Friday, June 09, 2006

By Advocate 1

"Out damned spot! out, I say! One; two: why then 'tis time to do't. Hell is murky! Fie my Lord, fie! a soldier and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?"

From Shakespeare's
Macbeth
Act V Scene 1

Now let me see if I've got this straight. We're going to trust George W. Bush to wage a war on terrorism even after his inept administration deliberately allowed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to "get away" on at least three separate occasions? As a matter of fact the Bush Regime had several opportunities to eliminate this threat and on each occasion it it either debated the issue to death or willfully killed the plan.

FACT. In June 2002 the Pentagon had intelligence which indicated that Zarqawi was holed up in the no fly zone in northern, Kurdish Iraq, prompting the Pentagon to draw up a plan which (if it had actually been implemented) would have eliminated Zarqawi with a minimum of "collateral damage." But when the plan was presented to the war happy Bush Administration the plan was promptly debated to death. Indeed, throughout the entire year prior to our invasion of Iraq, the Administration had been receiving almost daily intelligence about Zaraqwi's location.

FACT Four months later, upon learning that Zarqawi might be planning attacks on European targets, the Pentagon devised a second plan, and--you guessed it--the plan was was promptly killed when it was presented to the Administration

FACT. In January 2003 after London Police arrested six terrorists with ties to Zarqawi in northern Iraq, The Pentagon, again with intelligence in hand, created another plan to eliminate Zarqawi and the plan was promptly squashed by the NSA.

That' right. All the grief, terror, pain, death, and suffering that Zarqawi (on innocent men, women and childrenn) might have been avoided if Bush and his inner circle of warmongers had only acted one one of those plans and removed Zarqawi while they had the opportunity. True, they did go after Zarqawi shortly after the United States invaded Iraq, but by that time Zarqawi was gone, and the stage had been set for the bloodshed that followed.

Of course you also have to understand that in 2002, the Administration was obsessed with the idea of of an American led invasion of Iraq (i.e. Blood For Oil) and it served the Administration well to leave Zarqawi in place. First and foremost, the Administration didn't want to create the impression that it was trigger happy, believing that an attack on Zarqawi might undermine efforts to convince our European allies (read France) that they should join the so-called coalition of the willing. Second, but just as important, the Administration almost certainly believed that a known terrorist might serve as a propaganda bogeyman in their ongoing attempt to paste Osama Bin Laden's beard on Saddam Hussein.

Of course, the irony in all of this, is that Zarqawi was actually hiding out in the Kurdish north under the no fly zone which Saddam no longer controlled. Or to put it another way, Zarqawi, the little tumor, was allowed to metastasize into Marqawi the invasive cancer, under our watch, in an area where we had more influence than Saddam Hussein. And yet, the Administration refused to eliminate Zarqawi because it wanted to associate Saddam Hussein with a known terrorist.

And this makes me wonder. How in the name of all that's holy can the Republican Party run on national security? It seems to me that their malignant neglect is indirectly responsible for hundreds or perhaps even thousands of deaths. All because they needed a villain to support their blood for oil power grab in Iraq. And if that weren't bad enough, the Administration is now attempting to downplay its past propaganda, telling us in no uncertain terms that the death of the butcher they created will not have a significant effect on the continuing insurgency.

Come to think of it, I see why the Republicans want to run on flag and marriage protection amendments in 2006. If they try to run on security they may well have to explain why they allowed an international terrorist with no ties to Saddam Hussein, but self-declared ties to al Quaida escape on at least three different occasions. It appears as if gay-bashing and flag-waving are a lot easier to explain than blood stains on Republican hands.


"Here's the smell of blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh! oh! oh!"

From Shakespeare's
Macbeth
Act V Scene 1

No comments: