Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NBC - (Bush) Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 10:54 PM
Original message
NBC - (Bush) Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Apologies if this is a dupe. Didn't see it anywhere...

With Tuesdays attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.
<snip>

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawis operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

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


So basically... we had the chance to kill a terrorist, and we didn't... because it could hurt the war in Iraq.

Man, Bush has just got to GO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. First things first
Get the oil, THEN defend our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. i remember now about that story about the terror
camp in northern iraq.there never was an explanation on why it was never attacked,now we know why. each new revelation points to the fact that bush and his handlers are incompetent. the military must really hate these guys....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. .
The thing I really like about this story is that all along we've been saying that the war in iraq has distracted from the war on terror. However, most of the proof of this has been indirect and circumstantial. This is the first I've heard of a report where a specific decision was affected in this way. I think this is big freakin' news. The bastard killed 140 innocent people today. There isn't any complex connect-the-dots with this story. Three paragraphs says it all. I'm just surprised as hell that this came from NBC!

-y
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CShine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. So what you're saying is..........
"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." - from the article

So judging from this paragraph, what they're saying is:
1. There were al-Qaida in Iraq in 2002
2. There was WMD in Iraq in 2002 (with al-Qaida, I might add)
3. You think Bush should have acted unilaterally on this.

I'm getting this straight, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Not sure what you mean...
Edited on Tue Mar-02-04 11:17 PM by yibbehobba
>1. There were al-Qaida in Iraq in 2002

So it would seem, if this article is to be believed. It would appear that they were in northern Iraq, and in no way connected to Saddam, though, so that really has no bearing on Bush's idiotic Saddam-terrorism link gibberish.

>2. There was WMD in Iraq in 2002 (with al-Qaida, I might add)

Well, it's not like ricin and cyanide are hard to make.

>3. You think Bush should have acted unilaterally on this.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. If we:
a) knew there was a terrorist training camp in iraq

We should have

b) BLOWN IT THE HELL UP.

I'm assuming by the tone in your post that you would have done otherwise, but maybe I'm incorrect. Good post, by the way.

-y

:)

(edit: clarification)
(edit: correct grammar mistake from previous edit)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CShine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Got a confession to make.........
I'm CShine's brother, and he probably won't like it if he finds out I was doing this. Anyway, I was trying to get in a dig w/o being especially inflammatory. I should just go away though. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Nice...
That should give him some entertainment when he gets back.

I've found that the definition of "inflammatory" in this board is... rather broad.

-y
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Get yourself a handle and join in.
I wondered why they never attacked that site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Aw damn, I take ONE day away from the TV and computer .....
Look what I've missed! Soooooooooooo, are you saying Bush KNOWS who's been bombing the crap outta Iraq all this time?

Are you saying that the camp in Northern Iraq wasn't demolished a long time ago? Details,...........I need details...
thanks :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Let me chime in for a minute
If Bush had attacked the camp he, he would have been forced to admit that it was in an area NOT UNDER SADDAM'S CONTROL and that would have precluded his reasons (at least one of them) for invading Iraq.


So what do we have here?

a. Violation of his own policy of pre-emptive strikes against terrorist facilities.
b. Hard evidence that attacking Iraq was more important than intercepting a known terrorist.
c. The camp in question wasn't hit until late in the invasion; it wasn't even a prime target. ( Somebody check me on this but isn't this the same camp that the Kurds finally took with our air power?)

Those things have to be true for events to have unfolded in the manner they did......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. lest we forget...
Edited on Wed Mar-03-04 12:12 AM by yibbehobba
Don't forget:

d) 140 innocent Shiites dead

This guy is trying to foment a civil war. Think of it... With Iraq in chaos, al Qaeda will have a new home-away-from-home. They will be able to hide in the cities without fear of reprisals from the US (you don't really think we'd stick around in the middle of a civil war, do you?)
Think of all that lovely weaponry laying around Iraq, ripe for the taking. Make no mistake about it - al Qaeda wants Iraq. And by his incompetence and short-sightedness, George W. Bush is helping them get it.

(on edit)
Not to mention Iran... With Shiite Iraq in chaos, what will Iran do, especially if we must pull out? What if it spreads? This could all be very, very bad. Expect more 140+ casualty days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
39. IN Iraq
That covers a whole lot of ground. Especially since Zarqawi was in the "No-Fly Zone" and out of Saddam's reach.

Very good read you made there though.

Get a handle and join in. THAT is the way to stir the pot around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
8. I just sent it out to everyone on my e-mail list.
Bush and his administration must be impeached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. No kidding, only trouble is, the bulk of the Congress is on his side
How can he be impeached otherwise, clues??

I'm thinking he should at LEAST be sued all to hell for incompetence and criminal activity etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. If they see their association with bush as a negative to the voters.
If he becomes a liability, they will turn on him in the blink of an eye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Then I'm down on my knees praying for that ...lol n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Can't run fast on your knees.
Bush's negatives are already bad.

Two things I heard, Kerry is at his best when under pressure.

Bush is not good when backed into a corner.

Make everyone aware of that article. Get the word out.
that is dynamite news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Will do ...thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. He certainly is incompetent
It is time to email our representatives and senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Is anyone close to Kerry or his campaign?
Edited on Wed Mar-03-04 02:03 AM by oldcoot
It might be a good idea to share this story with Kerry and his staff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Not being picked up in nat'l media
Ok, this was on the freakin' televised NBC NIGHTLY NEWS and AP hasn't even me-too'ed it yet. What's up with that? Haven't even seen it in any of the usual places where things like this show up on the net. Quite frankly, I don't understand how I got first post on this. It was after 8:00 PM pacific time when I posted, and to me this seems like one of the biggest stories from the war so far. (That is, if it's confirmed somehow)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Good find
It is an important story. I am surprised that MS NBC reported this story before a British or Australian paper did. Usually, it takes a while for our "free" press to print the really damning stories about the Bush administration. I am glad that NBC appears to have a few real reporters and I am happy you found this story and shared it with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
16. I've always known this "war on terrorism" is a total f***ing sham
but it is still so very painful to actually see proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Yup
Not only is it bad on a basic Bush-chooses-Iraq-over-terror level, but *now* it's impacting the Iraq situation in a very real and tangible way, on a daily basis. What a massive screw-up.

-y
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demonaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
18. my god
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Terrorists in Northern Iraq Were Operating Under Our Protection
That part of Iraq was outside of Saddam's control
BECAUSE OUR MILITARY CONTROLLED THE AREA ALL ALONG.
It was the "no-fly" zone, constantly patrolled by
US aircraft, who would destroy any Iraqi forces who
tried to enter. If Al-Quaida had such a major
installation there, could it really have escaped
our notice?

Bushco doesn't want to destroy Al-Quaida,
they are far too useful to them.

Noone who becomes an "asset"
ever stops being an "asset"
until they're dead,
and perhaps not even then.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Bingo! You win the prize
That's it. Terrorists were operating UNDER OUR PROTECTION so that Bushco could INVADE IRAQ.

If that isn't treasonous, what is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
25. Bushco trades national security for political gain
isn't that enough reason to throw him in jail?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 05:12 AM
Response to Original message
28. Good golly this is a bombshell!!
<People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the presidents policy of preemption against terrorists, according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.>

.... I yahooed and googled and this is the only place that has this story as of 6:00 am!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thucydides Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
29. Does this also substantiate Joe Wilson's claim that his wife was
outed as a CIA operative for political gain?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #29
38. No
This story provides additional evidence that the "hawks" in the Bush administration were so focused on Hussein that nothing else mattered, including fighting terrorists. However, since they are willing to sacrifice our safety to get Hussein, I can easily imagine what they would do to Wilson. He had the "nerve" to publicly contradict one of their claims and interfere with their plans. Of course, they wanted to punish him. Clearly, these people have no sense of honor or decency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
30. Just a bump...this story is too important
If this report is based on fact, it seems that for the White House the Iraq War, which at that time was based on destroying WMDs and terrorist ties, was more important than destroying WMDs and terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiechiken Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
31. I ran across this article from The Guardian dated 08/23/2002 ...
And I'm curious ... Would this be the same "camp" as the one in the current MSNBC article? Or a different one? I don't see any specific mention of Abu Musab Zarqawi, but I'm not sure how many "camps" were found in Northern Iraq ... anyone else know?



Al-Qaida running new terror camp, say Kurds

Michael Howard in Halabjah, Iraqi Kurdistan and Julian Borger in Washington
Friday August 23, 2002


<snip>

It was reported this week that the Bush administration contemplated a covert strike on Ansar-controlled territory because it suspected al-Qaida had set up a laboratory there to experiment with chemical or biological weapons. But US analysts decided that whatever al-Qaida was up to was too rudimentary to pose a direct threat and was not worth risking American lives for.

Nevertheless, Washington hawks arguing for an invasion of Iraq have seized on the allegations of an al-Qaida presence as evidence of a link between President Saddam, Osama bin Laden and September 11. The PUK claims have drawn scepticism because of the group's interest in drawing the US into a conflict with Baghdad. But Guardian interviews with captured Ansar members appear to confirm the al-Qaida presence and a limited, indirect connection to Baghdad. Iraqi agents have also been seen in Ansar villages.

It is in Baghdad's interest to exploit Ansar as a destabilising force in the north, but the evidence the US is looking for - a conclusive link between Baghdad and al-Qaida - is proving elusive.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mumon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
32. Remember the 'NO FLY' Zone???????????????
That's where Zarqawi was!

The only places where there were "terrorists" in Iraq is where Saddam had no sway!

Bush, Rumsfeld, and all the assholes underthem that made this policy must be forced to resign. Immediately.

Let's give 'em all safe passage to Morocco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamesinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
33. Once again, Bush lied and people died
I will e-mail this one to everybody. I will leave this in the break room at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
34. Imus just chatted with Jim Mik on his show...
wtf? Jim Mik has obviously flipped his position on bush*. He used to be such a ho. I wonder how long it will last.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arlib Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
35. Kick.....
....we need to keep this story visible.
Extremely important imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
36. Sounds like 9/11. Standing down security for a bigger 'victory.' n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Athame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-04 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
37. They have to build up a new villain
since they are about to play the Osama card. Can't kill Abu Musab Zarqawi off too soon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC