Conspiracy buffs, unite!

As I hope I've already made clear, I don't buy the line that the Bushites either let 9/11 happen or, worse, helped it along.

But if you want be a little conspiratorial, try this: According to the Daily Mislead for September 21,

President Bush has lately been speaking a lot about how he is doing everything possible to track down terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.... But according to NBC News, it was Bush who in 2002 and 2003 rejected three plans to strike and neutralize Zarqawi because he believed a successful strike would undermine the public case for targeting Saddam Hussein.

In June and October of 2002 and in January of 2003, the Pentagon drafted plans to attack a base where Zarqawi was, but in each case the White House killed it.

According to NBC, "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."

A month after that third rejection, Colin Powerless was at the UN, pointing to Zarqawi as supposed evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

On March 23, 2003, writing to a friend in rebuttal to that idiotic prowar thing supposedly written by Dennis Miller that was making the rounds (perhaps you saw it), I mentioned the camp. In light of the Shrub doctrines of "preemption" and "zero tolerance," I wondered why, if we knew exactly where this base was, hadn't we bombed it? Now, I know.

The complete Daily Mislead item, with sources, can be found here.