Breaking Political Stories and Commentary. "We're at the height of the Roman Empire for the Republican Party, but the tide slowly but surely goes out." --Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is probably the deadliest terrorist in Iraq. Analysts think he's responsible for the deaths of thousands. Until recently, his group was apparently acting independently of any larger terrorist organization. A month or two ago he announced that he was now going to start coordinating his actions with al-Qaeda. That's yet another dismal product of the Bush's failed strategy in Iraq: it's actually made al-Qaeda stronger. Iraq had no strong connection to al-Qaeda until Bush blundered in and made one incompetent mistake after another. Even Colin Powell says that we're now losing in Iraq.

So you might think that capturing or killing al-Zarqawi would have been a priority for the Bush administration. Well, no fewer than three times -- between 2002 and the beginning of the war -- the Bush administation passed on opportunities to kill him; opportunities urgently highlighted by the Pentagon. Why did Bush ignore this threat?

It appears that the Bush administration was concerned that if they killed al-Zarqawi, they'd weaken their argument for a claimed connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda -- a important part of the propaganda effort to mislead the Americans into supporting the war (of course, the 9/11 Commission concluded that strong connection never existed in the first place). Furthermore, the Bush administration simply didn't see al-Zarqawi as a major threat... of course, that was thousands of lives ago.

This shows an ongoing pattern of the Bush administration. They've focused on Iraq instead of taking care of the terrorists who really threaten America. The Bush administration was obsessed with Iraq, and has consistently focused on state actors -- such as Iraq -- instead of the diffusely connected terrorists who are the real danger. While Bush was busy recruiting for al-Qaeda through his incompetent handling of the Iraq War, he was consciously choosing to let a dangerous terrorist go free, and downplaying the significance of that terrorist.

Iraq is now a mess, and that terrorist has killed thousands and is still free. Bush is still obsessed with the wrong approach to Iraq -- an approach that has created new enemies and left America weaker -- and the terrorist ignored by Bush is dedicated to killing more Americans.

Comments
on Nov 01, 2004
Your attempt to link the continued existence of Zarqawi to the President is pretty weak Blogic. Your links from the NYT are not very germane and it is likely that he was on a target list long before 9/11. If you want to talk trash about "Failure to kill" lets just examine the methods that Clinton used to destroy UBL's camp. Oh that's right, cruise missiles are not the guaranteed kill. Vague crap from the LAT and it is obvious the writer has been lost looking for his first clue.
on Nov 01, 2004
Hm. Between your left scare tactics, blogic, and deadzombies rightie scare tactics...I might just vote Cobb after all...
on Nov 01, 2004
Dear Blogic,
PFA Logic. Pulled From Air! Not only is this stuff baseless, it's insulting. Of course, the 9 Democrats trying for the nomination were given a free ride by Dan Rather and his ilk. They called Our Commander and Chief every name in the book for over a year. Were they ever challenged?

It would be grossly unfair for me to call you names. And if I did, you'd be right in challenging my every word.

Look around a little bit. The war in Afganastan could not have been better run. Sure the enemy got a vote in Iraq, but overall it's been incredibly successful. 5 Days after Hussain was pulled from his rat hole Libia gave up their long terrorist weponds and camps. Kennedy's little invasion of Cuba lost as many men as we've lost in Irag. On Iwo we lost over 1,000 men per day for over two weeks. After WWII terrorist bombs continued for five years. We have found 75,000 ammo dumps in Iraq so far. One dump is the size of Rhode Island. 400,000 tons of weapons have been destroyed thus far. Read the 911 commission report, it's terrific! Read Tommy Frank's book, or do the facts scare you? How about David Kay's report to the UN? He stares that though we did not find WMDs, we found all of the parts ready to be put together. Tell a cop who stops you that you didn't have a gun even though all of the parts were on the seat next to you; see what he says and does.

READ! Use credible sources. Logic without solid facts is worthless.
on Nov 01, 2004
Hm. Between your left scare tactics, blogic, and deadzombies rightie scare tactics...I might just vote Cobb after all...


OMG, OMG, somebody slap me hard I must be dreaming!!

Zarqawi is one dangerous bastard but without any man to command he is a lonely bastard who would not sacrifice his life in the way his men would, just like his mentor Bin Laden.

OMG PLINKO!!
on Nov 01, 2004
"Hm. Between your left scare tactics, blogic, and deadzombies rightie scare tactics...I might just vote Cobb after all..."

Thanks for your comment Myrrander,

Two responses come to mind:

(1) If you decide how you vote based on the tactics of two random writers at JoeUser, you may want to come up with a new way of deciding your votes.

(2) You can make generic attacks -- "your left scare tactics" -- or you can disprove the linked article. The facts cited above are accurate, and well documented. The opinions I throw in are my opinions, of course, but certainly you've written articles voicing similar views. If you're going to disagree with well documented facts, show me your evidence. And if you're going to disagree with yourself, will the real Myrrander please stand up?

I enjoy your posts and your comments, but if you disagree with my post, it's more helpful to me if you back it up. Maybe you could show me you're right, and I might even change my mind. It wouldn't be the first time.

I think the most useful conversations at JoeUser are the one where people actually make arguments, instead of posting empty dismissals of other views. You're particularly good at making substantive arguments, so I always look forward to your comments.
on Nov 01, 2004
Let me get this straight: You cite an article which claims an anonymous source says that Powell's friends are saying that Powell is saying. And that equals "Even Powell says"? Your logic is more convoluted & irrational than even I imagined.

The expected leftist final pre-election onslaught is in full swing, even here at JU.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Nov 16, 2004
"you might think that capturing or killing al-Zarqawi would have been a priority for the Bush administration. Well, no fewer than three times -- between 2002 and the beginning of the war -- the Bush administation passed on opportunities to kill him; opportunities urgently highlighted by the Pentagon. Why did Bush ignore this threat?"

Good question and one I have been asking for 2 years now. It's a little bit strange that Zarqawi's base was in the Kurdish controlled north of Iraq which was inaccessible to Saddam's regime and that it was TOTALLY accessible to U.S. and British warplanes for YEARS as they were enforcing a "no fly" zone in that area. Why wasn't Zarqawi's base bombed prior to the Iraqi invasion? No one seems to have an answer to that question. Even Powell, when asked during a Senate Committee hearing, didn't have an answer.

Where have you been lately blogic? Haven't seen you around my blog lately!
Meta
Views
» 350
Comments
» 7
Category
Sponsored Links