Gotta Love the Goon
Let's walk through this answer from our Vice President, shall we (italics is by we, ok, me):
"Gwen, the story that appeared today about this report is one I asked for. I ask an awful lot of questions as part of my job as vice president. Why do Bush and Cheney like to stress that they work hard? They damn well better. They certainly don't damn well best. A CIA spokesman was quoted in that story as saying they had not yet reached the bottom line and there is still debate over this question of the relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein. The only debate is how much Cheney and Bush should push this falsehood, for on June 17, 2004 The New York Times wrote: "Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is 'the best evidence' of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime." When the NYT of Judith "Chalabi Is Alright By Me" Miller calls a Bush-Cheney line astonishing, that means something.
The report also points out that at one point some of Zarqawi's people were arrested. Saddam personally intervened to have them released, supposedly at the request of Zarqawi. But let's look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi. Here is the lead of an article from March 6, 2004 in Newsweek: "The stark fact is that we don’t even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq." We know he was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kirma, where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use. We know he's still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He's the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages. He is, without question, a bad guy. It's so good when you can just call someone evil, isn't it, Dick? But Al-Jazeera commentator Abd al-Bari Atwan asserts "Al-Zarqawi has become the new superpower, the perfect bogeyman. The Americans are just building him up to mask their failure in Iraq and their inability to maintain law and order. He is a foreigner, so it is the perfect way for them to discredit the resistance and say these attacks are not coming from the Iraqi people." He is, without question, a terrorist. But he's our terrorist, or at the least, our excuse. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and he's in Baghdad now after the war. Uh, after? Oh yeah, "Mission Accomplished."
The fact of the matter is that this is exactly the kind of track record we've seen over the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and that's exactly what we'll do.
But they haven't, at least three times. NBC added: "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. " Hmm, so we let Zarqawi go, so we could say Iraq harbored al Qaeda and attempt to sustain that flimsiest of lies. I wonder how the hundreds of people dead at Zarqawi's hand or command feel about that decision.
"Gwen, the story that appeared today about this report is one I asked for. I ask an awful lot of questions as part of my job as vice president. Why do Bush and Cheney like to stress that they work hard? They damn well better. They certainly don't damn well best. A CIA spokesman was quoted in that story as saying they had not yet reached the bottom line and there is still debate over this question of the relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein. The only debate is how much Cheney and Bush should push this falsehood, for on June 17, 2004 The New York Times wrote: "Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is 'the best evidence' of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime." When the NYT of Judith "Chalabi Is Alright By Me" Miller calls a Bush-Cheney line astonishing, that means something.
The report also points out that at one point some of Zarqawi's people were arrested. Saddam personally intervened to have them released, supposedly at the request of Zarqawi. But let's look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi. Here is the lead of an article from March 6, 2004 in Newsweek: "The stark fact is that we don’t even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq." We know he was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kirma, where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use. We know he's still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He's the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages. He is, without question, a bad guy. It's so good when you can just call someone evil, isn't it, Dick? But Al-Jazeera commentator Abd al-Bari Atwan asserts "Al-Zarqawi has become the new superpower, the perfect bogeyman. The Americans are just building him up to mask their failure in Iraq and their inability to maintain law and order. He is a foreigner, so it is the perfect way for them to discredit the resistance and say these attacks are not coming from the Iraqi people." He is, without question, a terrorist. But he's our terrorist, or at the least, our excuse. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and he's in Baghdad now after the war. Uh, after? Oh yeah, "Mission Accomplished."
The fact of the matter is that this is exactly the kind of track record we've seen over the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and that's exactly what we'll do.
But they haven't, at least three times. NBC added: "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. " Hmm, so we let Zarqawi go, so we could say Iraq harbored al Qaeda and attempt to sustain that flimsiest of lies. I wonder how the hundreds of people dead at Zarqawi's hand or command feel about that decision.
posted by George at 10:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home