Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion So, where were the WMD coming from?

seems this information has come up again...
http://acsa.net/alzarqawi.htm
good reading and not from a right side contributer
another article from different site aout same thing
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml

Sinbad,
Since you seem to know a lot about Zarquai, and it is clear that he is and has been a threat to the US for some time. My quesion to you is why did Bush refuse to authorize 3 !!! pentagon attacks of him in his camp in N. Iraq prior to the war?
If you are going to bring up the danger this madman poses we should certainly consider the failed oppotunities to neutralize the threat. It looks like Bush fucked up on this one pretty bad. What is your take on it?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

confirmed and admitted focus on the domestic agenda. Everyone underestimated the terrorist threat. Bush just made it the priority after 911 and introduced the Bush doctrine of Preemption. Then took charge and started kicking ass. However once he saw the threat he didn't try to minimize it into a police action. He reset the world view on how "we" as America would deal with terrorist threats. So far it has kept the US from being struck again at home. I think it is better to have them sniping our miltary instead of our kids here in the US. This is a difference of opinion in the election right now.
Rahl

I don't get it this was long after 9/11.
...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.

I really am unsure about what he did relating toward our intelligence, but physically. I dont think he did anything. Especially not more than Bush. I think thats a mistatement stretch.
Why? Because he had 5 physical attacks under his belt, against our military and civilians. None of which we went to combat for. All attacks of which he said he would do something about...
1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000
1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel
1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel
1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000
2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors
All attacks Clinton remarked afterward that the terrorists would be hunted down.
Clinton was briefed by Anthony Lake (National Security Advisor) about Osama Bin Laden, after he became president, after the 1st WTC attack, and after the USS Cole Bombing. I do not hold Clinton remotely responsible for 9/11. I dont think any president could have predicted or imagined the possibility of such a thing. I just think we have to look at the world a little differently post 9/11.
I also think all presidenst would have done almost nothing in Clintons shoes prior to 9/11.

"I also think all presidenst would have done almost nothing in Clintons shoes prior to 9/11"
I would extend that to say no president would have focused so heavily prior to 9/11 during Clintons or Bushes tenure. If 9/11 would not have happened, then the Taliban would most likely still be running Afghanistan today regardless of who is/was president. That would not be faulting the leadership, but rather a selection of their priorities.
On the same token, I don't think it matters who was in office (Rep, Dem, Bush, Gore) on 9/11. Taliban and Terrorism would wind up in the crosshairs no matter who was in the drivers seat.

NT

I dont BLAME Bush for 9/11, and I do not BLAME Clinton for those.
Its how you fight terrorism. Sorry Flea, and Sinbad but if you think the world for you is SAFER now after Afghan and Iraq your fucked.

Bush's Global Test Means Zarqawi Still on the Loose
The Wall Street Journal gives more details to how President Bush three times rejected military plans to kill Abu Musab al Zarqawi before the Iraq war. Notice this part of the article in which it now is clear Bush refused to go after one of the world's most deadly terrorists because he was trying to pass the same kind of "global test" he has attacked Kerry over. Also, he didn't want to damage his pre-determined efforts to invade Iraq:
"Another factor, though, was fear that a strike on the camp could stir up opposition while the administration was trying to build an international coalition to launch an invasion of Iraq. Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq.""
And notice this section - the White House gave a weak denial, and yet its own general in the field acknowledges the contrary:
Targeting of the camp and Mr. Zarqawi before the war first was reported in an NBC Nightly News item in March, but administration officials subsequently denied it...Gen. Tommy Franks, who was commander of the U.S. Central Command and who lately has been campaigning on behalf of Mr. Bush, suggests in his recently published memoir, "American Soldier," that Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been in the camp during the months before the war.

Actually, I am pretty sure the WMD's are coming from here:
Weapons of Mass Destruction