Good Line!
"In fact, had it been up to most of us who had the good sense to oppose the war, Zarqawi would have been taken out long before the Administration was able to use him as a tool for its campaign for war; and tens of thousands of innocent people, including 2,500 American soldiers, would still be alive to tell Bush, Cheney, Hitchens, Kristol and their comrades just how they felt about being asked to die for a lie."
That's Alterman. I tend to think anti-war rhetoric/writing has been insufficiently indignant.
Advertisement
In fact, had it been up to most of us who had the good sense to oppose the war, Zarqawi would have been taken out long before
In fact, had it been up to most of us who had the good sense to support the war, bin Laden would have been taken out long before Bush was ever elected. Perhaps during the time that a certain Democrat was in office - when there was at least ten chances to kill or capture him that the certain Democrat passed up (at least according to the only person who has been willing to go on the record as saying we had a chance to get Zarqawi prior to the war).
June 23, 2006 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do we have any actual examples of antiwar people going on record with a call to take out Zarqawi in 2002 or early 2003? I certainly don't remember any.
June 23, 2006 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I can't think of any. On the other hand, I can't think of any "antiwar people" being sought by the Pentagon for approval to assassinate Zarqawi, so I don't know what your point is.
June 23, 2006 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
...at least according to the only person who has been willing to go on the record as saying we had a chance to get Zarqawi prior to the war.
All right, I'll bite. Who?
June 23, 2006 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Scheuer.
So, if you want to believe that we had a chance to get Zarqawi prior to the war, you also must believe that Clinton had ten chances to get bin Laden prior to 9/11.
To be clear, I don't believe a single thing Scheuer says. Including that we could have killed Zarqawi prior to the Iraq War, AND including that Clinton had 10 chances to get bin Laden in '98 and '99.
June 23, 2006 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, if you want to believe that we had a chance to get Zarqawi prior to the war, you also must believe that Clinton had ten chances to get bin Laden prior to 9/11.
Fine. What about it? If Clinton refused twenty times to attack bin Laden, it doesn't change anything. The President refused to bomb Zarqawi because it would undo his preparations to wage war, or so the story goes. A war against a country that did not attack us. A debacle. So Clinton is a dunderhead (right). Bush is a scoundrel.
June 23, 2006 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Standing offer - a billion in advance, bin Laden in ninety days.
No takers?
Guess nobody cares, then.
It's fairly obvious why NEITHER Clinton or Bush took out bin Laden - they NEED him. Clinton was the head of the state. So is Bush. They BOTH needed bin Laden as the boogey-man enemy to justify their existence. It's that simple. Has nothing to do with whether they are smart or not, or even as justification for Bush's war prep.
Zarqawi isn't on the same symbolic level as bin Laden. So they dumped him when it was expedient to do so to make some points with their base.
How about if bin Laden makes me an offer for Ann Coulter? Depends on the money, but I'd probably take it.
How about if bin Laden makes me an offer for Olmert? Again, depends on the money, but I'd take it.
Anybody wants to keep breathing, it all depends on the money I'm offered. I am NOT cheap. But with enough money thrown my way, anybody can be taken out. Anybody.
June 23, 2006 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In fact, had it been up to most of us who had the good sense to support the war, bin Laden would have been taken out long before Bush was ever elected."
What does support of the war have to do with killing bin Laden before Bush's term, long before the invasion was ever launched? And if you think killing bin Laden should be such a high priority, shouldn't you be more than a little pissed at George Bush for letting bin Laden escape at Tora Bora?
June 23, 2006 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that Alterman asserts that "had ir been up to" antiwar people, the USA's course of action would have been: 1. Kill Zarqawi 2. Don't invade Iraq. I'm just saying there doesn't seem to be anybody that actually advocated that set of positions at the time.
June 23, 2006 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It certainly isn't fair to hold "antiwar people" to account for an opportunity they didn't know they had. The Pentagon lobbied President Bush for permission to assassinate Zarqawi, not Eric Alterman.
June 23, 2006 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink