Bush fumbles three times against terrorist

[Tiger Al 0]

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 Iraq.

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.

“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.

LINK

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Your last few posts lead me to believe that you have taken Donutboy's place on the board. I used to consider your arguments on behalf of the liberals well thought out (yet misguided), but you seemed to have taken a nose dive into the depths of mental retardation.

You have the gall to post something like that, knowing that Bill Clinton could have captured Bin Laden way back in 1996 and we wouldn't be involved in the war now. I'm sure there are 3000+ families that wish Clinton had paid as much attention to terrorism as he did chasing poon-tang. There would be a lot more innocent people alive today if he had.

If the explosions in Karbala and Baghdad yesterday equate to fumbles in the eyes of you liberals, then surely what Slick Willy did to OUR OWN COUNTRY (or didn't do) in regards to Bin Laden not only equals the worst fumble possible....on the goal line no less.......but just flat out throwing the game all together.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

where is DB anyway???

[Tiger Al 0]

Your last few posts lead me to believe that you have taken Donutboy's place on the board. I used to consider your arguments on behalf of the liberals well thought out (yet misguided), but you seemed to have taken a nose dive into the depths of mental retardation.

You have the gall to post something like that, knowing that Bill Clinton could have captured Bin Laden way back in 1996 and we wouldn't be involved in the war now. I'm sure there are 3000+ families that wish Clinton had paid as much attention to terrorism as he did chasing poon-tang. There would be a lot more innocent people alive today if he had.

If the explosions in Karbala and Baghdad yesterday equate to fumbles in the eyes of you liberals, then surely what Slick Willy did to OUR OWN COUNTRY (or didn't do) in regards to Bin Laden not only equals the worst fumble possible....on the goal line no less.......but just flat out throwing the game all together.

Keep your eye on the ball, TIS. We're talking about the here and now. Clinton's gone. He was the worst. Everybody knows it. Bush is no better. He had three chances to get this guy but was too concerned about carving up Iraq's oil fields for his buddies and slipping Dick some cash via Halliburton's gas price gouging and overpriced meals for the troops to pay any attention to the CIA. Seems like that is a recurring dream with him.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

...was too concerned about carving up Iraq's oil fields for his buddies and slipping Dick some cash via Halliburton's gas price gouging and overpriced meals for the troops to pay any attention to the CIA. Seems like that is a recurring dream with him.

*Twilight Zone music plays*

[CCTAU 3,369]

...was too concerned about carving up Iraq's oil fields for his buddies and slipping Dick some cash via Halliburton's gas price gouging and overpriced meals for the troops to pay any attention to the CIA. Seems like that is a recurring dream with him.

*Twilight Zone music plays*

Ahhh yes. The I can see them now. Hard to hear what others are saying with those things always following me. I despise those black helicopters!

[Tiger Al 0]

...was too concerned about carving up Iraq's oil fields for his buddies and slipping Dick some cash via Halliburton's gas price gouging and overpriced meals for the troops to pay any attention to the CIA. Seems like that is a recurring dream with him.

*Twilight Zone music plays*

Ahhh yes. The I can see them now. Hard to hear what others are saying with those things always following me. I despise those black helicopters!

Yeah, black helicopters and conspiracy theories. That's the route I'd take if I got punked by a bed wetting libbie armed with facts, too!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Yeah, black helicopters and conspiracy theories. That's the route I'd take if I got punked by a bed wetting libbie armed with facts, too!

don't they have those big diapers you can get, TA...i mean, won't that keep your bed dry?

how much $$ did cheney get out of the entire war thing anyway? i have missed the amount being reported anywhere.

[Tiger Al 0]

Yeah, black helicopters and conspiracy theories. That's the route I'd take if I got punked by a bed wetting libbie armed with facts, too!

don't they have those big diapers you can get, TA...i mean, won't that keep your bed dry?

how much $$ did cheney get out of the entire war thing anyway? i have missed the amount being reported anywhere.

The 'entire war thing' isn't over yet. We continue to pay Halliburton millions. Until Cheney exercises all of those stock options he gets, we'll never know.

[jaydubb121 22]

so couldn't it be zero just as well as millions

[Jenny AU-92 0]

That's why they call them "OPTIONS".

