SwiftVets.com

[Craig]

Could Kerry possibly be a worse Commander in Chief?
LOL - I suppose that if Clinton had bombed the guy he would have just been accused of trying to distract from his lies about his BJ.
I'd suspect that most any other Commander in Chief would have bombed the guy whether or not he was determined to go to war with Iraq.
Well, I suppose any other Commander in Chief might have not had a maniac like Rumsfeld running a military with too few troops for a follow up.


Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq
By Jim Miklaszewski
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 02, 2004

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

advertisement
But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’

— Roger Cressey
Terrorism expert
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

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.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

[blackfrancis]

[Richard]

all of a sudden US intelligence is actionable.

He said:

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

1. I thought there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
2. I thought there were no WMD in Iraq.
3. Liberals have spent two years explaining why there was no actionable intelligence to attack Iraq. Rather, it was all a lie made up by neocon chickenhawks.

Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in Iraq was -- in the words of CIA director George Tenet -- a "slam dunk case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a "misperception" created by President Bush so he could play war.

Recently, during the 9/11 hearings, about the time Richard Ben-Veniste was shocked that the FBI hadn't uncovered the 9/11 plot based on the fact that Moussaoui had overstayed his visa, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Chuck Schumer were clamoring for the release of Ansar Mahmood, a 26-year-old Pakistani immigrant detained in October 2001 after he was observed taking photographs at a water treatment plant in upstate New York. Mahmood later pleaded guilty to committing a felony by giving financial aid to illegal immigrants from Pakistan. Schumer says Mahmood should be permitted to stay in the U.S. because he "was cleared of terrorist links," and he has already served his time for "a non-violent felony." Hillary simply calls Mahmood's detention "disturbing."

Liberals always claim to know exactly what to do as soon as it's too late. After Muslims attack with airplanes, they want to investigate flight schools. After Muslims attack with shoe-bombs, they want to investigate shoes. After a Muslim introduces E. coli into New York's water supply, liberals will be enraged that Muslim immigrants taking pictures of New York water treatment plants weren't investigated more aggressively -- as soon as they are done blaming Bush for not stopping the attack amid their caterwauling about the detention of Muslim immigrants. Liberals are the only known species whose powers of reasoning are not improved by the benefit of hindsight. Not only are they always fighting the last war, in most cases they're losing it.


Richard
_________________
The Public View

[mikest]

[Craig]

[quote="blackfrancis"]

[Richard]

[mikest]

LOL

[Craig]

[Richard]

Mike & Craig,

Life just got better . I found two left wing liberal Kerry supporters to play with. It's going to be my pleasure to expose the typical left wing hate and vitriol you two represent. I especially like the attitude of

"La France et le Kerry sont le numéro un !"

You say I can't debate. But my points were simple and clearly made.

[mikest]

[mikest]

By the way, when do we attack Israel for having terrorists in the West Bank?

[Richard]

OK Mike,

You can't answer. I'm not surprised because there is no reply. This is a solid example of liberal journalism and liberals' desire to believe anything bad about President Bush regardless of the smell test.

"Idiots can vote". WOW! You just opened yourself up again. Ever heard of the voting rights act? I guess it's ok to vote as long as you vote Democratic.

[Craig]

Craig Kling wrote:
> Craig Kling wrote:
>
>>

[fortdixlover]

[fortdixlover]

I should add that when hysterical liberals and leftists try to use these principles against conservatives, the resulting torrential outpouring of illogic is even more amusing, albeit very sad.

This may be explained by the following article. I recommend this article highly.

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.