« Home | How to properly eat sushi. My dad may want to tak... » | Gnarles Barkley - Crazy » | We went out on the Flint River yesterday and took ... » | We went up to Chicago 2 weeks ago to see Lisa's re... » | I found these old James Bond posters and thought t... » | And if those spinner rims weren't bad enough, here... » | Taken from electric6.com. State of the Six Ad... » | Here is my tater man! » | Three of the unhealthiest snakes in America. Rank... » | » 

GetDShirts.com

Monday, June 12, 2006 

Taken from Salon.com (Link)

Iraqi and U.S. officials announced this morning that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed in an air strike northwest of Baghdad. At the White House, George W. Bush declared the news "a victory in the global war on terror."

Assuming that Zarqawi is really dead -- and we could wallpaper a small house with news reports of major al-Qaida leaders who turned out not to be -- the U.S. special forces who pulled off the attack deserve whatever praise they're going to get. But at the risk of raining on anyone's parade, it's fair to make one observation here:

The Bush administration didn't need to go to war to take out Zarqawi.

In fact, there's evidence that the war actually helped keep Zarqawi alive longer -- and certainly presented him with more easily accessible targets -- than would have been the case if the United States had not invaded Iraq. As NBC News reported back in 2004, U.S. military planners drew up plans to take out Zarqawi three times in 2002 and 2003, but the Bush administration killed the plans each time. Why? Because, military officials told NBC, the Bush administration feared that destroying Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Iraq "could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

-- Tim Grieve