[Please consider recommending, because this seems like a critical matter that has not received enough attention.]
This does not involve Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Yellow Cake, Aluminum tubes, Italian intelligence, or forged Niger documents. And yet it's an example of the politicizing intelligence that seems as outrageous or more so than these examples.
In early 2003, the Pentagon could have captured or killed Zarqawi, now the leader of the insurgency. Yet, the White House and NSC vetoed recommendations by the Pentagon to attack Zarqawi on three occasions in the months before the war. Why????? Of course -- to justify that there were terrorists in Iraq. More below:
The Senate inquiry must look into this story outlined in a 1994 MSNBC article
pre-war Zarqawi story -- which for some reason is still below the radar.
I am mystifed why this has not yet become a huge issue. I have seen neither follow up nor denial of the MSNBC story and I don't understand why. More below:
According to the MSNBC article:
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.
Zarqawi's supposed ties to Saddam were hyped in Powell's UN speech. But (as bloggers such as RonK here easily showed), the Al-Ansar camp where Zarqawi was located was outside of Saddam's jurisdiction in the no-fly zone.
-- 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.
It's simple -- The White House let a vicious terrorist go to make yet another false claim to justify war. What better example of "misuse" of intelligence could there be?