Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

About terrorist Al-Zargawi

Mar 8, 2004 7:04AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: About terrorist Al-Zargawi
Mar 8, 2004 12:07PM PST

Hi, Del.

And your point is? I believe that's the one the Bush Administration refused to attack on three occasions because a "premature" attack might reduce support for the planned invasion of Iraq. Sure enough: Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind. (Hate that title -- bad grammar!)

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
(NT) Having fun yet ?
Mar 8, 2004 12:49PM PST

.

- Collapse -
I think the article raises a legitimate question
Mar 8, 2004 10:19PM PST

Is this a war on terror or isn't it?

- Collapse -
Re:I think the article raises a legitimate question
Mar 9, 2004 9:20AM PST

Hi Josh,

My retort to Dave as I have not seen/heard that opportunities to neutralize Al-Zargawi, using either of his names, have been passed up. Might be true, I'm not aware.

There's been a lot of garbage about Clinton missing or declining opportunities for ULB. I call it garbage because unless I was in the room when someone receives intelligence, I don't know what may have been said or couched. I certainly don't put faith in the media.