What * left out of his NJ speech on Zarqawi (David Corn)

[AirAmFan]

ProgressiveTrail.org just revived a March story by NBC's Jim Miklaszewski that got very little mainstream play, because Condi denied it. But Miklaszewski told Bob Novak in July he still stood by the story. Theyl reprint the NBC story along with a new David Corn piece.

From http://www.progressivetrail.org/articles/041021Corn.shtml?mail=21

"Bush Turns Another Bush Mistake (Zarqawi) into Another Glorious Reason To Vote for Bush

Did Bush and his aides really let Zarqawi off the hook three times because they wanted to preserve their case for invading Iraq?

by David Corn Thursday October21, 2004 published by DavidCorn.com

It's amazing how Bush can turn his mistakes into glorious reasons for his reelection. Two days ago, he delivered a campaign speech on national security in New Jersey ... What was fresh was that Bush spoke at length about Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist apparently responsible for carbombings, beheadings and other horrific terrorist actions in Iraq. Bush pointed to Zarqawi as a reason to vote for Bush. His argument: Kerry doesn't understand that if the United States was not now pursuing Zarqawi in Iraq, Zarqawi would be wreaking havoc not in Iraq but in the United States.

Yet Bush neglected to mention that his administration repeatedly passed up the chance to strike Zarqawi before the war in Iraq. That is, the war in Iraq was not necessary to deal with the threat posed by Zarqawi. Still, with his primary argument for the war--Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMDs and was in cahoots with al Qaeda--no longer operative, Bush has embraced the battle against Zarqawi as his latest justification for the war in Iraq. It's important to note that before the war, Zarqawi was reportedly operating in northern Iraq, in territory close to the area controlled by the US-allied Kurds. ..."

[Fear]

1. Media really isn't on our side here.......quite frankly hearing the 1000's

story like this of another lie / withholding the truth etc. etc. It just can't happen / be - seriously WHY, and why are there even still people voting for *.....
And why aren't there any lawsuits for his lies EVERYWHERE being performed.

[AirAmFan]

6. Down the memory hole! After 7 mos, an NBC story on WH protection of Z

Zarqawi disappeared a couple of days ago, two weeks before Election Day.

I realize news stories published on the web don't stay there forever. But isn't it suspicious that a key story about abysmal White House counterterrorism failures in Iraq could stay up for seven full months, and then suddenly disappear two weeks before Election Day?

Try this Google search, for "Miklaszewski" and "Zarqawi": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Miklaszewski+Zarqawi&btnG=Search .

The first "hit" now gives an error message. But the NBC story was posted to that URL on March 2 2004, and it. worked as recently as two weeks ago.

Here is the beginning of the now-deleted story:

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

'MSNBC - 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 2, 2004

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....

More snippets of the original story and links to other pages that cite it are archived in a DU thread from the first of this month, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x939354

Note that a July item by Bob Novak (the CNN URL in post#3) quotes Miklaszewski as still sticking by his story:

"On March 2, terrorist attacks brought the death toll attributed to Zarqawi to over 700. Jim Miklaszewski, the longtime Pentagon correspondent for NBC, reported multiple U.S. chances to "wipe out" Zarqawi and his bioweapons lab. The chances were missed, according to unnamed "military officials," because "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq would undercut the case against Saddam."

<SNIP>

Jim Miklaszewski told me he stands by his story, and pointed to House Armed Services Committee hearings April 21. Congressman Snyder brought the NBC story up to retired Gen. John Keane, and asked why the attack was rejected. "I don't know," the former Army acting chief of staff replied. "We looked at it the weekend of the Fourth of July the summer before we went into Iraq.""

[AirAmFan]

7. .

[bush equals idiot]

2. I've been asking for a month.

Where is that story that Bush rejected three different plans four months apart that were given to him by his Pentagon when Zarqawi was located and could have been eliminated? Bush was said to have given the reason that he didn't want to turn American sentiment against his intended invasion of Iraq. ?????????????????????????

What the hell happened to that?

[AirAmFan]

3. Greg Palast wrote a book about this phenomenon, which forced him to

leave the US and go to Britain to pursue his investigative journalism career.

Investigation is "too expensive" and "too risky" for news organizations accountable to a corporate bottom line (but not for the BBC or The Guardian). When a White House official denies the truth of a story like this, 99.9 percent of the mainstream US media bail out. Rather than investigative journalism, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS practice "stenography", or "presstitution".

Condi denied the Zarqawi story, so for the mainstream media, that was the end of the matter. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/iraq or http://airamericaradio.com/weblogs/alfrankenshow/index.php?/franken/old_entry_235 .

Since * was so successful in covering up his AWOL and going after Kerry's documented war heroism, and was praised as resolute for running crying home to hide behind Karen Hughes's skirts all day on 9/11, why not pose as a "strong leader" on "terrorism" in Iraq? Never mind the fact that GEORGE W BUSH, not Saddam, SPONSORED the terrorism!

[Nordic]

4. this really fucking pisses me off

but how many times have I said THAT in the last four years?

Bush is just plain nasty, he'll do anything to get his way, even sacrifice the security of our troops and the country.

The man is the lowest form of vermin I've ever seen in my life.

[AirAmFan]

5. IMO only intense pressure on Condi can move this story forward

Bush and Cheney would have to make her the 9/11 scapegoat after the CIA repport comes out, or she'd have to be caught in another lie, or Congressman Waxman would have to get a chance to grill her in Congress, to get the mainstream press to reconsider what she told Stephanopoulos on 'This Week'. IMO Stephanopoulos bears most of the blame for killing this story, because he gave Condi a perfect platform for denying it. If he'd asked tougher questions, or had had other guests on to ask them in his place, the WH might not have gotten away with it again on Zarqawi.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Gosh Darn It, I Friggin' Love David Corn!!!

Except maybe whoever it is that writes the Top Ten Conservative Idiots (gotta love that guy!), David Corn is my favorite writer for inside-the-beltway insight. Even after I grew bored/annoyed by the majority of the staff at The Nation and let my subscription die, I kept reading Corn on-line.

We've been pushing this for months on deaf ears. At least now someone who very few non-liberals read will have said it publicly. Which is a few more than read DU rants.

[AirAmFan]

14. Corn sure is thorough, and mostly pretty clear

[Supersedeas]

9. recoding a miserable defeat into a campaign rallying cry sums up *'s

reelection effort.

9/11 happened on my watch - vote for me.

[AirAmFan]

10. I guess reality is fungible after all, if you're giving away trillions of

taxpayer dollars and deregulating so corporations can steal trillions more on their own. The media seem to be a 24/7 informercial for Rove to project any reality that strikes his fancy.

[Zhade]

11. Unfortunately, Corn upholds the myth of Abu Musab al-Goldstein.

He doesn't mention that al-Goldstein may now in fact be dead and/or missing a leg, and must be able to stop time to coordinate all those attacks in Iraq.

So many attacks, so little time! Pushing the "al-Goldstein is behind every attack in Iraq!" meme just allows the administration to ignore the very real and very angry Iraqi resistance.

Who was the Goldstein of the Viet Nam war? Anyone?

[AirAmFan]

12. Al Goldstein? You mean the publisher of 'Screw' Magazine?

Just kidding--I know what you're talking about: EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN, the mythical scapegoat in Orwell's 1984.

[Zhade]

13. Haha! Exactly.

NT!