Colmes noted missed opportunities to eliminate Zarqawi prior to war that went unreported by media after terrorist's death
Fox News host Alan Colmes noted that the Bush administration failed to eliminate former Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the start of the Iraq war, despite having had at least three opportunities to do so. Media Matters previously documented that coverage of al-Zarqawi's June 8 death on major cable channels and the broadcast networks neglected to mention reports from 2004 that Zaraqwi could have been eliminated much earlier.
On the June 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes noted that the Bush administration reportedly had as many as three opportunities to eliminate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the self-proclaimed Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, before the start of the Iraq war. As Media Matters for America documented, in the immediate aftermath of Zarqawi's June 8 killing, extensive reports on the three cable news channels, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, as well as reports on the broadcast networks, NBC, ABC, and CBS, made no reference to reports from 2004 that the Pentagon provided the administration with several opportunities to eliminate Zarqawi and his terrorist training camp prior to the war but elected to wait because killing Zarqawi "could undercut its case for war against Saddam [Hussein]," as NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski noted at the time.
Colmes made reference to the missed opportunities to eliminate Zarqawi during a discussion with U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone, who asserted that a November 2005 proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) to begin a strategic redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq would have left Zarqawi alive in Iraq. Colmes responded, "If we actually had followed what the Pentagon wanted to do, we had three chances to kill Zarqawi before we went to war."
From the June 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: What Democrat wants defeat in Iraq?
BARONE: Well, I think that a lot of Democrats are saying they just want us out of there and that they don't -- John Murtha, for example --
COLMES: It doesn't mean defeat.
BARONE: Well, I think it means that they're acting with disregard for chances of defeat and for happens --
COLMES: That may be your political opinion, but he said -- Murtha was very clear, consistent with the safety of the troops and consistent with other issues that would come into play. He wasn't saying cut and run. And that's what, you know, this idea that Democrats -- you said it, [Fox News political analyst Robert D.] Novak said it -- want us to lose, I think is an unfair slap at good Americans with a different point of view.
BARONE: Well, I think -- I think it's a minority of Democrats that I would describe that way, Alan. I'd like to make that clear. But I think that you do find some people that are acting in reckless disregard of the chances of -- if we'd taken Mr. Murtha's advice last fall and left as precipitously as he wanted us to, Zarqawi would still be there as a terrorist in Iraq.
COLMES: If we actually had followed what the Pentagon wanted to do, we had three chances to kill Zarqawi before we went to war. But let's get to some of these races
This sort of criticism by Colmes doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to be a way to stretch to not give the administration credit, even in the few times they do something right. Has the administration screwed up this war in Iraq? Clearly. But they should still be given credit for getting rid of a danger to US servicemen... even if they blew other chances.
What Colmes is implying is like saying the Dallas Mavericks should not be happy if they win the Finals in 7 games because they could have swept? It may be true, but they still got the job done.
No .. Colmes was contrasting "if we'd taken Mr. Murtha's advice .. Zarqawi would still be alive" with "if we'd taken the Pentagon's advice, Zarqawi would already have been dead." It was a good response to Barone's canned "Well, Some say..." BS.
What this story shows is one more piece of evidence that the Bushies wanted a war with Iraq no matter what. In other words, they lied (surprise, surprise)
If they had killed Zarqawi before the invasion, it would have undermined their lie that invading Iraq was "the last resort". If, as indicated, they let him live to give one more excuse to invade, that would make Puddinhead look bad. That's why this topic was not discussed in depth on H & C, but simply popped up as a throw-away line.
" If they had killed Zarqawi before the invasion, it would have undermined their lie that invading Iraq was "the last resort". "
No, I don't think that's true. If zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion then that would eliminate the lie that there is "no al queda/Iraq connection". Guess you have to choose which lie is a better lie. Can't have both of them.
Did Saddam control the area where Al-Qaida in Iraq was based?
If indeed Saddam didn't control the area, what purpose does it serve for the Bush Administration to contend it is a real link to Al-Qaida when it really wasn't the case at all?
To the Bush Administration, they appear to rather say something terribly false (i.e. there is a substantial link between Iraq and Al-Qaida) than to be stuck not saying anything at all (by actually attacking/removing Al-Qaida in Iraq, which they were clearly in a position to do).
Oh, so now you're saying that Saddam had to "control" the area of Iraq they were in before it counts? I guess, eventually it will turn out that you will be saying that as long as al queda wasn't in the presidential palace then there's no connection.
but not to get in to a this and that argument here, the right wing was trying to nail Clinton solely to the cross for 911. I remember hearing them say, in response to what people called of Bush's inaction pre 9/11 that Clinton was an appeaser, that he didn't do anything in 8 years to take Bin Laden down.
Now, my feeling is that ALL of WASHINGTON DC screwed it up. The Clinton's for being a bit soft after the embassy bombings in Africa and the Republican congress at the time for freakin out when Bill sent the 40 some missles into Afghanistan, by decrying it as "No War For Monica". Lets face it, OBL was not anyones concern in DC at the time. Bill Clinton and his bent penis were.
But back to Colmes, this is key. This info about the option of taking the guy out (Zarqawi) just shows the ineffectivness and closed mindedness of this Admin when it comes to running the game. The Pentagon had the plan to win this war with the proper troop numbers and what now appears to be a Spec Ops plan to take down key leaders in a future rebellion/insurgancy.
But that is the problem with civilians trying to play Army. I'm sorry but Dick Cheany and George Bush do not know how to run a military. They are not like the bright men and women that we churn out of West Point and the Army College. These men and women study tactics, stratagey, everything assosciated with war. I think I would trust their words about war than a former oil/defense exec.
I didn't get that Colmes lines was in response to the remark at the end of the sentence by Barone. I missed it because I was listening to the clip and reading the article at the same time and missed the "new" justification for the war by Barone.
Taken in that context, Colmes reply does make sense.
The president had three chances to kill Zarqawi before the war started but he kept him alive to advance the phony notion that Saddam was in collusion with Al Qaeda. Zarqawi went on to kill hundreds of Iraqis and almost certainly American soldiers.
So where are all you people now who were claiming MMFA is not pushing the theory that the Bush administration killing Zarqawi when they did was chosen for political reasons?
I guess my eyes are just playing tricks on me and this is yet another article highlighting the Bush Administrations ineptitude in missing chances to get him in the past.
Partisan blinders at their finest.
..Avery Johnson was nicknamed the Little General, but he's not a general. I don't think you can use that sort of analogy when human lives are at stake. Basketball is a game. At the end of the game, the players, whether they win or lose, still get to take home a paycheck. If you lose on the battlefield, you can die.
How would you feel if one of your friends or family members was killed by someone that the government may have had several chances to apprehend?
I'd be pretty peeved.
" How would you feel if one of your friends or family members was killed by someone that the government may have had several chances to apprehend? "
I guesss, if I knew anyone that died on 9-11, I would be very peeved, too. I would be mad at the Clinton administration for not apprehending OBL when they had the chances and for not taking steps when they attacked the WTC the first time.
Yes. If Clinton were a Republican, he would have arrested bin laden as an infant and held him indefinitely at Guantanamo, because everyone knew he was going to commit 9-11.
Give me a break.
I find much of the hindsight pretty funny considering few Americans even knew who bin forgotten was while Bill Clinton had aerial drones and a combat group in the Indian Ocean hunting for him at the time.
When did you first hear of osama? Was it before or after your buddies were deriding cruise missile attacks on bin laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan as "Monica Missiles"? My guess is that you didn't hear about him until after 9-11 like most of us. I guess that makes your entire view of the subject hindsight at best.
How many attacks did the Bush Administration perform on bin forgotten before 9-11? How many meetings did they have about him before 9-11?
As long as we are getting your 20/20 hindsight opinions, do you admit that in hindsight it was pretty foolish to place the abbrogation of the ABM Treaty as the highest priority of the Bush Administration's National Security apparati at the time?
Do you think it was pretty foolish not to get the newly armed Predator drone back up in the air after it was recently armed in January of 2001 (Although the unarmed predator drone had reportedly spotted bin laden twice during the waning months of the Clinton Administration, it never flew again until after 9-11)?
Can you answer me this? How was it that the Clinton Administration spotted bin laden with an aerial drone? If Clinton was so incompetent as you would have us believe, what do you think that drone was doing over in Afghanistan? Do you think we just randomly fly drones for no reason all over the world or something?
>>I would be mad at the Clinton administration for not apprehending OBL when they had the chances
The 9/11 commission determined that OBL was never offered to Clinton. (I assume that is what you mean.)
Looks like Colmes was actually showing some spunk here. Go Alan!
was about to write the same thing. I've been pretty impressed with him of late. Still can't watch the show though; it's a violation of my Fox boycott and boy I can't stomach Hannity.
Of all the people on their network, I find Hannity the single most offensive. Even O'Reilly occasionally makes a reasonable point. Hannity, never.
When Hannity wasn’t like this, when he actually engaged in real debate on his radio show. I use to be a regular listener. He always had his conservative bias but he was still relatively reasonable. I found the more successful and embraced by the Right he became the more unreasonable and strident he became. It has reached the point where I can’t even listen to him for any time before I have to change the channel—and this from someone who tuned in everyday to his show. I noticed this phenomena happening with others too. I guess when you attain this level of success you don’t want to jeopardize it by alienating what you see as your fan base. Seems the principles they had when they were just “some guy with a radio show” take a back seat when the fame and money start rolling in.
Hannity makes O'Reilly look like a Rhodes Scholar! Hannity must be related to the Bush Family.
Colmes has moments of showing alot of spunk. Its too bad he is working for FAUX, he is outnumbered and probably comfortable with having his name on that networks second highest rated program.
That Colmes is very well payed to serve as Hannity's doormat. They let him make a valid point once in a while, just to keep it interesting.
Too quick for the droolers to catch.
that Alan Colmes has gotten a spine implant.
I know a lot pf people here probably don't like him, but he actually is doing a much better job and unlike Hannity, Colmes actually does his homework. Keep in mind he is the only voice of the left on that network so it is literally him against the world over there at Fox.