Proof Al Quada in Iraq in June 2002

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,315
    Likes Received:
    561
    Here is the Link and the story......

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


    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.

    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.

    ‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’

    “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.

    In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

    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.

    The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

    And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here is the proof in the pudding that Al Quada was in Iraq like the
    president and government said.

    Its not all good news for Bush if this is true that we could've captured or killed him in Iraq but the president was more interested in getting Sadaam out of power.

    One could argue that we needed to get rid of Saddam so terrorists would no longer be in Iraq. (hopefully)

    But why not get Abu Musab Zarqawi first?

    George Bush Why?
     
  2. ColonelHapablap

    ColonelHapablap Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because the left in this country was demanding a coalition. God forbid we defend our freaking country on our own. Political pressure won out over common sense. Thank you democrat party for playing politics with my security!
     
  3. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    I doubt any Democrats were even allowed a look at this intelligence. And the Bush Administration wanted a coalition as well.

    If true, then they held off on Zarqawi's facility because they didn't want to jeopardize their chances of being able to eliminate Saddam Hussein and liberate Iraq by jumping the gun on attacks in the country. This question has similarities to the debates that have raged since the end of World War II about why the Allies did not directly attack the concentration camps even though they had a pretty good idea about what was going on inside them. They did not want to divert any resources from the main war effort and believed that the best way to end the problem was to win the war. Similarly, the White House may have believed they would be in a better position to deal with Zarqawi and his group once we were on the ground and in control in Iraq. The issue could've gone either way. Bombing Zarqawi's camp probably wouldn't have had an impact one way or another on how things played out, with the notable exception that insurgent resistance in Iraq would be significantly weaker without this guy. Hindsight is always 20/20 however, and the White House was probably thinking the payoff of UN approval was still possible.
     
  4. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1
    Before the Iraqi invasion by Bush, it has been repeated over and over in the news media that there were many parts of northern Iraq that was under the administrative control of the Kurds and Saddam has no control over these areas at all.

    In a certain area near the Iraq-Iran border not under Saddam's control, a group of rebel Kurds, who were religious fanatics, and were hostile to their own Kurdish "government," had invited certain radical militant terrorist elements to base there. Supposedly some of these groups were Al Qaida members.

    There is nothing to indicate that Al Qaida and Saddam were allied before the war. All evidence indicates that the two were in fact antagonists.

    We have been over this several times already. It just goes to show that the right wingers will lie over and over to defend Bush's actions in Iraq.
     
  5. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,315
    Likes Received:
    561
    I never thought we'd agree on anything but I think you are probably right with the first part of your post.

    You say we've been over it already?

    I thought there was an arguement around here were you were
    saying there wasn't any Al Quada in Iraq before the war.

    I don't care if Sadaam and Al Quada were linked or not but Al Quada in Iraq is reason enough for me for the war.

    However, I'm not defending Bush here.................

    He should've sent special forces in to capture or kill these Al Quada members IMO.

    I don't understand why we didn't like other operations we do and
    sweep under the rug.

    So you see I didn't defend Bush........
     
  6. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,988
    Yeah, but Cottonbowel will say you voted for David Duke even though you don't live in Louisiana.

    :cry:
     

Share This Page