I’d like to hear what the warbloggers have to say about this, other than slime-and-defend. It seems that the Bush Administration in 2002 preferred Abu Musab Zarqawi alive, and an argument for invading Iraq, to Abu Musab Zarqawi dead.
The majority is right: these guys aren’t even to be trusted on terrorism, which they’ve made their signature issue.
Not quite sure how you get from “others believe that…” to “it seems that…” The facts appear to be clear – that Bush could have authorized a strike which would almost certainly have taken out Zarqawi and not harmed any innocent lives, but chose not to. What is not clear, imagination aside, is WHY. Such a question should absolutely be put to Snow, but the answer should not be assumed just because it feels good.
BTW, I don’t recall Zarqawi being considered at all significant in 2002. Does anybody have a link to any stories about him from back then?
Weren’t we trying a diplomatic initiative to make an international force against Saddam at the time. In retrospect, trying for such a force looks like folly. But at the time Powell and the like thought there was a real chance of bringing people aboard. Wouldn’t an in-Iraq and on-ground action (surely you aren’t counting on a cruise missile strike knowing what we know about the success of that against Saddam months later) have caused our potential allies to feel unfairly pushed?