I heard Russ Feingold mention this on the radio today (I was listening to the Laura Ingraham show, and she played a clip of him).

Is this true? I wonder if Pres. Bush knew this. Maybe Pres. Bush could've asked the Kurds to turn him over, especially since the Kurds are an ally, and Zarqawi is a member of Al Qaeda. Zarqawi was a monster in Iraq after the invasion.

Does anyone know anything about this?

I heard Russ Feingold mention this on the radio today (I was listening to the Laura Ingraham show, and she played a clip of him).

Is this true? I wonder if Pres. Bush knew this. Maybe Pres. Bush could've asked the Kurds to turn him over, especially since the Kurds are an ally, and Zarqawi is a member of Al Qaeda. Zarqawi was a monster in Iraq after the invasion.
Does anyone know anything about this?

He was involved with Al Ansar, the Kurdish jihad group. Before the invasion is probably when Zarqawi was there, and the Kurds were too busy fighting each other and looking out for Saddam to do much about them. They also holed up in the mountains. After the invasion they disappeared for awhile (thanks to our bombing them) into Iran and have since snuck back into Iraq. Also I don't think he was there very long, and it looks like they've relocated to the Sunni triangle.


Description
Ansar al-Islam (AI) is a radical Islamist group of Iraqi Kurds and Arabs who have vowed to establish an independent Islamic state in Iraq. The group was formed in December 2001. In the fall of 2003, a statement was issued calling all jihadists in Iraq to unite under the name Ansar al-Sunnah (AS). Since that time, it is likely that AI has posted all claims of attack under the name AS.
AI is closely allied with al-Qa’ida and Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi’s group, Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) in Iraq. Some members of AI trained in al-Qa’ida camps in Afghanistan, and the group provided safe haven to al-Qa’ida fighters before Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Since OIF, AI has become one of the leading groups engaged in anti-Coalition attacks in Iraq and has developed a robust propaganda campaign.

Activities
AI continues to conduct attacks against Coalition forces, Iraqi Government officials and security forces, and ethnic Iraqi groups and political parties. AI members have been implicated in assassinations and assassination attempts against Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) officials and Coalition forces, and also work closely with both al-Qa’ida operatives and associates in QJBR. AI has also claimed responsibility for many high profile attacks, including the simultaneous suicide bombings of the PUK and Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) party offices in Ibril on February 1, 2004, and the bombing of the US military dining facility in Mosul on December 21, 2004.
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/al.htm



MOST KURDS WERE glad to think Mahmud and his cohorts were gone forever. For 18 months Ansar had waged a fratricidal jihad against its secular Kurdish neighbors instead of helping them fight Saddam Hussein. After the U.S. assault on its enclave last March, the group seemed to vanish. Tehran still insists that none of Ansar’s 900 or so fighters were allowed into Iran. Hundreds of them managed to get in anyway, welcome or not. Now they’re sneaking back across the border to continue their battle against the West. L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, estimates that “several hundred” Ansar fighters have returned since spring. “They’re a very dangerous terrorist group,” he says, “and that’s a lot of terrorists.”

Ansar infiltrators are already prime suspects in some of the deadliest terrorist strikes against Americans and their allies in Iraq. The attacks include the Aug. 7 truck bombing outside the Jordanian Embassy and the Aug. 19 destruction of the United Nations’ Baghdad headquarters. The former Qaeda associate suspected of masterminding the Jordanian Embassy bombing, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, remains on the loose. And Ansar’s founder, the man known as Mullah Krekar, makes no secret of his enthusiasm for holy war even as he fights efforts to deport him from Norway. Increasing evidence suggests that Ansar fighters are joining forces with Baathists and members of Al Qaeda. In one such case, a suspected Qaeda operative was caught with 11 surface-to-air missiles in Ar Ramadi, west of Baghdad; he told investigators he had trained with Ansar members to use the weapons against Americans.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3129946

Thanks. I will read this asap.

Check this out, it looks like they let him go so they could use him as an excuse to go to war.

Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq

Updated: 4:14 p.m. PT March 2, 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.

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.


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


That's a lot of blood on their hands, and you hear nothing about this now from the GOP media.

And de-bunks the assertion that Bush actually is working to fight terrorism, he's only working to make terrorism work for him.

Check this out, it looks like they let him go so they could use him as an excuse to go to war.

That's a lot of blood on their hands, and you hear nothing about this now from the GOP media.
[/i]

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.

There you have it...CA has proven that Iraq harbored terrorists and those terrorists were producing WMD's :|

And de-bunks the assertion that Bush actually is working to fight terrorism, he's only working to make terrorism work for him.Lets see....he hesitated attacking in Iraq because he was building a coalition to invade Iraq which he later did and this debunks the idea Bush is fighting terrorism :rolleyes:

Check this out, it looks like they let him go so they could use him as an excuse to go to war.




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


That's a lot of blood on their hands, and you hear nothing about this now from the GOP media.

And de-bunks the assertion that Bush actually is working to fight terrorism, he's only working to make terrorism work for him.

So, Bush RUSHED to war, and that's bad (even though he waited for over a year while working with the UN and building the massive coalition) but he's DIDN'T rush to attack Iraq while working through the UN, and that's bad too. This is the inconsistency you get when your only goal is partisan ankle biting, and is classic Monday morning quarterbacking. You know very well that had he gone in to erase Zarqawi (and you're now complaining that he didn't) that you and many others would have been screaming bloody murder about preemption and assassination, etc.

