White House passed on opportunities to take out Zarqawi???

2004-08-05T20:45:00.000-05:00

sharing an email I recently sent to Chris Matthews...no response which was no huge surprise given the volume of correspondence his staff must receive, but I remain perplexed re the specific question I raised re Kaplan story that depicted the White House passing on several opportunities to take out Zarqawi prior to going to war in Iraq...what happened to this story?.....I 've never seen any other discussion of it...was it completely unfounded and thus dismissed?....what gives here? ...if it's true, I would think the implications of this inaction would be front page news....can anyone enlighten me?

Dear Chris,

I’m a real fan of you and your work. Your shows, in my estimation, are one of the few venues where a person can truly get “fair and balanced” reporting and commentary. I’ve written numerous times in the past and received no response which is understandable given the volume of correspondence you must receive. Today I just wanted to share a few thoughts on the mess that Bush and his neo-con cronies have gotten our country into in Iraq. As a citizen, I am outraged that America under Bush’s leadership chose to go war when there was not an eminent threat to our security or vital interests. In fact, from my vantage point, this preemptive adventure has increased the threat of terrorism worldwide; further tarnished our reputation and destroyed any claim we may have ever had to a “moral high ground”; increased the hate and mistrust of the U. S. internationally and, in particular, in the Middle East and unwisely diverted our attention and squandered our resources so desperately needed for an effective, long term response to the threat of terror. I am heartbroken as I contemplate the loss of so many young lives and the countless others that have been maimed and/or scarred for life. My son Luke (Army/Infantry/Airborne) is currently stationed in S. Korea and almost certainly will face a tour of duty in Iraq in the near future and I can’t even fathom the sadness I’ll be faced with if he comes to harm there. Not even enough time to begin commenting on the arrogance reflected in the decision to ignore the advice of the experts/career military professionals in the know who argued against this venture and the terrible price that has been paid for the poor planning and mismanagement of this conflict by the DOD civilians.

I’ve followed events through a number of mediums including your shows and MSN Slate. On 5/14/04, Fred Kaplan posted a column in his “War Stories” feature which intrigues me. In this piece he recounted the story apparently first reported by Jim Miklaszewski in a NBC news broadcast re to the fact that the current administration had three opportunities to take out Abu Musab Zarqawi prior to the war and chose not to. Interesting both in terms of the political calculations that may have been in play (to not prematurely eliminate he and his followers and their camp because it would weaken the rationale for moving against Iraq) when the White House demurred on these Pentagon requests and also in light of the relentless attacks that have been made on Clinton and his administration by the far right re his actions or inaction re to Bin Laden. I’m perplexed why I haven't heard more about this story via the mainstream media. Were there problems verifying the accuracy of the story or do the people that report the news just not get it? If the story is accurate the citizens of this country certainly need to hear it. The implications are astounding, particularly given the pivotal role that this vermin and his followers have played in any number of vile acts over the past year.
Well, I set out with the goal of keeping this short so it wouldn’t get summarily dismissed due to its length and I got wound up…and so I will close with my heartfelt thanks to you and your team for the incredible job you do of enlightening your viewers with your thoughtful shows.

bjw

The Kaplan article I referenced follows:

