Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

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.

“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.

Source

 

[Nerevar]

in before Ripclawe and the Republican spin machine.

 

[Zaptruder]

IBFR (Facist republicans)

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

IT'S A TRAP!

Kerry: You missed the chance to get rid of WMDs!

Bush: But there is none...remember?...you said so

Kery: Oh snap! Well played.

Bush: Yeeehaw!

 

[sc0la]

RINO RINO

VETO POWER

WORLD SAFER PLACE

MIKLASZEWSKI HAD LUNCH WITH RATHER

 

[DarienA]

Too bad you should have made the title something that would lure Ripclawe in... he may not touch this thread with a title like that...

 

[siamesedreamer]

This kinda reminds me of the History Channel's "Reign of Terror" week where they did a nice documentary on Osama bin Laden. In that documentary, you learn that Clinton twice no-goed operations in '98 and '99 that would have captured or killed OBL out of fear of "collateral damage". I wonder what those 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 would think about that?

Anyway, did Bush blow this one? Yes.
Would an insurgency still have occured? Yes.

 

[xsarien]

This kinda reminds me of the History Channel's "Reign of Terror" week where they did a nice documentary on Osama bin Laden. In that documentary, you learn that Clinton twice no-goed operations in '98 and '99 that would have captured or killed OBL out of fear of "collateral damage". I wonder what those 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 would think about that?

Anyway, did Bush blow this one? Yes.
Would an insurgency still have occured? Yes.

Bush's concern wasn't collateral damage, only damage to his bullet-pointed list of reasons as to why he should invade Iraq.

 

[mrmyth]

Saddam Hussein has always been the target, IMO, for Bush jr. 'The one that got away' from Daddy. Tenous ties to al Quaeda, WMD bullshit, all smokescreen to go in and kick Hussein's ass for some personal vendetta. I almost would've respected the reason to go in if he had stated this as a reason from the beginning.
Nah, no I wouldn't. Its still a shit reason to go to war.

 

[SFA_AOK]

So Al-Qaida were in Iraq and the administration passed up the opportunity to bomb them?

Did everyone have their Crazy Flakes this morning or something?

 

[sc0la]

Saddam Hussein has always been the target, IMO, for Bush jr. 'The one that got away' from Daddy. Tenous ties to al Quaeda, WMD bullshit, all smokescreen to go in and kick Hussein's ass for some personal vendetta. I almost would've respected the reason to go in if he had stated this as a reason from the beginning.
Nah, no I wouldn't. Its still a shit reason to go to war.

actually, it was wolfowitz and co (including dick cheney) that wanted to pinch out saddam long before Bush Jr. was seriously on scene to be president next.

That someone could win that would be completely malleable to the idea just iced the cake. 9-11 was a huge windfall for the realization of the dreams of this group.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

actually, it was wolfowitz and co (including dick cheney) that wanted to pinch out saddam long before Bush Jr. was seriously on scene to be president next.

That someone could win that would be completely malleable to the idea just iced the cake. 9-11 was a huge windfall for the realization of the dreams of this group.

In Bush's defense the guy did plan to off his Dad. So...

 

[Nerevar]

So Al-Qaida were in Iraq and the administration passed up the opportunity to bomb them?

It's worth noting that most of northern Iraq was not under the control of Saddam Hussein, since Gulf War I

 

[Ripclawe]

uh.. Here is a logical question, why would the white house not authorize attacking a lab with a known terrorist making chemical weapons, that would make their case a lot easier.

a couple of problems with this msnbc story.

1) Its an old story, not old as the date, but old as in this was gone over after Powell made his case at the UN mentioning it by name, which by the way people dismissed as weak.


2) It was brought up by Joe Biden on Feb 7th, 2003

MILLER (2/7/03): “Why have we not taken it out?” Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Thursday. “Why have we let it sit there if it’s such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?” Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session... Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested that the administration has refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq. “This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force,” said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. “If you take it out, you can’t use it as justification for war.”

Now Biden and other prominent demos on the foreign relations committee had closed door sessions after this, nothing came out of it months afterwards other than the MSNBC story based on speculation and unnamed sources putting out a ridiculous scenario that goes against logic. This plant and zarqawi is a godsend in making the case for war, even better taking it out first and go "see!!!! look at what's in IRaq and there is more there!"

3) The camp was not in a kurdish controlled area

4) Jon Stewart's favorite, Robert Novak went over this already, and since we know he has credible CIA sources.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/iraq/

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- On ABC's "This Week" program Sunday, host George Stephanopoulos picked up a chestnut that's been bouncing around Washington for three months and tossed it in National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's lap.

Why, he asked, did the United States pass up chances to kill terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi in 2002 and 2003?

"We never had a chance to get Zarqawi," Rice replied.

One CIA source puts this aborted Zarqawi raid in the same category as Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11," which spreads such false information as George W. Bush's conspiring to get Osama bin Laden's relatives out of the U.S. after the terrorist attacks.

Sen. Clinton on the next day, March 4, called the NBC report "troubling" and asked Gen. John Abizaid about it.

The Central Command commander in chief replied, "I would be very surprised to find out that we had a precise location on Zarqawi."

Unsatisfied, the senator asked for "further investigation." On March 9, Hillary Clinton asked CIA Director George Tenet about the story. Tenet: "I don't know that Zarqawi was up there at the time, Senator. And I don't know that the report accurately reflects the give-and-take of the decision-making at the time."

In CIA-speak, that was a "no."

But here is some red meat

Jim Miklaszewski told me he stands by his story, and pointed to House Armed Services Committee hearings April 21. Congressman Snyder brought the NBC story up to retired Gen. John Keane, and asked why the attack was rejected. "No, I can't help you," the former Army acting chief of staff replied. "We were looking at it as early as the Fourth of July weekend before we commenced activities against Iraq." That confirmed an attack on Zarqawi's camp was considered.

So attack it and get accused of trying to start a war before all the UN jibber jabber was even started and Congress have their say in 2002 on information that was still being decided on and very little confirmation that Zarqawi was even in the area.

You would think that RatherGate would have taught some people to stop relying on just one story that if you look at the congressional testimony the year from various people on record. that this story seems to be written to fit these worst case scenarios.

 

[DarienA]

You would think that RatherGate would have taught some people to stop relying on just one story that if you look at the congressional testimony the year from various people on record. that this story seems to be written to fit these worst case scenarios.

Your president relied on one story that he continues to cling to even though it's been identified as bullshit to launch the Iraqi war...

 

[xsarien]

Also:
The CBS News thing doesn't deserve a "Gate." The war rationale? Sure. That needs a "Gate," a big, gilded, wrought-iron "gate."

 

[Ripclawe]

It's worth noting that most of northern Iraq was not under the control of Saddam Hussein, since Gulf War I

and the notion that the part of northern Iraq was under regular kurdish control is wrong, this camp was located in areas controlled by Ansar Al-Islam.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

Ansar al-Islam came together as a group in September 2001, initially under the name of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), but its constituent factions have existed for several years. Espousing an ultra-orthodox Islamic ideology reminiscent of Wahhabism, the group's leaders issued decrees imposing their strict interpretation of Islam on the local inhabitants and introducing harsh punishments for those who failed to comply with their decrees. Since its establishment, the group's armed fighters have engaged in intermittent clashes with the forces of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), in whose stronghold Biyara and Tawela are located.

During a mission to Iraqi Kurdistan in September 2002, Human Rights Watch investigated reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by members of Ansar al-Islam in areas under their control. These reports suggested that Ansar al-Islam had been responsible for arbitrary arrests of numerous Kurdish civilians, prolonged and illegal detention, the torture and ill-treatment of detainees, and the killing of combatants after surrender. In Sulaimaniya and Halabja Human Rights Watch interviewed a number of people who said they had been targeted by Ansar al-Islam or had fled for fear of further abuse. Among them were victims of torture, the relatives of detainees, and internally displaced persons.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Riplcawe, we're still waiting for a follow up on the RINO comment in the "Republican Senator from Kentucky" thread.

 

[Nerevar]

and the notion that the part of northern Iraq was under regular kurdish control is wrong, this camp was located in areas controlled by Ansar Al-Islam.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

So in other words, it was an in area of the country that was not under Hussein's control ...

From the first sentence in the article

Ansar al-Islam fi Kurdistan (Supporters of Islam in Kurdistan) is one of a number of Sunni Islamist groups based in the Kurdish-controlled northern provinces of Iraq.

