Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 8, 2006

ZARQAWI KILLED IN IRAQ....News reports this morning confirm that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed last night in Iraq.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mastermind behind hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings whose leadership of the insurgent group al- Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in the country, was killed Wednesday evening by an air strike near Baqubah, north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

The stated aim of the Jordanian-born Zarqawi, in addition to ousting U.S. and other forces from Iraq, was to foment bloody sectarian strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, a prospect that has become a grim reality over the past several months.

Iraqi and U.S. officials agreed that his death would not necessarily stem the violence and insurgency -- and as if to prove the point, an explosion ripped through a busy outdoor market in Baghdad just a few hours after Zarqawi's killing was announced. Regardles, when a dangerous terrorist can no longer wreak havoc, it's good news.

One relevant angle to this story, however, that has not been emphasized (or even mentioned) by most news outlets this morning is that Zarqawi could have been taken out years ago, on several occasions, but Bush decided not to strike.

NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself -- but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

"Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn't do it," said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

This NBC report was later confirmed by the Wall Street Journal and Australian journalists who got on-the-record comments from the former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit.

So, while it's no doubt good news that Zarqawi is no more, it's worth remembering that Bush wasn't willing to hit this known al-Qaeda terrorist in a known location based on air-tight intelligence before the war even began.

Steve Benen 8:09 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (296)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Ain't gonna make much difference. Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other for hundreds of years. One man's death isn't gonna change that.

Posted by: CN on June 8, 2006 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

As a "GODLESS" liberal, one who takes no pleasure in the death of ANYONE, I say, if true, this is GOOD NEWS...and it's interesting to note that the administration recognizes that his death will NOT stop the violence. Hedging their bets and their glee, I'm sure! Kevin's point that this could have been accomplished long ago speaks to the growing despair over ever having gotten into this bloody Iraq situation. But, along with the gay issue, flag preservation, and letting the rich guys keep ALL their money...it should boost the TVI ratings...cause that's how gullible many in our country are.

Posted by: Dancer on June 8, 2006 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

Just goes to show that if you kill enough people, sooner or later you're gonna get one that you want. Adios, creep!

Posted by: Snooze Alarm on June 8, 2006 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

One relevant angle to this story, however, that has not been emphasized (or even mentioned) by most news outlets this morning is that Zarqawi could have been taken out years ago, on several occasions, but Bush decided not to strike.

Couldn't even wait 24 hours to start politicizing and spinning, huh? You and your ilk don't have an honest bone in your body. You should be ashamed.

Congratulations to our U.S. military personnel for doing their difficult and dangerous job.

I have a strong suspicion that Al-Zarqawi was one of the grainy video figures standing behind numerous beheading victims. I am glad he's gone.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 8, 2006 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

Why?

Bush obviously wasn't worried about what the French or the UN would think.

He obviously isn't afraid to order attacks against islamic whackjobs. Most liberals consider him an out of control cowboy. So why didn't he pull the trigger?

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

Hmm, I basically agree with sportsfan's last two paragraphs.

I'm sure that that won't last. His prior assertion that we aren't allowed to point out true things gives me faith in that.

Posted by: Chris O. on June 8, 2006 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

"So, while it's no doubt good news that Zarqawi is no more, it's worth remembering that Bush wasn't willing to hit this known al-Qaeda terrorist in a known location based on air-tight intelligence before the war even began."


Kind of like when Clinton had the chance with OBL and didn't take it. Funny how you neglected to mention that. Hind sight is 20/20.

Posted by: happy glimore on June 8, 2006 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

"Kind of like when Clinton had the chance with OBL and didn't take it. Funny how you neglected to mention that. Hind sight is 20/20."

Clinton did give that order despite misgivings from his cabinet about just how good the intel was. The strike ended up being too late, but Clinton did take a leadership role in ordering the attempt.

Posted by: Chris O. on June 8, 2006 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

Steve, your last paragraph should read:

...it's worth remembering that Bush wasn't willing to hit this known al-Qaeda terrorist in a known location based on air-tight intelligence before the war even began....because he was more interested in using the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq (albeit in a region completely outside of Saddam Hussein's control) as another bullshit reason for why Saddam had to be taken out.

Posted by: admadm on June 8, 2006 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

rdw, read the NBC article -- "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawis operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

Posted by: Chris O. on June 8, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

Bush will appear on nat'l TV and stroke himself into a full fledged, testosterone laced orgasm over this.

Posted by: steve duncan on June 8, 2006 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

I'm disappointed, Steve, that you couldn't even wait just a wee little bit to let our military and country enjoy the results of a long, ardurous, dangerous hunt. Have to take every little bit of news and use it against Bush the moment it appears.

You should have waited at least one thread.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

"Steve Benen has had airtight evidence for some time saying '...it's worth remembering that Bush wasn't willing to hit this known al-Qaeda terrorist in a known location based on air-tight intelligence before the war even began...' but chose not to bring this evidence forward in a thread then because it could be better used against Bush at a later date, specifically offsetting any potential momentary national satisfaction over the death on one of our country's greates enemies that might however so briefly shine Bush in a not-so negative light even for one moment."

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Oh yes, Red State Mike, there will be dancing in the streets all across the US. I bet all of 20% of the country even knows who Zarqawi was.

This will have about as much affect on events in Iraq as the capture of Saddam in his spider hole.

Posted by: Red on June 8, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Folks, this is a hallelujah moment. Its not about how it impacts short term political gains in the United States. Its about ridding Iraq and the world of a man who preached (and practiced) death to all who disagreed with his narrow sectarian views. This man was a killer and the world is a better place without him in it.

Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds killing one another in Iraq is not in our best interest; peace and democracy in Iraq is. This is true whether you are George Bush's biggest fan or his biggest enemy. Look to the future, not the past.

Posted by: NeilS on June 8, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Red
Oh yes, Red State Mike, there will be dancing in the streets all across the US. I bet all of 20% of the country even knows who Zarqawi was.

That's a bet I would take all the way to the bank.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

I think they didn't get Zarqaqi before this was because of his incessant call for sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis. If they are fighting each other than that's lesser resources available for anti-US insurgency. It could be argued that it was a tactical decision to leave him where he is in the hopes that the insurgency would eventually implode into Sunni-Shiite violence. Bush's administration has used divide & conquer successfully in its own country, why not import it to Iraq?

But a jihadi movement is a many-headed hydra, and anyone whose education was worth bus fare knows what happens when you cut a head off of a hydra. And let's not forget, Al-Qaeda is not bereft of leadership -- Osama Bin Laden is still hiding in the mountains of Pakistan.

Posted by: Constance Reader on June 8, 2006 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

Mission accomplished again, I guess. Frank Gaffney calls this a "tipping point." Yeah, right. Mark my words. THIS WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.

Posted by: david mizner on June 8, 2006 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

I agree that it is very much worth mentioning the fact that Zarqawi could have been stopped years ago. Some right wingers take exception that this somehow takes away from the military's good work in this case, when in fact it does no such thing. Instead they mistake any reasonable facts to impede Bush apologists from using this as a political opporutunity to rally arround Bush as equivalent to somehow reflecting badly on the military. This is their mistake not yours. Bush's mistakes are not the militarys. Any long hard search was done by them and not the politicians here at home.

I would also add although I am not possitive, that Zarquawi wasnt even associated with al Queda until after Bush bypassed to oppurtunity to strike against him and invaded Iraq and provided the opporutnity to Zarquawi to dramatically increase his violence and barbarism.

Zarquawi death is a step forward for the country and Iraq. The fact that Bush failed to act when he could of doesnt detract from anything but from his partisan apologists politcalization of the actions of the brave soldiers in Iraq. Thats sadly the biggest reason they show such dissapointment.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 8, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

sportsfan79: Congratulations to our U.S. military personnel for doing their difficult and dangerous job.

It would have been a difficult and dangerous job if done by ground forces, but it wasn't.

It is also 3-4 years too late.

Red State Mike: I'm disappointed, Steve, that you couldn't even wait just a wee little bit to let our military and country enjoy the results of a long, ardurous, dangerous hunt. Have to take every little bit of news and use it against Bush the moment it appears.

I'm disappointed you couldn't even wait just a wee little bit to attack a Bush critic for a justified criticism. You have to take every little bit of good news and use it to rationalize all the bad news about Bush's mendacity and incompetence.

Chapstick up, RSM. Bush's butt is rough from sitting and doing nothing for most of his life and most of his administration.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

"Couldn't even wait 24 hours to start politicizing and spinning, huh? You and your ilk don't have an honest bone in your body. You should be ashamed."

Heh.

Pot, kettle, black, etc.

Posted by: Joel on June 8, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds killing one another in Iraq is not in our best interest; peace and democracy in Iraq is. This is true whether you are George Bush's biggest fan or his biggest enemy. Look to the future, not the past.

I'm down with that. Now why do you think Zarqawi's death means the future will include the cessation of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds killing each other in Iraq?

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

Stevie,

Good job finding that gray lining in the silver cloud.

Posted by: Brian on June 8, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

First, a big "s'up" to CB. You using two monitors to keep track of your two sites?

Anyway, on to much more depressing subjects. Let's not pretend that Zarqawi makes much difference over there. I doubt that too many of the 6,000 bodies turned in to the Baghdad morgue this year died by Zarqawi's, or Al Qaeda's, hands.

One thing to look out for: while the administration may make all the right noises about how Zarqari's death will not affect the violence in Iraq, look for the usual suspects on Fox and in the blogosphere to make the case for the administration. "Zarqawi is the very embodiment of evil and has been orchestrating every bombing and attack over there from his sand-encrusted Blackberry, and in every village, town, and small city (not the big cities, f*** them, the Democrats) in America, we can sleep safer now that he is gone."

As to the propriety of posting a criticism of the hunt for Zarqawi at this point in time: suck it up. The criticism is long-standing, predates Zarqawi's death by a long stretch, and besides all that, this administration has earned many lifetimes and massive volumes of criticism. Saying nothing or holding back is, frankly, not an option.

Posted by: Lame Man on June 8, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen - This is one of the most petty posts I have ever seen.

Al Zarquri is dead. Can I remind you this evil monster chopped off the heads of several people, including Nicholas Berg? Can I remind you Al Zarqari helped plan operations that resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of our troops?

And instead of noting Al Zarqari's death is a good thing, you launch into another anti-Bush rant. "Bush should have got him sooner BLAH BLAH BLAH."

I urge readers to go to some of the Iraqi blogs (Irag The Model for example) and see how Iraqis view the death of Al Zarqari.

Also check out some of the military blogs.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on June 8, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

-- "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawis operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam


That's dumb. If they could prove Saddam was supporting terror camps in Iraq IT WOULD MAKE THE CASE for war against Saddam that much stronger.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

Joel - Check out the Corner. They also think this just about US politics. So are you ashamed now? Are you the kettle, the pot or both?

Posted by: NeilS on June 8, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

Brian: Good job finding that gray lining in the silver cloud.

Yeah, conservatives would never do such a thing.

Hardee har har.

Good job sucking up to Bush and the GOP, Brian.

How many people died because Bush failed to take Zarqawi out years ago when he was little known in the world?

Tens of thousands.

Now that he's better known, he makes a better martyr.

Whooohoooo!

What a coup.

Just like conservatives waiting until after Saddam gassed the Kurds and after he'd murdered many of his people before stopping their funding and international support of him and doing something about it.

Suck up, Brian, it's early and you've got a lot of work to do.

As we all know, Bush is never satisfied when it comes to his own wants.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Steve posts: "Regardles, when a dangerous terrorist can no longer wreak havoc, it's good news."

Frequently asinine Kenneth responds: "This is one of the most petty posts I have ever seen."

Why does FK hate America?

Posted by: Joel on June 8, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

I'm down with that. Now why do you think Zarqawi's death means the future will include the cessation of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds killing each other in Iraq?

It doesn't. And neither would Osama's for that matter. But knocking off key Al Qaeda leaders is always A Good Thing. He was an enemy of Iraq. We could not have hunted him down without their help. I wish it had been the Iraqi army that had killed him.

Interestingly, completely buried by this story is the possibly more important one that Maliki put forward and the Iraqi Parliament approved the nominees for Interior and Defense Minister yesterday. So the Iraqi government is now fully formed. I'm surprised it didn't make front page news, but was just a byline in the Zarqawi story.

I got the full scoop from Al Jazeera.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

Instapundit and Hugh Hewitt and PowerLineBlog have tons of links.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on June 8, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

If they could prove Saddam was supporting terror camps in Iraq IT WOULD MAKE THE CASE for war against Saddam that much stronger

they didn't have to prove anything. sycophants like yourself bought every cleverly-spun word that came out of their mouths, and then some.

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

while good news, it's not going to make a fucking bit of difference -- despite what the nitwit obriens think. the militias are the real threat and they are thoroughly integrated into the police and military forces. for the true believers, enjoy your erection -- cause it ain't gonna last long.

Posted by: linda on June 8, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

As a liberal who tends to be skeptical of everybody, I'm not so sure about this "Bush could have had Zarqawi sooner but held off" story. It sounds exactly like the "Clinton could have had bin Laden sooner but held off" story, which according to people who were there (Clarke, Tenet) is BS.

But, really, who gives a shit? This is good news. Anything that can make our boys and girls safer over there is good news. The fact that Bush has fucked up the postwar planning isn't going away; we can score political points with it later. For now, let's just wish Mr. Zarqawi a nice toasty eternity.

Posted by: mmy on June 8, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Congratulations to President Bush on making Zarqawi one of the most successful terrorists in history and then killing him.

Posted by: Ugh on June 8, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

"They also think this just about US politics. So are you ashamed now?"

Why? I don't write for the Corner (or read it, for that matter). Did you have a point?

"Are you the kettle, the pot or both?"

*sigh*

Niether, silly. S79 is projecting. He's the one thinking about spin. Steve just reported the facts. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you.

Moron.

Posted by: Joel on June 8, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

"Instapundit and Hugh Hewitt and PowerLineBlog haveZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz ......"

Posted by: Joel on June 8, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

You...don't have an honest bone in your body
I've got an honest bone. Wanna touch it?

Posted by: someOtherClown on June 8, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

I am glad he's gone.
Posted by: sportsfan79

As are we all. No one here is mourning the loss of this creep.

The fact remains that he was given up by his own people. Gen. Casey commented on that during his presser, that "senior al Qaeda members" alerted Iraqi forces as to where Zarqawi was. It was like the Mafia getting rid of an ineffective Don.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 8, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

On behalf of Steve,
and Liberuls everywhere,
I'd like to apologize to Sportsfan, Redstate, Freakwency and the rest of the gang [Chicken Hawk is still sleeping I guess]
for being so petty.

This event, the killing of Zarqawi, makes the whole Iraqi adventure worthwhile.
And Steve should have noted that.

Mission Re-accomplished

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 8, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

"Al Zarquri is dead. Can I remind you this evil monster chopped off the heads of several people, including Nicholas Berg? Can I remind you Al Zarqari helped plan operations that resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of our troops?"

Um, which is why taking him out years ago would have been even better. We could have prevented all that. But Bush chose to hold off because a dead Zarqawi would have been one less reason to invade Iraq. Geez. Talk about politicizing.

"And instead of noting Al Zarqari's death is a good thing,"

Steve specifically described the killing as "good news" twice.

Posted by: keptsimple on June 8, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

I'm disappointed, Steve, that you couldn't even wait just a wee little bit to let our military and country enjoy the results of a long, ardurous, dangerous hunt.

That's right, Mike, because the entire military and citizenship read Steve's postings. I think you overemphasize the reach of this blog!

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 8, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Joel - Sorry, missed the quotes. My comment was apparently meant for sportsfan79.

My point is that too many people view this only in terms of how it will affect Bush's popularity.

Posted by: NeilS on June 8, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

What are all you liberal Jackasses out there going to complain about if OBL is killed? It is years too late. . . GW could have killed him earlier . . . Bill Clinton showed real leadership . . . it won't make a difference . . . there are more powerful insurgent groups then al-queda . . . this will just make him a martyr . . . blah, blah, liberal hatred blah. Is it your hatred of GW that gets you out of bed in the morning? You all suck.

Posted by: Harry Crumb on June 8, 2006 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

That's dumb. If they could prove Saddam was supporting terror camps in Iraq IT WOULD MAKE THE CASE for war against Saddam that much stronger.
Posted by: rdw

No, rdw, your statement was dumb. Zarqawi's camps were in the Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq. It would not have helped the administration's case at all. In fact, it would hurt. Their Kurdish allies supporting the terrorist Zarqawi? Not good.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 8, 2006 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

For all you faux military trolls, please note. The actual commanders on the ground in Iraq know that the death of this one particular loathsome human being has exactly zero to do with the Iraqi insurgents and does not even stop the much much smaller foreign terrorist cells from operating in Iraq. They would be derelict if they did not acknowledge this fact (and they aren't). So you fools and trolls who dance the same stupid dance that you did when Saddam was captured should try to wrap your tiny minds around the fact that this is not the end or even the beginning of the end of our difficulties in Iraq, militarily or politically.

Nor is it somehow obscene or politically incorrect to discuss the fact that our invasion opened up all of Iraq to this particular terrorist (who was previously consigned to a remote bolthole in non-Saddam controlled Iraq) or that Bush chose, pre-invasion, not to take him out at that bolthole. Facts are politically neutral. Only brainless partisans of the Bush stripe bleat that dispassionately viewing the facts is somehow unpatriotic or wrong. One might, properly, think that if your side has to go to such extremes to avoid strictly factual discussions that the facts are not your friends.

Now carry on the distasteful spectacle of chickenhawks taking credit for what our military did.

Posted by: solar on June 8, 2006 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop - I don't think this will mean an end to the sectarian violence. It might lessen it. Shiite-Sunni violence is endemic world wide and has been for many years. In any case, its a step in the right direction.

Posted by: NeilS on June 8, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: [T]the Iraqi Parliament approved the nominees for Interior and Defense Minister yesterday. So the Iraqi government is now fully formed.

Even assuming the former made the latter remotely true . . .

So was Saddam's.

Or for that matter, Hitler's.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Two things gleaned from NPR during the morning commute:

First, the Napoleon of Tennessee, Sen. Bill Frist, said that he believes Zarqawi's death will be a "watershed". Whether that's evidence of his lack of judgement, or his raw determination to scrap every last shred of his own credibility, I leave to readers to judge.

Second, supposedly Zarqawi's location was obtained from some of his colleagues, acting as informants. So maybe possibly what we're seeing is some kind of internal squabble playing out, with the Americans enlisted to do the dirty work?

Posted by: sglover on June 8, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

"...airtight intelligence to kill Zarqawi before the war began....." Drum

Kevin, is this the same "airtight" intelligence we had on Zawahiri in Pakistan in which we droned some missiles in only to learn that he was not present and we subsequently killed some possible innocent diners including women and for which the left proceeded to chide Bush and Rumsfeld on for their incompetence? Had Bush attempted a strike back then and missed, you would have been criticizing Bush to no end for attempting an assassination while negotiations
were continuing. Yet now, in a matter of convenience, you chide them for not taking that risk. Do you even see how hypocritical you are?

None of us will mourn the loss of the Democratic spokesperson in Baghdad. Big day for the war on Jihadism and bigger day for the US Military.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: He obviously isn't afraid to order attacks against islamic whackjobs.

Unless it would undermine his case to invade Iraq or affect his tyrannical Arab personal allies such as the Saudis or precipitate a war with Iran that he has no troops for.

But other than that he isn't afraid to order attacks against Islamic "whackjobs."

Now, if he would only order attacks against Christian "whackjobs" like rdw we might get somewhere.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

I'm curious, when is it considered acceptable to note true but mildly-inconvenient facts?

Every time Zarqawi killed an American, or beheaded a kidnap victim, or led another violent raid, some of us thought back to that NBC report and said, "We could have killed this bastard years ago, but Bush chose not to for political reasons."

I'm glad this dangerous terrorist is dead and twice said this is good news. But why is it petty to note a highly-relevant story that's been widely discussed, on this blog and elsewhere, for over two years? When would critics say, "OK, now you can mention it"?

Posted by: Steve Benen on June 8, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Zarqawi's camps were in the Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq.

More nonsense. The Kurds are the enemy of Al Qaeda. The Kurds favor democracy with religious freedom. And in fact that's what the Kurdish North has become. They are Al Qaeda's worst nightmare.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

"...airtight intelligence to kill Zarqawi before the war began....." Drum

Geez, Jay, at least get the author right. Is it too much to read the byline? Steve Benen has been posting for for over a week.

And nice job of projecting. So now you know what Kevin (or Steve) would have said if Bush had acted? You are truly an idiot. Come back when you learn to read.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 8, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: None of us will mourn the loss of the Democratic spokesperson in Baghdad.

Just as Jay doesn't mourn the loss of his own integrity, honesty, and intelligence long ago.

That loss made Jay what he is today: a bona fide, died-in-the-wool, fascist and conservative moonbat.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, is this the same

there's no Kevin here. learn to read.

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

NBC News

Nice to make up your own facts, rdw, but, as usual, you're wrong. Zarqawi's camps were in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, because - careful reading this, it will rock your world-view - Saddam was an enemy of the Kurds and al Qeada!

Another excuse for invading Iraq - that Saddam was in cohoots with al Qaeda - crumbles. Sucks to be you, rdw.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 8, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

"But why is it petty to note a highly-relevant story that's been widely discussed, on this blog and elsewhere, for over two years?"

It isn't. Don't respond to the projecting by our resident trolls, Steve. Their posts aren't logical arguments, they are reflexive responses, of the type commonly observed among invertebrates.

Carry on.

Posted by: Joel on June 8, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

AFG,

If it's attacks on Christians you seek just read the European blogs. Actually you're more likely to read of attacks on jews and gays but that's probably your preference anyway. Not only do the Europeans refuse to defend themselves, in a majority of cases they actually provide total support for the attackers.

You won't get that in the US however. GWB won't attack his base.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

Hey There,

My name is Karen Shacham and I work with CNN Pipeline in Atlanta.

I thought you might be interested to know that there are LIVE reactions to AL-Zarqawis death, live on Pipeline right now.

CNN Pipeline is an online, commercial-free multiple live-news feed. It showcases four simultaneous news feeds from around the world and an on-demand function that allows you to select from a variety of news stories.

Please let your members know that they can go to http://www.cnn.com and click on the Pipeline link to watch it *live* and get a two week free trial.

Thanks and have a great day!
Karen

Posted by: karen on June 8, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Steve: . . . when is it considered acceptable to note true but mildly-inconvenient facts?

When you are talking about liberals.

It is absolutely forbidden if you are talking about conservatives and especially if you are talking about the god of conservatives like rdw, George W. Bush.

rdw: They are Al Qaeda's worst nightmare.

And here I thought Bush was, at least according to rdw.

I guess it's okay for rdw (really dim witted) to change his mind continually about who Al Queda's worst enemy is.

Still lying about Strickland and DeWine in Ohio, rdw, or have you given that one up and replaced those lies with new ones?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Steve
I'm glad this dangerous terrorist is dead and twice said this is good news. But why is it petty to note a highly-relevant story that's been widely discussed, on this blog and elsewhere, for over two years? When would critics say, "OK, now you can mention it"?

I guess it was just the inevitability of it. I saw the byline of the thread (learned about it from the thread, it fact) and thought, "how far down before it turns into an attack on Bush." Halfway down, as it turns out.

It's like everything in the universe is viewed through the prism of the anti-Bush. Supernova sighted in far galaxy. Bush's fault for not funding astronomy. You guys don't know how silly it looks from the outside.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Steve or Kevin, wtf does it matter, liberals are interchangeable. Example, see the brain dead postings of advocate.

I can pretty much predict with 100% certainty the bile that will spew from the damaged liberal mind re: most subjects. Very predictable, very self serving, very juvenile, and very disturbing. Again, see advocates posts. His posts are pure liberlaism and pure brain damage.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

[i]I'm curious, when is it considered acceptable to note true but mildly-inconvenient facts?[/i]

It's truly weird. Almost as if Zarqawi were some kind of national icon. Reagan didn't get this much respect when he passed.

Posted by: keptsimple on June 8, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, Jay, if it hurts you so much, do feel free to leave. Your juvenile, predictable rantings won't be missed around here.

Posted by: Joel on June 8, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK


better late than never....


and lord knows u-s military needed something to rip the headlines about civilian killings from the front page...

congrats...

as to deeper meaning...

remember what happened after that "threat"...saddam was captured...

more americans have died in iraq since hussien was captured...

than in all his time in power...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 8, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: It's like everything in the universe is viewed through the prism of the anti-Bush.

All things have opposites.

Given the number of people, including Bush, who immediately politicized Zarqawi's killing as a positive for Bush and the GOP, it was inevitable that the opposing response would be provided.

It's like everything in your universe is viewed through the prism of the pro-Bush.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

CB asked: "When would critics say, "OK, now you can mention it"?"

Sometime after Bush is out of office, I'm guessing.

Posted by: Lame Man on June 8, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Jay
Again, see Advocate's posts. His posts are pure liberlaism and pure brain damage.

I wouldn't use Advocate as an example. He is the uber-moron idiot without a village, of which both sides are well populated. There's plenty of worthy argumentortatorers around, which is why I like to hang.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

jay: bile that will spew.... Very predictable, very self serving, very juvenile, and very disturbing.


"I have never seen people enjoying their husbands death so much."
- ANN COULTER ON THE 9-11 WIDOWS 6/6/06

....ann knows only the bush admin. is allowed to use 9-11 for political purposes...right?

Posted by: thisspaceavailble on June 8, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Not a good week for the left (of course that could include most every other week as well). Bilbrae wins in CA despite the left throwing everything they had at capturing that seat coming on the heels of crook Cunninghams felonies. Wasn't that going to be the bellweather election to be the barometer of just how many seats the left would pick up this fall? ooops! Not a good sign.

And now with Zarqawi's death, Maliki heads into the summer with a completed cabinet and a lot of confidence. This conflict could be over this summer. What's a democrat to do?

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

This is freaking ridiculous, Steve. Had the U.S. carried out a surgical strike at that time--a time when we were trying to get the UN security council on board for an attack on Iraq--there would have beeen cries that we short-circuited the whole international process.

Frankly, those cries would have come from many of the people who frequent this blog, and they would have been justified. At that time, there was still hope of getting the UN on board with the U.S. & U.K., as evidenced by the Dec. 2002 resolution warning Sadam of serious consequences for failure to comply with UN resolutions.

In addition, in June 2002 Zarquawi wasn't the significant figure that he grew to be after the fall of Sadam, so he wasn't then worth going after at the cost of loosing all hope of a UN backed invasion of Iraq.

Knowing what we know now, we should have gone after him, but you can't fault the administration for not knowing the future.

Posted by: T-web on June 8, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

He is the uber-moron idiot without a village, of which both sides are well populated.

Interesting, Mike, that you said that in response to a post by the ber village idiot, Jay. So I guess it's OK if the idiot's on your side.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 8, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Just an aside, Coulter crossed the line with those remarks. Unacceptable rhetoric.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

t-web....focus...

the pentagon had plans in "early" 2002

drum beat didnt start until august...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 8, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Al Zarquri is dead. Can I remind you this evil monster chopped off the heads of several people, including Nicholas Berg? Can I remind you Al Zarqari helped plan operations that resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of our troops?

Please do! Please keep reminding EVERYONE of that! It makes it much easier for the rest of us to remind everyone that we could have prevented all of it if little Georgie hadn't had his heart set on being a "war president". A fact that "your ilk" wishes would go away.

Posted by: Vladi G on June 8, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

thisspaceavailable: Where does it say early? The story here says June 2002--two months before the drumbeat, as you say, began. No snark intended. Am I missing somehting?

Posted by: T-web on June 8, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

You'll all have to forgive Charlie/Cheney/Chuckles/Don P. today folks. With Zarqawi dead, there's the hope of less violence in Iraq. Less violence means fewer dead kids for him to joke about.

Sick bastard.

Posted by: Vladi G on June 8, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Vladi, are you implying that had we not gone into Iraq, Zarqawi would not have been a terrorist? That's a yes or no question, no spin please.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Oh so now Vladi only is concerned about the Iraqi's that have been killed as a result of this conflict. I am interested on your level of concern re: the mass graves that have been discovered, including more just this week, filled with Iraqi's killed during Saddams reign. Is it a low concern, mid-level concern or no concern whatsoever? Just asking.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

There's also this bit from the story:

People [on the NSC] were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the presidents policy of preemption against terrorists, according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

Isn't this this the exact foreign policy approach supported by liberals: Forming multilateral, UN-backed to achieve international goals while avoiding preemption? How can a liberal blog criticize this approach, then? And how can you criticize it without relying on the unreasonable standard of judging through the lens of ex posto facto knowledge?

Posted by: t-web on June 8, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Missing word alert, from my above post: Forming multilateral, UN-backed coalitions

Posted by: t-web on June 8, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

t-web, I am enjoying your posts. Excellent analysis.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

I am interested on your level of concern re: the mass graves that have been discovered, including more just this week, filled with Iraqi's killed during Saddams reign.

Jay, could you speak up a bit. I'm afraid that you've moved the goalposts so far away that I can barely hear you from that distance. It might make it easier if you moved them back to "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them over here." Thanks.

Posted by: Vladi G on June 8, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

I have never joked about dead kids.

Lying is a sin, Chuckles. You should probably quit doing it. Oh well, you're probably already going to hell for joking about dead kids.

Sick bastard.

Posted by: Vladi G on June 8, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Vladi, are you implying that had we not gone into Iraq, Zarqawi would not have been a terrorist? That's a yes or no question, no spin please.

No, I'm not implying that. You're inferring that. But that's understandable, because you're an idiot.

Posted by: Vladi G on June 8, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Very predictable, very self serving, very juvenile, and very disturbing.

You are looking in the mirror again, Jay, and seeing yourself while thinking you're seeing somebody else.

Anti-psychotics are in order for you, but I doubt you'll get the help you desperately need.

Tearing yourself away from licking Bush's buttocks is so hard to do.

We understand and although your disease is pathetically self-imposed, we are still pulling for your recovery from BIS.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Well Vladi clearly demonstrates the brain damage inherent in liberalism. Incapable of answering a yes or no question and calling Cheney a liar with absolutely zero facts to back it up. Well done Vladi, Howard Dean would be proud.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

that "senior al Qaeda members" alerted Iraqi forces as to where Zarqawi was.

Is this right? I was wondering about this when I heard he was killed. Was Zarqawi really acting through al Qaeda at all? It always struck me that he was self-proclaimed to be al Qaeda in Iraq after the US invasion, had no interaction with Bin Laden at all and attacked fellow Muslims (bombing Jordanian wedding) against al Qaeda wishes. Did real al Qaeda decide he'd outlived his usefulness?

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

well, so much for this thread.

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

".....we could have prevented all of this had little Georgie not had his mind set on being a war president....." Valdi

We could have prevented killing Zarqawi? We could have prevented finding mass graves? Had we just kept our heads in the sand re: jihadism, everything would be fine? As long as they kill other people, you're ok with that? Again it's that brain damage thing.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Just an aside, Coulter crossed the line with those remarks. Unacceptable rhetoric.

Funny thing. I've seen exactly zero republicans, conservatives, pundits, or neocons say this publically.

And no Jay, you most certainly don't count.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: I wouldn't use Advocate as an example. He is the uber-moron idiot without a village, of which both sides are well populated. There's plenty of worthy argumentortatorers around, which is why I like to hang.

Better an "ubër-moron idiot" than an irrational Bush-infatuated liar like you!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, are you literally the stupidest person on the face of the earth? Let's recap:

Jay: Vladi, are you implying that had we not gone into Iraq, Zarqawi would not have been a terrorist? That's a yes or no question, no spin please.

Me: No. I'm not implying that.

Jay: Well Vladi clearly demonstrates the brain damage inherent in liberalism. Incapable of answering a yes or no question.

What a fucking idiot, apparently unable to read the word "no" in an answer to his own question. Seriously, you've gone beyond idiocy right into self parody.

And Chuckles, you're just digging yourself further into hell with all of your lies.

Posted by: Vladi G on June 8, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Bilbrae wins in CA.
Zarqawi is dead in Baghdad.
cleek surrenders.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

None of us will mourn the loss of the Democratic spokesperson in Baghdad
Posted by: Jay

...Unacceptable rhetoric.
Posted by: Jay

You should know Jay, you should know.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

The attempt to spin this as insignificant is hilarious. Thanks, Kevin. Once more the Democrats, who are more and more synonymous with their left wing, show how unserious they are.

Posted by: Mike K on June 8, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

ckelly
Funny thing. I've seen exactly zero republicans, conservatives, pundits, or neocons say this publically.

Hmmm, not true. And check the trackbacks.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Your first response was spin Vladi. I don't think you know difference anymore though considering the hateful self serving prism you view from.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

cleek surrenders

Jay, this is a discussion thread, not a war. grow up.

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Ugh :"Congratulations to President Bush on making Zarqawi one of the most successful terrorists in history and then killing him."

This comment is so true that it deserves to be read twice.

Zarqawi is another one of the "evil as Hitler" people conjured by Bushco's simple, paranoid worldview--along with Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad and whichever world figure is inconvenient at the moment. Zarqawi was a formidable, vicious and unscrupulous foe, yes, but the Evil Mastermind Who Threatens The American Way of Life...no.

Those of you who aren't Christian can rejoice freely that our airstrikes finally killed him (after how many false alarms?) But I am of mixed minds. Part of me is hopeful that one particularly effective and dangerous man has been stopped. I hope that his death will lead Iraq one step closer to stability. Another part of me is appalled by the bloodlust and glee that news of his death is engendering. These may be the most challenging words in the gospel: "...but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."

War is a serious business, not some kind of popular entertainment with beer and real explosives, and where we cheer when our side scores.

Posted by: PTate in MN on June 8, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Bilbrae wins in CA despite the left throwing everything they had at capturing that seat . . .

Right. Another Jay lie.

Bilbray spent more than twice as much on the race and still one a squeaker.

Can't even get Bilbray's name right, eh?

Yet more evidence of your ignorance and stupidity.

T-web: . . . but you can't fault the administration for not knowing the future.

Since they've consistently said they can predict the future and know what actions to take to prevent certain bad futures, yes we can.

Jay: I am interested on your level of concern re: the mass graves that have been discovered . . .

I'm interested in your level of concern (which was none) when those graves were being filled by a Reagan and Bush 41 funded Saddam.


Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney: I have never joked about dead kids.

Sure you have, Charlie.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

We could have prevented killing Zarqawi? We could have prevented finding mass graves? Had we just kept our heads in the sand re: jihadism, everything would be fine? As long as they kill other people, you're ok with that? Again it's that brain damage thing.

Jay, were you dropped on your head as a baby? And then maybe a few thousand more times as a toddler (sorry, Chuckles, he survived, so no new material for your dead kid comedy act)? Or are you simply just a disengenuous asshole? Or perhaps both?

Read the exchange again, dipshit. FQ implicates Zarqawi in all sorts of atrocities since the start of the war, a fact that no one materially disputes. Your King could have prevented those atrocities by having Zarqawi taken out a year before the war started, but chose not to because then he wouldn't get his place in history.

You've seriously descended into Doug Feith territory. Sad, really.

Posted by: Vladi G on June 8, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

ckelly: A lot of big bloggers on the right, including Instapundit, Ace of Spades, Hugh Hewitt, The Anchoress, Ed Morissey (Captains Quarters Blog), Rick Moran (RightWingNutHouse) and many, many more have criticized Coulter's statement in the strogest terms:

"Missing a humanity gene"

"This is beyond callous, beyond any notion of decency. It is disgusting."

"an inconsiderate asshole"

"impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable"

"A shallow, bitter, bitch of a woman whose hate filled mouthings will eventually lead to her destruction."

Posted by: t-web on June 8, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

because what Ms. Coulter said was just as true as "Zarqawi could have been taken out years ago...

I hope you're kidding. Or at least just trolling.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

A lot of big bloggers on the right, including Instapundit, Ace of Spades, Hugh Hewitt, The Anchoress, Ed Morissey (Captains Quarters Blog), Rick Moran (RightWingNutHouse) and many, many more have criticized Coulter's statement...

I keep seeing ads on those sites for her book.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Zarqawi wanted to kill me and every other person posting on this blog who wasn't a radical Muslim.

It is good that he is no longer.

Posted by: Birkel on June 8, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Your first response was spin Vladi. I don't think you know difference anymore though considering the hateful self serving prism you view from.

Pointing out the difference between implying and inferring is spin? Geez, you truly are an illiterate dipshit, aren't you?

Posted by: Vladi G on June 8, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: As long as they kill other people, you're ok with that?

Apparently you are.

When Saddam was killing the Kurds with poison gas, you and the GOP were okay with it.

When the Taliban was killing Russians, you were okay with it.

When the Russians were mass-murdering Chechnyans, you were okay with it.

When Saddam was killing innocent Iranians, you were okay with it.

When Central American soldiers were raping nuns, you were okay with it.

And when terrorists kill our soldiers in Iraq, rather than speculatively civilians like you and your family here, you are okay with it.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Birkel: Zarqawi wanted to kill me and every other person posting on this blog who wasn't a radical Muslim.

You mean there are radical Muslims posting on this blog?

Who knew!

In fact, I'll bet "Cheney" is actually OBL!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

CIRCLE JERK ALERT!:
t-web, I am enjoying your posts. Excellent analysis.
Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 10:20 AM

Posted by: someOtherClown on June 8, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God,

I know nothing about who posts here. Do you?

The point stands, however, that Zarqawi wanted to kill all who didn't have the same myopic view of the world that he did.

Please bring my goal posts back when you're finished with them.

Posted by: Birkel on June 8, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

This means the Iraqi Civil War is moving along just fine by itself and no longer needs Zarqawi to hold its hand.

Posted by: Goran on June 8, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney: Perhaps, ckelly, because what Ms. Coulter said was just as true as "Zarqawi could have been taken out years ago, on several occasions, but Bush decided not to strike." BTW: there have been Republicans willing to join Democrats in bashing Coulter for simply pointing out the truth - for instance:

So, you are admitting that Bush could have taken Zarqawi out years ago.

You ARE capable of rational thought!

There of course isn't any truth to Coulter's statement, but since you think so . . .

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not kidding about my support for Ms. Coulter either.

Then you're as despicable and disgusting as she is.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Mike K: The attempt to spin this as insignificant is hilarious.

If only Mike's statement were true, but like so many of his statements, it isn't.

Sigh.

Birkel: I know nothing about who posts here. Do you?

Then your statement about who posts here is fatuous and admittedly false.

Thanks for the admission.

We appreciate your honesty about being dishonest.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Birkel: The point stands, however, that Zarqawi wanted to kill all who didn't have the same myopic view of the world that he did.

Pretty much a description of the American Right.

I knew Zarqawi and the American Right had much in common, much like the American Right has much in common with the dictators, such as Saddam himself, that they've supported as long as those dictators were killing "all who didn't have the same myopic view of the world that [they do]."

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

The news article does not mention any physical evidence that Zarqawi was killed.

Posted by: Goran on June 8, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK
Zarqawi's camps were in the Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq.

More nonsense. The Kurds are the enemy of Al Qaeda. The Kurds favor democracy with religious freedom. And in fact that's what the Kurdish North has become. They are Al Qaeda's worst nightmare.

So? First, Zarqawi's group was a rival of al-Qaeda's with a similar policy program, only affiliating with al-Qaeda months after the war; But more importantly, while it was in "the Kurdish controlled areas of Northern Iraq", in the sense that it was in the areas over whichthe no-fly zones and other post-Gulf War actions denied Saddam effective control, it was in area along the border with Iran over which neither the mainstream Kurdish groups nor Saddam's regime exercised effective control; JTJ (Zarqawi's group) operated out of territory effectively dominated by Ansar al-Islam -- which it established with support from the Iranian military -- a Kurdish Islamist terrorist group.

Of course, despite having no effective control over the territory as a proximate result of US policy, the presence of Ansar al-Islam and JTJ -- both dedicated enemies of Saddam's regime -- in that part of what was nominally "Iraq" were cited by the Bush administration as evidence of Saddam's "support" for terrorism.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 8, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, Advocate for God. Accusing the right of wanting to kill everyone who disagrees with them is, shall we say, truly Coulteresque.

Posted by: t-web on June 8, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

As others here have said, it makes no difference that Zarqawi has been killed any more than it made a difference that Saddam was captured. The end result of the American occupation of Iraq will be the same as Vietnam- defeat and withdrawal. The only question is how long it will take and how many lives, how much money and how much prestige will be lost in the process. As in Vietnam, the benchmarks of success are to reassure the home population that the war is not as disastrous and pointless as it truly is.

Posted by: bellumregio on June 8, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God,

Now I do hope you'll bring the logic back along with the goal posts.

Let's try again:
Zarqawi wanted to kill all those who didn't hold his beliefs. There is a subset of people who post here who share his views. (Note that a set can contain zero.) Those are the only people Zarqawi didn't want to kill. (Can still be zero.)

I said nothing about who posts here. Rather, and I'll type this slowly so you'll get it, I said something about who Zarqawi wished to kill. Get back to me when you wrap your small brain around the concept of (the possibility of) a null set.

Posted by: Birkel on June 8, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

This time, we've really turned the corner.

Posted by: Charlie on June 8, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

More nonsense. The Kurds are the enemy of Al Qaeda. The Kurds favor democracy with religious freedom. And in fact that's what the Kurdish North has become. They are Al Qaeda's worst nightmare.

You gotta love rdw's "logic". Guess there's no Al Qaeda presence in the US or Canada either, or in any of the countries in Europe.

Seriously, everyone on the right can't be as stupid as their representatives in this thread, can they?

Posted by: Vladi G on June 8, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

t-web: Wow, Advocate for God. Accusing the right of wanting to kill everyone who disagrees with them is, shall we say, truly Coulteresque.

Who would know better that a Coulter-lover?

And if the shoe fits . . .

In addition, in June 2002 Zarquawi wasn't the significant figure that he grew to be after the fall of Sadam, so he wasn't then worth going after at the cost of loosing all hope of a UN backed invasion of Iraq.

Now, conservatives change their tune.

Zarqawi used to be a significant figure whose presence in Iraq some conservatives have long claimed was justification in and of itself for the invasion.

Now, he's just a nobody.

Sorta like Bush's "Abramoff who?"

. . . a time when we were trying to get the UN security council on board for an attack on Iraq . . .

Your bullsh*t stinks as much as the real thing!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Jay's comment about the whole conflict being over by the end of summer is the single funniest thing I've ever read here.

Congrats, dude. It must be hard writing all this good comedy from your hootch along the Tigris.

Posted by: Jim J on June 8, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Birkel: There is a subset of people who post here who share his views.

No, there aren't, at least the views you are talking about.

Of course, literally speaking, you likely share Zarqawi's views on many things too, such as the fact that there is one god, or that the world is round, or that Saddam was an evil person (Al Queda was no fan of Saddam, despite the Right's obtuse rhetoric to the contrary).

Your "share his views" comment, therefore, is drivel.

As for your claim you didn't refer to people posting on this blog . . .

Birkel: . . . every other person posting on this blog who wasn't a radical Muslim . . .

I know you are grammar-challenged, but even a doofus like you ought to be able to figure out that the above statement is about "people posting on this blog" and implies a subset of people posting here who are radical Muslims.

The null-set diversionary tactic is pretty good obsfucation, while being so ultimately lame at the same time.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK


UPI's Pamela Hess ...

When the Senate took $1.9 billion out of the war supplemental to fund border security last month, $1.6 billion came out of funds to replace equipment destroyed or worn out from four years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The money was diverted at the behest of the White House in a last-minute bid to address growing political unrest about illegal immigration. The Office of Management and Budget championed the change without input from the Army or the Marine Corps whose budgets were sliced, a Pentagon budget official told United Press International last week.

In other words, once again Bush has put our troops, and if Bush and conservatives are to be believed about Iraq our national security, at greater risk in order to serve his and his party's own partisan political interests domestically.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God,

You're boring when you're wrong.

Good luck with your life.

Posted by: Birkel on June 8, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Man, I post a lot! And I have nothing to say, other than spewing at republicans! I hate conservatives too! I don't know why! I have made at least 20 references to Bush's butt in my posts! I keep thinking about licking it! What does this mean! Can someone loan me a period! My exclamation key haunts me!

Posted by: Advocate for Goddity-Ding-Dong Dumbassedness on June 8, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Couldn't even wait 24 hours to start politicizing and spinning, huh? You and your ilk don't have an honest bone in your body. You should be ashamed.

Fuck you and everyone that looks like you. People like you are as much a part of the problem as was Zarqwai.

Congratulations to our U.S. military personnel for doing their difficult and dangerous job.

Yep. Stand-off air strikes from 5,000 feet are a "difficult and dangerous job" against an unarmed, immobile house.

Shame we didn't do this five years ago when the opportunity first arose. Bush wouldn't authorise it, however.

I have a strong suspicion that Al-Zarqawi was one of the grainy video figures standing behind numerous beheading victims.Posted by: sportsfan79

I have a strong suspicion that you are a complete asshole.

Posted by: JeffII on June 8, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Finally! Finally it is over.

Let's bring the troops home in time for the biggest 4th of July parade you've ever seen!

Posted by: Tripp on June 8, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: This conflict could be over this summer.

Stupidest thing ever posted in the entire history of the web. What else could someone capable of this level of delusion believe? That a) people like and respect him, b) Halle Berry and Angelina Jolie are his girlfriends, and c) George Bush sends him secret messages of love, cleverly coded in his speeches?

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Birkel: You're boring when you're wrong.

I thought I was boring all the time, Birkel!

Talk about moving the goal posts around!

Conservatives always get "bored" when caught lying or dissembling.

Like the religious fanatics that cut a press conference short when reporters kept asking them to state exactly how gay marriage creates deadbeat dads (see Steve's 2:48 post).

I guess they got "bored" with having to explain themselves when they really had no explanation.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Tripp, may I point out that you have been hilarious lately? Keep it up...we need the laughs.

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Yep. Stand-off air strikes from 5,000 feet are a "difficult and dangerous job" against an unarmed, immobile house.

Flying an F-16 is a difficult and dangerous job, period. And flying one in a region where Iran and Syria have been providing the bad guys with MANPADs (shoulder launched missiles) that reach up to 20,000+ makes it more so. And all of the assaults and raids that provided the intel were also difficult and dangerous.

On behalf of the US military, I apologize to you JeffII, that no US personnel died in the attack. Sorry to ruin your day.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

It's like everything in the universe is viewed through the prism of the anti-Bush. You guys don't know how silly it looks from the outside.

Yes, Bush should actually be praised for his failure to strike Zarqawi prior to the war and prevent the death and wounding of thousands and Iraqis and the escalation of conflict within Iraq to civil war -- what were we thinking???

Not only that, he should be praised for invading a country without an occupation plan, praised for offering misleading intelligence to sell this war, praised for not enough boots on the ground, praised for not having the second-grade knowledge of Iraq to anticipate an insurgency, praised for giving speeches every week saying how peachy things are there instead of coming up with new strategies, praised for causing a secular country to be turned into an increasingly fundamentalist religious culture, praised for turning back the clock for Iraqi women seventy years, praised for taunting al Qaeda to "bring 'em on," praised for handing the Basra region over to Iran -- and on and on and on.

He's so fucking brilliant, so fucking genius it boggles the mind.

How posters here can so shamefully criticize Bush for being responsible for the tens of thousands of dead in Iraq and a country lost to anarchy is beyond me when all he did was choose to invade it without a plan for a self-serving agenda. Raising objections to that is certainly shameless and truly must look very silly from the outside.

We all know the real culprits in this matter are us progressives, the true power in this administration. We've simply been unwilling to throw our collective psionic power behind this debacle hard enough to warp the probability fields and morph the administration's terrible strategies and lack of strategies into winning strategies.

Posted by: Windhorse on June 8, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

And flying one in a region where Iran and Syria have been providing the bad guys with MANPADs

Evidence? I figured the bad guys had some still left over from when we used to give them away.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

yes, it is OVER!!

we won, bring em all back home, NOW!!

Posted by: christAlmighty on June 8, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

I hate conservatives too! I don't know why!

Ahhh, but I do know why:

Supported Saddam and funded him for years while he was attempting genocide against the Kurds using WMDs that conservatives helped him obtain.

Helped overthrow a democratically-elected government in Iran, ultimately resulting in that country's control by religious zealots.

Have supported brutal, vicious, murdering, raping, torturing dictators for decades.

Have supported a drug-dealing tyrant in Central American for years until he was about to be exposed by the media, when they reversed course 180 degrees in order to divert attention from their own complicity.

Lied about WMDs in Iraq.

Lied about Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Defamed the UN weapons inspectors.

Attempted to cut the hazard pay of our troops serving in Iraq.

Have sent bill collectors after disfigured amputee soldiers coming home from Iraq and being discharged sooner than their term of service.

Have allowed the loss of our troops and veterans personal data and then lied about it.

Have condoned and committed torture.

Have condoned and committed imprisonment of innnocent persons in their Global Whine on Terror.

Lied about Social Security.

Lied about the prescription drug bill's costs.

Lied about crimes against humanity by American military personnel and tried to cover it up.

Accepted no responsibility as leaders for these crimes against humanity.

Resisted efforts to fully man or fully arm the invasion of Iraq.

Subjected our troops to greater risk and greater casualties by putting tax cuts ahead of body and vehicle armor, then lied about it.

Have tried to hide the sacrifice of troops who have died honorably serving their country.

Have helped cover up and protect senior military and administration officials responsible for crimes against humanity.

Have invaded the personal privacy of Americans and lied about it.

Have cut the health benefits of our veterans in order to protect tax cuts for wealthy GOP supporters.

Have committed election fraud and voter intimidation in two straight presidential elections, stealing both.

Have interfered with the time-honored jurisdiction of our courts in family matters.

Have elevated gay marriage and keeping Mexican day laborers out of the country to the most important issues of our day, more important than the real war on terror (which they were ignoring anyway in favor of the global whine on terror), the shaky economy, the decline in real wages, the staggaring national debt, the large trade deficit, global warming, an overburdened health care system, high gas prices, disaster preparedness for hurricanes and other manmade and natural disasters, a declining education system, and rampant governmental corruption by the GOP.

But, no real reason to hate conservatives.

Being fundamentally morally corrupt and self-centered, they just can't help themselves.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

With al-Zarqawi dead, the chance that anyone else in the insurgency will be able to step in and take his place is slim to none. This effectively cripples the insurgency and ensures that the conflict will be over by year's end, if not sooner. The only thing that could have made this all better is if George W. Bush had personally killed al-Zarqawi with his bare hands, although as I am not personally aware of Bush's whereabouts over the last 24 hours, I cannot be sure that this did not in fact happen.

But leave it to Kevin to pooh-pooh the importance of all this.

Posted by: American Hawk's stand-in on June 8, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen wrote:
I'm glad this dangerous terrorist is dead and twice said this is good news. But why is it petty to note a highly-relevant story that's been widely discussed, on this blog and elsewhere, for over two years? When would critics say, "OK, now you can mention it"?

I don't know, Steve. That's a fair question. A day? A week? I honestly don't know how long you should've waited.

I guess my only point is that it's a very sad feeling to see so many people who's hatred is SO strong for the Administration and for conservatives, that they IMMEDIATELY start the spin machine, and post the type of comments you see on this thread.

America is so heavily divided it's incredible. (I know what you're all thinking - IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!). Actually, you're partly right. Blame belongs to both sides for how polarized we are as a nation.

Moments like these (reading some of the sickening comments on this thread) are a very tangible example of that division, and it's shocking and saddening to behold.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 8, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

That statement should have read:

Moments like these (reading some of the sickening comments by O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, Rove, Coulter, Redstate, Free Republic) are a very tangible example of that division, and it's shocking and saddening to behold.
Posted by: Windhorse on June 8, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

America is so heavily divided it's incredible. (I know what you're all thinking - IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!).

No I don't blame Bush - I do blame Republicans. The Republicans during Clinton. Their senseless hatred of all things Clinton ending with that silly, embarrassing impeachment. Of course, Bush has done nothing to "unite" as he claimed during campaign 2000 - quite the opposite

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

(Yawn) Soon we will see another bogyman take Zarquarwis place. We probably wont see as much rejoicing on the right with this one, though. After a dozen milestones and turning points, they must be weary of having alert bloggers throw their pointless exultations back at them when nothing changes.

Which brings me to Howard Dean and Saddam. Remember how the MSM went berserk when Saddam was found? The war is over! Bush is our Lord and Savior! I am still waiting for the MSM to apologize to Dean for the thrashing they gave him when he said capturing Saddam made us no safer. But of course even a tiny bit of self examination and contrition from that pack of sheep would be astounding.

Posted by: James of DC on June 8, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

sportsfan79: I guess my only point is that it's a very sad feeling to see so many people who's hatred is SO strong for the Administration and for conservatives, that they IMMEDIATELY start the spin machine, and post the type of comments you see on this thread.

I guess my only point is that it's a very sad feeling to see so many people who's love is SO strong for Bush and for the GOP that they IMMEDIATELY start the spin machine to crow about how great a leader Bush is for getting to Zarqawi three years after the invasion of Iraq and more than that after they had him dead to rights and how this is "turning the corner" in Iraq, as if we haven't according to these same Bush-lovers turned the corner so many times that had it been a physical turning of the corner we could've worn a circle a mile deep into pure granite.

Moments like these (reading some of the sickening comments on this thread) are a very tangible example of that division, and it's shocking and saddening to behold.

Then you should write Bush, Rove, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, Hastert, Coulter, and a host of other conservatives, including most of the conservative commenters here, whose first thought upon any criticism directed at the administration, no matter how accurate or reasonable and no matter whether from the opposition or from within the party, is to immediately characterize the criticism as anti-American, anti-troop, traitorous, or Bush-hatred, rather than a rational reaction to truth.

So for shocking and saddening, look to your own reeking hypocrisy first.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

How can anyone be absolutely sure Zarqawi was killed?

What proof is there?

Can you believe anything coming from this administration?

Who knew or has seen Zarqawi and where and when?

Did they kill him because they need to get the poll numbers up, because the next election is only a few months off and terror alerts don't work so well anymore?

Many unnanswered questions, I like to see some real PROOF.

Posted by: renate on June 8, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Flying an F-16 is a difficult and dangerous job, period.

Ask any of the ground forces where they'd rather be right now, and I would imagine they'd choose cruising the skies to running the street.

And flying one in a region where Iran and Syria have been providing the bad guys with MANPADs (shoulder launched missiles) that reach up to 20,000+ makes it more so.

If this was true, why aren't we losing planes and helicopters every day to shoulder launched missiles? Furthermore, if this situation was so hot, I suppose they would have used drones, right.

And all of the assaults and raids that provided the intel were also difficult and dangerous. Posted by: Red State Mike

Gee. I thought Iraq was getting easier and easier everyday? Just ignore the fact that more Iraqis were killed last week than in any previous weeks since the mission was accomplished.

On behalf of the US military, I apologize to you JeffII, that no US personnel died in the attack. Sorry to ruin your day.

On behalf of the more rational and much better informed posters here, I'd like to apologize for you being just as big an asshole as Jay and Al and Cheney/Charlie and GOP/Don Pee and sportsfan69.


Posted by: JeffII on June 8, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

renate: . . . I [would] like to see some real PROOF.

You mean Bush's word isn't good enough for you, after he lied about Iraq's WMDs, Iraq's nuclear program, the Iraqi threat in general, the prescription drug bill, who was responsible for "mission accomplished", the lack of vehicle and body armor, etc, etc, etc?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Dammit! I told them not to kill Zarqawi until October.

Posted by: RoveMachine on June 8, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

With this man's death, I hope the people in Iraq will stop the sectarian violence and channel
their hostility to their real enemies.

Posted by: Hostile on June 8, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

"So for shocking and saddening, look to your own reeking hypocrisy first."

It much funnier to look at your's as you posting name is just one of many.

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 8, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII: Furthermore, if this situation was so hot, I suppose they would have used drones, right.

If the situation was so hot, you'd think body and vehicle armor would have been a priority . . . well, the Bush administration has never put the troops first, so this is not really a good argument, although we certainly see your point.

The more troops die, the more emotional blackmail Bush has with the public - he really isn't all that concerned with troop casualties.

He's even sending bill collectors after soldiers who were "overpaid" because they received signing bonuses for serving for a particular amount of time, a time that was cut short by medical discharges for amputations.

Shameful.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

As good a thing as disposing of Zarqawi is, I feel more threatened by abortion, evolution, estate taxes, gay marriages, and flag burners.

Posted by: Charlie on June 8, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

It's also sad to think what the world would be like today if Clinton had taken out UBL when he had the chance, huh.

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 8, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

"How can anyone be absolutely sure Zarqawi was killed?

What proof is there?"

His body ?

You are a treasure. Every time I need a lift, I look over here and am never disappointed.

Posted by: Mike K on June 8, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton Era: It much funnier to look at your's as you posting name is just one of many.

I'm open to any pointers to hypocrisy coming from my keyboard.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate,

nothing like a good PR, Rove knows well.

Same people who told us about the babies being pulled from incubators first time around. Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of the government then too. And what happened to young Tillman in Afghanistan and the young female soldier rescued from a Baghdad hospital and and and, we could go on and on.

Posted by: renate on June 8, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton Era: It's also sad to think what the world would be like today if Clinton had taken out UBL when he had the chance, huh.

And sad to think what the world would be like if Eisenhower hadn't helped to overthrow a democratically-elected governmnet in Iran or . . .

Nixon hadn't supported a murderous Shah of Iran or . . .

Reagan and Bush 41 hadn't funded, armed, and supported Saddam, the Taliban, and indirectly Al Queda or . . .

Republicans had supported nation-building BEFORE the 9/11 terrorist attacks (since their argument now is that nation-building will prevent such attacks in the future) or . . .

Republicans hadn't wasted Clinton's time with trivial, bad faith, and ultimately unsuccessful allegations of illegal activities.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: Every time I need a lift, I look over here and am never disappointed.

And I thought you just had to get a glimpse of your hero Bush to get a "lift".

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

How about this for a Rovian ploy: Zarqhawi could have been killed long ago, but A better strategy is to save it for an election year. Better yet: If al qaida retalilates with a terror attack inside the US, the voters will rally around the 'war president.'

Posted by: waltwis on June 8, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

When you need to scare the children, you can never have too many boogymen. Zarqawi served a useful purpose in providing another excuse (if needed) as to why US forces were essential in 'saving' Iraq from evil.

Posted by: MaryLou on June 8, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

So the father of Nick Berg was on CNN this morning. Highlights:

"Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that."

"I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence."

"How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?"

"Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror.

"I don't buy that. Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son.

"Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.

"Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.

"Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?"

I can't wait to see the right-wing catoplexy over this. Apparently he is ready,

"When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people. But I am -- was not a risk-taking person, and yet now I've done things that have endangered me tremendously.

"I've been shot at. I've been showed horrible pictures. I've been called all kinds of names and threatened by all kinds of people, and yet I feel that I have nothing left to lose, so I do those things."

Posted by: Ray on June 8, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a link:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/berg.interview/

Posted by: Ray on June 8, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

"This isn't going to change with the death of al-Zarqawi. We should not have any illusions about this."

-- Prime Minister Tony Blair, when asked about the escalating death toll in Iraq.

Posted by: anon on June 8, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

You know it is exceedingly becoming so apparent that the "left leaning" media would find fault with Mother Theresa if she were a Republican! Get over it. The guy was "evil" and killed hundreds of peopole and what the "could have been caught"...I as a republican could say the same about Bill Clinton "Bin Laden was available to be taken out"...So learn a bit of graciousness and say "way to go" whoever the heck got him. It's one last "nut case" running around in the name of Ala!

Judy
Page, AZ

Posted by: Lakepowellgal on June 8, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

You know it is exceedingly becoming so apparent. . .

I think you mean, it is becoming exceedingly apparent . . .

. . . in the name of Ala!

I think you mean Allah.

Try and stay out of the sun there, Judy.

Posted by: JeffII on June 8, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

it's worth remembering that Bush wasn't willing to hit this known al-Qaeda terrorist in a known location based on air-tight intelligence before the war even began

Steve - You're missing a significant part of the story.

Not only did Bush NOT permit the military to take Zarqawi out, but in addition, the Bush administration used Zarqawi to help promote the war.

In Colin Powell's famous February '03 speech to the UN, in which he tried to justify the impending invasion of Iraq, Mr. Powell declared, "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants." Powell went on to discuss Zarqawi at length, using the name "Zarqawi" more than 20 times while carefully dancing around the fact that Zarqawi was operating in a region of Iraq where Saddam had little or no control.

FYI, the text of Colin Powell's speech can be found at the text of Colin Powell's speech at http://www.themoderntribune.com/colin_powell_un_february_5_2003_-_colin_powell_present_case_on_war_on_iraq_to_united_nations.htm.

Posted by: Will on June 8, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

About effing time.

Personally, I'd rather have seen the bastard spend the rest of his days in prison, he should have been deprived of the "honor" of being called a martyr.

And, of course, none of this makes up for the fact that Bush skipped on a chance to kill Zarqawi before the war (could have prevented thousands of deaths), and the fact that Osama bin Laden is still free, and still thumbing his nose at the families of the victims of 9/11, while Bush isn't "all that concerned about him".

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

I'm puzzled:

"In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide."

-- Why weren't these WMDs ever "found"? Was it possibly because we knew they were there all along and were hoping/conspiring to have them used against Saddam, since Zarqawi's lab was under the control of regional Kurd authorities allied with the US?

What would killing Zarqawi in 2002 have accomplished? He was a potential loose cannon who could help de-stabilize Saddam's regime, and he represented insurance for the Bush Administration's argument that Saddam was linked to terrorists.

So killing Zarqawi in 2002 would have undermined one of Bush's key pretexts for invading Iraq.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on June 8, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Kind of like when Clinton had the chance with OBL and didn't take it. Funny how you neglected to mention that. Hind sight is 20/20."

Clinton did give that order despite misgivings from his cabinet about just how good the intel was. The strike ended up being too late, but Clinton did take a leadership role in ordering the attempt. - Chris O.

And moreover, the very same people who worship Bush, act as if we Dems worship Clinton (when we don't -- we don't generally cotton to idolatry), were at that time yelling "wag the dog" about Clinton going after OBL.

I guess 9/11 changed everything, didn't it? So how come those who have been right all along -- who understood the scope of the terrorism threat pre-9/11, who knew Iraq would be a cluster-$^@#, etc., are laughed off as "unserious" and not realizing "9/11 changed everything" (how ironic considering 9/11 didn't "change everything" for them because they understood that particular aspect of reality pre-9/11)? If wrong the new right like pink is the new black?

Meanwhile commenters here are saying it is bad for us to deny the military their victory because we are raising some valid questions? I suspect our brave men and women in uniform are not so childish that they would begrudge us being good citizens and asking the right questions of our leadership who ought to be kept on their toes lest they engage our military in further wars resulting in un-necessary loss of life for our troops.

Posted by: DAS on June 8, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

There was never any "airtight" information.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

The plan didn't work against bin Laden, and the factory in Sudan that we took out was not producing chemical weapons. You guys need to learn how to say "The death of Zarqawi is good. It followed from information given to the Iraqi government by local informants. Full stop. Criticism of Bush resumes tomorrow."

Posted by: republicrat on June 8, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Come out, come out wherever you are
And meet the young lady who fell from a star
She fell from the sky, she fell very far
And Kansas she says is the name of the star "

Interesting idea, maybe the Wizard of OZ was a allegory about US military power?

Posted by: Matt on June 8, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you all for making the obvious responses to rdw ...

One interesting thing though is that there was indeed a case to be made for deposing Hussein: we couldn't lift sanctions, the no-fly-zone, etc. and leave Hussein un-checked, but our containment of Hussein was creating a lawless zone in the North of Iraq in which terrorism was allowed to flourish. Of course, we were supposed to be the "law" in that sense in Northern Iraq (e.g. by targetting Zarqawi in the first place when we should have but didn't), so it would be a little like pissing in the wind and saying it's raining (a favorite activity of this admin) to argue this:

but how come the admin didn't make a clear-cut, valid real-politik argument for going into the war? That we went into Iraq not because Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda and Zarqawi's people but because we had to put in a government we would trust to get rid of terrorists without using that as an excuse for killing Kurds? Did the admin think the American people were too dumb to buy the subtle argument so they used stupid, wrongheaded slogans instead? Or was actual real-politic calculation of this sort so far from their minds that they didn't even think of using this argument to sell the war?

Posted by: DAS on June 8, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting idea, maybe the Wizard of OZ was a allegory about US military power? - Matt

We were taught it was an allegory about populism. Maybe a little bit of an allegory about US imperialism was worked in as well?

Posted by: DAS on June 8, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

OBF,

One has to consider the PR value with the timing. The new PM gets to announce that HIS government has been instrumental in gathering the intelligence along with Jordanian authorites and in ensuring that Zarqawi and a fw key aides were killed. It's a major PR coup for Maliki and great news for Iraq and Jordan.

The US military is playing this perfectly. Maliki is clearly the man in control and he is just as clearly a man who gets things done.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Another point needs to be made. The grand American delusion that we can solve any problem by killing someone (or a group of someones) is about to take another hit. Another leader will soon pop up to be the new Zarquarwi. Meanwhile, by killing Z we have not cowed his followers, as we like to think, we have energized them with new hatred.

In the words of a Yogi Ramaiah, Violence begets violence. Anger begets anger. Love begets love.

Posted by: James of DC on June 8, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

It's 'Mission Accomplished Again'

'the insurgency is in its death throes, give or take a couple of decades'

Now back to us spending $5 billion a month for a catastrophic war of choice that's shredding our armed forces and bleeding our economy dry. While our ports and borders go unsecured and DHS dollars for NYC and DC are cut 40%. And Don Corleone heads the Republican Party (apologies to la cosa nostra for the comparison).

Posted by: nyc on June 8, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

I already posted at Fark, but this is great news, that guy deserved worse. Good for the US/Coalition forces, and hope they come back from Bush's lie safe and sound...

Posted by: Boorring on June 8, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

One of the few things I have in common with "Snitch" Hitchens is a dislike for Mother Teresa, who we agree was more like a Republican fund raiser than a compassionate woman.

Judy, you and your president have killed more innocents than Zarqawi ever could. I am glad Zarqawi will be unable to kill again, but wish I could say the same about Bush and the American people.

Oh yeah, tear down that dam and let the river flow. Let it carry the confusion and hatred in me, to the sea.

Posted by: Hostile on June 8, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

You guys need to learn how to say "The death of Zarqawi is good. It followed from information given to the Iraqi government by local informants. Full stop. Criticism of Bush resumes tomorrow."
Posted by: republicrat

Everyone on this thread has pretty much stated directly or indirectly that it's good. However, in the larger fucked-up Dali-esque picture that is the ME and our entanglement there, it don't mean jack. Blair had the balls to say as much. But, of course, the Bush administration will be ringing this off-tone bell about how important it is and how is shows progress for the next week at least.

Posted by: JeffII on June 8, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt that too many of the 6,000 bodies turned in to the Baghdad morgue this year died by Zarqawi's, or Al Qaeda's, hands.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "too many". Since Zarqawi's stated strategy was to prevent Sunnis and Shi'ites from cooperating, and since he organized the attacks on mosques in furtherence of that strategy, and since his own agents killed at least a few thousand innocent civilians per year, I'd say that "too many" of those dead were by his hands.

Zarqawi died with 7 of his close associates, and died by the actions of local informants. According to the Brookings Institutions Iraq Index, there are about 5,000 actionable tips by local Iraqis per year. That is an important and often overlooked fact about the war: the foreign jihadists are unpopular even in the Sunni areas, and have to hide from the locals even where they have their strongest support. This may or may not be a "turning point", but it is another step on the "journey of a thousand miles" that begins with one step and continues with one step at a time.

Posted by: republicrat on June 8, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

the foreign jihadists are unpopular even in the Sunni areas...

And constitute what 5% of the insurgency? Methinks you (and BushCo) have always given Zarqawi way too much credit.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

If this was true, why aren't we losing planes and helicopters every day to shoulder launched missiles?

We take hits every day and lose lives every day. It only makes the news when the helo crashes.


Furthermore, if this situation was so hot, I suppose they would have used drones, right.

Drones can't deliver 500 LB bombs. Yet.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Did anyone mention yet that the new Iraqi government was sworn in with a defense and interior minister?


Posted by: Matt on June 8, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

"We take hits every day and lose lives every day." -RSM

"We"?? Yeah right. On your Nintendo in Mom's garage. Freak.

Posted by: Johnny2Bad on June 8, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Zarquawi killed. Iraqi government finally sworn it.

Can we bring the troops home yet?

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kudos Kevin for making the needed point about missed opportunities. So did Kos and Atrios. Everyone, write the brick(head) media and tell them not to forget.

Posted by: Neil' on June 8, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Matt
Did anyone mention yet that the new Iraqi government was sworn in with a defense and interior minister?

Waaayyyyy upthread I did. But that was more good news, and so was ignored.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: Drones can't deliver 500 LB bombs.

Assumes without evidence that a 450-lb bomb, which drones can deliver, couldn't have gotten the job done.

We take hits every day and lose lives every day. It only makes the news when the helo crashes.

An outright lie, but no less than what we expect from RSM.

You are free, however, to list at least one soldier killed on each day in 2006 to date, RSM, providing a link to your source.

I won't ask you to proved that only helo deaths get reported, since that requires proving the non-existence of something, but I think we all know this for the untrue crap that it is.

Just like the untrue crap Bush has spewed forth from day one of his adult existence.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

RSM: But that was more good news, and so was ignored.

Yeah, the swearing in of a couple of Iraqi toadies, 'er I mean government officials, is like, well, the return of Christ or something!

Whooohooo!

Gee, and to think that not losing any soldiers in Kosovo and Bosnia and stopping real genocide (instead of the imagined genocide in Iraq allegedly going on in 2003) was not good news, but merely evidence that Clinton was incompetent at foreign policy and trying to distract from the efforts of the GOP to change the outcome of two elections.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

It may be also worth mentioning that Iraqi authorities say Zarqawi was captured in 2004 by the Iraqi government but released.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/15/zarqawi.captured/index.html

At least time the third time was the charm.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 8, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, let's see

21 killed in bombings on eventful day in Iraq

is less important than the swearing in of two government officials after many lengthy delays.

If it's so important to conservatives, why isn't Fox News headling it, RSM?

16 world headlines on Fox and no mention of this.

According to conservatives, Fox News is all about objective reporting of the news from Iraq, meaning highlighting the positive and downplaying the negative in conservativeland.

Well, I guess Fox must be part of the "MSM" now, eh, RSM?

Ahmadinejad is '2nd Hitler,' Jewish Leader Says

I guess this means the Jewish leader loses the debate, eh wingnuts?

I mean, you guys are primarily the ones that insist that Godwin's Law (which you constantly misuse) declares a person who compares another person to Hitler to be the loser of a debate.

Now, that's a hoot!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Sadly, Juan Cole has a more pessimistic take on the Z-Q hit (and he should know):

juancole.com

"There is no evidence of operational links between [Zarqawi's] Salafi Jihadis in Iraq and the real al-Qaeda; it was just a sort of branding that suited everyone, including the US. Official US spokesmen have all along over-estimated his importance. Leaders are significant and not always easily replaced. But Zarqawi has in my view has been less important than local Iraqi leaders and groups. I don't expect the guerrilla war to subside any time soon."

Indeed, the main problem now is the internecine strife. Yet this takedown should make things easier.

Posted by: Neil' on June 8, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

I have not seen anyone mention the woman and child that were also killed in this attack. Many people will say it is worth killing two innocents in order to end such a killer's life. Zarqawi would say that about his enemies, too.

Posted by: Hostile on June 8, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

I swear, a popular site (shown below in their own example) on how to write HTML had it backwards. They wanted me to write in the format of the following, with "HTML" to appear to the clicker and the first part to be the actual URL (I substitute letters to keep it from acting out):

HTML


Posted by: Neil' on June 8, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Gee willikers, allmitey. Try again with their wrong advice - it is almost impossible to keep this crap from activating, and I'm an old man who doesn't get it:

(w hreff=http://members.aol.kom/htmlataglance/html.htm)HTML(/w)

Posted by: Neil' on June 8, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

The agony of the left over this American success is so perfect. This is why you can't win elections. You are so reflexively anti-American it oozes out of each pore. Your association with any candidate is electoral death.

The blood bath to come over Hillary will seal the deal for the GOP. You can't defeat her. You can only hurt her. And you surely will.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

This is just another meaningless turning point like the fifty or so others before it. It makes a great photo-op but means nothing. Al-Zarqawis death doesnt fundamentally change the situation on the ground in Iraq in any way. Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and other groups cant get along and are still committed to ethnic cleansing through terror and violence. All Iraqis are turning against our continued occupation of their country and our increasingly brutal treatment of them. Leaders of a movement are important but there are many others who will come forward and essentially take his place in a much more low-profile way. The many groups not aligned with him still exist and will continue to be active; they all have their own agenda. Because of this, the guerrilla war is simply unlikely to subside anytime soon.

Posted by: red_neck_repub on June 8, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

rdw (really dim witted): The agony of the left over this American success is so perfect.

rdw's mendacity regarding the alleged "agony of the left" is purrrfect!

Still lying about Strickland and DeWine also, rdw?

Your association with any candidate is electoral death.

Tell it to Bill Clinton!

You are so reflexively anti-American it oozes out of each pore.

You are so reflexively pro-fascist, pro-death, and anti-American that it oozes through every one of your keyboard strokes.

But don't let that stop you!

You are doing a fine job of tarnishing conservatism, reflected in polls showing only 27% of Americans think conservatives are doing a bang-up job running the country.

You are going to have to spend more than twice as much as any liberal candidate to even have a chance in November.

Good luck raising that kind of cash and spending it on elections, with your best fundraisers in jail or headed there and most of your money spent on those dreaded criminal defense attorneys you love to hate until you are yourself indicted.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK


T-web.....here's where I got that claim that zarqawi was targeted well before the drum beat for war with iraq...

ZARQAWI STORY CONFIRMED....Two years ago, Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported that a few months after 9/11 the Pentagon drafted multiple plans to hit the camp of Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda terrorist who had taken up residence in Iraq's northern no-fly zone, outside Saddam Hussein's control. George Bush, however, refused to authorize a military strike.

I've written about this multiple times (I used to jokingly call it my "monthly Zarqawi post"), but Miklaszewski's story always had a big problem: it was based on anonymous sources, which made it easy for the White House to ignore.

(this is from april-29th...or 30th)

Today, however, the Australian show Four Corners has gotten confirmation of the story from Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit:

He told Four Corners that during 2002, the Bush Administration received detailed intelligence about Zarqawi's training camp in Iraqi Kurdistan.

...."Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp...experimenting with ricin and anthrax...any collateral damage there would have been terrorists."

So why wasn't Bush willing to hit Zarqawi, a known al-Qaeda terrorist in a known location? Scheuer says he was told it was because Bush was afraid of annoying the French a theory that seems a bit of a stretch, non? Others believe it was because Zarqawi was politically convenient: having him alive allowed Bush to pretend that Saddam was "harboring terrorists," thus providing useful ammunition for the war.

Whichever it is, we now have a credible source telling us on the record that the Zarqawi story is true. We could have gotten him, but we chose not to. Perhaps someone will start off Tony Snow's White House career on the right foot by asking him about it on Monday.

Kevin Drum 7:03 PM

read the story in the link...there's more detail

no offense taken...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 8, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, rdw, my prediction that Bush wouldn't make 50% during the next week has come true!

I'm now just as much a genius predictor as you claimed to be!

How are Strickland and DeWine doing in Ohio in the polls relative to your previous claims about how they were doing, rdw?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the swearing in of a couple of Iraqi toadies, 'er I mean government officials, is like, well, the return of Christ or something!

NO. It was the latest of many steps in the creation of an effective, elected government.

Posted by: republicrat on June 8, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Polls hardly matter advocate, I thought you would have learned that by now. Elections matter, like the one Bilbray just won in CA. You know, the campaign that was the forecaster of how the left was going to do in the fall.

See, the left wins in the polls, the right wins in the elections.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

thisspace, are you saying there was an al qaeda presence in Iraq prior to us being there??????

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Jay you got 5 million to spend on every election. NO, so now what.

Posted by: Now on June 8, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Drones can't deliver 500 LB bombs. Yet.
Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

A cruise missile is effectively a drone, and sure as hell CAN deliver a 500 lb bomb.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: It was the latest of many steps in the creation of an effective, elected government.

republicrat made a funny.

Jay: See, the left wins in the polls, the right wins in the elections.

Polls didn't predict a Bilbray loss and Bilbray squeaked a win out in a very, very heavy Republican stronghold after spending more than twice as much as his Democratic opponent, so your illustration is meaningless, not atypical of your posts.

Polls hardly matter advocate . . .

They sure mattered to conservatives when Bush was up in the 90's.

And they will sure matter when they drive down conservative voter participation in the fall.

But LOL with your fantasy that the Bilbray win is a stunning victory for the Right!


Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

A cruise missile is effectively a drone, and sure as hell CAN deliver a 500 lb bomb.

No it is not. A drone carries sensors and is guided in real time. It is essentially like a manned vehicle, but the man is with it via a datalink. A cruise missile is not real-time datalinked.

I do this sort of stuff for a living.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

OBF: A cruise missile is effectively a drone, and sure as hell CAN deliver a 500 lb bomb.

Conservatives become easily confused when presented with facts.

Quit confusing them; they are confused enough as it is in thinking there is still a chance we are going to find non-planted WMDs in Iraq existing from the time Saddam was in power.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Great, they killed Zarqawi Goldstein. Now who will GOPSOC be blaming for all the violence in Iraq?

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on June 8, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: I do this sort of stuff for a living.

And yet still doesn't understand that drones and cruise missles are alike, in the context at issue, in that they are unmanned vehicles that would have killed Zarqawi without any risks to our military personnel.

Do try to keep up, RSM.

And, if you do this for a living, then all Americans should be very, very afraid for their security.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Dustbin: Now who will GOPSOC be blaming for all the violence in Iraq?

The question might be better posed as who will the GOP (Goobers On Parade) now blame for their failure to secure Iraq.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God
Red State Mike: I do this sort of stuff for a living.

And yet still doesn't understand that drones and cruise missles are alike, in the context at issue, in that they are unmanned vehicles that would have killed Zarqawi without any risks to our military personnel.

Heh. You lecturing me about drones and cruise missiles is like you lecturing your momma about the pain of childbirth. Your ignorance is showing.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Of course we have 5 million to spend on every election, we're republicans remember? If we come up a little short we'll just tax the poor and give ourselves a tax break, or spend someone else's money. And if all else fails, we'll break out the Diebolds. Haven't you been paying attention to your own rhetoric?

Advocate, keep down playing the Bilbray victory. That way the stinging defeat doesn't hurt as much. In fact you could now start telling us that the mid-terms this fall really don't mean much either.

Driving down conservative voter participation this fall? Hardly. Every time you open your mouth another conservative is convinced to go to the polls.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, RSM, you still haven't told us why three 450 lb bombs delivered by drone wouldn't have been just as effective as two 500 lb bombs delivered by F-16.

Nor have you proffered an argument as to why killing five other people, including a woman and a child (it is still not clear why the military considers killing a child as "no collateral damage" - a pretty disgusting conclusion), was worth "getting justice" on Zarqawi.

Are you suggesting that it would be okay to kill five people, including a woman and a child, each time in order to ensure the death of each and every serial killer whose location we think we know?

So, basically you are saying that killing 500 people to get 100 insurgents and/or terrorists is a good day's work.

I'm with you.

Sounds exactly how Al Queda thinks.

More similarities between our enemies and conservatives.

Interesting.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Once again we see Red State Mike rejoicing in the murder of human beings. What, no words of condolences for the woman and child murdered because they were in the same area where the homicide bombers dropped their bombs? Soulless bastard.

Posted by: RSM on June 8, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

advocate, your post is exactly the reason why Dems are not trusted with national security.

On one hand you chide GW for not going after Zarqawi in 2002 (al qaeda In Iraq?) ignoring the possible collateral damage in that mission, yet criticizing GW for getting him now because of the collateral damage. It's that "I was for it before I was against it" thing.

The left have their heads so firmly planted up their asses it's laughable.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: Heh. You lecturing me about drones and cruise missiles is like you lecturing your momma about the pain of childbirth. Your ignorance is showing.

Ahhhhh.

Insults to divert attention from the fact that you lost track of the issue at hand.

Go back to kissing Bush's ass.

It's a better position for you than trying to defend your own inanity in describing distinctions between cruise missles and drones that are irrelevant to whether manned or unmanned means of killing Zarqawi were both available.

Jay: Every time you open your mouth another conservative is convinced to go to the polls.

And every time you open yours, two conservatives are convinced to stay away from the polls.

I win.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, RSM, you still haven't told us why three 450 lb bombs delivered by drone wouldn't have been just as effective as two 500 lb bombs delivered by F-16.

There are no drones that can carry anything close to a 450 lb bomb, that's why I didn't answer the question. It was a stupid question. The biggest warhead you'll get off a drone is 20 lbs. That'd barely penetrate your skull.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

At most this reduces the number of insurgents out to continue the insurgency by one leader that was clearly (as shown by the outtakes of his recent recordings) not someone really doing much of the actual attacking. He was far more influential as a symbol, especially when the insurgency was being built up. By this point his presence or lack thereof will have little to no impact in the short term on the insurgency and likely none at all in the long term, well except raising him to martyrdom status and yet one more symbol of the oppression the insurgency believes it is fighting against.

This guy was never the big threat he was made out to be, which is not the same thing to say he is not a threat at all before the Trolletariat jumps on this statement. If anything he was by the time of his death far more prominent a symbol in the western world as the current face of the Iraqi insurgency than he appeared to be in actually running/coordinating that insurgency. At most this is removing one symbol of leadership in a hydra headed insurgency. That he is dead given his own history/actions of mayhem and slaughter I see as a good thing, but I have no illusions that this will have any significant/appreciable positive impact for American forces on the ground and the stabilization of Iraq against the ongoing insurgency.

As to the point this is rather late because he was able to be removed well before he became this symbol, well that is simply the blunt reality of the matter. He was known before the invasion and he was clearly cited as a significant (and pretty much the only example) proof of links between Saddam and Osama/AQ. This made leaving him alive so as to have something to hang that argument on back then more important than removing a terrorist threat. Which in turn showed that the Bush Administration placed it's political/propaganda aims ahead of fighting terrorists whenever and wherever they could as they promised they would after 9/11/01.

This is not a corner turning moment, it is simply one more insurgent death in an insurgency that appears to have thousands working for it in a very diffuse and disparate organizational structure. Taking him out is not like decapitating the head of a military operation disrupting command and control which is the mistake too many celebrants of this event appear to be making. Just like when before Saddam was captured he was supposedly behind the insurgency and removing him would weaken it proved out to be completely wrong I expect the exact same reality from this death. If it has any appreciable impact it will be to further motivate the insurgents to fight, martyrdom tends to have that impact on those left alive.

Posted by: Scotian on June 8, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: On one hand you chide GW for not going after Zarqawi in 2002 (al qaeda In Iraq?) ignoring the possible collateral damage in that mission, yet criticizing GW for getting him now because of the collateral damage. It's that "I was for it before I was against it" thing.

And yet again, you lie.

Zarqawi, according to conservatives at least, was at an alleged terrorist training camp in the middle of nowhere, not the middle of an urban area surrounded by potential collateral victims.

On the other hand, since you clearly don't care about collateral damage, then it makes no sense to have waited 3-4 years for the same result, albeit after Zarqawi had overseen or committed numerous other murders that would have been prevented, according to your own logic, with his death in 2002.

So, five collateral deaths in 2002 (if we accept an equal, rather than the lesser risk that is obvious with Zarqawi being in a rural tent vs urban house) versus five in 2006 plus all the deaths in between attributable to Zarqawi and you call the latter the better solution.

Hardee har har!

What a buffoon you prove to be; in your attempt to demonstrate left-wing hypocrisy, you merely point out your own willingness to be dishonest and defamatory.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Scotian
At most this reduces the number of insurgents out to continue the insurgency by one leader that was clearly (as shown by the outtakes of his recent recordings) not someone really doing much of the actual attacking. He was far more influential as a symbol, especially when the insurgency was being built up. By this point his presence or lack thereof will have little to no impact in the short term on the insurgency and likely none at all in the long term, well except raising him to martyrdom status and yet one more symbol of the oppression the insurgency believes it is fighting against.

Would you say the same thing if we were to take out OBL? Not baiting...

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

The left have their heads so firmly planted up their asses it's laughable.

Unlike the Right who have their heads firmly planted up Bush's ass!

I like my own ass better.

Interesting that you like Bush's better.

Red State Mike: There are no drones that can carry anything close to a 450 lb bomb, that's why I didn't answer the question.

Liar. Or ignoramus.

So much for your superior knowledge!

"Both the Armys I-Gnat and Hunter UAV systems used in Iraq could carry weapons, sources noted. [In fact, the Hunter has already been tested with Viper Strike munitions.] The I-Gnat can carry up to 450 pounds of payload, while the Hunters payload capacity is 200 pounds."

Idiot.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

True justice would be if we captured him and beheaded him. But this is good enough.. today is a good day for Iraq.

Posted by: Andy on June 8, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Osama Bin Laden should have been brought to justice. A competent leader would have done so long before now. Bush didn't because, if he had, there would have been no war to make him a "War President" and he might have gotten only the one term. Instead, he got two terms and the mass murders like Red State Mike got to get their kicks watching their compatriots murder Iraqis.

Posted by: RSM on June 8, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: "The biggest warhead you'll get off a drone is 20 lbs."

Um, no. Check out the stats for the MQ-1B Predator, which can launch 100 lb. AGM-114 Hellfire missiles.

What was that you were saying about "stupidity?"

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

"Both the Armys I-Gnat and Hunter UAV systems used in Iraq could carry weapons, sources noted. [In fact, the Hunter has already been tested with Viper Strike munitions.] The I-Gnat can carry up to 450 pounds of payload, while the Hunters payload capacity is 200 pounds."

Idiot.

Moron. The viper weapon is about a 8 lb warhead, dumbass. The other weapon carried, shit-for-brains, is the Hellfire missile, doofus. It has a 20 lb warhead optimized for penetrating armor, spunknut. The 450 lb payload, fuckwad, is gas and sensors, moron. You don't just hang a bomb off the bottom shit-for-brains. Go back to your wiki reading and get not-so-ignorant. God you're stupid.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

RSM: That'd barely penetrate your skull.

Yeah, 20-pound limit, sure.

Maybe the above and this will "penetrate your skull.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

True justice involves evidence and conviction. Not barbaric murder carried out either by hand or from the safety of an airplane. Today is just another bloody day of murder, reprisal, and revenge. All of which could have been avoided.

Posted by: RSM on June 8, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike wrote: "Would you say the same thing if we were to take out OBL?"

Of course. Al Qaida always has been a loose confederation of terrorist organizations rather than a rigidly controlled hierarchy dependent on any one leader. That has become even more true over the past few years. Removing OBL will be a public relations coup but it will not shut down those various terrorist organizations.

I seem to recall that in the French-Algerian war, the French had a fairly comprehensive list of leaders they were targeting. By the end of the war, they had killed or captured every name on that list. The last time I checked, the French no longer controlled Algeria.

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB
Um, no. Check out the stats for the MQ-1B Predator, which can launch 100 lb. AGM-114 Hellfire missiles.

See my erudite reply to Advocate for God.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

payload` Pronunciation: pālōd`

n. 1. The part of a missile or torpedo that carries the explosive charge.

Gee, Red State Asshole, I see nothing in this definition that refers to fuel or sensors, do you?

I guess it's just another convenient misdefinition that conservatives like to create when they've been caught trying to bamboozle everybody.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB, to be clear (since you seem moderately sincere in your question), a 500 lb bomb carries a 500 lb warhead. If it is guided, as the were the ones dropped on AZ, they add additional stuff to it. A missile is mostly propellant and guidance systems, with little warhead. The warhead is effective on armor due to its special design (shape penetrator similar to RGB).

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

You're so wrong RSM, Red State Mike and his ilk wouldn't have the guts to actually shoot someone.
Zarqawi would've laughed in their faces, then beheaded them.

Posted by: Geeno on June 8, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

payload` Pronunciation: pālōd`

n. 1. The part of a missile or torpedo that carries the explosive charge.

Gee, Red State Asshole, I see nothing in this definition that refers to fuel or sensors, do you?

Now that's rich. you cite some English major who composes an on-line dictionary as a expert in armed UAVs. That's just fucking hilarious. A new step in moronitude.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

See my erudite reply to Advocate for God.

Moron. dumbass. doofus.spunknut. moron. shit-for-brains

And yet, somehow, none of those false and repetitive epithets is nearly as damaging as simply pointing out that Red State Mike takes joy in the fact that he has personally murdered people by dropping bombs on them. As well as taking joy in todays murder of a woman and her child. Without caring that there may have been civilians slaughtered as well. This leads one to believe that one can also accurately apply the term sociopath to him.

Posted by: RSM on June 8, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God, Red State Mike may be a sociopathic mass murderer, but I assume he knows his tools well enough to be right about this.

Posted by: RSM on June 8, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

From the ABC News (Brian Wilson) news story: Khalilzad says he was informed yesterday by General George Casey that the military was getting close to al-Zarqawi and that there was no plan to move in troops for a possible capture.

If this man was indeed the leader of the terrorists in Iraq, wouldnt we want to interrogate him to learn of the other cells that he has in place? We had no problem doing all sorts of stress positions in Abu Ghareb with taxi drivers? Why not the chief terrorist himself?

Don't get me wrong. I most certainly would favor his execution, with or without a trial.

Being a good liberal, I would prefer a trial. Followed by an execution. Appearances still count.

But doesnt it stand to reason that you would want to try to capture this man to get useful intelligence out of him? Especially since this was a house five miles out in the country?

Youre telling me that with all the special forces that we have deployed that we couldnt figure out how to sneak up on this guy? Even the Russians have a gas that induces unconsciousness. We can't do the same thing?

As to not risking any lives to take him alive, I weigh that against the lives that will now be lost because we did not get the opportunity to interrogate him. What could we have learned?

Do not expect the MSM to ask any of the following questions:

Who gave the take no prisoners order? Why?

What about intelligence that we might have forced out of this guy?

You will recall that the Saudis quickly executed the terrorists who hit the Kobar Towers before the FBI could talk to them. Are we learning from them?

Now you can call me paranoid and maybe I am. Of course, there is the little matter of why W's Dad was meeting with Osoma's Dad on 9/11. Or the lack of WMDs. Or the $8 billion that just disappeared? Or the fact that 200,000 AK47s bound from Kosovo to the Iraqi security forces "vanished." That's four plane loads by the way. Over several months.

OK. I'm paranoid. But my question for you would be: It isnt if I am paranoid? Its whether you are paranoid enough?

I'll go put my tinfoil hat back on and watch the MSM serve up the Kool-Aid now.

Posted by: NJ Osprey on June 8, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

RSM: Now that's rich. you cite some English major who composes an on-line dictionary as a expert in armed UAVs. That's just fucking hilarious. A new step in moronitude.

And yet you cite absolutely nothing in support of your claims, except to tell everyone how smart and knowledgeable your are, and demand that we believe you on both counts.

Sorry, but I don't assume anything you say about yourself is true, given the number of lies you've told about other things.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Scotian
At most this reduces the number of insurgents out to continue the insurgency by one leader that was clearly (as shown by the outtakes of his recent recordings) not someone really doing much of the actual attacking. He was far more influential as a symbol, especially when the insurgency was being built up. By this point his presence or lack thereof will have little to no impact in the short term on the insurgency and likely none at all in the long term, well except raising him to martyrdom status and yet one more symbol of the oppression the insurgency believes it is fighting against.

Would you say the same thing if we were to take out OBL? Not baiting..."

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 4:38 PM

For the most part I would at this point, although his potency as a symbol is significantly larger especially since he was able to hit America so hard on 9/11/01 and is still out there continuing to plot, plan and most importantly spread his propaganda message of the need for Islamic rule of Islamic countries to protect from the greed and corruption of the west, especially America. Indeed the fact that he is still alive and out there after all this time despite the "commitment" of the most powerful nation on earth marshalling all its resources to get him "dead or alive" is what makes him such a potent symbol of America's weakness and vulnerability throughout the world these days. He has already set up the infrastructure of AQ and set up strong lieutenants to run operations and in the event of his death/martyrdom take over the leadership and propaganda elements of their jihad.

Osama's potency as a symbol for the Islamic terrorist factions in the world is significantly more potent than Zarqawi's has ever been by at least an order of magnitude. So there would be significantly greater symbolic value to finally taking him out. Although it would have been far more potent is he had been taken out in Tora Bora a few years ago before his reputation got the boost it has by escaping the Afghanistan invasion and continuing to taunt the west/America. In terms of it significantly reducing the operational capability of AQ, that I tend to doubt for the reasons I already laid out. I hope this answers your non-baiting question.

Posted by: Scotian on June 8, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: Now that's rich. you cite some English major who composes an on-line dictionary as a expert in armed UAVs. That's just fucking hilarious. A new step in moronitude.

If you are so smart and knowledgeable, then you would be able to provide links in only a matter of seconds that absolutely and without question prove exactly what "payload" means for UAVs, provide a list of what the current set of active UAVs are with their respective payloads, and an exhaustive list of "bombs" that have been deployed using UAVs.

Until then, your claim that you know what you are talking about isn't worth a cup of Bush's piss (that is, based on its value to a liberal, not its value to someone suffering from BIS like you).

Hell, I'll even apologize to you. Sincerely.

Otherwise, STFU about your expertise.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Geeno: Zarqawi would've laughed in their faces, then beheaded them.

I dunno man, did you see that video of Zarqawi being unable to clear the jam from his weapon? I'd happily put Zarq on the other side of a firefight instead of say, your average Republican Guard.

Posted by: cyntax on June 8, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Not usually one to defend Red State Mike, generally, but he's right, here.

"Payload" is used in a number of senses; the "payload" capacity of an armed aircraft, including a drone, is sometimes the weight of weapons it can carry and release, and sometimes the weight of specialized mission-useful equipment, but generally not the weight of the explosives warheads of its weapons without the other components.

The "payload" of a missile is usually the explosive warhead alone.

So a drone with a 500lb payload consisting of various missiles is going to deliver a lot smaller weight of explosives than a 500lb bomb (which is a 500lb explosive charge plus whatever else is strapped to it, as Mike says), or a missile with a 500lb "payload".

The 450-500lb payload of the GNAT-750-45 from the FAS site AfG provided (direct link to the relevant page is here), for instance, refers to mission useful equipment:

The CIA-operated Gnat 750-45 Lofty View reportedly can carry a 450-500 pound payload consisting of a synthetic aperture radar with one foot resolution, three EO or IR sensors in a chin turret and a wideband satellite data-link antenna.

Similarly with the Hunter's 200lb payload:

Some of the payloads tested on Hunter were a laser designator, VHF/UHF radio relay and several payloads for the Joint Command and Control Warfare Center.

Neither of these matches the definition AfG offered of "The part of a missile or torpedo that carries the explosive charge.", and they do, in fact, refer to sensors (fuel is not part of the payload in either case.)

None of the UAV's at the site AfG posted can carry anything like 450lbs of ordnance.

There is no need for additional citations to demonstrate this, since AfG's own reference does it quite well.


Posted by: cmdicely on June 8, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Raspberry? We've been jammed!"

just cause I haven't seen a post from Mr. Brosz in a while.

Posted by: kenga on June 8, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

In August 2004, Predator B successfully dropped a Paveway II (GBU-12) laser-guided bomb on a stationary ground target.

-----------------

Guided Bomb Unit-12 (GBU-12) Paveway II

The Guided Bomb Unit-12 (GBU-12) utilizes a Mk82 500-pound general purpose warhead. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target. The GBU-12 is a member of the Paveway II series of laser guided bombs (LGBs). These weapons are hybrids. At the core of each is a bomb: a 500-pound Mk 82 for the GBU-12 . . .

Gee, looks to me like a UAV that's been operational since 2004 and can carry and deliver a guided 500 lb warhead . . .

So, with all your expertise, RSM, please explain to me why my conclusion is wrong.

I'm listening politely and without calling anyone, as you've stooped to, "fuckwad".

So, have at it; prove your claim, rather than just asserting it and telling us to trust your alleged expertise.

And even assuming that this UAV is not currently deployed (why is Bush dragging his heels?) do you mean to tell us that the US military is jumping directly from being able to deliver no more than 20 pounds to 500 pounds or more - that there are no UAVs capable of delivering anything larger than 20 pounds, really?

But it still begs the question as to why they couldn't use Hellfire missles, which can penatrate armor right, to take out Zarqawi - or do you expect us to believe that the building he was in, a house, was the equivalent of an underground bunker?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

I dunno man, did you see that video of Zarqawi being unable to clear the jam from his weapon? I'd happily put Zarq on the other side of a firefight instead of say, your average Republican Guard.

Yeah, but it wasn't his weapon, it was a SAW M249 captured from an American unit. Given that it takes some instruction to learn how to work it, it wasn't too surprising that Zarqawi, whose expertise is probably with Warsaw Pact derived weapons such as the AK, had trouble with it on the first go. I doubt too many US servicemen who'd never handled it before would have been able to pick it up and use it without a hitch, either.

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Your association with any candidate is electoral death.

Tell it to Bill Clinton!


No need. Bill Clinton told you. He called himself a New Democrat because he didn't want to be associated with the old version.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, but it wasn't his weapon, it was a SAW M249 captured from an American unit. Given that it takes some instruction to learn how to work it, it wasn't too surprising that Zarqawi, whose expertise is probably with Warsaw Pact derived weapons such as the AK, had trouble with it on the first go. I doubt too many US servicemen who'd never handled it before would have been able to pick it up and use it without a hitch, either.

Granted it's been fifteen years since I had to clear a weapon, but I don't recall the difference between clearing an M-16 and an M-60 being all that great a shake, for both you have to pull the bolt back (which is all Z's aide did) and with the M-16 you should double tap that button on the right. The SAW is basically a belt-fed M-16.

Now you're right our weapons tend to finickier than the Warsaw Pact, but what kind of a dumb-ass goes for a cyclical fire rate (wide open) if he doesn't know how to clear his weapon? Probably he has no expertise with any weapons.

Feh, he's dead anyway and good riddance.

Posted by: cyntax on June 8, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, looks to me like a UAV that's been operational since 2004 and can carry and deliver a guided 500 lb warhead . . .

So, with all your expertise, RSM, please explain to me why my conclusion is wrong.

I kmow they've tested GBU-12's with the Predator B out on the test ranges (much larger variant of Predator). Not deployed yet with the the GBU-12 to the best of my professional knowledge, just Hellfires. But I will cede to you that they may be, since I can't prove they haven't off of what is on the public net. Anyway, google using the "mil" restricter to see what the government publicly says (which is what I say).

http://www.acq.osd.mil/usd/Roadmap%20Final2.pdf

Here's a nice link with an article on the state of the aircraft (note the dot_mil address).
http://www.dau.mil/pubs/dam/03_04_2006/acq_ma06.pdf

And here's a nuther nice presentation by the end users (shooters). Note timeline for Predator B intro.

http://www.brooks.af.mil/web/taos_crse/present/Landsman_Remote%20Piloted%20Vehicles.swf

And even assuming that this UAV is not currently deployed (why is Bush dragging his heels?) do you mean to tell us that the US military is jumping directly from being able to deliver no more than 20 pounds to 500 pounds or more - that there are no UAVs capable of delivering anything larger than 20 pounds, really?

First, it is amazingly complicated to integrate a new weapon on a platform. Second, there really aren't any weapons that split the difference. Maybe a Maverick, but the GBU-12 is better anyway. It's not a weight issue (it was with the first Predator, not the heavy bird), its an integration issue.

But it still begs the question as to why they couldn't use Hellfire missles, which can penatrate armor right, to take out Zarqawi - or do you expect us to believe that the building he was in, a house, was the equivalent of an underground bunker?

A Hellfire warhead directs its energy into a narrow jet of molten metal to penetrate thick armor. A house would be like hitting paper mache with a high pressure hose for it, but the blast is not everywhere. Very directed. Mostly just in front. That's how a 20 lb warhead can defeat armor. For a house, you want to use a bulk non-directional charge.

I'll give you points for your research.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 8, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: I'll give you points for your research.

And I'll give you points for a direct, informative, and non-insulting response.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: No need. Bill Clinton told you. He called himself a New Democrat because he didn't want to be associated with the old version.

A typically meaningless reply since every Democrat today calls himself a "new Democrat".

In any event, conservatives characterized Bill Clinton as the most liberal politician of our time and you are stuck with your claim - you don't get to change it now just because its convenient and call him conservative without identifying yourself as an opportunistic partisan whose claimed values and opinions can't be trusted as truthful.

You also miss the point, since by your own statement it's not the candidate's characteristics that control, but the characteristics of those who associate with the candidate ("your association with any candidate" [emphasis added]) which would include 'our' association with Bill Clinton.

Since Bill Clinton falls within the set of "any candidate" and since we "associated ourselves with him" and since Clinton won despite being 'associated with us' and since his winning is a widely known fact, which you've confirmed on many occasions you are familiar with, it becomes clear that your statement (that our association with any candidate is that candidate's death knell) is a knowing falsehood.

Sorta like your lies about Strickland and DeWine.

Truly, really-dim-witted, you are an easy mark.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

So serious question Red State Mike: how many human beings have you killed by dropping bombs on them from over a half-a-mile away? I'm betting you can't answer the question. I'm betting you also can't answer the question "how did this 'protect my freedom?'" Nor can you answer the question as to how many civilians died as a result of your bombings.

The fact is, a garden-variety serial killer demonstrates more care for his victims than you do. And they have the decency (for the most part) not to brag about their deeds. You, on the other hand act like you are, if not a hero, at least someone whose opinion should be respected rather than trashed as the vile product of a society that fails to value life beyond our shores.

Posted by: RSM on June 8, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Alright!

Zarqawi's dead...so the one guy who united Iraqis of all stripes in shared hatred is now gone. Can someone tell me how exactly is this gonna stop the civil unrest in Iraq?

The fact that we're reduced to rapture and back-patting over the death of a shadowy "front-man" of the smallest and least significant insurgent group in Iraq is itself really pathetic. Is this the same nation, the same Army that liberated Normandy? This gets everyone start talking about "success" in Iraq??? Pfffftt. How sad.

Of course it's always fun to see murderous assholes die, but maybe some of these crowing Bush roosters might want to consider the sobering fact that we don't even know the NAMES of most of the leaders of the other, far more important insurgent groups, much less their location. The only reason why Zarqawi got so much press was that he was pretty much the only guy whose name we did know. Because he himself was a crowing rooster, always looking to dirty-bird in our face in those PR videos. But of course, crowing roosters like that are just what the US public wanted to see, so Bush and the media put Zarqawi's name front and center. Now there's a void, so some new "face of terror" will have to be produced or people might get confused. Just wait a couple of weeks, when the dumb sheep-dogs in the US media see that the attacks haven't diminished a lick.

Apparently one of Zarq's own men got sick of his clowning and turned him into the Americans. Not a big surprise when you think about it. Most of Zarqawi's followers will probably just join some other group, most likely one that's more interested in killing US troops and organized civil war rather than staging random and increasingly pointless bombings.

The sad thing is that Zarqawi long ago completed his mission of helping to turn Sunnis against Shia. It is possible that his early bombings had a lot to do with the escalation of tensions. But now that the fire is in full swing, there ain't no more need for this kind of kindling. There are now plenty enough REAL atrocities committed by native Sunnis on Shia and vice-versa to fuel the war for some time. What is it that you moron GOP war-supporters are always saying?: "Let's not get into an argument about how this war started...let's focus on the present and the future!" Well, unfortunately these Sunni and Shia groups share that sentiment. They aren't gonna care whether some asshole named Zarqawi played a part in fomenting the Civil War. They're gonna care about how to WIN the war, however it may have started.

So, basically any further bombs on Zarqawi's part are superfluous. He accomplished his little mission and played his small part in history. He had to be feeling pretty great those last couple of weeks of his life about how things were going. And if they have al-Jazeera in hell I'm sure he'll get months more of this kind of satisfaction.

Posted by: kokblok on June 8, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hitler is dead too, but it won't bring back six million Jews and a host of other innocents.

Now, when Bush can bring back those killed by or under the orders of Zarqawi during the last four years or so, due to Bush's refusal to take Zarqawi out just so Bush could provide an additional justification for his ill-advised, illegal, and immoral invasion, then we can say that Bush has accomplished something rather than simply avoided further failure and disaster arising from his original decision.

Slowing the bleeding that you have deliberately and immorally started is not an act of courage, but of desperation.

That it was the very people whose hazard pay he tried to cut, whose benefits he has cut, to whom he has denied appropriate training, armor, and assistance, whom he has made into scapegoats, whose comrades' lives he's wasted, and behind whom he has hidden in attempting to cover up and divert attention from his own mendacity and incompetence, and who accomplished the feat Bush now claims as his own for political benefit is simply more proof of Bush's shameful leadership.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Look...I know this doesn't really change anything. But you don't have to be pro-war to be happy that Zarqawi is dead, because this asshole had it coming. I don't think any one man is responsible for as much misery in Iraq since the invasion, and the only bad thing about this news it that he died so quickly.

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe on June 8, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

RSM wrote, about Red State Mike

The fact is, a garden-variety serial killer demonstrates more care for his victims than you do. And they have the decency (for the most part) not to brag about their deeds. You, on the other hand act like you are, if not a hero, at least someone whose opinion should be respected rather than trashed as the vile product of a society that fails to value life beyond our shores.

Red State Mike, I thanked you in another thread for your military service, and I'd like to do it again. I've never on these boards seen you "brag about [your] deeds", as RSM alleges. What I have seen is alot of class and restraint in dealing with little puny weasels spouting empty-headed obscenities, like JeffII, Advocate, Hostile, Johnny2Bad, et al. Johnny2Bad?! You've got to be kidding me with these screen names.

Have you noticed they can't get through a post without a string of obscenities? I've got the perfect picture of shriveled 90 pound weaklings, and I'll bet I'm not far off. If they ever had to face any actual adversity, they'd piss right in their pants, and go running for the nearest military type (who votes republican, by the way) to protect them.

Keep up the good work, Red State Mike.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 8, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton could have taken out Osama bin Laden on more than occasion but didn't. So what? "Years ago" doesn't matter at this point. Zarqawi is dead now. Good.

Posted by: Queer Conservative on June 8, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

sportsfan79 wrote: "Have you noticed they can't get through a post without a string of obscenities?"

Oh, the irony....

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

scotian: Indeed the fact that he is still alive and out there after all this time despite the "commitment" of the most powerful nation on earth marshalling all its resources to get him "dead or alive" is what makes him such a potent symbol of America's weakness and vulnerability throughout the world these days.

It isn't that new for the US to be unable to apprehend a particular man. the US had the same difficulty with Pancho Villa in the early 20th century, and that was nearby. It took 4 years to track down Aguinaldo, and the US did not have to respect any nominal boundary, as the US has to respect the Pakistani border. As the Madrid, Bali, London bombings show, it isn't just America's vulnerability.

Posted by: republicrat on June 9, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

As to not risking any lives to take him alive, I weigh that against the lives that will now be lost because we did not get the opportunity to interrogate him. What could we have learned?

In WWII they killed Yamamoto when they might have tried to capture him instead. What's more, they rejoiced when they did it. It probably had little effect on the progress of the war, as Japan was thoroughly outgunned by that point. But they rejoiced anyway.

You can't complain about everything.

Posted by: republicrat on June 9, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike's military service is a joke. Rather than acting as an adult, conscious of the effects of his actions, he just "followed orders" to murder human beings. And, cowardly, he did it from the relative safety of an airplane (compare the survival rate of pilots to that of the victims of their bombs).

Red State Mike's first post in this thread asks that the military be allowed to "enjoy the results of a long, [arduous], dangerous hunt," by which he clearly means the murder of an individual without trial. His inability to address the innocent woman and child shows a callous disregard for human life.

This is not someone to respect, but someone to excoriate and pity. One hardly knows what went wrong in Red State Mike's life to make him a stone cold killer, but the least that we can do for him and society is to treat his ravings as we would any other common murderer. That is, to ignore him. Had we done so long ago we would not be in Iraq murdering people on a daily basis and providing an excuse for them to murder our citizens.

Posted by: RSM on June 9, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

It took 4 years to track down Aguinaldo, and the US did not have to respect any nominal boundary,

It also didn't have any spy satellites, pilotless drones, sophisticated surveillance equipment, helicopters, etc.....

as the US has to respect the Pakistani border.

Why do we have to respect it? After all, Pakistan is a military dictatorship with a history of invading and threatening its neighbors, it's committed genocide, and it has a government with many Islamist fundamentalists in key positions. It has WMD, including nuclear weapons, has sold nuclear technology to North Korea, sponsors and funds terrorism, was the Taliban's principal supporter, has links to many Islamist terrorists, including Al Qaeda, and it harbors Osama bin Laden. So why exactly do we have to respect their border? Because they're our "friend"? I ask you, with a friend like that who needs enemies?

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 2:46 AM | PERMALINK

republicrat--

Zarqawi accomplished his goals in Iraq long ago.

If only we could say the same about Bush.

Sorry, but that's the sad truth.

Posted by: kokblok on June 9, 2006 at 7:35 AM | PERMALINK

A typically meaningless reply since every Democrat today calls himself a "new Democrat".

None of them call themselves a New Democrat just as none of them use the term liberal, ever. Kerry famously banned the term from his biography.

Posted by: rdw on June 9, 2006 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK

Since Bill Clinton falls within the set of "any candidate" and since we "associated ourselves with him" and since Clinton won despite being 'associated with us'

Except he didn't. Mr, middle class tax cuts, spending discipline, free trade and tough on crime was hardly accosiated with the left.

To the extent he has any legislative achievements it's lower spending early in his term, welfare reform, prison and police spending, mandatory including 3-strikes and NAFTA. His early flirtation with liberalism ended in the election disaster of 1994 when he handed Congress to the GOP for a generation.

