P
PeachMonkey
Guest
... apparently, because it would have hurt their case for invading Iraq:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
This from the administration that is supposedly "tough on terrorism".
We didn't kill an actual Al-Qaeda operative who was developing ricin and cyanide, but we *did* invade a country that had no WMDs and was not an active threat to the US.
And that operative has gone on to be involved in at least 700 terrorist killings in post-invasion Iraq.
I wonder if those who blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden in the pre-9/11 days will blame Bush for the deaths of Americans and Iraqis caused by Zarqawi because the Bush Administration refused to take Zarqawi out?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
This from the administration that is supposedly "tough on terrorism".
We didn't kill an actual Al-Qaeda operative who was developing ricin and cyanide, but we *did* invade a country that had no WMDs and was not an active threat to the US.
And that operative has gone on to be involved in at least 700 terrorist killings in post-invasion Iraq.
I wonder if those who blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden in the pre-9/11 days will blame Bush for the deaths of Americans and Iraqis caused by Zarqawi because the Bush Administration refused to take Zarqawi out?