Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Hunting Zarqawi

In the debate, Cheney said of Zarqawi,

He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kermal
(ph), where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to
We know he's still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the
major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He's the one
you will see on the evening news beheading hostages.

So, if he was there before the war, and if he was a reason for us to invade, and if we know he's still in Baghdad today, why haven't we caught him? Is it because we have too few troops to do the job, even today? The administration's claims of winning the war on terror are tiresome, especially when Zarqawi and Bin Laden are still out there.


Jeffrey Hill said...

Zarqawi was a reason to go to war. Not the reason to go to war. Bush is not so simple as to be unable to have multiple reason for the war.

Do you think more soldiers are required to catch one man or a small band of men? I don't. I like Paul Bremer well enough, but simply because he says that we needed more troops (if, indeed, he felt that way during his short reign) doesn't make it so.

Think of all the things we haven't been able to find. We never found Hitler. We never found a missing link to prove evolution. And after months and months, and a sea of media, we still haven't found Kerry's position on the war, though he claims to have been very clear about it.

Dude said...

WMD was another reason to go to war, but that hasn't panned out, either.

Bremer was not the only one who ever said we didn't have enough troops. Shinseki had warned we needed more and got canned for it. That set the tone for commanders on the ground not to ask for more troops.

Interestingly, part of the reason the Iraq venture is closer to $125 billion than $200 billion is that only $1.2 billion of the $18 billion earmarked for Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction has been spent. That's due in part to a lack of security holding up projects.