Thank you for proving my point for me, Ripclawe. If you would like to continue owning yourself on a regular basis (something you seem very good at), I'll try to refrain from responding anymore.

 

[Ripclawe]

So in other words, it was an in area of the country that was not under Hussein's control

Thank you for proving my point for me, Ripclawe. If you would like to continue owning yourself on a regular basis (something you seem very good at), I'll try to refrain from responding anymore

Notice I said not under "regular Kurdish control" I typed that for a reason.

and from the second/third paragraph

Since its establishment, the group's armed fighters have engaged in intermittent clashes with the forces of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), in whose stronghold Biyara and Tawela are located.
During a mission to Iraqi Kurdistan in September 2002, Human Rights Watch investigated reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by members of Ansar al-Islam in areas under their control.


Background

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0312/p07s01-wome.html

Northern "Kurdistan"

Protected by US and British warplanes, aided by the United Nations, and largely left alone by President Saddam Hussein's government, the two Kurdish political parties that administer Iraq's three northern provinces collect revenues, maintain armies, and hold elections on their own.

The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), the two groups that run northern Iraq, fought a civil war in the 1990s that killed thousands. This sundering left the KDP in control of the western portion of northern Iraq, which borders Syria and Turkey; the PUK controls the eastern part, which abuts Iran.

http://www.ikurd.info/news-15sep-p1.htm

Following splits in the movement last year, Mala Krekar and his followers left IMK in December 2001 and joined the newly established Kurdish Islamic radical group, Jund al-Islam. The two groups formed Ansar al-Islam, with Mala Krekar as the group’s leader.

Jund al-Islam, was established on 1 September 2001, controlled a strip on the Iranian border, comprising several villages and two townships, Biyara and Tawela. The group immediately declared “holy war” on Iraqi Kurdish secular ruling parties. On 23 September 2001, they attacked and slaughtered more than 40 fighters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, PUK, which led to a wide range armed confrontation between the two sides.

...Earlier this year, Kurdish media sources reported that Iraqi intelligence services are involved in guiding Jund al-Islam, through its agents, who operate secretly in the region.


An Iraqi intelligence officer, who was arrested by PUK forces, and interviewed last June in a PUK prison in Suleimaniya, told “Iraqi Kurdistan Dispatch” that a leading figure of Jund al-Islam was actually a senior Iraqi intelligent officer.

Somewhat confusing and messy to understand, but you get the point. I could have been clearer and more detailed when I said "and the notion that the part of northern Iraq " So I messed up a bit on that part.

 

[siamesedreamer]

I see that nobody has a real answer for Ripclawe's first post - which pretty much just closed down this thread.

 

[Phoenix]

I see that nobody has a real answer for Ripclawe's first post - which pretty much just closed down this thread.

Sorry I was at lunch. I'll start disappointing you now

There are only 2 points contended here:

1) The US had an opportunity to kill Zarqawi
2) Zarqawi operated from an area of Iraq not controlled by Saddam



I. The US had an opportunity to kill Zarqawi

Its somewhat disappointing that the Novak article was cherry picked to find only 'supporting' evidence as there is a good bit of contrary information there as well.

On May 14, Begala said the terrorist leader's "mere presence" in Iraq "was used to justify Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq." On June 23, he said that thanks to Bush's emphasis on making "a case for invading Iraq," Zarqawi was permitted "to live and to kill and to kill and to kill."

Source(read it)

As usual, the general smoke screen is being used. Was there a camp there? Of course. Was Zarqawi there? Who knows - however President Bush has used his presence in Iraq as continual justification for actions in Iraq.

Powell held up al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group operating in Baghdad as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. He told the Security Council that after al Qaeda and the Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi established a camp in northeastern Iraq to train terrorists in using explosives and poisons.

Source

So they administration needs to stop 'flip flopping' on the issue. Either he was there and he was a valid reason given for charging into Iraq or you Rip is correct and no one knew he was there and it was a load of bullshit that the administration pushed as a reason to invade Iraq. So.... which one was it.

II. Zarqawi operated from an area of Iraq not controlled by Saddam

Next up is the other screen of whether or not Saddam controlled the land where the camp was located. Are we saying that is now valid if a terrorist launches an attack from a country and the government hosting that part of the country says 'well we weren't in control of that part of the country'?

