Bush Turns Another Bush Mistake (Zarqawi) into Another Glorious Reason To Vote for Bush
It's amazing how Bush can turn his mistakes into glorious reasons for his reelection.
Two days ago, he delivered a campaign speech on national security in New Jersey and continued to slam John Kerry by misrepresenting Kerry's postions (for instance, claiming Kerry would allow other nations to veto US national security actions). But this was nothing new. What was fresh was that Bush spoke at length about Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist apparently responsible for carbombings, beheadings and other horrific terrorist actions in Iraq. Bush pointed to Zarqawi as a reason to vote for Bush. His argument: Kerry doesn't understand that if the United States was not now pursuing Zarqawi in Iraq, Zarqawi would be wreaking havoc not in Iraq but in the United States. Yet Bush neglected to mention that his administration repeatedly passed up the chance to strike Zarqawi before the war in Iraq. That is, the war in Iraq was not necessary to deal with the threat posed by Zarqawi. Still, with his primary argument for the war--Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMDs and was in cahoots with al Qaeda--no longer operative, Bush has embraced the battle against Zarqawi as his latest justification for the war in Iraq.
It's important to note that before the war, Zarqawi was reportedly operating in northern Iraq, in territory close to the area controlled by the US-allied Kurds. When Colin Powell presented the administration's case for war to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003, he showed satellite photos of the camp where Zarqawi was allegedly based. That means the administration, which was then maintaining no-fly zones in this part of Iraq, knew-or thought it knew--where he was. Yet it took no action. Why not? An NBC News story from last March (posted below) notes, the "administration feared destroying the [Zarqawi] terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." I recently spoke with a former national security official who says that this is the explanation he has heard from his former colleagues.
Let's recap: to justify his invasion of Iraq and to prove he's a better leader than Kerry, Bush waves a finger at Zarqawi, a threat he seemingly neglected before the war, who has become a greater threat due to the war. In a way, Bush is saying, I am the only guy tough enough to handle the danger that was increased by the the mess I created. Well, you got to work with what you have.
Below are Bush's remarks on Zarqawi:
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. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)
If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces in Iraq, does Senator Kerry think they would be leading productive and peaceful lives? (Laughter.) Clearly, these killers would be plotting and acting to murder innocent civilians in free nations, including our own. By facing these terrorists far away, our military is making the United States of America more secure. (Applause.)
If Zarqawi has been an essential target in the war on terrorism, why did the Bush administration not do everything possible to take him out before the invasion of Iraq? (imagine what Bush would be saying now if Kerry had voted against authorizing an operation aimed at Zarqawi.) And in his chronology, Bush leaves out a crucial fact: according to numerous published reports, after the Taliban regime was crushed, Zarqawi left Afghanistan not for Iraq, but for Iran. It seems he operated out of Iran at some points during the post-Taliban period--as well as spent time in Baghdad and northern Iraq.
Now here is the NBC News report that has been widely circulated on the Internet regarding the White House decision to leave Zarqawi alone before the war:
March 2, 2004
AVOIDING ATTACKING SUSPSECTED TERRORIST MASTERMIND
By Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News
With Tuesday?s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.
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. 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.
Though Kerry has referred to this story on the campaign trail, this episode has not received much attention. Did Bush and his aides really let Zarqawi off the hook three times because they wanted to preserve their case for invading Iraq? If so, shouldn't that be at least as big a deal as, say, Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney as a lesbian? Not only has Bush received little flak for that decision; he has exploited the awful results for his own political gain.
