Has anyone from the liberal media ever asked Bush about killing Zarqawi?

[buycitgo]

like the three times he supposedly he had the go ahead from CIA or whomever to bomb the camps in the North, but didn't cause it would take the air out of the upcoming invasion rationale?

that story is old news here, but not in the MSM. Case in point: last night, CBS did a fairly long, for Nightly News programs, segment on him, but, of course, did not mention those three proposed bombing missions, which makes me wonder if the subject has ever been broached to somebody like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Powell, or anyone else that comes to mind. I'd be very surprised if any brave journalist would have the nerve to ask his Chimperial Hugeness such an insolent question.

Anybody know?

[buycitgo]

1. oh yeah, reason I thought of this is that the bowtied Tuckhead

tried to get Rahm Emanuel to explain why Kerry won't say if he wants Al Sadr KILLED!

anybody see that on Crossfire?

WHY don't the dems throw the three time loser question out there for the pugs to answer? I've never seen it mentioned on TV

[colonel odis]

2. emailed hardball about it yesterday. no reply. (surprise!)

thought since nbc had reported it in march, they wouldn't be as chicken to say anything about the story.

silly me.

matthews is becoming more of a p*ssy every day.

[buycitgo]

4. funny you should mention HARDBALL! they know ALL ABOUT IT!

EDIT: just read your header. didn't see your mention of what you are probably referring to.....

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

for at least six MONTHS!

dig it, from March 2:

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.

HOW MANY HUNDRED MORE SINCE MARCH?????!!!!!!!!!

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.

[colonel odis]

5. sorry. i wasn't clear at all.

yesterday i emailed hardball and referenced that nbc had reported the story back in march. sort of asked them why they were too chicken to report it, too.

given the way the righties have whined about clinton allegedly letting osama get away, a revelation like this is sickening. bush has let osama and zarqawi both go free.

[buycitgo]

6. you were clear....I didn't read the rest of your post.....I was skipping

back and forth from this blog (brad delong), which had a bunch of links:

The Strange Survival of Ansar al-Islam's Base in Northern Iraq
I'm going to be literally, physically sick. From Kevin Drum:

TOUGH ON TERROR?... A year ago Dan Drezner asked a question: since we knew at the time that (a) Abu Musab Zarqawi and the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam was connected to al-Qaeda, (b) they had camps in the Halabja Valley in northern Iraq, and (c) the area in question was in the American-patrolled no-fly zone and not under Saddam Hussein's control, why not mount an attack on it?

*Given the obvious link between achieving this objective and the war on terror, and given the assertions by France and others that credible evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda would justify use of force, would the Security Council be willing to approve U.S. military action in this area?... This would be an excellent test of where exactly the French and Germans stand. Is their opposition to Iraq based on a blind determination to counter U.S. power, or is there some nuance to their stance?

Unfortunately, it turns out it wasn't France and Germany we had to worry about. It was George Bush:

*In June 2002... the Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp ... 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.... 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.

Unlike Saddam, Zarqawi really was developing poisons such as ricin and cyanide for use in terrorist attacks in the West and elsewhere. But we hesitated to take action because destroying the Ansar al-Islam camps might have been inconvenient for George Bush's speechwriters.

Zarqawi has reportedly killed at least 700 people since then. But it might be many more. We will probably never know for sure how many people died at his hands because of George Bush's uncertainty in the face of danger.

Excuse me. Back from the toilet.

"But the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

If this is true.... Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Try the Bush National Security Council principals for high treason. Do it now.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000428.html

interesting discussion ensued after the above post

[buycitgo]

3. you know the story....the details are at least eighteen months OLD

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A12762-2003Mar11¬Found=true

Kurds had been in conflict with the Al Ansarists in this remote region, and many had moved away, EXPECTING massive US bombing, combined with assaults by various combinations of troops, including Kurds themselves, who have been exchanging fire with them....this is all in the article

and we KNEW he was there:

The role of the Arabs within Ansar remains murky. Kurdish officials and some prisoners maintain the new arrivals call the shots from behind the scenes, though the vast majority of Ansar's fighters are Kurds.

"The attitude of some of them is as leaders," said a man who recently moved from his home on the edge of Ansar territory, fearing U.S. airstrikes. "The people are afraid to ask them their origins."

Powell singled out a Jordanian visitor, Abu Musab Zarqawi, as the al Qaeda lieutenant who organized the assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan in October. Kurdish officials, after first expressing surprise at the allegation, concluded they knew Zarqawi by an alias. They said that before disappearing, he also organized an attempt on the life of Salih, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan's prime minister.


so, Powell was very well aware of his presence. has anybody ever asked HIM why they didn't do what the Kurds thought we were going to do?

[creeksneakers2]

7. The DNC put the story out on the web again

Once again, no takers in the media. It will probably take Kerry to push this onto the map. The only guess I can come up with for why they aren't running it, other than RW bias in the media, is that one of the sources, Cressey, is under contract with NBC News and maybe they won't share him. If that's true, the White House could just say its classified and refuse to respond.

Seems easy to get at it though, if Kerry would ask why Zarqawi wasn't attacked and ask if there were plans.

U.S forces could catch Zarqawi any time and Bush will look like a hero. Kerry ought to at least muddy it up fast. Better yet, Kerry should pound this story, and what it means about Bush.

[buycitgo]

8. couldn't agree more, and it's very frustrating, from the standpoint

that the media won't touch this, AND that the DEMS won't either!

KERRY, I said KERRY, should have been trumpeting this from the heavens since March, at the very latest?

what are they THINKING of? this should have been one of the CORNERSTONES of his attack on Bush's mishandling of the WOT/War in Iraq/War on Competence/War on Truth

[buycitgo]

9. CBS talking about Zarqawi again.....his use of ricin, other poisons

how he might use them again

how his network is spreading to EUROPE, with lots and lots of new recruits coming in every day

could be slipping in and out or Iraq, and could be slipping out to take his WAR TO THE WEST!

ooooohhhhhhh..........Scarrrry!

no mention of failing to bomb his camp--again

I missed the beginning, though

anybody see the whole thing?