Need proof Bush didn't kill terrorist so he'd have excuse to invade Iraq

[gWbush is Mabus]

please help. thanks.

[redqueen]

1. Lots of links here

And a good amount of background/context as well!

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052204.shtml

(snip)

Miklaszewski’s report concerned Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, “a Jordanian militant with ties to al Qaeda.” Zarqawi was being linked that day to a series of suicide attacks in Iraq–attacks which killed more than 140 people–and Tom Brokaw made a surprising claim when he introduced Miklaszewski’s report. “The Bush administration apparently passed up several opportunities to take out well before the Iraq war began,” Brokaw said. This claim was striking back on March 2, and would seem to be only more newsworthy now. After all, Zarqawi achieved his greatest fame in this country just two weeks ago, when it was widely asserted that he had beheaded American businessman Nicholas Berg.

But why was Zarqawi still walking around at the time of Berg’s murder? According to Miklaszewski, the Bush Admin had Zarqawi in its sights before the war, but kept deciding not to attack. The story began in June 2002. “Intelligence revealed that Zarqawi and members of al Qaeda had set up a weapons lab at Kirma in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide,” Miklaszewski reported. “The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp and sent them to the White House, where, say government sources, the plans were debated to death.” Four months later, it happened again. “The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan,” Miklaszewski said, “and the White House again killed it.” And then, shortly before the war began, it happened for the third time:

(snip)

Why had the Bush Admin failed to attack? This was the most striking part of the story. According to Miklaszewski, “the administration feared that destroying the terrorist camp inside Iraq could undercut its case for going to war against Saddam.” In a May 14 http://slate.msn.com//id/2100549/">Slate report, Fred Kaplan fleshed out Miklaszewski’s statement:

KAPLAN: he problem, from Bush’s perspective, was that this was the only tangible evidence of terrorists in Iraq...The camp was in an area of Iraq that Saddam didn’t control. But never mind, it was something. To wipe it out ahead of time might lead some people—in Congress, the United Nations, and the American public—to conclude that Saddam’s links to terrorists were finished, that maybe the war wasn’t necessary. So Bush let it be.

much much more MUST READ stuff...



Have I mentioned today how much I love Bob Somerby?

:loveya:

[Katherine2]

3. I love the Daily Howler

and Bob Somerby too.

[Redleg]

2. I believe there is a Newsweek article

showing that Bush didn't go after Zarqawi in Northern Iraq because getting him might undermined the "need" to invade Iraq. I don't remember which issue.

[redqueen]

4. MSNBC and Slate articles are linked above

:kick: