This would certainly seem to be good news:
Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in an American air strike on an isolated safe house north of Baghdad at 6.15 p.m. local time on Wednesday, top United States and Iraqi officials said today.
At a joint news conference with Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the top American military commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., said Zarqawi’s body had been positively identified by fingerprints, “facial recognition” and “known scars.” He said seven of Zarqawi’s associates had also been killed in the strike.
The announcement of Zarqawi’s death, shortly before noon today in Baghdad, appeared to mark a major watershed in the war. With a $25 million bounty the United States had on his head, the Jordan-born Zarqawi has been the most wanted man in Iraq for his leadership of Islamic terrorist groups that have carried out many of the most brutal attacks of the war, including scores of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings.
I don’t think his death will fundamentally alter things in Iraq, but his dying a brutal death does, at the very least, restore some small bit of karmic balance to the world.
Vladi G
Hey, great, only four years after they should have done it the first time! Guess it finally became politically expedient.
Par R
Terrific news. This development in combination with the Iraqi Prime Minister filling the last open positions in his cabinet, in particular the ministers of Defense and Interior, was such good news that apparently a couple of the Kosacks attending their Las Vegas convention, have committed suicide.
dagon
great news!
–but here comes the stupid again. not directed at you JC (as you seem to have a pretty firm grip on the real deal over there), but watch for the congratulatory liberal bashing and ‘take that’ nonsense to get an amped-up shot of adrenaline today.
the truth is that this means nothing to the insurgency. the part of it that is operationally organized by al qaeda in iraq already has his replacement(s)in place (if indeed he has been doing anything more substantial than running for his life over the past few months).
that is the nature of terrorist cells, but listen to limbaugh, hannity and the other ‘opinion-makers’ today and you’re gonna hear about how disappointed the liberals are about his demise.
peace
jaime
#1 Fuck You for continuing to propagate the lie that opponents of your king hate America.
#2 RE: Zarqawi. Mission Accomplished.
Mr Furious
Vladi beat me too it. Deliberately leaving him alone for years ago so he could be pointed to as a “Saddam terrorist connection” was pretty dumb at the time, and even worse in retrospect.
But this is good news nonetheless. Hopefully it makes a dent and isn’t just a hydra situation…
—
On behalf of the Kossacks, “Fuck you, Par R.”
dagon
damn,
par r beat me to the punch. i was hoping my kreskin impersonation would hold up and at least keep this nonsense in check a little. but there it is…second post; it’s going to be a fun thread.
peace
fwiffo
Yeah, cause you know how much them Kossacks luv them some terrorists. I mean, just Check out these comment titles in the DailyKos thread:
Unhinged, godless, liberal, hate-America, objectively pro-terrorist Saddamites!
OK, there are quite a few people expressing skepticism, but this has to be the fourth or fifth time that the bastard had “definately” been taken out.
Mac Buckets
From the people who brought you “Bush is a loser because he still hasn’t gotten al-Zarqawi yet!” will come an avalanche of “Who cares that we got al-Zarqawi?” (From the same people who brought you “Who cares that we got Saddam?” and will one day bring you “Who cares that we got bin Laden?”)
Actually, the Kossacks this morning are being even dumber and wackier than that. Two minutes worth of reading brings us “al-Zarqawi was CIA,” “this wasn’t justice — where was his trial?,” and “the Bushbots release this “news” right before Yearly Kos???”
Which points out the hollow disingenuity of the left’s “Bush still hasn’t gotten (fill in the blank)” whines. They make a child’s argument because it plays down to simple minds.
In truth, no one knows how this will affect the anti-democracy terrorists longterm. There’s no doubt that al-Zarqawi was integral in some AQ violence. He was a figurehead of the success of jihad. He was obviously good at what he did, so it’s good to have him blown to tiny bits.
ppGaz
We got him!
It didn’t matter in 2003, and it won’t matter now.
The country is in civil war. If I had to guess, I’d guess that today’s event makes that worse in the next six months, not better. Time will tell. One less cockroach in the world doesn’t make the world safer from cockroaches.
—/
This post is a duplicate of one I made to another thread. Feel free to take that one down. It works better here.
Andrew
Only one thing can explain leftists’ sadness over this: Zarqawi was on a conference call with Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore when the bomb hit, and now they’ll never learn the terrorist tactics they need to destroy America.
tBone
This is a good, sensible post, Mac. Too bad you had to lead it with 3 paragraphs of your usual lefty-baiting bullshit.
Faux News
Dagon, excellent post. The Liberal bashing regarding Z’s death began last night on RedState.com. They seeem to think Liberals are sobbing and wearing black today to show their deep mourning. Such is the level of political discourse in this country.
I agree with you. This is great news, but most likely won’t change anything in Iraq.
Al Maviva
Thanks Dagon. We needed that reminder that killing Zarqawi and Rahman means nothing, perhaps less than nothing, and that any happy talk is just Republican spin. The killing or capture of each AQ fighter means nothing. The capture of any particular AQ member or leader means nothing, this includes bin Laden. Nothing changes.
You see, AQ is like the ManBearPig. It’s half man, half bear, and half pig. Or perhaps half manbear, half pig. Or maybe half man, half bearpig. Or maybe even half pigman, half bear. But I digress.
What’s important, is that ManBearPig is out there, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Nothing we can do is going to change that fact. Sure, you can kill ManBearPig once in a while. But he keeps coming back, like Jason does.
So we might as well do nothing about ManBearPig. Thus all this conservative triumphalism about killing ManBearPig is just more stupid partisan invective. The whole Global War on ManBearPig is futile Republican scaremongering. It’s only Republican bedwetters that have us chasing ManBearPig, but even they have to know it’s futile. We should give up now. Because no matter what we say, ManBearPig is coming to get us.
Um, except when we haven’t recently captured or killed ManBearPig. In that instance, ManBearPig, like bin Laden himself, is a dire, existential threat that a good liberal president could solve, and only Republican perfidy, the stab in the back, and Halliburtonnnnn! prevent us from fixing the problem.
chopper
i think Al got into the loco weed this mornin’.
Mike
The 3-year-old insurgency has “lost its leader,” said U.S. Gen. George Casey
It’s great news that they got Zarqawi, but I hope Casey is smarter than that. Zarqawi led one faction among many in Iraq, each of which is battling the others. Killing him doesn’t end the carnage in Iraq any more than killing Bonnie and Clyde ended bank robbery.
ppGaz
Yes, but that’s irrelevant. The relevant point is that the happy talk, just like the happy talk when Saddam was captured, or the happy talk on the carrier deck, doesn’t matter. The war isn’t about happy talk.
In the end, as John has pointed out, this won’t change things. But to you, apparently, the way is just a trump l’oeil for your bullshit. So even here, where righties come to die, it won’t really make a difference.
Mac Buckets
Priceless. You go straight from “it doesn’t matter” to “it will make things worse” to “one less cockroach.” So, it doesn’t matter… but it will make things worse… because obviously, by killing one cockroach, the cockroach problem gets worse! Wow.
You sound so sad, Ppg. We should just stop fighting Al-Qaeda terrorists, shouldn’t we? After all, what have they ever done to us? And defeating them just makes them stronger! Truly, they are supermen!
On the bright side, that is the longest-term I’ve heard you think — even if you were just using it as a vessel for your baseless pessimism. There’s some hope for you yet.
D. Mason
Yeah. Cause we haven’t killed this guy before or anything. Place your bets on how long it will be before there is a 6th page retraction. They bring this guys bloated stinking corpse out every couple of months to put a few bullets in it and we’re supposed to keep getting worked up? Please. How does parading this rotting zombie around help us in the war on terra? Everyone knows the insurgency is already in it’s last throes.
dagon
al,
there’s nothing ‘happy’ about any of this. you treat this like a baseball game, where you get giddy when the opposing pitcher for the big game tears a rotary cup. this is serious stuff and getting zarqawi does little to distract me from the realities of the ongoing conflict.
i’m not even going to get into how ridiculous the ridiculousness of the above analogy but will instead address what i think you’re getting at.
look al, the reality of the situation is that our best estimates had zarqawi overseeing perhaps 10% – 12% of the violence over there. much more of it is a product of sectarian hostilities that go back centuries and guerilla resistance against an occupying force.
so while i certainly think that this is positive that zarqawi has been taken off of the chess board, i’m certainly not dancing a jig over it; and i don’t see why you should be either.
peace
Peter ve
Today Zarqawi, tomorrow Emmanuel Goldstein!
Jim Allen
To Al and Mac —
What do you predict will happen now?
With Zarqawi dead, will the insurgency collapse? With Zarqawi dead, will the new Iraqi government take the reins and function properly? With Zarqawi dead, will journalists be able to move outside the Green Zone and into the countryside to report on how well everything is going?
What will change now?
Al Maviva
My actual non-snark opinion is that AQ has had trouble recruiting leadership-caliber jihadists, and that in spite of Al Zarqawi’s rifts with main AQ, this will hinder AQ operations in Iraq. There are some indication that Iraqi sunni associates, or perhaps other AQ in Iraq, may have ratted on Zarqawi. His latest thing was railing on the Israeli/Iranian/Shiite conspiracy to destroy Islam. There is a possibility that he got too batshit for even AQ to tolerate.
I would expect AQ to mount a short term campaign to make it appear that they have a strong presence in Iraq for recruiting and other P.R. purposes. They need to recover from the public blow inflicted on him. But to those potential recruits outside of Iraq, they can paint Zarqawi as a martyr, and even though they will have trouble maintaining a high op tempo past a couple weeks worth of press splash, it may suffice to keep recruiting up, especially among western dupes eager to go to Iraq and kill crusaders.
The Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias remain a big problem, but with the finalization of the Al Maliki government, and much credit going to Al Maliki for this coup, the government looks viable. Killing this human cockroach could present an opportunity for the Sunnis and a chunk of the Shiite militias to join the political process – “oh, see, all that violence wasn’t us, it was that bastard Zarqawi…” The downside is that there are some Sunnis who have to remain in the cold due to their behavior in the Saddam regime, or their current ties to AQ; and that some Shiite militias are Iranian dominated, and these will not join the process, and will have to be crushed by Al Maliki’s government. That crushing can only occur as the interior ministry police continue to come on line and provide interior security from things like commmon crime, since there is a valid need for security, that the militias fill in the same manner that the Taliban provided security in Afghanistan.
On its own merits, killing the bloodthirsty, beheading fool Zarqawi is a good thing, whether or not AQ ratted him out. It raises the Hitler assassination scenario specter – do you want to mount a mission to assassinate Hitler, knowing that some competent general might take over and prosecute the war effectively, maybe make peace with he Russians? On the larger balance it’s a good thing too, potentially an Iraqi political watershed in some ways, depending on how the internal politics shake out. It’s something to celebrate, this idiot has caused a lot of trouble and would have loved nothing more than to gut the whole lot of us like fish, preferably with a rusty knife, on local cable access. The strategic prognosis is, as it will be for probably the next two generations, “wait and see.” But we should enjoy winning this small battle.
georg
“where righties come to die” is hilarious.
you know, today i think i’ll try optimism. maybe all the bad guys will surrender, just like old times.
jaime
Careful. If we high five I might get purple ink all over you.
Vladi G
I think you mean a “rotator cuff”.
Blue Neponset
Al,
I think Al-Qeada is more like a corporation than the dreaded ManBearPig. If you kill one of the officers of the corporation, chances are there will be someone of near equal talent already in the corporation to take over for that person. This is why killing Zarqawi will probably not change much on the ground in Iraq. I was happy to hear the soul-less bastard is dead, but at this point in Iraq he is just a drop in the insurgent bucket.
If I am wrong about this please tell me when we can expect the trouble in Iraq to be over now that Zarqawi is dead.
PS: If you are so scared of the ManBearPig you may piss your pants when you read about the New Jersey Devil.
demimondian
Will al Zarqawi’s death make a difference? The simple answer is “we don’t know”.
On the one hand, I think that the US found him a useful Emmanuel Goldstein figure — a shadowy, evasive, symbol for the “tow minute hate”. It served our purposes to enhance his stature, because it gave us a single figure to distill the Iraqi insurgency to. He gladly played along with this apotheosis, since it gave his group a lot of legitimacy. Coupled with the high mortality rate among Al Qaeda in Iraq recently, this will have some real propaganda value, particularly if the group implodes.
Sadly, I don’t think it will have much effect on the insurgency. In the short term, terror plots which were already planned will continue, and will succeed about as well as they have in the past. In the long term, since it’s pretty clear that his stature had been artificially enhanced, the number of particularly gruesome murders of foreigners will fall, but the total number of murders, IEDs, and car bombs is unlikely to change much.
Al Maviva
That hasn’t been the case in AQ in Iraq. Captured documents – mainly letters from rank and file, or mid-level leaders to each other, or to jihad supporters at home – have complained about major problems in recruiting leadership-caliber jihadis. The funny thing is, it appears that it’s pretty easy to recruit people of sufficient mettle to blow themselves up in a school, or outside a police station, but it’s hard to find people of that mindset who can also get a rudimentary handle on intelligence, logistical operations and the like. I can’t imagine why that is. Although I suspect that Zarqawi’s inability to perform a functions check on an M-240 is a hint.
demimondian
Just for clarity — I, personally, hope that the US impounds his body, burns it, and scatters the ashes, exactly as Israel treated Eichmann’s body. I’m fully aware of the religious significance of the corpse in Islam, but we should treat him as any other thug with a following, and make sure that there are no relics left of the man, and that there is no grave to visit for those who seek comfort for his death.
ppGaz
What a bottomless pit of stupidity you are, man.
Who wouldn’t look at the war in Iraq, and be sad? Don’t bother to answer, nobody here cares about your shitty answer.
Today’s story tells all one needs to know about the two “sides” here, if a 10:1 ration of left to right on the board is still something we can call “two sides.”
Zarqawi is killed, it seems, and the righties rush to the computers to talk about …. what lefties are saying.
Everything is about the lefties, isn’t it, Mac? The war, the policies, everything. Everything is about you. You want to grin and giggle today, because it’s all about going to the computer to whoop it up about what the lefties are saying.
That is sad. It’s pathetic. It’s embarassing. It’s disgusting. It’s ….. you.
You truly suck, dude. Really, you have no idea how much and how completely you suck.
ppGaz
Absolutely amazing. We should enjoy.
I can’t even fathom the mentality that would produce such a statement.
This thread should be closed. Nothing can top that comment.
Par R
A reasoned and nuanced view of the Al-Zarqawi development by a somewhat illiterate writer above:
One suspects that this writer’s views reflect those of many of the Loony Tune regulars here.
Blue Neponset
I hope those reports are right. It seems to me, however, that most leaders learn all of those skills you mentioned rather than get recruited already knowing those things.
Jim Allen
And, as is too often the case, one would be wrong.
Lee
When you guys are talking about the liberals are sad because we killed Zarqawi, I’ll borrow from this blog a phrase.
Name 3
Steve
Let me make it real fucking simple for you assholes, who just can’t pause one second to celebrate a terrorist getting justice without using it to make a cheap partisan point. Are you happy Zarqawi is dead because he was a murdering terrorist, or because it provides you an excuse to bash liberals?
Zarqawi’s death is a major blow to al-Qaeda. Al is right that leadership material doesn’t grow on trees.
Zarqawi’s death is not likely to make a major difference in the Iraq situation, because Iraq is only minimally about al-Qaeda. For years now, foreign fighters like Zarqawi have been nothing more than a very tiny percentage of the Iraqi insurgency. We still have all the sectarian violence to deal with, we still have all the homegrown insurgents who want to strike a blow against the American occupiers. Decapitating Zarqawi’s group does nothing to fix those issues.
To boil it down, Zarqawi’s death: Great for the war against al-Qaeda, not so significant for the war in Iraq. If you still think the two are exactly the same thing, I can’t help you with that.
Cromagnon
A symbolic victory against a symbolic enemy. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the meantime, Iraq is still a big steaming pile of crap. The Iraqi government is more impotent than ever (holed up in their little fortified green-zone while their country collapses around them), the Interior Ministry police ARE the Shia militias (and committing daily kidnappings and murder), the Iraqi Army still cannot operate without significant US backup and would simply collapse if the US forces left, sectarian violence is worse than ever, and the Sunni insurgency rages on with American soldiers still being killed and wounded at the same steady rate. None of that is going to change
DecidedFenceSitter
Actually, Maliki’s appointed of the three ministers unilaterally and parliament approving them bodes far better for the stability and future then the death of a horrible wretch of a human being.
NPR had a military analyst on from a think tank that I instantly recognized as leaning more towards the right, but had a name that I respected (and totally escaping me at the moment. Al Qaedi in Iraq in one of three major organizations; there are 17 major ones below that, and many more smaller groups, the exact number they aren’t sure about as they change their names fairly frequently.
But hopefully, hopefully, this is enough of a morale dropper for the insurgency, hopefully to get some of the fringe supporters to back away. And knock out operations and finances for a bit.
Mr Furious
Steve, you are on fire today. Another great post. I agree 99%. I would simply add two words: “Great for the war against al-Qaeda—in Iraq.”
srv
It’s all they have, and all they reall are, ppGaz. They can’t have their “victory” in Iraq, so they’ll take whatever opportunity they can find to hate their fellow countrymen.
Pharniel
Seriously, my main issue was that it was a random air raid, and not a proper assasination.
But I’m of the mindset that you shouldn’t use violence unless you mean it, and if you mean it you shoulnd’t dick around.
I don’t think it will make that big of an impact in Iraq on it’s own, but I think if the new Iraqi leaders there are smart they can capitolize on this. (I agree with Al’s second post. I agree with Al. I feel…kinda dirty…)
CaseyL
The thing about Zarqawi, and people like him, isn’t just the damage they do directly; it’s that what they set loose doesn’t die with them.
