Bush and Condi nixed three chances to capture/kill Zarqawi.

[BlueStateGirl]

Wonder why? Wonder if this will get as much play as the Clinton/Bin Laden lie.

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

[pacifictiger]

1. sounds like they may have been hoping for a way to

tie him to orders from Saddam. Bush gambled and lost. Either that or sustained chaos means more money for the corporate military suppliers.

[WLKjr]

2. Using them

as political pawns. It's that simple. Sit on it and think, if you have no enemys to fight and you are a fighter, what would you do? thats right, NOTHING. Go back to before 9/11, remember, nothing was comming out of that administration.

Without a Bin Laden or Hussein, what is Bush? that's right. NOTHING.

[calimary]

3. Either that, or more simply -

you put contradicta in charge of something, and she'll fall asleep right on top of it!

[killbotfactory]

4. If they captured him...

Then they wouldn't be able to say "Al-Qaeda" and "Iraq" so many times in the run up to war.

[Killarney]

5. This pisses me off so much!

How ANYONE could read this article and still say Bush is tough on terrorism is BULLSHIT. All he wanted was Saddam. That's it.

They AVOIDED getting the real fucking terrorists because it may hurt their case for war against Saddam.

ALL HE WANTED THE ENTIRE TIME WAS SADDAM. ARGH! Why can't the Bush-supporters see this? He is not tough on terror. Not one bit.

:argh:

[pacifictiger]

6. it wasn't just the revenge motive against saddam,

saddam stood in the way of access to oil.

[alfredo]

7. No,we were getting Saddam's oil.

It was just laundered through third parties. We didn't want to buy it, we wanted to control it and use it to increase our power and reach.