And here's how Bush dealt with that grave threat:

Back in March, MSNBC reported that we had the chance to take out Zarqawi, the guy doing all the beheadings in Iraq, BEFORE the war, but Bush vetoed it because Bush thought having Zarqawi around (even though he was in the Northern no-fly zone the US controlled, not Saddam-controlled territory) enhanced the case for the Iraq war:

“In June 2002...the Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp [but]....the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council....The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it....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.”

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

On June 27, Condoleeza Rice denied the story on ABC’s "This Week”:

“Let me just say we never had as far, as we know, we never had a chance to get Zarqawi.”

But today’s Wall Street Journal confirms that we had the opportunity to take out Zarqawi before the war, that the Pentagon drew up plans to do it and recommended it, and the White House vetoed it:

“The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.
. . .
But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109866031609354178,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

How in the world can Bush claim to be making us safer when he’s this incompetent?!
/jc

Slash,

This is a piddly side-issue as re the Duelfer report.

I presume you've READ Duelfer, right?

Well you are a perfect Bush-man, Mitch, to say that catching the actual terrorists is a "piddly side-issue."

No wonder winning the War on Terror is "up in the air."
/jc

And you are a typical Kerry man, blabbering about an issue that has nothing to do with the real content of the Duelfer report.

Don't feel back - either does your candidate.

If Kerry wins, the war on terror will be fought here.

What's the matter, anyway, Slash? Nobody taking the bait over at t5lChat?

So Flash, you would have been in favor of a unilateral, pre-emptive strike inside Iraq? Without going through the UN first? Sounds sorta like a rush to war to me.

Can you imagine the howling from the left if Bush had carried out such an attack back in 2002?