Take one of Condi Rice’s more egregious statements, that “no one could have expected” that hijackers would use commercial airliners as guided missiles.
As a matter of national security planning, she was dead wrong. Brainstorming scenarios of what terrorists could do, might do, and how to prevent them from doing, was her job. Particularly with the warnings she had in hand at the time, and considering that “hijackers using commercial airliners as guided missiles” already was a scenario that at least popfiction novelists (Clancy) had already imagined.
But as a matter of emotional, intellectual, and political actualization, Rice was right: no one had ever actually done that, and once someone had done it, it changed status from the realm of imagined theory to the realm of established, proven fact. It becomes “legitimized” – not morally or ethically, but operationally.
Before Zarqawi actually did so, maybe someone somewhere had wondered what it would be like, what would happen, if they grabbed a hostage and tortured and killed that hostage on-camera. But Zarqawi actually did it, which not only paved the way for others to use the same tactic, but also raised the threshold for attention-getting evil.
I’m not sure I’m expressing this clearly. It has something in common with the marketing theory of “thought leaders”: people who act on ideas before anyone else does. Once the idea is acted on, it is actualized. Once it’s actualized, there’s a whole cascade of secondary and tertiary effects – which we saw in the aftermath of Nick Berg’s murder – including copycats and the use of televised torture/beheading (and the reactions to it) as a propaganda tool by all sides.
Zarqawi did his bit to actualize more nightmares. He’s gone, but the actualization is still there.
PeterJ
I don’t keep track of beheadings on video (I have yet to actually watch one), but Daniel Pearl got beheaded by terrorists before the first one in Iraq. The actual beheading is not on video, but from what I’ve read it was due to problems with the video recorder.
CaseyL
PeterJ: That conjures up some really, exceedingly dark humor (which I will keep to myself out of respect for Mr. Pearl). Good point, though I’m not sure your point undermines mine all that much: Zarqawi’s still the one who made televised beheadings SOP.
demimondian
I just wanted to highlight this particular point, and say “I agree”.
Brian
Hahahaha! Exactly.
I heard about his death on the way into the office this morning, and the first place I wanted to go was to Balloon Juice and see where the opinions were heading. And I am not disappointed. Steve is trying to lecture us about how we should perceive this, and about how we’re cheap political hucksters, and ppGaz is all over the map, not knowing which way is north.
This is a good day for two reasons: 1) Zarqawi’s dead, and it shows we don’t fucking give up, and 2) the Left can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I look forward to the pix on tonight’s newscast of the Kossack version of Jonestown. Drink your kool-aid, Kos Kidz.
carpeicthus
I agree with the wingers. Now that Zaqarwi is dead, the war is over, the slate is clean. If for some strange reason violence continues in Iraq, it will be because of entirely *new* screwups by the administration, and thus worthy of a fresh, critical look.
But obviously violence won’t continue, right?
PeterJ
Brian, so now that al-Zarqawi has been killed, how much further along do you think we are until we can declare a victory in the War on Terror? Is his death a part of the goals for victory? How about Iraq?
John S.
Hands down, POTD.
Mac Buckets
People who like freedom and hope over dictatorship (and over partisanship) for one. I know that’s like speaking Swahili to you, ppg, but try it out. Of course, what I meant is that you sound sad today compared to yesterday, which I found odd.
“…killed, it seems…” — keep hope alive, man! I wrote about what the lefties are saying because that’s the “man bites dog” here. Everyone with six functioning brain cells should be saying “hurrah!” today (and most are, of course), especially those who have been moaning about al-Z’s freedom for a couple years. The lunatic lefties are the outrageous part of this story, which is why they get mentioned.
BTW, it should be noted that probably 75% of the posts and comments on BJ quote what the Other Side is saying, and then try to respond, so I don’t know why you think today should be any different. Well, I have an idea why…
Why’s that? Care to offer anything but your dire feelings today? Cheer up. Take off the black bathrobe. Bush got a big one today! A big, fat cockroach (who doesn’t matter but whose death will make things worse, right?).
Aw, come on, baby, don’t be like that. Just remember all the good times we had. It’s just that I want to see other, smarter commenters, that’s all.
jaime
Mac and Brian, now that Zarqawi is dead, would you like to take that sponsored trip to Iraq?
You’ll need an extra suitcase for all the flowers and candy you’ll be bringing home.
Ancient Purple
I have known plenty of CEO’s and Presidents of companies that couldn’t send a fax or find paper clips in the storage room to save their lives. Yet, they were masters at business organization, etc.
So, what is your point?
Par R
Here’s a selective sampling of reactions from Daily Kos that I picked up at the Corner:
“Bush’s idea of justice is bombs falling out of the sky?”
“Why is he dead again just now? I wonder if Karl’s getting indicted tomorrow…”
“Those pics of Abu Z look like they just thawed him out just in time for the elections.”
“Zarqawi was quite probably a psy ops job in the first place, so what does that make his “death”? …Keep your eyes on the prize….Haditha.”
“Just in time to hide the fact they’re trying to cut the estate tax for the uber wealthy”
“Yes the timing of Zarqawi’s death does seem too good for Bush to be true. It reeks of distraction politics. ”
Apparently, suicide followed from one or more of these dispirited and/or loony shitheads.
John S.
How do you groom yourself with all your mirrors blacked out, then? That must be an arduous task.
jaime
Shall I go to Free Republic and type up Gay or Muslim and collect all the statements from the idiots there? Asshole.
Pooh
It’s pretty sad that some have completely skipped over the “victory is mine!” stage and leaped immediately to, as they say at Sadly, no “eat it,
cobagsLefties!” It really is a video game or a sporting event to some of you.Al Maviva
You don’t pose as a combat leader, then run around in your Nikes making videos proving yourself incapable of firing one of your enemies’ basic weapons.
You may find executives who can’t operate a copying machine. I guarantee your ass, that there are few (if any) U.S. soldiers or marines commanding major combat formations, who are unable to fire the standard issue infantry weapons, and many are able to fire the enemy’s standard issue weapons proficiently as well.