Are we saying that if the Taliban said "hey we don't control that part of the country so f' off" that we wouldn't have been justified in removing the Taliban from control of Afghanistan?

 

[Nerevar]

Ripclawe - so in other words, Ansar al-Islam is a radical Islamic group that was founded in regions originally under Kurdish control. They then declare a "holy war" against the Kurds, and begin violently taking territory away from them. And, not surprisingly, Iraqi intelligence agents are known to have infiltrated their groups. You present the theory that this is because Hussein is guiding them in their war against Kurds, which is, of course, conceivable. Their relative autonomy in his country surely grated him, and their capacity (and willingness) to violenty revolt against him, as happened during Gulf War I, was something that would have kept him worried. However, from reading that article more fully, I think you're completely off the mark. From later on ...

Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention. On the other hand, the location of the group's bases very close to the Iranian border, taken together with credible reports of the return of some Ansar al-Islam fighters to Iraqi Kurdistan through Iran, suggest that these fighters have received at least limited support from some Iranian sources. Villagers living under Ansar al-Islam control, and mainstream Islamists who have visited those areas, reported to Human Rights Watch that Iranian agents had been present on occasion. However, the exact nature of relations between the two sides is unclear: PUK and other sources acknowledged that Iran had played a mediating role aimed at ending the clashes between PUK and Ansar al-Islam forces

So in other words, ansar al-islaam is associated with Iran, quite openly. The country Iraq had engaged in a very violent and costly war a decade earlier. The country that, ideologically, was opposed to Hussein's secular government. It seems blindingly obvious why Hussein would have used his intelligence to infiltrate this group - they were operating under Iranian influence inside his coutnry.

 

[videogamer]

I see that nobody has a real answer for Ripclawe's first post - which pretty much just closed down this thread.

People might be searching for responses, writing up their responses, or gone away. 3 minutes really isn't much.

 

[Ripclawe]

I. The US had an opportunity to kill Zarqawi

Its somewhat disappointing that the Novak article was cherry picked to find only 'supporting' evidence as there is a good bit of contrary information there as well.


Quote:
On May 14, Begala said the terrorist leader's "mere presence" in Iraq "was used to justify Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq." On June 23, he said that thanks to Bush's emphasis on making "a case for invading Iraq," Zarqawi was permitted "to live and to kill and to kill and to kill."

Paul Begala, my colleague on CNN's "Crossfire," picked up the scent. A former Clinton White House aide and tireless Bush-basher, Begala put bluntly what Snyder and Clinton only hinted.

Its Begala, who has about as much inside knowledge about this as the cameraman on crossfire doing his hysterical hyperbole. Why would I use that?

As usual, the general smoke screen is being used. Was there a camp there? Of course. Was Zarqawi there? Who knows - however President Bush has used his presence in Iraq as continual justification for actions in Iraq.

As actions against Iraq is fine, the problem here is the story that the White House on purpose nixed plans 3 times to destroy the camp, so far all I have seen to justify that idea is mindless speculation that flies in the face of all logic.

So they administration needs to stop 'flip flopping' on the issue. Either he was there and he was a valid reason given for charging into Iraq or you Rip is correct and no one knew he was there and it was a load of bullshit that the administration pushed as a reason to invade Iraq. So.... which one was it.

uh. This thread was started with this

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.

All I'm doing is proving the story is just mindless speculation based on testimony and reports from the year before to put on the worst case scenario. The Zarqawi testimony at the UN was part of a long presentation, not just a main singular reason to go into Iraq.

You are mistaken this exchange...

Unsatisfied, the senator asked for "further investigation." On March 9, Hillary Clinton asked CIA Director George Tenet about the story. Tenet: "I don't know that Zarqawi was up there at the time, Senator. And I don't know that the report accurately reflects the give-and-take of the decision-making at the time."

...as if there was a question if Zarqawi was in Iraq, there is no question about that. The question is was Zarqawi at the camp at the time these 3 attacks were supposedly going to happen. I seriously doubt that and I'm also saying that this 3 attack plan nixed story is wrong, considering if that had happen we would have heard about it by now thru various committee reports going back to early 2003.

II. Zarqawi operated from an area of Iraq not controlled by Saddam

Next up is the other screen of whether or not Saddam controlled the land where the camp was located. Are we saying that is now valid if a terrorist launches an attack from a country and the government hosting that part of the country says 'well we weren't in control of that part of the country'?

