Must read - Stop blaming your henchmen, Mr. President.

[Mixxster]

I'm sorry if this is a dup. I did a search and it didn't come up. I can't believe no one has posted this at DU but it's important so here goes.


The Buck Stops … Where?
Stop blaming your henchmen, Mr. President.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, May 14, 2004, at 2:41 PM PT

<snip>

The second news story that heaves more burdens on the president comes from an NBC News broadcast by Jim Miklaszewski on March 2. Apparently, Bush had three opportunities, long before the war, to destroy a terrorist camp in northern Iraq run by Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al-Qaida associate who recently cut off the head of Nicholas Berg. But the White House decided not to carry out the attack because, as the story puts it:

(T)he administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The implications of this are more shocking, in their way, than the news from Abu Ghraib. Bush promoted the invasion of Iraq as a vital battle in the war on terrorism, a continuation of our response to 9/11. Here was a chance to wipe out a high-ranking terrorist. And Bush didn't take advantage of it because doing so might also wipe out a rationale for invasion.

The story gets worse in its details. As far back as June 2002, U.S. intelligence reported that Zarqawi had set up a weapons lab at Kirma in northern Iraq that was capable of producing ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon drew up an attack plan involving cruise missiles and smart bombs. The White House turned it down. In October 2002, intelligence reported that Zarqawi was preparing to use his bio-weapons in Europe. The Pentagon drew up another attack plan. The White House again demurred. In January 2003, police in London arrested terrorist suspects connected to the camp. The Pentagon devised another attack plan. Again, the White House killed the plan, not Zarqawi. When the war finally started in March, the camp was attacked early on. But by that time, Zarqawi and his followers had departed.

<snip>

In the two years since the Pentagon's first attack plan, Zarqawi has been linked not just to Berg's execution but, according to NBC, 700 other killings in Iraq. If Bush had carried out that attack back in June 2002, the killings might not have happened. More: The case for war (as the White House feared) might not have seemed so compelling. Indeed, the war itself might not have happened.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100549/#ContinueArticle

[tom_paine]

1. Link, we need a LINK!

Help?

[tom_paine]

2. Here it is...LINK

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100549/

Great article!

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

3. Link

nevermind...someone else beat me to it.

Fantastic article, though. And a perfect foil to the whole "Clinton was offered Bin Laden three times!" lie.

[Mixxster]

4. Sorry, I forgot.

When I came back to add it, you'd already posted.

[lovedems]

5. Hmmm.....So we can't let those pesky little terrorists get in the way of

our "War On Terror"? Hmmm..."War on evil dictators" just doesn't quite sound right.

I am sure this will somehow turn out to be Clinton's fault.

[carolinayellowdog]

6. Failure to get Zarqawi is the ultimate Achilles heel for *

and we desperately need some high profile Dems to start banging the drum on this issue.

[radfringe]

7. it's the NOT MY FAULT mis-administration

takes no responsibility, blames everything on someone else (mostly on Clinton) and has plenty of lackeys willing to fall on their swords

after the ENRON mess exploded, bush* gave a speech and Oparaphrased)called for accountability -- he also said that the actions of people are set by the leaders

soooo -- if he is our 'leader' where is the accountability and responsibility? where is the 'role model' for accountability and responsibility?