Leading a private company is nothing like command; you do not get to be, or remain a commmander, if you cannot perform the common tasks that your privates and sergeants perform.
Par R
Don’t bother, Jaime. I fully recognize your fingerprints on many of the subject comments…about as insightful as your drivel on baseball.
jaime
Their three years of collecting yellow ribbon car magnets, eating cheetos, wearing tacky American flag clothing, liberal hating, and nimble avoidance fighting in the war they cheerlead had finally produced a victory.
Mac Buckets
I haven’t even read or heard a single person on Earth say that all is well in the Middle East today and that Disneyland Baghdad (or Gaza or Tehran) can open this weekend. That sentiment is purely a bongwater creation of the Ted Rallian finger-sniffers.
jaime
Huh?
Must be a Red Sox fan.
Perry Como
Awesome. We got bin Laden.
jg
HEY! WTF is that about?
Mac Buckets
You’re saying the Right skipped the Stewie Griffin stage? I think we’re rather pointing out the opposite.
Perry Como
Now that Zarqawi is dead, does that mean Iraq is going to be peaceful? Or is this an inconsequential event considering bin Laden had already appointed people like Abd Al-Hadi and Wariya Arbili to lead the Iraqi front?
jaime
Ann Coulter hasn’t stopped saying the war is going remarkably well and Laura Ingraham has lamented that MSM reporters haven’t taken the time from being blown up to step outside the green zone and look for all the wonderful news she’s encountered in her week there surrounded by US troops.
LITBMueller
Mac, did you work for Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans, or something?
It does? Even though there has been a major escalation in sectarian violence and reprisal killings between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias?
For a great artcile on why this “unity government” is anything but, go here. The short version: Jafari was replaced at US insistence by Maliki primarily because of his closeness with Iranian-allied militias. The police and armed forces have become highly infiltrated with Shiite and Kurdish militias. Maliki does not have any support among the militias, making armed conflict between the U.S.-armed groups and Sunni militias in ethnic clashes even MORE likely.
Shorter version: Maliki has nothing to do any “crushing” with.
I don’t envy the administration here, but they got themselves into this mess. They don’t want an Iraqi government that is allied with Iran, but without leadership that is strongly supported by the Shiite religious and political leadership and their militias, the Iraqi government is pretty much in charge of only the Green Zone (which is really run by the US, anyway).
This “unity government” is a figurehead, and the death of Zarqawi does nothing to affect that. There will be no “rally behind the new government” movement. There are three distinct ethnic/religious groups with very different ideas about how to govern Iraq. This power struggle will continue.
Brian
Here’s another good roundup of the Komrades.
Looking at this list, it should be clear to anyone that the Democrats should never be put in charge of this country..
Mac Buckets
It doesn’t matter than we got bin Laden. He’s not important. Can we bring our soldiers home and open up a Starbucks in Baghdad now? His death will actually make it worse for us. We should just stop fighting Al Qaeda, because killing them makes them stronger. Besides, what have they ever done to us?
jaime
No offense. I blog on john amato’s Yankee Blog pinstripealley.com and Par R avoided my point by my baseball blogging skills.
Darrell
I predicted the ‘independent thinkers’ of the left would respond like this and they didn’t let us down. All you have to know about the left is their distinct tendency to downplay, minimize and ridicule ANY good new from Iraq, no matter how dishonest they have to be in doing so. Re-read this thread, KOS, or any other place where lefties gather to verify this.
Brian
Amato’s a fucking midget wop. I know the guy personally, and he’s a flaming asshole.
jaime
Mac Buckets
King George
capelza
So much unintended irony, so little time…
Mac Buckets
I didn’t receive academic honors from the most prestigious universities in the Western World to become a government worker! :) Why do you ask?
jaime
Someone tell that to this Bush guy:
He’s learned from “Mission Accomplished” and purple fingers, and Saddam and sons. Have you, Darrell?
Perry Como
Because anyone who disagrees with you is a member of the “left”. How’s that $8 trillion deficit doing it for you? How many billions have we spent in Iraq and people are still being tortured?
jaime
Can I tell him you said that (and give a last name) or should I let you do that personally?
LITBMueller
heh! Good one, Mac! Now, how about addressing my point?
Darrell:
And I predicted that, after tossing off to the sight of their Supreme Leader triumphantly declaring the evil Al Qaeda boogeyman Zarqawi dead, the Fighting Keyboard Commandos would rush to their computers and let their Cheeto-stained fingers feverishly complete confident declarations that the death of said terrorist proves…that the left is evil.
I was not let down, either.
jg
So whay’s so good about Zarqawi being dead, aside from the obvious? Is the insurgency hampered? Is Al Qaeda crippled? Will the electricity and oil flow? Will Sunni and Shia start to get along? We now live in a world without Zarqawi. So? I’m glad he’s dead but why is this good news as opposed to just news?
Mac Buckets
The post you blockquoted wasn’t mine. I think it was Al M’s.
Andrew
Steve wrote:
I disagree.
Juan Cole, who all on the right will immediately dismiss, wrote:
One of the more stupid things that Tony Blair has ever said was his response to Zarqawi’s death:
Just like defeating them in Afghanistan would defeat them everywhere, Tony?
Zarqawi was nominally a member of al-Qaeda, but as even Darrell or Brian should know, the highly distributed nature and lack of central organization or planning means that there will be no operational effect on other cells. Political fallout will also be minimal as there is virtually nothing in common between Zarqawi’s operations and the al Qaeda of Osama bin Laden.
Perry Como
No sacrifice is too great for the 82nd Chairborne. Well, except for actually enlisting to go fight the good fight.
Steve
They just don’t stop, do they? There’s no piece of good news that they won’t immediately trivialize by using it as grounds to launch partisan attacks. Mainly it’s because they think the most important enemy to be defeated is liberals rather than al-Qaeda, a sick viewpoint you can find plastered all over the righty blogosphere.
