Bush turned down chances to kill Zarqawi

[ms]

:?  
Abu Musab al Zarqawi ... Former spy says the US had the terrorism figure in its sights. (File photo) (ABC TV)
 
Bush turned down chances to kill Zarqawi: ex-CIA spy
A former top CIA spy says the United States deliberately turned down several opportunities to kill terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

Mike Scheuer headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.

He has told the ABC's Four Corners program the Bush administration had Zarqawi in its sights almost every day for a year.

He says a plan to destroy Zarqawi's training camp in Kurdistan was abandoned for diplomatic reasons.

"The reasons the intelligence service got for not shooting Zarqawi was simply that the President and the National Security Council decided it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers," he said.

"Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq."

The full story will air on Four Corners tonight on ABC television.

Planning defended

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has defended the Bush administration's Iraq war planning after her predecessor, Colin Powell, said he had made a case to send more troops to deal with the war's aftermath.

Ms Rice also says she does not "specifically remember" what instance Mr Powell was referring to on his recommending to President George W Bush that more troops be sent.

In an interview with a private British television station on Sunday (local time), Mr Powell said there had been debates about the size of the force and how to deal with the aftermath.

"I don't think we had enough force there to impose order," he said on ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby program.

"The aftermath turned out to be much more difficult than anyone had anticipated.

"I made the case to General (Tommy) Franks, to (Defence) Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld and to the president that I was not sure we had enough troops."

But Mr Powell said the military leaders felt they had the appropriate number.

Ms Rice, appearing on several Sunday talk shows, was responding to Mr Powell's comments that fanned the controversy over the administration's plans for the invasion's immediate aftermath.

Critics say violence and looting set the stage for a bloody insurgency and sectarian killings over the last three years.

Asked on CNN's Late Edition if she remembered Mr Powell's dissent, Ms Rice said, "I don't remember specifically what Secretary Powell may be referring to, but I'm quite certain that there were lots of discussions about how best to fulfil the mission when we went into Iraq."

She said Mr Bush relied on his military advisers, and that he "asked time and time again" whether everything needed to execute the plan was available, "and he was told 'yes'."

Print  Email

[magooch]

Nothing new here--just another lame woulda, coulda, shoulda.  Powell is dancing close to being another turncoat, hind-sight general.  What happened to making a decision and then sticking with it?

I've had a gut full of the idiots who say we didn't have enough troops, or we didn't wait for the inspectors to finish, or any other silly reason to not finish what the overwhelming majority thought was the right thing to do--at the time.

I hate to think where we would be now if all of these Monday night quarter backs would have been around and were able to spread their treason during WW II.

[williamlayton]

Who was the overwhelming majority you speak of.
I would disagree, I would think that there was no majority at all and this operation was the plan of a very few.
Blessings

[magooch]

Since we don't live in a direct democracy, and there isn't any universally acceptable way of polling the American people, we must rely on our elected representatives.  The Congress gave the President overwhelming approval to do whatever was necessary to retaliate and crush terrorism.

The President was not ambiguous a bit when he said that he intended to go after terrorists directly (Afghanistan) and those who sponsor, and/or support terrorism (Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc.).  There is no doubt that Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism, but I do not believe that was the only, nor the most important reason for taking on Iraq.  

For me, the number one reason for taking action against Iraq was that they were in violation of the ceasefire that they agreed to and it was obvious that Saddam and his two idiot sons were as evil as Hitler ever thought of being and it would be pure folly to sit around and let that kind of evil fester.

You can argue all day about the wisdom, or necessity of engaging Iraq when we did, but I will argue that it was inevitable.  Sooner, or later Saddam, or his idiot sons were going to do something that even the most panty-waist pacifists couldn't ignor.  We cannot and probably should not always remove evil when it gets out of control, but in this case I think we did the right thing.  I would have done it differently, but I'm not the President.

[Haywire Haywood]

I would suspect that they thought getting Bin Laden was more important than  Zarqawi was in that moment.  Better to leave him alive than to alert Bin Laden that they were that close.  Unfortunately, if that is the case, the gamble did not pay off.

Ian

[FWiedner]

What I see is a studied and deliberate failure to fullfill the tenets of the stated mission.

The threat is so great that Americans in America are groped and strip-searched at airports, prevented from travelling freely around the nation using public conveyance, spied upon by our own government, imprisoned without warrant or charge, threatened with fines and imprisonment for crossing international borders, denied the right of free speech, and constantly under attack and threat of disarmament.

But when they find the enemy, they let him go.  Again, and again, and again.

The logical path is to kill the enemy where he is seen and found.  If such action warns his compatriots nearby, more the better, let them understand that we are coming and that there will be no escape.

Instead, they waste clear opportunity to service questionable purposes of political gain, for international prestige and subterfuge.

I don't believe that they want to catch or stop these fellows at all.

I believe that these numerous individuals with vaguely middle-eastern sounding names are being used as a team of booger-men to frighten and control the American People.  I hear their names on the news and I begin to wonder if they even really exist.

Instead, I hear the "war-talk" and see and feel the grip of oppressive authority tightening on the American People.

If they intend to kill these men, kill them.  Kill them on sight.  Kill them now.

But as I said, I don't believe that was ever the real plan.