[Tiger Al 0]

That's why they call them "OPTIONS".

And that's why he still benefits financially from anything and everything Halliburton does. His payment doesn't come in the form of a paycheck but as shares of stock. Nice little scheme he's got going.

[Tigermike 3,426]

That's why they call them "OPTIONS".

And that's why he still benefits financially from anything and everything Halliburton does. His payment doesn't come in the form of a paycheck but as shares of stock. Nice little scheme he's got going.

Maybe you would feel better if President Bush had appointed homeless paupers to his cabinet?

[Tiger Al 0]

That's why they call them "OPTIONS".

And that's why he still benefits financially from anything and everything Halliburton does. His payment doesn't come in the form of a paycheck but as shares of stock. Nice little scheme he's got going.

Maybe you would feel better if President Bush had appointed homeless paupers to his cabinet?

No. Maybe I'd feel better if Bush explained why he let this terrorist go three times which flies squarely against a "war on terrorism." I also find it especially strange that this terrorist was running his terrorist camp in northern Iraq, which was a US/UK controlled area. Maybe providing answers to such questions are what has made Mr. Bush so reluctant to cooperate with the 9/11 Commission.

[MDM4AU 337]

AND I guess I would feel better if Clinton would have taken UBL when offered. Then the Trade towers would still be standing, the 3000+ people that lost lives would be around, and the millions of others that lost loved ones would have those loved ones back.

By the way the question about homeless paupers had to do with your attempted dig at Cheyney, Haliburton, and the stock. When asked the question you then made a tangent from the tangent from the original post to get back to the post.

WHEW! that's alot of manuvering!

November will be fun!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Haliburton was in the government contracting business LONG before the Bush/Cheny administration. Where was this outrage when Slick Willie's gang of hillbilly crooks had Haliburton on the payroll? Oh wait, I forgot....that was in the past so it doesn't really pertain to this, right?

[Tiger Al 0]

By the way the question about homeless paupers had to do with your attempted dig at Cheyney, Haliburton, and the stock.  When asked the question you then made a tangent from the tangent from the original post to get back to the post.

WHEW! that's alot of manuvering!

November will be fun!

Yes. I'm sorry.

[Tigermike 3,426]

I also find it especially strange that this terrorist was running his terrorist camp in northern Iraq, which was a US/UK controlled area.

I find it strange also that you seem to be so myopic in the way you look at things. I would think it is a pretty good bet that there are several more terrorists camps in Iraq, but to hear the democrats tell it there is no link between Iraq and terrorists. Haven't you said that more than once on this board?

Maybe providing answers to such questions are what has made Mr. Bush so reluctant to cooperate with the 9/11 Commission.

I thought President Bush had extended the 9/11 commission and given them more time to do what they were doing. Was I wrong? Was that not extended?

[Tiger Al 0]

I find it strange also that you seem to be so myopic in the way you look at things. I would think it is a pretty good bet that there are several more terrorists camps in Iraq, but to hear the democrats tell it there is no link between Iraq and terrorists. Haven't you said that more than once on this board?

No, Tigermike, what I've said before is that there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda, as the Bush regime initially said there was. There was no cooperation between them. "AHA!!!", you say, "But, TigerAl, you just said that Abu Musab Zarqawi was operating a camp in northern Iraq, that proves there WAS a link, right?" No. It proves that Abu Musab Zarqawi was operating a camp in an area of Iraq that was under US/UK control. Geographically it was within Iraq but under the jurisdiction of the US/UK. In other words, he was operating right under our noses and the CIA knew it, presented three separate plans to Bush and he passed all three times.

I thought President Bush had extended the 9/11 commission and given them more time to do what they were doing. Was I wrong? Was that not extended?

Well, what is the history of president 'plain talker' and the 9/11 commission? He initially SAID he wanted to find out everything there was to know about 9/11. What he DID was to provide a Congressional commitee a partial report (remember, he witheld 28 pages of the report he thought they didn't need to see?). Then, he SAID that an independent commitee was a good idea, but, what he DID was stonewall its' creation. He grudgingly allowed it but has, along with other governmental entities (DoJ, DoD, NSC, NSA), stonewalled it by not giving it information it has requested, forcing subpoenas. Then, after SAYING the commitee report should be thorough, what he DID was to initially deny it the additional time it needed because of his stonewalling. Again, after many requests and negative publicity from the families of the 9/11 victims, he has allowed the commitee 60 additional days. Which gets us to your statement that, yes, he did extend the deadline.

