Now that the DSM has focussed attention on pre-war actions and inactions, it's time to resurrect and disseminate the story of how the White House and NSC vetoed recommendations by the Pentagon to attack Zarqawi on
three occasions in the months before the war.
According to the MSNBC article linked above:
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.
Why isn't this a major scandal?
Everything about the story is completely outrageous and unforgivable:
-- The Al-Ansar Camp was
outside of Saddam's area of control, and yet was used by
Powell at the UN to justify war against Saddam.
-- The White House deliberately chose not to "take out" Zarqawi when it had not one, but three chances.
-- They did this solely to bolster the case against Saddam.
-- Post-war, Zarqawi has become the Public Enemy Number One in Iraq, conjured up by the administration to frighten people into continuing to support the war.
Now that the DSM has revealed the Bush administration's desperation to find a rationale for war, the Zarqawi case highlights the lengths to which they went, even beyond the WMD lies.
Not only were the "intelligence and facts . . . being fixed around the policy, " but the policy itself was poisoned to our great detriment by White House vetos of the Pentagon's Zarqawi strategy.