When Left is Right...

... and up is down.

I read DailyKos. Don't ask why. It just adds to my confusion.

Here's a post called Why Did The President Repeatedly Refuse To Kill Zarqawi?

Today, we see yet another confirmation that this administration was hellbent on invading Iraq, [emphasis mine. -AlexC] rather than really fighting terrorists:
[Former US spy Mike Scheuer] claims that a July 2002 plan to destroy [Zarqawi's training camp] lapsed because "it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers". "Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq [emphasis in original -AlexC] and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq," he told Four Corners.

"Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp . . . experimenting with ricin and anthrax . . . any collateral damage there would have been terrorists."


Rumsfeld and administration officials (including the President) repeatedly pointed to the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq as "evidence" of a Saddam-al Qaeda link (nevermind that Saddam Hussein was himself viewed Zarqawi as a threat and was trying to capture him).

If the President killed Zarqawi, he would have killed the ability to falsely link Saddam and al Qaeda and convince the American people that war was a necessary response to 9/11.

To recap, Zarqawi was in Iraq playing with WMDs before the war for oil and everyone knew it (except of course those who didn't, and don't believe it still), but we needed him to be there so that we could invade to steal their oil and fund Halliburton and the BushCo cronies. (Do I have that right?) Oh, and the President was negligent for not getting him before hand.

So... what's the answer?

More diplomacy? Yet another chance?

Or gunslinging?

Because there's nothing quite so diplomatic as unilaterally launching missile strikes at camps inside a country we're not really friends with. It pissed off the Pakistanis a few months back and they're supposed to be on our side.

What's the right answer this time? I'm confused.

I guess ultimately the right answer is, "What ever Bush does, it's wrong."

The conclusion is great...

All along, the evidence has pointed to one man as "hurting the war on terror": the President of the United States himself.

Yep. Going after these guys is hurting the whole operation.

Politics War on Terror Posted by AlexC at April 30, 2006 5:54 PM