Interestingly, for a man who wants to be identified with 9/11 so much that in 90% or more of the speeches he's given since then he includes many references to that day, claims to want the country to know how it happened and is now campaigning on his 9/11 laurels, he has been very resistent to any fact-finding forages. He will only testify, again, reluctantly, to select members of the commitee for...about one hour. And, he refuses to do it under oath, as was the case with Condoleeza Rice.

[Tigermike 3,426]

No, Tigermike, what I've said before is that there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda, as the Bush regime initially said there was.

Their initial assessment may have been off, but there are and have been links with Iraq and al Qaeda.

he witheld 28 pages of the report he thought they didn't need to see?). Then, he SAID that an independent commitee was a good idea, but, what he DID was stonewall its' creation. He grudgingly allowed it but has, along with other governmental entities (DoJ, DoD, NSC, NSA), stonewalled it by not giving it information it has requested, forcing subpoenas

Ahhh, so if the DOD, or the NSA, or the CIA do not open up all classified material then the sitting president is being dishonest? Then he is trying to hide something? How many previous presidents have done the same? What you are really saying is that since he did not turn all things over to a democrat lynch mob he is being dishonest. I say you and the dems are being disingenuous and duplicitous.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

....there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda, as the Bush regime initially said there was. There was no cooperation between them.

..........not only but +

......Abu Musab Zarqawi was operating a camp in an area of Iraq that was under US/UK control. Geographically it was within Iraq but under the jurisdiction of the US/UK. In other words, he was operating right under our noses and the CIA knew it, presented three separate plans to Bush and he passed all three times.

Half right, but still . The camp, operated by the Al Ansar brigade (a group with close ties to Al Qaeda) was in operation PRIOR to the start of the war. We bombed this camp to oblivion about midway into the war, resulting in a couple thousand of these vermin being dispatched to a much worse place. I was very near this area. We weren't sitting there looking at this camp for months saying, "You know, we really should kill these guys one day", we took it out when we were able to do so. And, I might add, we did a damn fine job of getting it done. The result of this slaughter was that the Al Ansar brigade was virtually wiped out, sans the liberals hero Mr Zarqawi.

He initially SAID he wanted to find out everything there was to know about 9/11. What he DID was to provide a Congressional commitee a partial report (remember, he witheld 28 pages of the report he thought they didn't need to see?). Then, he SAID that an independent commitee was a good idea, but, what he DID was stonewall its' creation. He grudgingly allowed it but has, along with other governmental entities (DoJ, DoD, NSC, NSA), stonewalled it by not giving it information it has requested, forcing subpoenas. Then, after SAYING the commitee report should be thorough, what he DID was to initially deny it the additional time it needed because of his stonewalling.

It couldn't be possible that the information he was "stonewalling" was of such a sensitive nature that ongoing intelligence collection ops would have been breeched? No, it couldn't be that.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ahhh, so if the DOD, or the NSA, or the CIA do not open up all classified material then the sitting president is being dishonest? Then he is trying to hide something? How many previous presidents have done the same? What you are really saying is that since he did not turn all things over to a democrat lynch mob he is being dishonest. I say you and the dems are being disingenuous and duplicitous.

Call me what you like. The 'democratic lynch mob' as you call it is nothing of the sort and if you gave a rat's a$$ about what they were doing you'd know that. DoD, NSA or CIA aren't running telling anyone who will listen that they're 100% behind finding the facts. Bush does.

[Tiger Al 0]

It couldn't be possible that the information he was "stonewalling" was of such a sensitive nature that ongoing intelligence collection ops would have been breeched? No, it couldn't be that.

No, it couldn't. All of the members of the commitee and their staffs have the highest security clearance. They pointed this out when they were repeatedly being stonewalled. Republican Thomas Kean , head of the commitee, was very, very upset about this.

[Tigermike 3,426]

Ahhh, so if the DOD, or the NSA, or the CIA do not open up all classified material then the sitting president is being dishonest? Then he is trying to hide something? How many previous presidents have done the same? What you are really saying is that since he did not turn all things over to a democrat lynch mob he is being dishonest. I say you and the dems are being disingenuous and duplicitous.

Call me what you like. The 'democratic lynch mob' as you call it is nothing of the sort and if you gave a rat's a$$ about what they were doing you'd know that. DoD, NSA or CIA aren't running telling anyone who will listen that they're 100% behind finding the facts. Bush does.

I'm so sorry Al, we all know the democrats would never be part of a lynch mob. They would never lye or use sensitive material for their own gain. How cynical of me. Please accept my sincere apology. I forget the left owns the high ground on all issues.

I'm sure that all the dems in the Clinton administration had the highest security clearance as well, while they were pouring over the confidential files of republicans and anyone else who was not on the same boat with them.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ahhh, so if the DOD, or the NSA, or the CIA do not open up all classified material then the sitting president is being dishonest? Then he is trying to hide something? How many previous presidents have done the same? What you are really saying is that since he did not turn all things over to a democrat lynch mob he is being dishonest. I say you and the dems are being disingenuous and duplicitous.

Call me what you like. The 'democratic lynch mob' as you call it is nothing of the sort and if you gave a rat's a$$ about what they were doing you'd know that. DoD, NSA or CIA aren't running telling anyone who will listen that they're 100% behind finding the facts. Bush does.

I'm so sorry Al, we all know the democrats would never be part of a lynch mob. They would never lye or use sensitive material for their own gain. How cynical of me. Please accept my sincere apology. I forget the left owns the high ground on all issues.

I'm sure that all the dems in the Clinton administration had the highest security clearance as well, while they were pouring over the confidential files of republicans and anyone else who was not on the same boat with them.

OK, thanks for the vote of confidence. You are, however, correct in part about a lynch mob. Oddly enough, it's membership is being derived from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee. It seems that they don't appreciate Bush campaigning on their loss or using the WTC rubble for his commercials.

The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage.

"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."

Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission.

"I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11. "But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat."

Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots.

"How heinous is that?" Kleinberg asked. "That's somebody's [loved one]."

Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled.

"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.

But Jennie Farrell, who lost her brother, electrician James Cartier, called the ad "tastefully done," adding: "It speaks to the truth of the times. Sept. 11 ... was something beyond the realm of imagination, and George Bush ... led us through one of the darkest moments in history."

The gauzy, upbeat spots, aimed at shoring up Bush's sagging approval numbers, begin airing today on national cable networks and 50 media markets in 17 states that Bush-Cheney strategists consider electoral battlegrounds.

Two ads, including a Spanish version, show fleeting images of the World Trade Center devastation. The 30-second spots include a poignant image of an American flag fluttering defiantly amid the WTC wreckage.

One, titled "Safer, Stronger," also features a one-second shot of firefighters removing the flag-draped remains of a victim from the twisted debris.

Both ads reinforce the Ground Zero imagery with frontal shots of two firefighters. Unlike the paid actors and actresses in most of the footage, they are not ringers, but their red headgear gives them away as non-New Yorkers. The Bush campaign declined to reveal where the burly smoke-eaters actually work.

Bush officials defended the imagery as totally appropriate.

"9/11 was the defining moment of these times," campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters. "Because of that day, America is at war and still is."

Charging Democratic rival John Kerry with politicizing the attacks by alleging Bush has turned his back on the city, Mehlman added: "The President's never forgotten. It's a central part of his leadership."

The spots, pegged to the theme of "steady leadership in time of change," do not mention Kerry. Instead, their uplifting message hopes to refurbish Bush's battered image after two months of harsh Democratic attacks and a series of missteps by the normally surefooted White House political apparatus.

"We've been off our game for weeks," a senior Bush strategist conceded. "Thank goodness, there's plenty of time to get well, and plenty of grist to chop Kerry down to size."

Furor Over Bush's 9/11 ad

Of course, they probably won't run an ad showing Bush reading "The Pet Goat" while he knew America was under attack. Or the photo-op he hung around for 30 minutes later. :roll: