Comments on: Why not Zarqawi ?

By: blar

blar — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:30:36 +0000

John, your first footnote seems to merit more than an “aside”. Would you care to elaborate in the comments or in another post?

By: legion

legion — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:08:13 +0000

“The Administration’s hesitance to act on questionable intell in this case seems positively Clintonesque, in the perjorative sense so favored by GOPers these days as they deride the “Sept. 10th” mentality of the “Liberals.” ”—- Mason, It holds even less water than that… As I understand the reporting, they knew it was a terrorist training camp, they knew it was active… the only intel that was “questionable” was whether or not Zarqawi was actually on the premises that day. Which means the lie behind not attacking the camp is even more (or is that less) half-assed than usual.

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:41:04 +0000

“Going after Saddam was much more important to Bush than going after Zarqawi. It’s that simple. ” Exactly – if the war had taken place with Turkish cooperation and had taken place months earlier, then, I suspect that the Baathists and Jihadiis would have had less time and ability to organize and smuggle explosives in and out of the country. So given that it was always more likely that any strike against Zaqawi would be successful once they had forces on the ground in Kurdistan, on balance the decision to wait looks to have been the right one. NB when did “Clinton’s failed attempt on bin Laden” take place – didn’t he hold back – for similar sorts of reasons – namely that a probably unsuccessful attack was not worth it?

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:28:51 +0000

Powell has been treated shamefully by this administration, trotted out as the organ-grinder’s monkey at the United Nations to beat his drum in the cause of war. Yep…and if he had the tiniest shred of personal integrity, he would have walked out several years ago. The fact that he hasn’t leads me to the inescapable conclusion that organ-grinder’s monkey is a role he’s quite comfortable with, if it suits his long-term political ambitions.

By: jet

jet — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:55:22 +0000

Neither one of the administration’s arguements make any sense. The Kurds had made clear that they would assult the fortress if the walls were bombed. A Kurdish general interviewed made it clear that their were only a small number garrisoned in the base and the Kurds had more than enough men to take it, if they could gain entrance. But if you ever saw footage of that base, you’d understand why they would not attack while the walls stood. The second point is even weaker. They are argueing that they didn’t strike a nest of terrorists because it might not kill the leader. What, were we running short on bombs? Didn’t have enough jet fuel? Low level Al-Queda so numerous they’re just not worth killing anymore? There must be some crazy CIA-Iranian-Turkish-Space Alien connection with that place, or Bush and CO screwed up big-big.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:40:55 +0000

Powell has been treated shamefully by this administration, trotted out as the organ-grinder’s monkey at the United Nations to beat his drum in the cause of war. His State Department generated a plan for the occupation of Iraq which was tossed aside by the impatient Pentagon invasion team which admitted no impediments to its impetuous pipe dream of easy victory. In this mix, al-Zarqawi simply did not figure. At the time that this lunatic adventure was launched, the only devil was “Sodom” Hussein. Now we worry about who’ll be “Gomorrah” tomorrow.

By: d mason

d mason — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:09:11 +0000

“The second point relates to intelligence. Defenders of the Administration’s position have made much of the fact that they didn’t know for sure whether Zarqawi was there1, but this hasn’t stopped previous attacks on terrorist leaders, some of which have been successful and others not. ” The Administration’s hesitance to act on questionable intell in this case seems positively Clintonesque, in the perjorative sense so favored by GOPers these days as they deride the “Sept. 10th” mentality of the “Liberals.” Geez.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:05:01 +0000

“But (with the possible exception of Powell) I’m sure they also knew the intelligence they were peddling was worthless.” Huh? Why in the world would you exempt Powell? Just because you like him? It isn’t as if he were a low-level flunky.