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

And so it seems I, too, have misunderestimated the president. This past Wednesday, I wrote a column holding George W. Bush responsible for our recent disasters--the torture at Abu Ghraib and the whole plethora of strategic errors in Iraq. My main argument was that Bush has placed too much trust, for far too long, in the judgment of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, despite his ceaseless string of bad judgments.
However, two news stories that have since come to my attention--one that appeared on the same day, the other more than two months ago-- suggest not merely that Bush is guilty of "failing to recognize failure" (as my headline put it) but that he is directly culpable for the sins in question, no less so than his properly beleaguered defense chief. The first story, written by Mark Matthews in the May 12 Baltimore Sun, quotes Secretary of State Colin Powell on the record as saying Bush knew about the International Committee of the Red Cross reports that were filed many months ago about the savagery at the prison. Powell is quoted as saying: We kept the president informed of the concerns that were raised by the ICRC and other international organizations as part of my regular briefings of the president, and advised him that we had to follow these issues, and when we got notes sent to us or reports sent to us ¦ we had to respond to them. Powell adds that he, Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice kept Bush "fully informed of the concerns that were being expressed, not in specific details but in general terms." (Thanks to Joshua Micah Marshall, whose blog alerted me to the Sun story.)
So much for Rumsfeld's protective claim, at last week's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that he had failed to bring the matter to the president's attention. No wonder Bush, in turn, rode out to the Pentagon and praised his servant-secretary for doing a "superb" job. It's amazing, by the way, how Colin Powell seems to have scuttled his good-soldier routine altogether, criticizing his president at first quasi-anonymously (through Bob Woodward's new book), then through close aides (Wil Hylton's GQ article), and now straight up in the Baltimore Sun. One wonders when he'll go all the way and start making campaign appearances for John Kerry.
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 [that] 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, theWhite 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. This camp was in the Kurdish enclave of Iraq. The U.S. military had been mounting airs strikes against various targets throughout Iraq (mainly air-defense sites) for the previous few years. It would not have been a major escalation to destroy this camp, especially after the war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. The Kurds, whose autonomy had been shielded by U.S. air power since the end of the 1991 war, wouldn't have minded and could even have helped. But the problem, from Bush's perspective, was that this was the only tangible evidence of terrorists in Iraq. Colin Powell even showed the location of the camp on a map during his famous Feb. 5 briefing at the U.N. Security Council. 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.

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. One ambiguity does remain. The NBC story reported that "the White House" declined to carry out the air strikes. Who was "the White House"? If it wasn't George W. Bush if it was, say, Dick Cheney then we crash into a very different conclusion: not that Bush was directly culpable, but that he was more out of touch than his most cynical critics have imagined. It's a tossup which is more disturbing: a president who passes up the chance to kill a top-level enemy in the war on terrorism for the sake of pursuing a reckless diversion in Iraq or a president who leaves a government's most profound decision, the choice of war or peace, to his aides.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.

Newbie Overflow

2004-08-05T14:31:00.000-05:00

thinking it's not that unusual for a newcomer to praddle on when you get started here, particularly if one doesn't have many outlets for discourse...especially true in my case since my 18 yo son, Luke, headed off to Ft. Benning almost a year and a half ago...in our family, he was always the one I could best depend on for a spirited discussion of politics, sports, music, etc. and I have sorely missed our dialogues...

so where do I start unburdening...let me start with Michael Moore...certainly not a Bush fan here and if his documentary does anything to sway a sizable # in the "undecided" group (which I think is very unlikely since I feel like this phenomena falls into the "singing to the choir" category), more power to us...however, after sampling some of his unAmerican quips, e.g., "I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."...well, I reject the individual that could heartlessly voice such a sentiment and I think that Kerry and the Democrats would be well-advised to repudiate him...I know that they have to play to their base...blah, blah, blah....and it would be nice to stand for something other than "just winning"...it would be nice to demonstrate some character and let folks know that Democrats too have a moral compass...wondering how Moore's statements play with the undecided crowd...e.g., that single mom at the kitchen table struggling with her finances that Edwards so vividly portrayed in his convention speech?

and McCain once again comes through on the side of rightness and fairness today as he aptly criticizes the latest attack ad from the far right attacking Kerry's patriotism and leadership ability...it just sickens me to see the depth of the hate and bile these guys live with...they must be really miserable in their lives...haven't had much experience with healthy, self-actualized individuals spewing that kind of venom...saddens me to see Senator McCain supporting Bush, even if it is half-hearted....still makes my blood boil to think about what they did to him in the 2000 primaries

well, guess I'll sign off for now...await feedback and comments as I gather my thoughts

Hmmm...ok

2004-08-05T13:43:00.000-05:00

just getting started here...test to see if I can locate blog from search bar

bayou musings

White House passed on opportunities to take out Zarqawi???

Newbie Overflow

Hmmm...ok