Are we saying that if the Taliban said "hey we don't control that part of the country so f' off" that we wouldn't have been justified in removing the Taliban from control of Afghanistan?

Actually, that's not a screen but a valid point brought up by Nerevar who said

It's worth noting that most of northern Iraq was not under the control of Saddam Hussein, since Gulf War I

which was why I said in #3 in general detail.

3) The camp was not in a kurdish controlled area

as I went into detail later on, the area was not controlled by the 2 Kurdish parties and there was ties to Saddam and Iraqi intelligence. That was never a reason not to bomb the camp but it explains why the camp existed and zarqawi had free reign.

 

[siamesedreamer]

None of which appropriately answers the time table laid forth.

So attack it and get accused of trying to start a war before all the UN jibber jabber was even started and Congress have their say in 2002 on information that was still being decided on and very little confirmation that Zarqawi was even in the area.

You want Bush to attack him on little information, but you attack Bush for going to war with little information. Makes sense.

 

[Makura]

IT'S A TRAP!

Kerry: You missed the chance to get rid of WMDs!

Bush: But there is none...remember?...you said so

Kery: Oh snap! Well played.

Bush: Yeeehaw!

:lol

 

[Nerevar]

as I went into detail later on, the area was not controlled by the 2 Kurdish parties and there was ties to Saddam and Iraqi intelligence. That was never a reason not to bomb the camp but it explains why the camp existed and zarqawi had free reign.

And as I pointed out from quotes in that same article - those links are very tenuous, and are at best that several undercover Iraqi agents infiltrated the group. It is quite obvious the group was unaffiliated with Hussein, and operated an agenda that was only tangentially supportive of his. I doubt very much he wanted an Iranian-supported militant Islamic militia controlling the northeast of Iraq.

 

[Phoenix]

Its Begala, who has about as much inside knowledge about this as the cameraman on crossfire doing his hysterical hyperbole. Why would I use that?

As actions against Iraq is fine, the problem here is the story that the White House on purpose nixed plans 3 times to destroy the camp, so far all I have seen to justify that idea is mindless speculation that flies in the face of all logic.

All I'm doing is proving the story is just mindless speculation based on testimony and reports from the year before to put on the worst case scenario. The Zarqawi testimony at the UN was part of a long presentation, not just a main singular reason to go into Iraq.

That's fine. You can get it from the horses mouth.

The case of one terrorist shows what is at stake. The terrorist leader we face in Iraq today, the one responsible for beheading American hostages, the one responsible for many of the car bombings and attacks against Iraq is a man named Zarqawi. Before September the 11th, Zarqawi ran a camp in Afghanistan that trained terrorists in the use of explosives and poisons, until coalition forces destroyed that camp. He fled to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with some 2,000 terrorist associates. He operated in Baghdad and worked with associates in northern Iraq. He ran camps to train terrorists, and conducted chemical and biological experiments, until coalition forces arrived and ended those operations. With nowhere to operate openly, Zarqawi has gone underground and is making a stand in Iraq.

Here, the difference between my opponent and me is very clear. Senator Kerry believes that fighting Zarqawi and other terrorists in Iraq is a "diversion" from the war on terror. I believe that fighting and defeating these killers in Iraq is a central commitment in the war on terror

- Bush

...as if there was a question if Zarqawi was in Iraq, there is no question about that. The question is was Zarqawi at the camp at the time these 3 attacks were supposedly going to happen. I seriously doubt that and I'm also saying that this 3 attack plan nixed story is wrong, considering if that had happen we would have heard about it by now thru various committee reports going back to early 2003.

Is it the goal to kill Zarqawi - or destroy the camp and the terrorists. Last I checked, Zarqawi wasn't continually blowing himself up over and over again - so I would think that it would make sense to breakup/destroy ANY camp whenever it is uncovered.

 

[Phoenix]

None of which appropriately answers the time table laid forth.



You want Bush to attack him on little information, but you attack Bush for going to war with little information. Makes sense.

Attacking a known terrorist camp != Invading a country. No one debates the intel about the camp, who ran it, nor its connections. Blowing up the camp would have just been a footnote - it wouldn't be the first camp that we have eliminated.

 

[Nerevar]

I want ripclawe to reply