So, Bush RUSHED to war, and that's bad (even though he waited for over a year while working with the UN and building the massive coalition) but he's DIDN'T rush to attack Iraq while working through the UN, and that's bad too.

If you could read you would have seen where it said he didn't take out Zarqawi, he instead let him go so he could be used as an excuse to go to war. I guess since this little bit of information is so damaging to your cult leader you guys have to try to spin it in your favor somehow. The dishonesty you put on display here is quite sickening.

He didn't take out Zarqawi when he had the chance before he went to war.

Do you understand that? Or is that too much?

Then when he went to war Zarqawi became part of the excuses, even though he was in a Kurdish controlled part of Iraq.

Understand?

Can you find Iraq on a map?

You even throw in the talking point about the "massive coalition" which was coerced, bribed, and spied upon.:nonono:


This is the inconsistency you get when your only goal is partisan ankle biting, and is classic Monday morning quarterbacking.


Take a look in the mirror, you can't even address the things posted in this thread, you just make shit up to protect bushie, and accuse others of partisanship and monday morning quarterbacking when that is your ONLY tactic you know how to use. Forget getting you to answer why bush let Zarqawi go prior to the war, you're talking points won't let you, instead it's spin spin spin.


You know very well that had he gone in to erase Zarqawi (and you're now complaining that he didn't) that you and many others would have been screaming bloody murder about preemption and assassination, etc.


Look who is monday morning quarterbacking, yup, you.

This shows how little you know about what was even going on in the region or in Iraq. The U.S. was bombing Iraq all the time before the war even started, taking out a terrorist with a couple bombs wouldn't have been anything different than all the other bombs they were dropping.

International affairs isn't your strong point.

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.

There you have it...CA has proven that Iraq harbored terrorists and those terrorists were producing WMD's :|


And we all know those reports were false, unless you think we found those things?

Btw, even if there was something like that in Northern Iraq, it wasn't under Saddams control anyway, every excuse hat has been made for this war was BS.

Lets see....he hesitated attacking in Iraq because he was building a coalition to invade Iraq which he later did and this debunks the idea Bush is fighting terrorism :rolleyes:


LOL..

He didn't take out Zarqawi! This had nothing to do with Saddam or the country of Iraq, it was about taking out one man.

He didn't do it so he could use Zarqawi in the pre-war lies, Iraq had no ties to 9-11 or Al-Qaeda, Bush knew this, so he didn't take out an actual terrorist because he wanted to go to war with Iraq for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism since Iraq had no ties.

So Bush chose NOT to "fight terrorism", even as he bloviated and blathered abot how he was gonna smoke em all outta there holes. Instead he chose to use a terrorist as bait to get his PNAC war on.

But you know this, it's just really bad for bush, so you pretend not taking out Zarqawi is the same as not mounting a full scale military invasion of a sovereign nation.

If the media was so liberal this would be the current media obsession, good luck catching this story on any news show. You won't, they are just busy parading their non-official spokesperson Ann Coulter.:barf:

If you could read you would have seen where it said he didn't take out Zarqawi, he instead let him go so he could be used as an excuse to go to war. I guess since this little bit of information is so damaging to your cult leader you guys have to try to spin it in your favor somehow. The dishonesty you put on display here is quite sickening.


And where was Zarqawi at the time? Could he have been in....Iraq? The country against whom we were making the case for war?


He didn't take out Zarqawi when he had the chance before he went to war.

Do you understand that? Or is that too much?


Do you understand what a targeted assassination INSIDE Iraq would have entailed before we went to war? Do you even have a clue how high your blood pressure would have gone had we done that? :nonono:


Then when he went to war Zarqawi became part of the excuses, even though he was in a Kurdish controlled part of Iraq.


Find me an article that mentions Zarqawi as part of the rationale for going to war that wasn't written after he came to prominence as the leader of AQ in Iraq. Have fun doing it.


Understand?

Can you find Iraq on a map?


Running out of substance and resorting to pathetic personal attacks already?


You even throw in the talking point about the "massive coalition" which was coerced, bribed, and spied upon.:nonono:


Back to the talking points again, are we? I thought I disabused you of that notion a long time ago.


Take a look in the mirror, you can't even address the things posted in this thread, you just make shit up to protect bushie, and accuse others of partisanship and monday morning quarterbacking when that is your ONLY tactic you know how to use. Forget getting you to answer why bush let Zarqawi go prior to the war, you're talking points won't let you, instead it's spin spin spin.


What do you call claiming Zarqawi was part of the rationale for going to war when he was never mentioned?


Look who is monday morning quarterbacking, yup, you.

This shows how little you know about what was even going on in the region or in Iraq. The U.S. was bombing Iraq all the time before the war even started, taking out a terrorist with a couple bombs wouldn't have been anything different than all the other bombs they were dropping.

International affairs isn't your strong point.

They were not bombing houses. They were bombing AA battery sites, and you SHOULD have known that. You also know that deliberately bombing houses WHILE working with the UN would have brought all the anti's out of the woodwork enmass.

And we all know those reports were false, unless you think we found those things?

Btw, even if there was something like that in Northern Iraq, it wasn't under Saddams control anyway, every excuse hat has been made for this war was BS.
Your reasoning is so spontaneous that you can't keep your own dots connected: You produce a report that says Zarqawi is IN iraq producing WMD's, you use this report as proof Bush did not fight terrorism because he didn't "swat that fly" (you do realize Zarqawi wasn't a big fish before the Iraq war?), then you turn around and say your own report (on WMD's) was false thereby throwing out every conclusion you based on it


You are your own worst enemy....keep talking