perfidy

This MSNBC report describes a rather jarring situation. Apparently US intelligence had Zarqawi placed in northern Iraq (in the no-fly zone) prior to the war. On two separate occasions plans were formed to kill the bastard off...the first time it died in the National Security Council (good show, there).

The second time it was killed off by the White House directly.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

Two thoughts come to mind. First -- if the Zarqawi was present in Iraq, Bush's position that terrorists is bolstered. But (you knew that was coming, didn't you?)...the guy was in the no-fly zone. There wasn't much that could happen there without US say-so. The US probably had the ability to take him out at will.

So we are left with the question -- did Bush decide not to take out Zarqawi's camp, when presented with that information? If he decided against it, why?

Note that the quote comes from a former National Security Council member.