Posted by: rdw on June 9, 2006 at 8:17 AM | PERMALINK

(that our association with any candidate is that candidate's death knell.

Check out the record of your buddy at the daily Kos. 0 - 20. How's Howard Dean doing. It seems they finally got him to shut up.

Posted by: rdw on June 9, 2006 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike's first post in this thread asks that the military be allowed to "enjoy the results of a long, [arduous], dangerous hunt," by which he clearly means the murder of an individual without trial. His inability to address the innocent woman and child shows a callous disregard for human life.

Zarqawi was more than welcome to turn himself in at any time. Since he was continually chopping people's heads off (when he got to Hib Hib, there followed closely an event where local's heads were found stuck in empty banana boxes) he was a clear and present danger to society.

And hanging out anywhere near Zarqawi would be like having unprotected sex with someone you know has a virulent form of VD that can cause sudden violent death at any moment. The entire globe knew it, including especially Zarqawi himself. He put people in danger by his very presence. People knowlingly chose to be in danger by being near him.

I wish I could have been the one who dropped the bomb on him. As I am sure do the other 1.4 Million or so members of the US Armed Services. And most Americans. And almost all Iraqis.

As for capture versus kill, I'd be extremely surprised if it doesn't come out that they made some attempt to grab him, before deciding the risk of losing him again was too great.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 9, 2006 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

Killing the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq was a significant victory, just as the Tef Offensive of 1968 during the Vietnam War was a great American victory that virtually eliminated the Viet Cong as a fighting force.

Defeat can easily be snatched from the jaws of victory, unfortunately, by the manipulation of public opinion and the deliberate spreading of misinformation or info disseminated through a skewed filter. Walter Cronkite used to have such power. Fortunately for the U.S.A. no single media talking head will ever again have that power, not even Katie Couric.

Posted by: Mike Cook on June 9, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

And hanging out anywhere near Zarqawi would be like having unprotected sex with someone you know has a virulent form of VD that can cause sudden violent death at any moment. The entire globe knew it, including especially Zarqawi himself. He put people in danger by his very presence. People knowlingly chose to be in danger by being near him.

Wait, so anyone close to George Bush knowingly chooses to be in danger? So anyone within blast range of Bush, including his wife and daughters, is a legitimate target because they know the risks?

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Defeat can easily be snatched from the jaws of victory, unfortunately, by the manipulation of public opinion and the deliberate spreading of misinformation or info disseminated through a skewed filter. Walter Cronkite used to have such power. Fortunately for the U.S.A. no single media talking head will ever again have that power, not even Katie Couric.

Ah, our old friend the Dolchstossimrueckenlegende...we didn't lose, it was everyone else who made us lose! If this was 1920s Germany Mike Cook would be writing:

"Our spring offensive of 1918 on the Western Front was a great German victory that virtually eliminated the French Army as a fighting force.
Defeat can easily be snatched from the jaws of victory, unfortunately, by the manipulation of public opinion and the deliberate spreading of misinformation or info disseminated through a skewed filter. The Jews used to have such power. Fortunately for the Fatherland no international Bolshevist group will ever again have that power, not even the Jews."

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan
So anyone within blast range of Bush, including his wife and daughters, is a legitimate target because they know the risks?

They aren't the target.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 9, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

stefan,

Mike has it about right. The MSM would liked to have ended this war 3 years ago. They would have liked to bury the SBVs too. And let's not forget the TANG memo's. They just can't drive the story the way they'd like. GWBs polls are very low but not as low as the UN, Jacques Chirac, the MSM or the Democratic Congress.

The UN 2nd in command just lost it by attacking Middle America for listening to Rush and Fox. That's out of a deep level of frustration of their own helplessness. The MSM believes fervently in the UN. Thanks to Rush and Fox most American do not. The morons there are only making it much worse and there's nothing the MSM can do. They'll look like fools not covering the UN elite looking down their noses at the American rubes but we still find out. The networks will get another ratings report next year showing they lost another 5.9% of their audience and STILL not know why.

Iraq is not Vietnam. It will never be Vietnam. Haditha is not Mai Lai. It will never be Mai Lai. The soldiers are revered. They will always be revered. The anti-war protestors are twits. The MSM are twits. That's all they'll ever be.

Posted by: rdw on June 9, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

They aren't the target.

No, they aren't the target per se, but they should know that hanging out anywhere near Bush would be like having unprotected sex with someone you know has a virulent form of VD that can cause sudden violent death at any moment. So if they get killed, well, them's the breaks, right? They should have known better, so it's their own dumb fault?

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan
No, they aren't the target per se, but they should know that hanging out anywhere near Bush would be like having unprotected sex with someone you know has a virulent form of VD that can cause sudden violent death at any moment. So if they get killed, well, them's the breaks, right? They should have known better, so it's their own dumb fault?

I would rephrase it as, "It's the risk they took, knowingly."

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 9, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

OK, just so that we're clear that whenever Bush ventures out of his bubble to talk to some schoolkids or give a speech he knowingly and deliberately puts people in danger by his very presence....seems a little callous and reckless of him to me, but hey....

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Red State Mike: Always blame the victim.

When coupled with "I wish I could have been the one who dropped the bomb on him" we see that Red State Mike owns my characterization of him. Knowing that a pregnant woman was killed he doesn't shy away from wanting to be the one who killed her - in fact he posits that most of the military personal would gladly trade places with the guy responsible for her brutal slaying from the safety of an airplane. This suggests that Red State Mike thinks that our military is composed of almost exclusively sociopaths like him.

It is long past time to disband our standing army. It stands as an attractive nuisance to our leaders. Even Bill Clinton felt the need to use it. One could argue that his uses were more appropriate than the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, but remember Red State Mike got his kicks dropping bombs on Iraqis under Clinton too - helping to further ingrain his callous disregard for human life. Notice he doesn't answer the questions about how many lives he snuffed out. He can't. No one ever told him, he never asked, and it is unlikely that anyone ever even counted his human victims.

To those who suggest that Im being extreme in suggesting we eliminate the standing army, tell me the last time it was used to defend our nation. Certainly none of the service Red State Mike saw was.

Posted by: RSM on June 9, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

RSM,

You're not extreme. You're whacko! Mike has it correct again. They all knew Zarqawi had a date with a 500 lb bomb. If a pregnant woman chose to take that risk shame on her. He's also correct many, many men would have been willing to pull that trigger.

As far as pulling it from the safety of a plane those men have my deepest admiration. It takes real balls to fly those things. My guess is the attack as a real thrill. Zarqawi is the kind brave enough to remove a mans head as long as they're hogtied and he's got 15 morons with ak-47's backing him up. We saw fat boy in his video a few weeks back. He's was a pudgy geek unable to even operate a gun. His only claim to fame was the depravity that sells so well in the Islamic world. A 14th centry putz in a 14th Century world put to sleep by a 21st Century warrier.

Posted by: rdw on June 9, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Except he didn't.

An exceptionally stupid reply.

Bill Clinton was a candidate.

Therefore, he falls within the set of "any candidate" as you used that phrase.

Typically, you lie even about what you have posted in addition to what others have posted and what real world truths are.

Just like you lied about Strickland and DeWine.

rdw: Iraq is not Vietnam. It will never be Vietnam.

Iraq is not China either.

But then, no one said Iraq is Vietnam.

Again, you lie about what others have said while you lie about what you have said.

They said it is like Vietnam.

That's really tough for someone who is really dim witted and has the initials to prove it.

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

To the extent he has any legislative achievements it's lower spending early in his term, welfare reform, prison and police spending, mandatory including 3-strikes and NAFTA. His early flirtation with liberalism ended in the election disaster of 1994 when he handed Congress to the GOP for a generation.

None of which takes him out of the set called "any candidate".

Except he didn't. Mr, middle class tax cuts, spending discipline, free trade and tough on crime was hardly accosiated with the left.

None of which prevented the Left from associating with him, if only by voting for him, a fact you've previously admitted and claimed on many occasions, meaning you continue to lie about what you yourself have set up as the facts.

Just like you did about Strickland and DeWine.

But keep it up, you are just proving the liberal claim that all conservatives are liars and can't be trusted.

That's why the GOP gets a 27% approval rating for how they are running the country.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 9, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: If a pregnant woman chose to take that risk shame on her.

Shame on the unborn child too, eh, rdw?

And, gee, no Islamic woman was ever forced to do anything against her will, you know.

Thanks rdw for demonstrating how shallow the conservative commitment to "innocent life" really is and how far from reality you've traveled.

Zarqawi is the kind brave enough to remove a mans head as long as they're hogtied and he's got 15 morons with ak-47's backing him up.

Sorta like the Marines killing a bunch of unarmed women and children at Haditha, eh, rdw?

Or the soldiers who under executive orders tortured helpless prisoners, eh, rdw?

Or those in the US military who lobbed cruise missles into villages filled with innocent women and children, eh, rdw?

Now, there's some bravery for you!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 9, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

rdw is a liar.

That's all he'll ever be.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 9, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

That's why the GOP gets a 27% approval rating for how they are running the country.

Is that also why they are RUNNING the country while you sit in the stands and squeal like a greased pig?

Posted by: rdw on June 9, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

AFG,

You are going to have a heart attack, Calm down. As a practical matter forget the attacks on our troops. It's political suicide. Americans love their soldiers. It's just the way it is and no amount of MSM hyper-ventilating can change that. If only for the practical reason no one trusts the press. No one trusts Congress either.

Get used to cruise missles. IN fact get used to missles launched from a drone operated by one of these brave soldiers 10,000 miles away from the battle. That's how insurgencies are defeated. Look at the brillaince of sharon. He pulled his troops behind defensible borders while carrying out assassinations of the Hamas and Fatah leadership. That's the way to do it. Islamic foot soldiers are nothing more than pack animals. They load these pigs with bombs and tell the to go kill little girls.

That's defeated by keeping the pigs separate from the peole. Thus Israel is building a permanent security dence. The next step is to take out the leadership. They'll kill as many of their own pigs as they can find dumb enough. The idea is to develop good intelligence and keep a great eye in the sky. Once located call on the drones or if necessary, copters, jets, whatever, to launce a coule/few missles and take them out and anyone near them. They're all bad eggs. They must know the price to be paid is steep.

One of the funnier stories in 2002 was with the leadership of Hamas. Their leader was proudly identified. Then he was sadly removed from life by the jews. He never knew what hit him. Nor did his security detail. So they replace him in a very public demonstration and the new honored leader soaked up the publicity. Why not? What an honor!!! Two weeks later he's dead and it's the same story. A sound in the sky and boom! Neither he nor his security detail knew what hit them. Another party, a new proud leader, another boom. Then all of a sudden Hamas couldn't find anyone to lead. How about that? The prime position. No one wanted it. No one wanted to be in his security detail either. Funny how that works.

That's the model. If these leaders of hamas want to travel in cars with their kids shame on them. Hopefully they can all enjoy the 72 virgins together. But they will be killed and they will take everyone near them with them. Them's the rules. Don't like it don't play.

Posted by: rdw on June 9, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
OK, just so that we're clear that whenever Bush ventures out of his bubble to talk to some schoolkids or give a speech he knowingly and deliberately puts people in danger by his very presence....seems a little callous and reckless of him to me, but hey....

He does. As did each of our Presidents before them. It's been a few Presidents since we had an assassination attempt come close to succeeding, thankfully.

As an aside, I genuinely think each time as I crest I-70 West of Frederick, MD heading for DC, "I hope the bright flash doesn't come today." It or something like it (Chem? Bio?) will come to some city in the US some day not too far in the future. Hell, they're willing to attack Canada of all places, which is pretty jihad-friendly.

I like small town life.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 9, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm...why, oh why wouldn't Bush have pulled the trigger then? Why did it happen now? Coincidentally, approval ratings are pathetic. Let's watch them go up in the next poll and there will be the answer.

Posted by: WitchWay11 on June 9, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike:

Just out of curiousity was the answer I gave what you expected? I've been waiting for your response to your question and as of yet am still waiting.

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, I had no idea there was such broad-based liberal support for extra-legal cross-border assasination of known or suspected terrorists.

Someone should let Israel know, I guess!

=darwin

Posted by: Darwin on June 9, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Scotian
Just out of curiousity was the answer I gave what you expected? I've been waiting for your response to your question and as of yet am still waiting.

Didn't really have an expectation, other than the obvious rational answer which you hit. I'm just storing it away in my links so I can use it against someone in the next "But we haven't caught Bin Laden!!!!" thread. Well scotian sez...

Kidding.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 9, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike:

I was just curious as to whether you found it a rational answer, given the degree of emotion this topic thread has evoked, well the topic itself really, I did not want to assume. Thanks for the reply. As for using it down the road, hey if it is contextually relevant and on point I've got no problem with that, good reasoning is good reasoning and not automatically with a political agenda, not that one would necessarily know that given how partisan this site can get...:)

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Scotian
I was just curious as to whether you found it a rational answer...

I find all of your answers rational.

Quitting time! Taking my ball and going home.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 9, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

"Scotian
I was just curious as to whether you found it a rational answer...

I find all of your answers rational.

Quitting time! Taking my ball and going home."

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 9, 2006 at 5:20 PM

OK now I am getting weirded out here, who are you and what have you done with Red State Mike? :)

Seriously, thank you, I honestly did not expect that given I know I can get pretty long winded and rambling on occasion.

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

OK now I am getting weirded out here, who are you and what have you done with Red State Mike? :)

I didn't say I agreed with them, just that they're rational. :-)

One thing I've learned in my 40-something years of life is that smart people can disagree. Lords knows stupid people can too.

Have a nice weekend.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 9, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

"I didn't say I agreed with them, just that they're rational. :-)

One thing I've learned in my 40-something years of life is that smart people can disagree. Lords knows stupid people can too.

Have a nice weekend."

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 9, 2006 at 11:22 PM

Believe it or not that was exactly how I had originally taken it, that is why I was genuinely complemented when you said I was be a rational commentator in general and not just with that posting. Especially given the polarized partisan nature of the blogosphere being considered a rational commentator/blogger by those you tend to be in disagreement with has real meaning and that is why I thanked you then and am going to this length now in this response. Credit needs to be fairly given and in the perfect world would be given as easily as criticism is but alas that is not the world we live in, much to the shame.

On that night have a good night and weekend. I have a birthday to deal with tomorrow so I will not likely be around until Sunday at the earliest. Thanks for the civil exchange on such an emotional issue and for the unexpected compliment.

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, am I supposed to be civil to someone who takes joy in the death of a pregnant woman? Someone who says he would gladly trade places with her murderer?

Red State Mike has lost the capacity to understand what it means to kill a human being. This is where monsters come from. He isn't Tim McVeigh, but he isn't very far from there either. This is the tragedy of a standing army. You breed killers who know the difference between right and wrong, but don't care. The deaths of non-targets aren't tragedies to be mourned, they are merely knowingly taking risks. How many died in the "Shock and Awe" phase at the beginning of George Bush's war of aggression? Hussein wasn't even their, those people obviously weren't taking knowing risks, they were victims of George Bush's vanity. And unlike most victims of vanity, their human lives were snuffed out by people just like Red State Mike. People Red State Mike is merely too old to be, otherwise he would have been right there with them. Killing innocents because he was just following orders. Worse, orders he enjoyed.

It's not that Red State Mike is a Bush supporter; it is that he should know the horrors of war and be appalled by them. Instead he revels in them.

Posted by: RSM on June 10, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Well now that we got Zarqawi we can now get back to the more pressing matters such as gay marriage and steroids in baseball.

Funny how the radical right is so much against gay marriage yet we dont hear one word from them about wanting to stop polygamy or inbreeding. I wonder if the fact that these things happen mostly in red states, like Utah and Kentucky, is one of the reasons they are not as concerned about them as they are gay marriage. HYPROCRITES.

Oh no I just found out the folks across the street are a gay couple!! What am I going to do!!!!

Posted by: rawn on June 11, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly