About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Reporting Zarqawi's death, broadcast, cable and major newspaper reports failed to note Bush administration's reported refusal to eliminate him before Iraq war

June 09, 2006 4:22 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: Despite extensive reporting on June 8 on the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, broadcast and cable news reports made no reference to reports from 2004 that the Bush administration had as many as three opportunities to eliminate Zarqawi and his terrorist training camp prior to the Iraq war. Newspaper reports published June 9 likewise omitted mention of those missed opportunities.

36 Comments

A Media Matters for America review of extensive broadcast reporting on June 8 on the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the self-proclaimed Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, found that the three cable networks, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, as well as nightly news reports on NBC, CBS, and ABC, made no reference to widespread reports from 2004 that the Bush administration had as many as three opportunities to eliminate Zarqawi and his terrorist training camp prior to the Iraq war, but elected to wait because killing Zarqawi "could undercut its case for war against Saddam [Hussein]," in the words of NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski. Articles in The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal published June 9 also omitted that information, although The New York Times ran an op-ed in its June 9 edition that noted, "It has been reported that twice the administration passed on the opportunity to attack his camp in the Kurdish area of Iraq, evidently believing that it would detract from the more important goal of toppling Saddam Hussein." In addition, White House press secretary Tony Snow received no questions from reporters about those alleged forgone opportunities during Snow's 50-minute White House press briefing on June 8, in which the press corps and Snow focused exclusively on Zarqawi's death.

As The Carpetbagger Report weblog noted on June 8, in a March 2, 2004, report, NBC News outlined the administration's repeated failures to eliminate Zarqawi. According to NBC News, in June 2002, the Pentagon identified Zarqawi at a weapons production facility in Kirma, Iraq, and drew up "airtight" plans to use cruise missiles and air strikes to eliminate the terrorist leader; the plan was reportedly "debated to death" in the National Security Council. Then, in response to "intelligence [that] showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe," the Pentagon again submitted plans for an air strike in October 2002 -- but again the administration refused. In January 2003, at the height of the administration's push for the invasion of Iraq, British police reportedly arrested a group of terror suspects in London connected to the ricin camp in Kirma, and the Pentagon submitted its third attack plan for eliminating Zarqawi. But, as NBC News reported, by that time, "Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone":

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," [former National Security Council member Roger] Cressey added.

Parts of the NBC News report were subsequently confirmed by The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), which noted that, as the post-Saddam insurgency grew increasingly violent, questions were raised about why the administration failed to strike at Zarqawi's camp given that President Bush had said "he relentlessly would pursue and attack fleeing al Qaeda fighters regardless of where they went to hide." The Journal also reported that military officials considered the intelligence on his whereabouts "sound" and "one of the best targets we ever had." Later, Washington Monthly's Political Animal weblog author Kevin Drum noted that the reports of several instances in which the Pentagon submitted strike plans against Zarqawi to the White House before the war were confirmed by an on-the-record statement by former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, who directed the agency's unit assigned to tracking Osama bin Laden.

In the June 9 op-ed on Zarqawi, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, co-authors of The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right (Times Books, October 2005) and senior fellows at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Council on Foreign Relations, respectively, noted:

Top military intelligence officials knew he was in Iraq and traveling around the country before the United States invasion, but they did not fully recognize that he was preparing for an insurgency. The Bush administration found it more useful to point to Mr. Zarqawi as a link between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, which, at the time, he was not. It has been reported that twice the administration passed on the opportunity to attack his camp in the Kurdish area of Iraq, evidently believing that it would detract from the more important goal of toppling Saddam Hussein.

Nevertheless, the newspaper's own news reporting and editorial on Zarqawi did not acknowledge those opportunities.

Ignoring evidence that the United States could have eliminated Zarqawi years ago, cable news reports largely focused on Zarqawi's role in the Iraq insurgency after the fall of Saddam's regime in their June 8 coverage. Miklaszewski, who wrote the original NBC News report on the missed opportunities, appeared on MSNBC's Imus in the Morning to discuss Zarqawi's death, but made no mention of his own earlier reporting. Following Imus, MSNBC News Live (daily, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. ET) covered the story throughout the morning, but, again, did not mention Miklaszewski's 2004 report.

Similarly, on June 8, Fox & Friends and Fox News Live made no mention of the failure to capitalize on the Pentagon's attempts to launch air strikes against Zarqawi. On Fox & Friends, anchor Brian Kilmeade recounted a brief history of Zarqawi, including Zarqawi's move to northern Iraq prior to the start of the war, but did not mention any of the Pentagon's plans to eliminate him during that time. Afternoon and prime-time programs on Fox News also reported extensively on Zarqawi's death, but did not note any of the prewar opportunities to eliminate him.*

CNN devoted several segments to the story on June 8, including one on Zarqawi's "chilling resume" by London-based senior international correspondent Nic Robertson during the 11 a.m. ET hour of CNN Live Today. Robertson's report noted Zarqawi's connection to the London ricin plot, and that, beginning in July 2004, the Bush administration offered a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture. But Robertson omitted any mention of reports that the administration passed up opportunities to kill him to avoid undercutting its case for war. Earlier, on American Morning, anchor Miles O'Brien had interviewed CNN correspondent John Vause and noted: "There have been several opportunities [to eliminate Zarqawi], including one case where Zarqawi was actually held by coalition forces. They didn't know who he was." O'Brien also touted Zarqawi's death: "[N]ot only was it a decapitation, but it was also a very crippling blow to the mid- and lower-level aspects of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and a significant blow to that component of the insurgency that the U.S. military is contending with there.

Several June 8 reports on National Public Radio's Morning Edition likewise omitted mention of those missed opportunities, but did note that Zarqawi was held at one point in Fallujah, Iraq, by the Iraqi military before being released when he was not properly identified, but did not report on the opportunities the administration had to kill him before the war. A separate report on Zarqawi's legacy merely noted that "U.S. intelligence services had tracked Zarqawi for years, starting well before the war in Iraq." In yet another report, entitled "Bush Closely Followed Zarqawi Chase," NPR White House correspondent David Greene noted that Bush has "been talking about [Zarqawi] in speech after speech -- his interest in Zarqawi was well known," but made no mention of the NBC News report.

* Review of Fox News on June 8, coverage from 6 a.m. to noon ET; Factiva transcripts for afternoon and primetime coverage beginning at 4 p.m.

From the June 8 edition of CNN's American Morning:

O'BRIEN: John, let's talk about the attempts to get Zarqawi in the past. There have been several opportunities, including one case where Zarqawi was actually held by coalition forces. They didn't know who he was. A lot of people have been saying, including the foreign minister who we spoke with just a little while ago, that that videotape, which was released in April, might have been a significant lead for those that were pursuing Zarqawi.

VAUSE: Well, by looking at that videotape, we understand from Jordanian officials that they managed to piece together precisely where Zarqawi may have been hiding, and from there, that led to intelligence and tips from the local residents. And they pieced all of this together, managed to work out that Zarqawi was in this one particular area of Baghdad. A lot of that information, as we heard from the foreign minister on American Morning just a short time ago, a lot of that information, a lot of clues coming from that particular videotape. It -- at the time, some suggested that Zarqawi was getting overconfident, that this was reckless. Others suggested that because he'd lost so many close aides that he was on the run, that the coalition forces had him -- had him up against the ropes, that he really had to release this video, had to show his face, show him in all those poses with the automatic weapons and looking like some kind of military commander pointing at maps and that kind of thing, he needed to do that to bolster his image to win more support. But it appears now that that could have been in fact that video which led to his downfall.

[...]

O'BRIEN: It sounds like what happened here was not only was it a decapitation, but it was also a very crippling blow to the mid- and lower-level aspects of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and a significant blow to that component of the insurgency that the U.S. military is contending with there.

From the June 8 edition of CNN Live Today:

CAROL LIN (anchor): A martyr, a monster -- two completely opposing views being used to describe Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this morning as news of his death spreads. CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson gives us a look at al-Zarqawi's chilling resume.

ROBERTSON: Iraq was where Zarqawi made a name for himself. In less than a year, murdering his way to be one of the most wanted terror suspects in the world linked to Osama bin Laden.

JONATHAN STEVENSON (terrorism analyst): Zarqawi has -- has emerged as a player, a global player in the Al Qaeda network, having recently been formally, in a way, anointed as bin Laden's protégé in Iraq.

ROBERTSON: In a letter said to be from Zarqawi to bin Laden, intercepted by U.S. forces in Iraq, Zarqawi promised his support if bin Laden approved his plans for starting a civil war in Iraq. He claimed to be the man in the mask minutes later, in this rare video, beheading [American contractor] Nick Berg. He also claimed to be the mastermind behind even bloodier attacks like this one, killing dozens of Shi'a Muslims in their holy city, Karbala. As the death toll at the hands of his Sunni Muslim suicide bombers grew, his group changed their name from Al-Tawhid wal Jihad to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the ancient name for Iraq. But the chilling resume of this 38-year-old Jordanian began long before the war in Iraq -- wanted for the 2002 murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan; linked to chemical weapons plots in Europe.

M.J. GOHEL (CEO of the Asia-Pacific Foundation): Al-Zarqawi has been connected to virtually all the dangerous cells which have been operating in Europe: the ricin cell in the U.K., the cell in Germany, also in Italy.

ROBERTSON: Even before the war in Iraq, however, Zarqawi had been singled out by the Bush administration as a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.

COLIN POWELL (former Secretary of State): We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad.

ROBERTSON: The U.S. put a reward on Zarqawi's head and was on his trail, and had increased the reward to $25 million. Although they once thought they came close to catching him, a massive offensive and a suspected stronghold of Fallujah failed to net him. In that letter to bin Laden, Zarqawi recognized he was a hunted man. "The future has become frightening," he wrote. "Eyes are everywhere." Eyes that finally found Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Nic Robertson, CNN, London.

From the June 8 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition:

GREENE: This is the guy who the president has been talking about in speech after speech. His interest in Zarqawi was -- was well known, so for the president's national security adviser, for the secretary of state, for the military to keep him abreast because they knew that they would view this killing if it happened as pretty significant. I don't think it's too unusual, but, that said, the president does like to stay away from the details and, as he often talks about, let the operational decisions to the military.

From the June 8 broadcast of Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: Jailed in '99, went over when he was fighting the Soviets. He goes to jail in Jordan. They say, "I have a good idea -- let's give everyone amnesty if you promise not to reek any havoc." Wrong. He goes over to Afghanistan, there are reports that he fought in Tora Bora. That war is over. They lose. He gets out, goes to northern Iraq, forms his own organization, and then when the invasion happens, he starts hitting. Maybe his first big hit was against that U.N. building that woke everyone up to maybe a powerful insurgency that was going to give us a lot of trouble, which we are experiencing right -- today.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by chasingmoksha (June 09, 2006 6:11 pm ET)
         

      how is it that we supposedly are the "good guys" yet we parade Zarqawi's dead body around on every network. How does this make her morally superior to the very people who tape beheadings?

      What has humanity come to when we celebrate a death.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cerberus (June 09, 2006 6:27 pm ET)
           

        I certainly celebrate his death, but then I'm not a guilt-ridden "progressive." The death photo is necessary otherwise people wouldn't believe that we got killed him.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by chasingmoksha (June 09, 2006 6:58 pm ET)
             

          cry foul when other countries are dancing in the street after an American death.

          Sure, you are with the "good guys."

          Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (June 09, 2006 8:46 pm ET)
           

        Your kidding right? I don’t know about morally superior…I try not to go down that road. But I can tell you what the difference is: One tapes the sawing off of some innocent persons head without justification and the other showed a picture to prove they killed a subhuman terrorist who sawed off innocent peoples heads.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (June 10, 2006 11:26 pm ET)
             

          I think it is a good thing that Zarqawi is dead.

          However, I find our rationale for showing the dead/captured bad guys and not allowing pictures of our own fallen and/or Iraqi civilian deaths a double-standard and definitely propaganda driven. We should apply a single standard to the showing of the dead or else it is obvious we are just showing what we believe benefits us without regard to the whole truth.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (June 11, 2006 12:04 am ET)
               

            I think we should be showing the flag draped coffins of our fallen. I think it is a sign of respect for their sacrifice and I think the public should have to face what a real sacrifice our soldiers make. I don’t think we should be showing the actual bodies of our fallen soldiers if that is what you meant. I am not sure why you think we should show the dead Iraqis—I can’t think of a reason to show…I assume you mean their dead bodies. Showing the pictures of a high profile terrorist like we did here is done for many reasons I am sure. I think the proof issue is very real. I also think it is psychological propaganda to use against the enemy. You may think that is a bad thing but I do not. Any propaganda we can use to undermine these terrorists and their cause is a good thing in my book. Having said all that I do think in the case of Sadamn and his sons it was a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions as I understand it—Zarquwi is a different story because he is classified as a terrorist and not someone who is part of another countries military force so the protections do not apply to him. If you asked what I prefer I would prefer we didn’t show it because I just have no desire to see pictures of dead people. If you ask if I have any concern about the dignity of Sadamn and sons and Zarquwi---no I don’t--that may make me a bad person in your eyes but I just can’t work up any kind of empathy for these monsters. On a side note I think the foreign press show more graphic images then we do here—our coverage is much more sanitized. Personally I prefer it that way. Anyway its just my opinion and not worth about what you paid for it (-: Have a good night Openmind.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by chasingmoksha (June 09, 2006 6:14 pm ET)
         

      How does this make us morally superior to the very people who tape beheadings?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaka417 (June 09, 2006 6:24 pm ET)
           

        If the U.S. forces didn't show pictures of him, you conspiracy theorists would deduce that the reports of his death are just propaganda, and "another lie by the Bush Adminstration."

        Report Abuse
    • Author by vulcangrrl (June 09, 2006 7:26 pm ET)
         

      Memebers of The So-Called Liberal Media apparently simultaneously forgot how to read a map during the run-up to the Iraqi war. When Bush claimed that Saddam "harbored terrorists", they neglected to point out the Zaquari's "training camp" was in Kurdish territory and thus off-limits to Saddam's forces (but easily bombable by US/British warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone). Just as they failed to point out the the Achille Lauro terrorist Saddam was "harboring" in Baghdad had been pardoned. Or that the support for terrorist organizations that Saddam was providing was aid going to Palestinian organizations like Hamas, which was also getting aid from such BushCo pals as Saudi Arabia & Kuwait. I guess sending aid to terrorists is fine as long as you're on the Crawford Ranch Guest List.

      But why should we be surprised? This is the same "liberal media" that conveniently forgot that Paula Jones' initial approach to Clinton was a blatant atttempt at blackmail, prior to right-wing groups adopting her, cleaning her up, and repackaging her baseless allegations as "harassment". (One wonders what she expected Clinton to do, when she told that state trooper she wanted to be the governor's girlfriend? Did she expect Clinton would immediately leave Hillary for her?)

      If we had seen that old photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the '80s during the run-up to the Iraqi war, as often as we saw the "Monica with a beret hugging Clinton" picture during the run-up to impeachment, would the American people have rolled over for war as easily?

      Anyone who believes the right-wing propaganda that the media has a liberal bias must be willfully stupid or completely brainwashed. The briefest examination of the facts reveals the blatant right-wing tilt of the "news" we are force-fed.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by lostlogic (June 09, 2006 7:46 pm ET)
         

      This is where I usually part company with my more idealistic liberals…I cheered this pigs death. And while I personally have no desire to see his dead body I do understand the reasoning behind it. If we didn’t show them then everyone would be shouting for proof. I did have some questions about showing the photos and the ones of Sadamn and his sons that it was in violation of the Geneva conventions though. I felt nothing but disgust for this man and am glad he finally got what was coming to him. Just to really drive home how much I differ I even was happy to hear he survived for a short time so he knew that he was getting what he deserved. I don’t consider this man to be human. He was a disgusting vile monster…good riddance.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Setir Copyh (June 10, 2006 1:37 am ET)
           

        Disregard any incoming attacks of being a hatemonger.

        Personally I would have enjoyed this guy's death more if he had been captured and we staged a good reenactment of the scene from American Psycho with the nail gun.

        That would have been grand.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (June 10, 2006 11:33 pm ET)
           

        Sometimes I wonder if this guy really did all of that. I haven't seen the evidence, but the military and the administration have been known to make frequent false assertions. If Zarqawi really did behead those people, I believe this is justice. I would just like to see some evidence instead of taking the military's word for it so much.

        Maybe I have become so cynical in reaction to so much regular incompetence from these guys.

        The thing that doesn't quite fit is that lazy media and lazy military leaders would rather pin everything on one bogeyman at a time. The real culprit to some of these crimes could be someone else. All the while we believe justice has been served, when it is only partly the case.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by lostlogic (June 11, 2006 12:13 am ET)
             

          But you are right you do have reason to question based on their actions. But I am pretty sure the he has actually publicly taken credit for it and Osama has praised his as something like the "prince of Al Queda in Iraq". I agree that taking him out was not like cutting the head off the beast as some are claiming—he will be replaced quickly. However he was the face so it was a great moral booster for our side and a moral buster for the terrorist.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (June 10, 2006 3:04 am ET)
         

      The same right wing pundits that trumpeted the un confirmed reports that Bill Clinton supposedly refused Sudan's offer to hand over bin Laden will fall all over themselves with faux outrage & histrionics that anyone would even DARE to suggest that the Bushies passed on a chance to off Zarqawi BEFORE he got around to lopping off the heads of innocent people.

      Anyone disagree?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by LL-TIME (June 10, 2006 9:57 am ET)
           

        Even worse than that is that Clinton had OBL in "his gun sights" but refused to give the "go ahead" order when given the opportunity. So, not only did Clinton not stop OBL when he (sorry, but well confirmed) had the chance, but he also didn't kill him when he had the chance. Thus leading to thousands of innocent deaths. But, let's blame Bush for not stopping 9-11 and let's blame Bush for going to war against an evil force and let's blame Bush for wanting peace in the world...oops, how'd that one slip in there.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave_chicago (June 10, 2006 12:30 pm ET)
             

          ---"Clinton had OBL in "his gun sights" but refused to give the "go ahead" order"---

          The false claim cited above is frequently parroted by the parrots on the right. It originated in an August 11, 2002, article on the (surprise!!) right-wing news(?) website NewsMax.com, and was disproven by the 9/11 Commission.

          "The bipartisan 9-11 Commission found (pdf) "no reliable evidence to support" the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States."

          [link to mediamatters.org]

          Report Abuse
          • Author by LL-TIME (June 10, 2006 8:02 pm ET)
               

            You're linking a MMFA story to disprove a right wing news organization? That's a good one. Left v. Right....who will win? lol

            I also noticed they said "no reliable source", is that a conviniant way to avoid the discussion?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by funnymanpants (June 10, 2006 10:35 pm ET)
                 

              You are clearly wrong. MMFA is quoting the 9/11 commission. You are trying to evade the fact you are wrong.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (June 10, 2006 11:38 pm ET)
                 

              So is MMFA wrong about what the 9-11 commision said?

              You wrap your "it's all a wash" bunk around you like a warm blanket, ll-time.

              Unless you have a reliable source that the 9-11 commission doesn't know about, you have nothing to backup what you say.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by LL-TIME (June 11, 2006 12:00 am ET)
                   

                Didn't you even read the 9-11 report yourself? You stated it said: "no reliable evidence to support" that Sudan offered OBL to Clinton. It did NOT say it didn't happen. If Bush gave you evidence of WMD would you call it reliable? So, what kind of evidence do you consider reliable?

                And, it's funny that you consider MMFA a proper source for your stance, but find the right wing source totally unacceptable. Go figure.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by dave_chicago (June 11, 2006 2:08 pm ET)
                     

                  You stated unequivocally: "Clinton had OBL in "his gun sights" but refused to give the "go ahead" order". Your cited source: none (though we know the charge came originally from the rabid right-wing web site News Max.)

                  I provided a link to the 9/11 Commission (who, dare I say, posesses some measure of *bipartisan* credibility) whose analysis found "no credible evidence" to support your false accusation. A clue for you: if there's no evidence, the charge doesn't hold up.

                  Loser: you.

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by hogprint (June 11, 2006 12:34 pm ET)
               

            By Lisa Myers Senior investigative correspondent NBC News Updated: 6:40 p.m. ET March 17, 2004 As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.

            The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

            In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.” ... It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

            In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters...

            Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm...

            The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

            “We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing...

            “We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

            What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

            A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

            Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.” ...

            ...Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away...

            ...NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview...

            ...One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved... _______________________________________________

            There is no defence of this...shameful.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (June 11, 2006 11:58 pm ET)
                 

              Your report leaves so much out as to be quite funny really. You didn't even mention that we DID have a strike force in the Indian Ocean. Where do you think the 1998 cruise missiles came from? Nebraska? When Clinton did the right thing in attacking OBL, he was (obviously unfairly) derided as wagging the dog or some such popular saying. Do you admit that was absolutely inappropriate and wrong?

              This also demonstrates how much the Republicans damaged our national security with their silly politically-motivated impeachment proceedings.

              You also didn't mention that although bin forgotten was spotted in 2000, Clinton did not want to start a full blown military exercise and leave it to the next administration. Perhaps he did not want to do to Bush 43 what Bush 41 had done to Clinton with Somalia. The plan that was siting on Bush's desk on 9-11 was one started at the end of the Clinton Administration.

              Also in 2000, during the waning days of the Clinton Administration, the predator was unarmed. The Predator was finally armed around the time of Bush's taking office in January of 2001 with a helfire missile system I believe. Rice was never able to get the program back in the air until after 9-11. Supposedly she was too busy trying to abrogate our ABM treaty at the time.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by hogprint (June 12, 2006 2:37 pm ET)
                   

                Your report leaves so much out as to be quite funny really. You didn't even mention that we DID have a strike force in the Indian Ocean. Where do you think the 1998 cruise missiles came from? Nebraska? When Clinton did the right thing in attacking OBL, he was (obviously unfairly) derided as wagging the dog or some such popular saying. Do you admit that was absolutely inappropriate and wrong? _______________________________________________ Not my report. This was off of NBC. I hate to have to explain this to you, but there is ALWAYS a strike force in the Indian Ocean. It is FACT Clinton gave a half hearted effort to chase down OBL. Two cruise missiles hitting an aspirin factory doesn't amount to seriously tracking down a known terrorist that has attacked US interests. _______________________________________________ This also demonstrates how much the Republicans damaged our national security with their silly politically-motivated impeachment proceedings.

                You also didn't mention that although bin forgotten was spotted in 2000, Clinton did not want to start a full blown military exercise and leave it to the next administration. Perhaps he did not want to do to Bush 43 what Bush 41 had done to Clinton with Somalia. The plan that was siting on Bush's desk on 9-11 was one started at the end of the Clinton Administration. _______________________________________________

                Clinton NEVER had the will or the balls to engage in an active military campaign. Your THEORY may be correct, but I've never seen anything on the record to corroborate that theory. Please provide us a link that proves "The Plan" was the one on Bush's desk. _______________________________________________

                Also in 2000, during the waning days of the Clinton Administration, the predator was unarmed. The Predator was finally armed around the time of Bush's taking office in January of 2001 with a helfire missile system I believe. Rice was never able to get the program back in the air until after 9-11. Supposedly she was too busy trying to abrogate our ABM treaty at the time. _______________________________________________

                Your time line is fairly close on the Predator. I think what you're inferring is that we should have taken him out with Predator? Correct me if I'm wrong. I never said or implied that, and re-reading the article I did not get that implication. What I took from the article is that Predator had them on camera in real time. A strike could have been launched whether Cruise Missile or air strike. _______________________________________________

                Sorry about all the lines for paragraph breaks, but I can't seem to get the italics working.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by hogprint (June 11, 2006 12:46 pm ET)
               

            Interview with Richard Miniter from Sep. 11, 2003; NRO:

            "One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.

            President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn into office. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake told me that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World Trade Center attack. Lake briefed the president about bin Laden that same year.

            In addition, starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions.

            Indeed, it is possible that Clinton and his national-security team learned of bin Laden even before the 1993 World Trade Center attack. My interviews and investigation revealed that bin Laden made his first attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month after Clinton won the 1992 election. His target was 100 U.S. Marines housed in two towering Yemen hotels. Within hours, the CIA's counterterrorism center learned that the Yemen suspected a man named Osama bin Laden. (One of the arrested bombing suspects later escaped and was detained in a police sweep after al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000.) Lake says he doesn't remember briefing the president-elect about the attempted attack, but that he well might have.

            So it is safe to conclude that Clinton knew about the threat posed by bin Laden since 1993, his first year in office." _______________________________________________

            All you really need to know is that attacks against America by OBL, became more frequent and bolder during the Clinton's reign. Why you ask? He did nothing. He treated it as a crime, not an act of war.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (June 12, 2006 12:11 am ET)
                 

              What does that mean? During the Clinton administration nothing bin forgotten did amounted to declaring war. The only option was to treat him as a criminal. Any declaration of war would only invite stupid Republican criticism as changing the subject from the all important BJ investigations.

              Can you prove that we knew for a fact that bin forgotten was behind the Khobar Towers plot or the original 1993 WTC bombing? If so, how do you think Clinton could have declared war based on that? You seem to forget that OBL did not claim responsibility for these attacks and they were attributed to him much later in the timeline than what you say.

              You are using the tired old smear tactic of mindreading.

              Clinton's only option was to treat OBL as a criminal proceeding. I don't think you have any room to criticize considering the complete failure of your supposed hero and current president to capture bin forgotten in the last 5 1/2 years using the resources of our vast military.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by nukeboot (June 10, 2006 8:29 am ET)
         

      Not only is the mainstream media ignoring the missed opportunities to take this creep out, but the right wing media is spinning the story in an amazing way.

      Rush Limbaugh tried to make the case yesterday that the left can't criticize the failure to bomb the terrorist camp and still maintain that Saddam had no Al Qaeda ties prior to the invasion. Of course he made no mention of the fact that the camp was in an area outside of the control of Saddam.

      People certainly get a distorted version of history when they only get their information from such manipulative sources.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (June 10, 2006 11:43 pm ET)
           

        Part of the reason we didn't take out the camp I am sure was to be able to claim that Saddam had a camp like this.

        Amazing how Rush is always so wrong.

        The truth is that there was no impedence to attacking this camp. It was in an area Saddam had no control over. It would have wiped out a known terrorist.

        I am pretty sure the administration simply did not want to take out the camp in order to have whatever flimsy ammunition they could against Saddam as Rush has recently alluded to.

        Rush could not be more off.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by hogprint (June 11, 2006 1:13 am ET)
         

      Clinton had a couple of chances to bust Osama and passed the buck. The difference is Bush gets to chalk this one up. Clinton was never serious about tracking down terrorists.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_chicago (June 11, 2006 2:31 pm ET)
           

        If you're going to blame Clinton-the right-wing's default scapegoat-you're going to have to blame Bush. And Rumsfeld. And Powell. (And Reagan, for that matter):

        "Several of the [9/11 Commission] witnesses, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, also suggested that there was little public or congressional appetite for military action against Afghanistan, which harbored al Qaeda, until after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and that even removing bin Laden may not have prevented the hijackings."

        [link to www.washingtonpost.com]

        Report Abuse
        • Author by hogprint (June 11, 2006 6:44 pm ET)
             

          I will agree that there may have been little in the way of interest in going after OBL pre 9/11, but that doesn't make it right. I've said before on this forum that I'm not sure the Republicans would have done anything different (had they been in power) at the same time.

          My point is that MMfA is using the same argument now that you say is false of the Clinton Admin. I will agree not enough attention was paid to OBL in the executive and legislative branches. I will disagree with Reagan not paying attention. At the time OBL was a lowly (although rich and an upstart) Mujahideen.

          I personally think Clinton did not do enough to respond to the bigger and bolder attacks. Whether that was due to his scandals or just lack of interest is up for debate.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 12, 2006 12:18 am ET)
               

            You even heard of OBL?

            Not until after 9-11, but you are able to project far back into the previous administration and expertly tell them what they did wrong.

            Why can't you accept that the highest levels of government may not have known as much back then as they do now? You are looking at EVERYTHING in hindsight and pushing known current conclusions on what was likely spotty at the time. I would bet that there were hundreds of people just like bin forgotten during the Clinton Administration and only bin laden ever amounted to much.

            By the end of the Clinton Administration, I have no doubt that bin laden was becoming more prominent, but by then, the options to get him were running out and would have to be an inheritted problem for the next administration to follow through on. We all know how that turned out.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by hogprint (June 12, 2006 3:08 pm ET)
                 

              We started receiving briefs on OBL (by name) around 96-97. That tells me he was on the scope well before then. I didn't see the first public account of OBL (by name) until around 98-99 time frame.

              Don't go on what the American public is fed off of the nightly news. Their info is usually old.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by dougsomers (June 11, 2006 9:04 am ET)
         

      Bin Laden was still making videos. He is too Good for business to eliminate!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (June 11, 2006 9:00 pm ET)
         

      My point was that the wingnuts who so rabidly attacked Clinton over the debunked Sudan hand-over accusation would likely give Dubya' a pass over his CONFIRMED failure to take out Zarqawi.

      Their response: to relaunch their accusations at Clinton, but to TOTALY IGNORE DUBYA'S FAILURE.

      Thanks, guys. You made my point.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mescal (June 12, 2006 1:47 am ET)
           

        We HAVE seen a sh*tload of contrived outrage directed at Clinton in many of these posts.

        So, what exactly is trolling again?

        Report Abuse