Apos
May 14, 2004, 8:22pm
61
I wonder what the neocons will have to say when this gets wider play:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003919.php
i.e. the man who murdered Berg, the guy looking to be the new Osama of Iraq, was let live at least 3 times over because, according to disgruntled military people who wanted it to happen but got rejected, the administration thought that killing him would undermine it’s political case for attacking Iraq (which was already something of a stretch since Zarqawi wasn’t even in the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam).
Reeder
May 14, 2004, 8:40pm
62
Apos:
I wonder what the neocons will have to say when this gets wider play:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003919.php
i.e. the man who murdered Berg, the guy looking to be the new Osama of Iraq, was let live at least 3 times over because, according to disgruntled military people who wanted it to happen but got rejected, the administration thought that killing him would undermine it’s political case for attacking Iraq (which was already something of a stretch since Zarqawi wasn’t even in the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam).
Let me get this straight.
Bushco for all their talk about this being a war against terrorism, including the war in Iraq…
Let this leading terrorist live not once but 3 times??
The war in Iraq was more important than killing a known terrorist?
One who has been responsible for around 700 deaths in Iraq?
{b]Brutus…Sam Stone**…how you gonna spin this?
This lays waste to the claim that was is against terrorism.
Thank goodness the paleolibs (is that the opposite of neocons?) aren’t doing the exact same thing .
Good job staying above the fray, liberals !