If you're tired of seeing Bush get criticized for attacking Iraq based on military intelligence at the time, well, it looks like that trend has finally gotten old and tired. The new hotness: criticizing him for not attacking Iraq soon enough, based on military intelligence at the time. Via BoingBoing, Salon digs up an NBC News report from March 2004:
At least this article establishes that al Qaeda had terrorist camps in Iraq producing chemical weapons —that represented a real threat to the West — before the U.S. invasion. I wonder if the same people who will use this article to fault Bush will also stop asserting that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, or that there was no reason to invade Iraq. I'm not betting on it.
In 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.Sure, taking out Zarqawi earlier would have helped. But if you think the very people criticizing Bush now for not killing Zarqawi earlier would have applauded a missile strike on Iraq before Zarqawi had racked up his grisly death toll, I've got a bridge to sell you. As I've said before, when it comes to the MSM (and the liberal blogosphere), Bush just can't win.
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.
...Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
...In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
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.
At least this article establishes that al Qaeda had terrorist camps in Iraq producing chemical weapons —that represented a real threat to the West — before the U.S. invasion. I wonder if the same people who will use this article to fault Bush will also stop asserting that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, or that there was no reason to invade Iraq. I'm not betting on it.
First off, this criticism isn't at all "new". People have been criticizing the Bush administration for not attacking Zarqawi's camp for years. The news report is from 2004, and there was quite a bit of noise about it around the blogosphere at the time. I'm really surprised you hadn't heard about it. It's only being brought up again now because, if killing Zarqawi was as important as war supporters claim, the Bush administration was criminally negligent for not acting then.
Second, and this is basic information you should already know if you're going to discuss this topic, Zarqawi's camp was in a part of Iraq that Saddam had no control over. No connection has ever been proved, and you know the administration has been looking for evidence of such connection and would have publicized it if it existed. Even if Zarqawi was producing chemical weapons, that has nothing to do with the charges against Saddam.
Third, a limited strike on a terrorist camp is not "attacking Iraq".
I really don't want to accuse you of arguing disingenuously, but it's hard to believe that you weren't aware of all this, and are intentionally misrepresenting it. Anyone paying attention to the debate about the war should know this stuff.
This is not a case of "when it comes to the MSM, Bush just can't win," but rather another example of the Bush administration reliably screwing things up.
"If you're tired of seeing Bush get criticized for attacking Iraq based on military intelligence at the time," you haven't been paying attention, because what Bush is being criticized for is ignoring most of the military intelligence at the time, and picking only the things that aided his case for war.
But even so, I still believe that a Bush missile strike on targets in Iraq before Zarqawi had fully established himself as a mass-murdering terrorist, would have been criticized, not applauded, as unilateral cowboyism by the very people who are faulting him now for invading Iraq.
I similarly doubt the distinction between parts of Iraq under Saddam's control and, supposedly, not under his control would have figured so prominently in the commentary, either; it would have been seen as an illegal attack on a sovereign state.
And is there really a big difference between Saddam actively supporting terrorist camps, and passively allowing his country to be used by terrorist camps? Either way, it was a problem we had to clean up. As Bush said in his post 9-11 speech, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." And given the miniscule impact of Clinton's attempt to deal with al Qaeda by launching a few cruise missiles at its training camps, Bush may have felt a more comprehensive solution was called for. Indeed, he (supposedly) said, before the Iraq invasion, that "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
Finally, it's interesting to see the same people who claim that killing terrorist leaders is pointless, because they're quickly replaced by new ones, arguing that killing Zarqawi in 2002 would have made a big difference. Wouldn't he have just been replaced by someone else who would have done the same things? If so, then it was no big loss not to have killed him years ago. If not, then killing him now was a vital and important victory. Can't have it both ways.
Anyway, yes, you are probably right that some on the left would have criticized the action had the president taken it, but that's not much of an excuse.
Of course there is. But "passively allowing" isn't a very good description. Large areas of Iraq, most notably Kurdish areas, but also many Shia areas like the location of the Ansar camp, weren't areas where Saddam had the power to allow or forbid anything, passively or otherwise.
Finally, the claim, both now and then, is that Zarqawi, while a very bad guy, isn't really than important, but that if the Bush administration is going to make him out as such a powerful boogieman, then they should have taken him out when they had the chance.
To further augment BB's remarks, I would just note that there is some speculation that the reason why we didn't attack the Zarqawi camp in the first place was because we wanted to keep the camp as one of the reasons to invade Iraq, even though it wasn't unter Saddam's control. Eliminating the camp would have eliminated one of the justifications used by the Administration for the war.
For the most part, it appears that Saddam was using Zarqawi as a proxy against the Kurds who were asserting considereable indepence and trying to make trouble for them. Most likely part of Zarqawi's success in Iraq since the invasion is related to his ties with the Baathist leadership.
Regardless, I think that the whole idea that if he didn't matter then it can't be a big deal now is silly. Zarqawi is a big deal primarily because of what he has done in post-invasion Iraq.
More interesting to me is the idea that is put forth that Zarqawi is just one man and doesn't really matter while many of those same people are quick to cast aspersions because we haven't gotten Bin Laden. Either terrorist leaders matter or they don't, can't have that both ways.
I believe the getting the leaders is important, but not necessarily the most important thing, and certainly not a panacea.
A user account is required to post comments. If you do not have an account, please feel free to create one. Accounts with obscene or offensive user names will be rejected.
I always have time for a well-articulated opposing viewpoint, thoughtfully and politely expressed in good faith.
However, I have no time for name calling, personal attacks, rudeness, or other types of hostile behavior, whether directed at me or at other commenters.
Therefore, comments I find to be rude, abusive, profane, annoying, or otherwise inappropriate may be deleted. Comments may also be deleted if they are redundant or off-topic.
The maximum comment length is 3,000 characters. Longer comments broken into multiple parts to circumvent this policy will be deleted. If your comment is too long, please edit it down, link to the full text on your own blog, or both.