‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’

— Roger Cressey
Terrorism expert

Ah, but clearly overthrowing a dictator that might possibly in some far away alternate reality maybe posess some unknown quantity of unknown weapons of mass destruction and an equally enigmatic system of delivering them to American interests - oh, and we got all of this intelligence from forged papers and possibly carvings in a public bathroom stall - is more important than neutralizing a prominent terrorist leader that was in control of a real operation to produce and utilize chemical weapons against civilians. Nevermind that I just wrote an absolutely gigantic run-on sentence, that's not the point. We're prioritizing, here.

'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.'

— Jim Miklaszewski
Pentagon Correspondent

See? Priorities, people. We have to keep our priorities straight. Neutralizing prominent but otherwise virtually harmless villains is better for your public relations. Forget targeting real threats, the people who really did have WMD - we'll just let them run away and cause trouble elsewhere, with their ricin and cyanide. That'll be wonderful, just freaking wonderful.

The best part is, we had three chances - three freaking chances, and on one occasion, the chemical weapons were likely almost used - to kill this guy already, and we didn't just blow the opportunities. We made sure they were never taken advantage of, all to bolster our case against a man whose regime was never connected to Al Qaeda. Now Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity. If there weren't chemical weapons when we got there, we can be pretty certain that somebody there is cooking them up right now. Somebody other than Zarqawi.

Genius, absolute genius. These kinds of strategic disasters that could have potentially ended in massive loss of life in major cities all over the world make me truly proud of the leadership in this country. Creating fake villains while ignoring the real ones? That's nothing new, all part of the brilliant - and by brilliant I mean retarded to the point where it shouldn't be allowed outside without a helmet - master plan. By the way, where the hell did Osama run off to, anyway? Just curious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can anyone explain why pictures of Al-Zarqawi, supposedly killed by two, 500-pound bombs that totally demolished a couple of masonry buildings, show him with just a few bruises on his face?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't mean to be picky, but there are 2,500 plus AMERICAN dead. If you include Iraqi deaths, the total is much greater.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the U.S. military chose to bomb the building where this individual was staying, they also chose to kill a woman and her child. That was a choice, a decision - one that the U.S. military must have calculated was "worthwhile". They knew there were four people in that building when they bombed it: the target, his spiritual advisor, a woman and her child.

I think it's way too easy to forget about the "collateral damage" in these cases. Who was the woman? What of her child? Why was a child killed? Since the military knew the target's "every movement" why not wait until they could kill him without killing a woman and her child?

Bush should take no pleasure in this. His arrogant smirk upon announcing his "victory" and praise for American troops never mentioned the woman, nor her child. Shame on him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll tell you what. S.O.S.,that's what.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With the secrecy involved in the handling of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's body, we (the skeptical amongst us) may never know with a high degree of certainity the exact cause of Abu's death. I doubt people need clearly visible suicide pills these days to commit suicide. The slight motion that is often talked about in the news as an attempt to run away could have been a move to ingest poison. I couldn't find the theory explored on a search using a popular search engine. The number of times the media refers to Abu dying of injuries sustained by the bombing as a fact is irresponsible and could be the spin the government wants.
I hope one or more amongst you will explore this further, as I may not (and even if I did, I would likely not be effective and getting to the truth).
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NUKE ALL THOSE SONS OF BI*&HES !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]