Bush turned down chances to kill Zarqawi
“News reports—including, most recently, one in the Wall Street Journal this week—make it clear that military leaders and the CIA felt Zarqawi was a threat that could and should be removed. On at least three occasions between mid-2002 and the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon presented plans to the White House to destroy the Khurmal camp. Each time the White House declined to act or did not respond at all.”
Link ,
Link and another
Link

Chimpy on May 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM

Right! In 2002, no one knew the name Zarqawi. He hadn’t killed, spectacularly, a bunch of Americans and Muslims in the name of his god. He hadn’t insisted on the elimination of traitors and apostates in Iraq because he knew Saddam hadn’t any interest in him as a terrorist, other than giving him money and training. Zarqawi, in 2002, was pretty much a lower level Louie in al Qaeda. There were many dozens of higher priority than he was then.

So if I was President, why the Hell would I be bothering with operations to kill one unsubstantial terrorist in Iraq, when I was trying to find and kill bin Ladin and al Zawahiri?

Thanks for proving what an idiotic airhead you are, Chimpy. I’m sure the moniker fits you much better than it fits anyone named Bush.

Subsunk

Would’ve reached through my laptop and choked him if I could.

How can people think this guy is news???

Bush turned down chances to kill Zarqawi
“News reports—including, most recently, one in the Wall Street Journal this week—make it clear that military leaders and the CIA felt Zarqawi was a threat that could and should be removed. On at least three occasions between mid-2002 and the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon presented plans to the White House to destroy the Khurmal camp. Each time the White House declined to act or did not respond at all.”
Link ,
Link and another
Link

On another note, exactly where is the line of treason? I think that Lincoln and/or FDR would have locked this guy up a long time ago. Wow.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran were all against invading Iraq. These countries all border Iraq but they didn’t feel threatened

You mean the Muslim countries – gee, I wonder why they opposed it? Ya think that maybe, just maybe, they were cheering quietly? They sure didn’t object much at the time. In fact, your party (obviously, the Dems) were acting like a bunch of hawks themselves, yapping away about going after Saddam if he didn’t comply with the UN resolutions. The rest of your comments are just your opinions, which you have obviously, just like Olby, thrown out there with nothing to support them. Come back when you and your boy Olby have some hard facts, and not just ridiculous allegations.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran were all against invading Iraq. These countries all border Iraq but they didn’t feel threatened. Why? Iran suffered SH’s WMD’s in the 80’s but was against the invasion. How do you explain that? They all have intel agencies that could slip agents into Iraq better then the US could.

Those that think SH was harboring terrorist in Iraq need to get a clue. You play up the story that Zarqawi received medical attention in Iraq as if SH knew about it. It would be very easy, and I’m sure it’s happened, for a narco terrorist to slip across the Mexican border to seek medical attention here in the US. Would that mean the US supports narco terrorist? The Iraqi document dump showed SH was concerned about Zarqawi
being in Iraq. And the United States deliberately turned down several opportunities to kill Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war. WHY? If there were terrorist in Iraq they were in the northern Kurdish region which was out of SH’s control because of the “no fly zones”.

Like I said earlier, there is a lot of Attention Deficit Disorder here, a lack of comprehension and common sense. Typical of BCS affliction.

More like Meltdown.

Bet it took him 20 minutes to calm down after that.

I wonder how people actually saw this (I mean other than the you-tube version.)

Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!
That’s simply a fact. Terrorism in Iraq would not have existed had Bush not gone to war.

freevillage on May 15, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Saddam governed through terror. There was no terrorism in Iraq only in the same sense that there was no terrorism in Afghanistan.

That man is funny. Ugly, but funny.

Truly an American Psycho

Yet nearly everything he’s said about Bush in this piece is true.

freevillage on May 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM

No it’s not. He lives in lies. I feel sorry for you if you believe him.

Does your champion go after the Democratically controlled Congress, who took over 2 years ago and have done nothing since but let things go straight to hell, and happen to have worse poll numbers than the President?

I don’t watch Olbermann other than here on HA but I’ll respond. No, he apparently doesn’t, which makes him an obvious partisan.

Yet nearly everything he’s said about Bush in this piece is true.