Bush vetoes attack on Terrorist Zarqawi

[SPG]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
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.

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 Pentagon knows where the guy is, what he is up to, and has a good plan to get rid of him, but if they do there wouldn't be anymore "Iraqi links to terrorism" so they let him go and now he's killed hundreds of people.
First, the guy was in Kurdish territory under the US No Fly Zone, so he obviously wasn't working with Saddam Hussein, and he's easy to bomb since we were flying over him every day. In bush's mind If we blow him up, then there isn't any immediate threat in Iraq, and one less reason to go on a full scale invasion. ****ing unbelievable how bush would put the importance of evidence in his BS war in Iraq over the very real terrorist threats that do exist. One more example how bush is blowing the real threat of terrorism and focusing on proving he's a man to his daddy.
Worst President...EVER!

[Voltron]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/




The Pentagon knows where the guy is, what he is up to, and has a good plan to get rid of him, but if they do there wouldn't be anymore "Iraqi links to terrorism" so they let him go and now he's killed hundreds of people.
First, the guy was in Kurdish territory under the US No Fly Zone, so he obviously wasn't working with Saddam Hussein, and he's easy to bomb since we were flying over him every day. In bush's mind If we blow him up, then there isn't any immediate threat in Iraq, and one less reason to go on a full scale invasion. ****ing unbelievable how bush would put the importance of evidence in his BS war in Iraq over the very real terrorist threats that do exist. One more example how bush is blowing the real threat of terrorism and focusing on proving he's a man to his daddy.
Worst President...EVER!
First the problem is we had no proof of Saddam's links with terrorism.
Now its that well we did have proof we could've killed him but same on our president for not doing so.

Sounds to me like it doesn't matter what Bush does your still not going to like him.

[poopyhead]

First the problem is we had no proof of Saddam's links with terrorism.
Now its that well we did have proof we could've killed him but same on our president for not doing so.

Sounds to me like it doesn't matter what Bush does your still not going to like him.

if he was in the no fly zone and in kurdish territory then saddam had no connection just as the US govt had no connection to 9/11 even though terrorist cells worked and resided within the US. location is not equivalent to cooperation

[skunk]

location is not equivalent to cooperation
You're obviously not a Real Estate Agent! Location is Everything!

[IJ Reilly]

Actually it's probably true that I wouldn't like George Bush no matter what he does -- but not because he's George Bush, but because of what he does.

[SPG]

I agree with IJ Reilly, it's not just bush per se, it's what he and his administration do. It just seems that everything they touch turns to ****...the anti Midas touch. What have they gotten right so far?
Taxes? Only if you're a multimillionaire. The rest of us are still paying as much or more all told, and will have to pick up the tab bigtime down the road.
Environment? Trashed in the name of business profits.
International Relations? Screw everyone 'cause we're the US of A and we don't need 'em. Except we do. We're trying to fight a global war against terrorists while pissing on everyone who might be in a position to help.
Jobs? Over 2 million gone, but corporate profits seem to be doing fine.
The War on Terra? Well that wasn't as important as invading the oil fields of Iraq, so we'll just keep tough talking and hope nothing actually happens, unless it's in October when we can spin it into more votes.
What has bush done right? I really can't think of anything that stands out as something I can approve of, really...nothing there to be happy about and let's not even get into the massive business failures like his buddy "Kenny Boy" Lay over at Enron, or the full scale assault on our civil rights.

Zarqawi is a real terrorist. We knew where he was. We had him in our sights, but it could have hurt the PR campaign for the Iraq invasion so bush ordered the militairy to stand down.
We pulled the specialized troops tracking Bin laden out of Afghanistan for Iraq.
Bush and his staff ignored all the reports that were warning of 9/11 and ignored the plans to roll up Al Queda because they came from the Clinton administration.
Bush allowed the bin Laden family to fly around in the days after 9/11 and then leave without any serious investigation of possible links or infromation on their brother.
He allowed the policy and atmosphere that created the torture at Abu Graib that is now fueling more anti american sentiment and therefore more opposition and the terrorists of tomorrow.
How is bush good on fighting terrorism?
By talking tough? Not good enough, not smart enough. He blew it and will continue to blow it.

[atszyman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

I know this article/thread is from a while ago but I was out of it most of spring and summer due to work and grad school. I still believe that it is very pertinent.

None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.-G.W. Bushhttp://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=272

They were claiming that they didn't want to go to war with Iraq. The war on terror was on. Yet when the pentagon comes up with a plan to take out a known terrorist the administration passes.

“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.

This is completely wrong. If Iraq was part of the war on Terror why didn't we take out the known terrorist when we had a chance? If we were waiting to invade why didn't we make him one of our prime objectives? We could have hit him, or put him into hiding and avoided the mess in Iraq, or postponed it and not have had the beheadings.

I know hindsight is 20/20 but the fact that they keep saying that they wouldn't have done anything different, when stuff like this comes up, isn't being resolute, it's being stupid.