
But you are Negative negative negative.
When Bin Laden is finally killed you will respond, well it aint gonna help anything or you will blame Bush for not getting him sooner. No Credit not maya' culpa no nothing.
Look, I understand that all you want is Bush out. Fine. Cool. At this point I am ready for someone else too ( H.R.C) But you have to find SOMETHING good when something good happens. It just cant all be "still mad about Florida and Ohio".
John Murtha has already condemed the soldiers of Haditha. If it is proven that they did NOT kill the way it is claimed they killed will you say you are sorry for jumping to judgement? He wont. Will you? I have not said one way or another that they did something right or wrong. I, as I always do wait and dont rush to judgement.
I am now listening to Woppie Goldburg and whoa, she just said who cares about the bombs we found and the killing of Zack in Iraq ( She just said that Bush planted the bombs in Iras hahaha)she wants Bin Laden and nothing else matters. Hum, if Bin Laden was killed today she would have said thats fine, but the guy we need is killing our soldiers in Bagdad, Zack the hack.
Your turn..........
Me
Oh were to start? You've presented several arguements. I'll try to go through it point by painstaking point.
Great! The soldiers get a bad guy who has apparently been immediately replaced by another really bad guy. Sure they get credit for it. That's their job. What I am saying is that it could have been taken care of before 2500 lives were lost and thousands upon thousands wounded. Our presence in Iraq created an element that did not exist pre 2003.
The 500 chemical weapons bombs were found 2 years ago, and are pre 1991. The shelf life of Sarin is 5 years. Rick Santorum had to push the Bush administration to release the report. Why? Could it be because the info will expose the Bush administration to more speculation of exaggerating the danger posed by Saddam? Hardly earth shattering news. It may matter somewhat that they found it, but not in the way you hope that it does, because the weapons were not of "military significant capability" (according to Charles Duelfer).
As for my "what if" reaction to Bin Laden's "what if" death or capture, you've got one thing right. His capture and/or death will not change the situation in Iraq, just as Zarqaui's death didn't change anything in Iraq. And Zarqaui and Bin Laden were rivals prior to 2003. It was our presence in Iraq that brought those two together.
I'm willing to admit something good when something good happens. What I'm most certainly NOT willing to do is ignore what is NOT good about any of the circumstances that surround the good deed. I'm not willing to say "oh that is a good thing so let's ignore what created the wrong in the first place". I like to think that we can learn from all of the contributing factors instead of the logic that "well, there's nothing we can do about what happened in the past, so let's just fugghetabout it".
See where I'm coming from? It's that ability to look outside the box that I mentioned earlier. The world is not black and white.
Where is the harm in my pointing out that the Bush administration dismissed opportunities to capture/eliminate Zarqaui prior to invading Iraq? How is that negative if it is the truth?
I don't care what Whoopie Goldberg has to say about it. She's entitled to her opinion as we all are. As is Murtha, and I don't recall giving an opinion one way or another about Haditha.
And for you to say that you don't rush to judgment... the first paragraph of your post you accuse me that I "might" believe that any nuclear weapons found that were made before 1991 won't matter. So you've already judged that they DO.
(You know, it's really difficult writing a long comment on here...makes it hard to see if I've answered everyhthing...I'll post this, then go back and answer what I may have missed.)
I also meant to add about Bush ignoring Zarqawi (yay I spelled it right this time!)prior to invading Iraq...
Let's say you found a mama cockroach in your kitchen during a dinner party. You decide to let it run and hide instead of drawing its attention to your guests. You know full well by letting it get away, it will return with massive reinforcements. And they do. You spend the next couple of years picking them off one by one, destroying your house in the process. You finally discover the mother cockroach and take its life beneath your shoe. However, the reinforcements still remain.
Only if you'd stepped on that mama cockroach at the dinner party all those years prior.
Jack, what do you make of this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.
The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
And one more thing (see? I knew I missed something)...for you to sum up my opinion and passion into "still mad about Florida and Ohio" belittles every point I've made that you don't agree with. My opinion of Bush has nothing to do with elections, and I've never stated any such thing. I think I've been pretty clear about what it is that doesn't sit well with me when it comes to Bush.
Holy Crap! : )
Are you a chemist? If not you seem pretty sure about the assessment on the ground in Iraq.
Well, apparently you and I were both watching the same show last night! Know thy enemy? hahaha Your smart! I do the same thing with when I watch CNN......or PBS....NOW
Good answer on the Florida jab. I hope you are honest about that because most upset folks on the other side of the isle are that way due to FLA. And if you are not, and just strong in your beliefs then my respect for you just shot up even higher. Doesnt mean I agree with you ( Yet ).
Murph
I have now read the santorum fact sheet at the Washington post regarding the WMD found.
I stand corrected. And when ever I see an error I have made or that my party made I will say I was wrong and move on. Or not support false statments.
And I am glad you take the Florida thing personal. I wont bring that up again.
Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home