This is treason

[tomfodw]

This story isn't new, but it's getting play again this week for some reason, and nothing has changed since it was first reported. What the Bush administration did here is almost certainly treasonous, letting this guy go free so he can kill more American soldiers, all in order to boost the case for war. But will it ever be investigated as such? Don't make me laugh. (Imagine that last said by the late Charles Laughton.)


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq

By Jim Miklaszewski, Correspondent, NBC News
March 2, 2004


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.

:::snip:::

“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.

:::snip:::

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.

© 2004 MSNBC Interactive

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. When was that?

--bkl

[KC21304]

4. Bill Clinton was told by the CIA the intel was not certain and

a Prince from United Arab Emirates was also at the house at the time. Maybe he should have over ruled his intel people and maybe not. Do you really want to compare this reason against the Bush reason ?

[Old and In the Way]

8. He did try and was keeping attack subs on station in the Gulf and drones

airborne looking for OBL. Bush stopped both operations. Bush family does business with bin Ladens. In spite of 15/19 hijackers and the socalled mastermind, OBL, being from Saudi Arabia, Bush did not attack the true source of terror. Why? Bush let the OBL family fly out of the US after 9/11 and the FBI has evidence that money from the royals did get to the hijackers....but this was not part of the 9/11 Commission's testimony. Hmmmmm.....maybe Bush is compromised on his Saudi relationships and is incapable of fighting terror.

Treason in a heartbeat....but the cowardly Republican Congressional majority enables the boy-king's agenda and put their partisan political objectives ahead of the nation's interests.....they've been doing that for as long as I can remember....

[Ducks In A Row]

9. it's a lie about clinton and bin laden, it's all proven long ago...

and when clinton did do his job bombing terrorist targets in afghanistan, the rethugs screamed like little girls "wag the dog"

bush is a girlie boy and purposely didn't take out the terrorists then (including bin laden) so he could have the terror excuse now.

bush is a traitor and hates this country and really really hates the troops.

[Nordic]

11. do your homework and get back to us

you'll find that claim is RW propaganda, nothing more.

[BrotherBuzz]

14. Then don't vote for Clinton!

Interesting, Bill had four chances in eight years to get OBL and failed while Bush* had eight chances in just nine months prior to September eleven and didn't even act. Hmmm, I find that interesting.

[OneTwentyoNine]

17. 5..4..3..2..

Then **POOF**

[OneTwentyoNine]

18. SQUAWK * Clinton let OBL go,Clinton let OBL go...Polly want a cracker..

This has been debunked so many FUCKING times its laughable but,well...there you go again with those same OLD TIRED Pillboy,O'Really talking points.

Go look up the GD facts for yourself and quit relying on those Nazi's for your info..SOAB.

David

[bluestateguy]

2. Well it should be ...

but when a Republican Administration does it it's clever statecraft and enlightened war strategy. When a Democrat does it it's cowardice and treason.

[Disturbed]

5. Clinton

He did attack al Q. camp but the CIA and DOD were draggin' and they struck too late. Of course, during that time frame the Rethugs called any military action by Clinton, Waggin' the dog, to get people's minds off of the blow job. Rethugs are hypocritical assholes.

[KC21304]

6. Send this to Keith Olberman and Matthews.

I bet they would run it.

[tomfodw]

7. It's NBC that reported it first...

...back in March. And Eric Alterman mentioned it yesterday in his daily blog on MSNBC.com. I'm not sure why he brought it up again now, but this is not news. It's still treason.

The difference between this and Clinton is, whatever Clinton did he did not deliberately let Zarqawi go so as not to dilute a bogus case for an unnecessary war. Bush intentionally let Zarqawi go, after which, Zarqawi has killed US soldiers. If that's no treason, what is?

[Nordic]

10. YEAH BABY! They're LISTENING!!

This was on "The Daily Mislead" this morning and I spent some time e-mailing everybody I could from Skinner's media list.

Now they're reporting it.

This is GREAT.

See my thread here, where I urged DUers to e-mail everybody about this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x851888

[Eric J in MN]

12. Al Franken mentioned this today and claimed that Bush isn't "evil,"

that it's only "perfidy" (treachery) for Bush to have avoided killing terrorist Zarqawi because he wanted to use Zarqawi as an excuse for full-scale Iraq War.

I disagree with Al Franken. If it isn't evil to let Zarqawi kill more people, to movivate the US to kill thousands of people, than "evil" is a meaningless term.

[Nordic]

13. yeah it doesn't get much more evil than that

Here's another taste of Bush's evil.

[RandomKoolzip]

15. Jesus Christ!

What's the story behind that picture?

[Nordic]

16. that, my friend, is the result of an American missile on a Baghdad street

which killed a journalist and many many others.

The journalist's death was caught on tape.

Here is the story:

'He's just sleeping, I kept telling myself'

On Sunday, 13 Iraqis were killed and dozens injured in Baghdad when US helicopters fired on a crowd of unarmed civilians. G2 columnist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, who was injured in the attack, describes the scene of carnage - and reveals just how lucky he was to walk away

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1303827,00.html

[tomfodw]

19. I restate my case:

This. Was. Treason.

Evil, perfidy, what have you. They let a known terrorist, a mass murderer, slip away because his elimination would have been inconvenient. Since then, the guy has killed American soldiers. Who would not be there if they had not felt the need to "juice" up their case for war in the first place by letting this known terrorist slip away. Any way you want to look at it, it's treason.

[Nordic]

21. it's not the only example of Bushco treason

another is showing the top-secret invasion plans to Prince Bandar.

I am shocked that so-called patriotic "conservatives" didn't have a cow when this came out.

But noooooo. Power is more important than principle to these fuckwads. It just proves that they have absolutely no values WHATsofuckingever.

They wouldn't care if Bush was as bad as Hitler himself, as long as a Republican is in the White House!!!

[proReality]

20. As far as I'm concerned...

he's probably on the payroll--just like OBL.