A brutal enemy of humanity is dead. Could we just savor it without the partisan bickering for a moment? Or are you guys truly so obsessed with the lefty fringe that you can’t go 2 seconds without hunting down some idiotic blog comment to poke fun at? Ah yes, the Kossacks will all be committing suicide in Las Vegas tonight, so sad they are that Zarqawi is dead. It’s truly pathetic what you guys think of as humor.
jg
Us? You two people? I always thought you were JC now you seem to be confirming it. Of course that little dust up with Krista went a long way towards confirming it anyway. Both John and Darrell seem to respond the same way when they think people misread what they clearly said.
Mac Buckets
1) Why would tossing lead to “Cheeto-stained fingers”… unless you do it completely wrong, Mueller
2) It’s not the declaration of al-Z’a death that proves the left are deranged partisans. It’s their own reactions to said death. It’s completely their own faults — don’t blame the dead man.
ppGaz
Classic DougJ.
Mac Buckets
It’s incredible how you can change a few words and make the completely opposite point, innit?
Steve
What about Zawahiri’s letters to Zarqawi, telling him to cool it with the beheadings and such? Did those turn out to be faked or something?
The fact is that Zarqawi’s organization, however closely or distantly you think it’s linked to bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, is still the terrorist group that’s positioned to carry out attacks in Iraq and Jordan. And without Zarqawi’s leadership, they’re going to have a harder time planning and carrying out those attacks.
Yes, it won’t affect bin Laden and Zawahiri’s ability to organize attacks in Egypt or wherever else, but no one is claiming that al-Qaeda has been decapitated altogether. If you want to argue that Zarqawi is really the head of an autonomous terrorist group, then whatever, we’re arguing about nomenclature; we still killed the head of a terrorist group and we should be happy about that. I sure see it as a blow against al-Qaeda, though.
Brian
You can tell him. With C&L, he’s done more to fuel the Angry Left than most blogs, including Kos.
ppGaz
You are honestly going with that sorry schitck?
Fuck off, man. You’re a joke. Pure spoof material.
Freedom and hope. Truly, amazing.
Steve
I will gladly concede that some people on the leftist fringe are having bizarre and inappropriate reactions to what should simply be considered good news for America and bad news for terrorism, period.
My point is that by using this good news as nothing more than an opportunity to track down the comments of the whacko fringe and use them as a basis to score partisan points, you’re acting just like a whacko fringe yourself. Can’t we just hang out in the middle where the death of a terrorist is a good thing and that’s the whole story? Why does it always have to be about how liberals are the real enemy?
dagon
i just read this on one of the righty blogs that i read to gauge the mindset of the bush supporter on the street.
–this isn’t written as satire. this person is DEAD serious about the desire to have ‘carrier landings and celebrations’!!! over news of zarqawi’s death. this is the mindset that we are battling people.
the sports analogy that i used above doesn’t even do the unseriousness of these people justice. it seems to really be about any excuse to go to a ticker tape parade and cheer.
peace
jaime
And what about his Italian heritage has anything to do with that? His blog is a video blog. There’s something about unedited video that the right wing can’t stand.
Andrew
Tony Blair said TODAY that defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq will lead to their defeat throughout the world.
That is obviously wrong and THAT is the hyperbole that must be addressed.
Darrell
Except that we are not initiating, but REACTING to partisan statements by the left in their attempts to minimize and downplay any good news coming out of Iraq.
Hence the huge chorus of leftists telling us “this means nothing” at a time when most normal people would think Zarqawi’s death a good thing. The left hates Bush so much, that in their derangement, they cannot find it within themselves to honestly acknowledge and savor the good news for our country, because it might hurt their political agenda. Doubt me? See this thread, KOS, and every other place where leftists gather for confirmation of this tendency.
John Amato
Brian,
Where do you know me personally? John Cole happens to be a good friend of mine. We may disagree on certain issues, but I like him immensely.
You call me a midget WOP. You are a racist and a coward. For those who don’t know, WOP is a derogatory term assigned to Italians when they came into the country. My grandfather came here in 1915. Disagree on positions and you pull out the racist card, that’s so typical of people like you.
I know Cole is a good man, but you are a racist and a coward.
John Cole
Welcome to the banned list, Brian. Come back in a few weeks when you think you can behave.
I pretty much let people say whatever they want around here, but the minute you start making personal attacks against John Amato, a personal friend of mine and someone I have had a lot of good conversations with and really like as a person, you have crossed a line and have done something that can not be undone.
All of that would get you deleted without even throwing in the racist bullshit, which in and of itself would earn you some time in the corner, if not a permanent ban.
Happy Trails.
And for those of you who are wondering why I don’t delete the remarks, it is because I know John is a big enough person who won’t care if I leave it up for the historical record. I would appreciate your not repeating it, though.
jaime
We turned the corner after “Mission Accomplished”. We turned a corner after the first election. We turned a corner after Saddam was captured. We turned a corner after his sons were killed. We turned a corner after the second election.
Excuse me if I don’t fucking believe you people anymore.
Mac Buckets
Steve, good posts today.
But…I can’t believe you are stunned this “we got him!” stuff is a political football. I just think you’re misunderstanding how this thing started, which resulted in its being played this way.
This whole very childish vein of argument started with the whines from the left of “Bush hasn’t gotten bin Laden yet” and “Bush hasn’t gotten Saddam yet” and “Bush hasn’t gotten al-Zarqawi yet,” as if this worldwide struggle could be boiled down to a couple key guys. By pointing to an image of a terrorist leader who was still walking upright on the earth (even one-legged, in caves, or on a kidney machine), the opponents of Bush could ignore any progress against terrorism in general, and derisively point to a figure who had thumbed his nose at Bush and survived. The political gambit was to make Bush look impotent in the face of hated terrorists.
The short-sightedness of such a political strategy should’ve been evident. What happens when Bush captures/kills one of your professed “key guys?” Well, then the hardcore left must go into full-reverse, minimizing the importance of the same guys they’d been building up for years (or in some wacko cases, saying that capturing/killing these terrorists only makes it worse for the US).
I think its pretty disingenuous for you not to allow the right to point out the transparent hypocrisy and guile of what has been a left strategy all along.
tBone
Yeah, ParR in the 2nd post of this thread was just “reacting,” not chucking partisan grenades. No triumphalism there.
jaime
Thank you, Mr. Cole.
Steve
Right, partisan statements at places like dkos, that you sought out and highlighted so you could score points. Good show.
I’ve already said what I think about those comments and I’m not ashamed to disavow them. I still don’t think they represent anything more than the views of a lunatic fringe, and sentiments like “they thawed him out just to distract from the estate tax repeal” are a million miles from mainstream even at dkos.
I don’t know if you honestly believe these are the views of the mainstream liberal, or if you simply enjoy trying to make that case, but either way I find it sad that your first reaction to good news is seeking out some lefty comment to belittle. It’s like you can’t take any pleasure from the event unless you feel like the left is crying.
tBone
Kind of like bin Laden went from “Wanted dead or alive!” to “not that concerned about him, frankly” in the space of a few months, Mac?
Mac Buckets
It’s a damn sight better than your miserable “don’t fight terrorists because killing them only makes them stronger” routine (although I personally hope every lefty picks that dead pony up for the next campaign!).
Tell the Iraqi people (77% of whom say that all their hardships have all been worth it to get rid of Saddam) that freedom and hope are “sorry schtick.”
jaime
Source, please.
The Other Steve
This guys death won’t change much. It’s like killing any officer in an army, someone will replace him.
The good news is how they caught him… that they had some kind of inside information.
Although we might not want to know how they obtained it, as I’m sure the right will use it to justify torture again.
Pooh
Well the death of Zarqawi has not ended the war on straw.
Steve
It’s a fair point when you put it that way, Mac. But let’s be sure we’re talking about the same people here. There are lefties who think it’s a big deal we haven’t gotten bin Laden, and there are lefties who think bin Laden is just some digitized CIA boogeyman and we shouldn’t have even deposed the Taliban. You are free, of course, to make fun of the latter group whether they’re hypocrites or not. But the left isn’t unitary, and I think most liberals are quite happy that Zarqawi has been killed.
For example, when I think of elected Democrats who like to make the “where’s Osama?” argument, the first one I think of is Pat Leahy. I just clicked over to his website to see if he had said anything about Zarqawi’s death yet.
As someone noted above, the need to keep this in perspective, to remind ourselves that this doesn’t impact the sectarian violence in Iraq or solve the other problems we have to deal with over there, is not only valid but it’s basically the same way President Bush reacted to the news. I am totally with you in rolling my eyes at the people who suggest the death of mass murderer Zarqawi means nothing. What I resent is the cheap attempts to attribute that view to the left in general – a theme we seem to return to a lot around here.
By the way, on the hoped-for day when bin Laden finally gets what’s coming to him, I hope it’s clear that we will be playing this hypocrisy game in both directions.
Pooh
The proper characterization would of course be “don’t say you are fighting terrorrists when you are really attacking largely unrelated targets, because when you treat everyone like a terrorist, some of them start to act like it, and that makes terrorism stronger.”
But why argue with what we’re actually saying when you have a mannaquin to dissasemble or a jackalope to set free?
jaime
I think these people didn’t get the message that Zarqawi is dead.
LITBMueller
Sorry about the misID, Mac, but this is definitely you :):
First, everyone knows that Cheeto stains take a long time to go away. ;)
Second, my point is that that the FKC’s obsession with searching for and pointing out what they perceive to be the Left’s (as if there was one single group calling themselves The Left) reaction to the death of Zarqawi is ridiculous. What it really proves is that the FKC are not really all that concerned with “reporting the good news from Iraq.” What they really want is more information that they can use to attack/point out and laugh (scream?) at the Left with.
And, yes, the left’s Keyboarders Crusaders do this as well.
This is no longer about “winning” or “losing” in Iraq. Its about each side desparately desiring to be able to say “we were right.” And, yes, that applies to both the right and the left. Personally, I think this is even more so because none of us have to ever worry about serving in the conflict. We can analyze and pontificate from far away, without worrying that we will have to avoid IEDs, or even see the horrible devastation wrought by the conflict, due to the self-censorship of the supposedly left-leaning media.
Break out the Cheetos!
The Other Steve
We do what the Right does. We forget we ever said it and move on.
Remember back in 1993 when the Republicans were predicting Clinton’s tax rate hikes were going to cause a bone-crushing Economic Recession? I do, although I’m sure Mac Buckets has long forgotten it.
Or do you remember when we were supposed to be going into Iraq to get rid of WMDs? I do, but again Mac Buckets has long since forgotten about it.
I could go on, but it wouldn’t matter.
Mac Buckets has long since forgotten about it.
D. Mason
I was wondering what it would finally take to get you to ban someone John. Godo call BTW. Thanks go out to brian for satisfying my curiosity with his coulter like spewing.
Richard Bottoms
Good work troops.
Faux News
WOW! Congrats Brian! You really have to work hard to get banned here as John is very tolerant of us (which is a good thing. Unlike RedState.com or Free Republic where disagreement with any moderate is an instant & permanent banning.
You won’t be missed. At all.
LITBMueller
Allright, is anyone else confused by these two government statements????
Source.
Source.
Riiiiight. But, apparently, Iraqi troops were pretty damn close to the safe house, since they were the first there. So, why exactly couldn’t we try and capture him? Isn’t he the big leader of AQ in Iraq? Wouldn’t his capture be preferable?
srv
Zarqawi and Brian are dead, soon to be replaced by a new boogeyman and troll.
Mac Buckets
Well, since those few months included the defeat of the Taliban, it might be a bit different. But you’re right in the sense that it’s all about setting expectations. As Bush moved one way, his opponents moved the other way. I do see a difference in that Bush’s attitude change (if there really was one) seems to have been driven by pivotal events like the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, whereas the left’s full-reverse just happens whenever one of the “key guys” gets caught or killed.
Just to be fair, the complete Bush quote from March 2002 was:
ppGaz
I might or might not, that’s up to me. But it’s not up to you. You don’t speak for them, you don’t represent them, and I do not accept the premise that you have their best interests at heart. You haven’t established that or demonstrated it, nor has the criminally incompetant government here that you pimp on a regular basis.
What nonsensical position are you triangulating today, you worthless numbskull? Zarqawi is dead, and therefore ….. what? The war is over? The future looks brighter? The gigantic clusterfuck with no end in sight is now somehow more “worth it” than it was yesterday?
If you think any of that, you’re wrong, and nothing you say here is going to change that fact. I should listen to you? I should take your word for any of it? Or the word of these asshats in Washington that were wrong about Iraq 20 years ago, fifteen years ago, ten years ago, four years ago, and every day of this war? Suddenly, 20 years of being wrong is turned into being right?
Uh, I don’t think so, old buddy. And if you have a problem with the ” don’t think his death will fundamentally alter things in Iraq” take it up with the proprietor. He said it here first.
jaime
I was shocked that A) He wrote what he wrote, B) He claimed to know someone he didn’t C) didn’t realize everybody is connected to everybody in the blog world.
Steve
Yes, we could have tried that, just like we tried to have the warlords capture bin Laden at Tora Bora. I’m confident in the ability of American troops to capture the guy, not so much in the Iraqis who, for all we know, may have been present in very small numbers. Count me in the “don’t take chances, just kill the fucker” camp.
Mac Buckets
Maybe we should take a web-poll about the continuum of who thinks that the Bush Administration’s capturing/killing bin Laden would be a crushing victory over AQ and who thinks it would make no difference, just so those same people aren’t backtracking when we find out (on Election Eve 2008!) that we got bin Laden.
Of course, noted that several times above, and which is why I used “hardcore” left, for want of a better term.
Perry Como
I think you are getting confused. Bush was moving one way — to get bin Laden — and the vast majority of people in the US were with him. When Bush changed directions by going to Iraq, he created opponents.
BlogReeder
I just got some time to look at CNN’s coverage. I can’t believe the headline AL-ZARQAWI ‘BETRAYED’ at the top next to a picture captioned A home that was destroyed in the same mission that killed al-Zarqawi.
The spin doesn’t sound too positive to me. It’s like they can’t even bring themselves to say anything good about our guys in Iraq.
Mac Buckets
You’re late to the party and dressed in a clownsuit for a tux-and-tails, Pooh. My post was in response to a ridiculous (paraphrase) “killing al-Zarqawi will make things worse for us” comment.
Is al-Zarqawi an unrelated, non-terrorist target to you, Pooh? Stand up and be counted! Mannequins and jackalopes, indeed!
ppGaz
Fine with me if he’s killed. The deader the better.
And good for our guys for getting it done.
But as John said, it won’t change anything in Iraq. If it does, my guess is that it will change for the worse.
I don’t think you’ve seen the true capacity of the people there to create a violent cesspool instead of a country. They have been doing it a lot longer than we have been doing what we’re doing. And they’ll still be doing it after we’ve gone. That’s based on a simple reading of the history of the region. Which is were you start if you want to understand what comes next there. You don’t start by reading the insane rants of righties on blogs, or for that matter, the insane blatherings of ass-kissing pundits or of the asses they kiss.
ppGaz
“Which is where you start ….”
jaime
All I know is that on Fox News, they made sure to tell me the Dow went up 15 points on the news of Zarqawi’s death.
jaime
We’re having the same exact discussion as after Saddam was captured and his sons were killed and the two elections. Same rhetoric from the right, and the same net effect on an already miserable war.
Mac Buckets
Yes, it’s a shameful chapter in American political history when a current war with current soldiers getting currently attacked is exploited so desperately, all so your favorite congressman or mine can keep his cushy job for a couple more years, or maybe even get a Chair of a Committee! That much is unarguable, and stomach-turning.
Pooh
Well, thinking on this more (and since blogger is fucking down again so I can’t post my own thoughts…) this is a hopefully sign in the metagame – if he was indeed ratted out, and we promptly fucked him up good (and reasonably cleanly) that seems to send a pretty desirable signal. Symbolically, it could matter, or maybe not, but between this and Al-Maliki getting his government together (to a degree) we’ve seen forward progress today.
ppGaz
Yes, of course. Shameful. Which is why you’ll be stopping the practice any day now.
srv
The Macs of the right really are being disengenous about all this. I’ve been referring to Zarqawi as a bogeyman for a couple of years now. Right here on this blog. Many on the left have always downplayed his significance.
I know that was an unpopular view back when there was “no” insurgency and the administration and wingnuts insisted everything happening in Iraq was “dead-enders” and AQ. Remember that? Of course you don’t, you revisionist pricks.
But, alas, we were right.
Mr. Z. is only strategically important to the wingnuts view of the world. That doesn’t make him strategic in the real world.
We are right. And you are wrong. Again.
The Other Steve
Or a President can get re-elected.
Yeah, this war was political from the start. It’s disgusting.
Steve
I’d settle for your view, Mac, since my impression of the mainstream righty view is that of course everyone hates the guy but (1) he’s probably dead already, (2) if he’s not dead he’s completely marginalized and living in a cave, and (3) getting him is ultimately irrelevant to winning the War on Terror.
There’s a hint of truthiness in that, but I come from a simpler place where the guy is a mass murderer of 3,000 Americans and he’s worth it for that reason alone. It burns that we haven’t brought the killer to justice. He doesn’t have to be the be-all and end-all but he ought to be a priority.
Anyway, even if bin Laden is “ultimately irrelevant” to the War on Terror, you can bet that if a Republican President is in office on the day we get him that it will be widely portrayed as the GREATEST THING EVER, in contrast to how it’s minimized right now when it’s not clear if we will get him. That’s my point.
The Other Steve
srv – The thing the right keeps missing, is that they still want to play the same game the French played in Algeria. They want a list of the top 50 bad guys, and they think when those bad guys are all gone, we will have won.
It’s like they think all armies are led by Frederick Barbarossa, and if they can just kill the one leader the whole army will get up and go home. I don’t understand why. Maybe they watch too many movies? like Riddick, where he finally kills the bad guy and now he leads the army?
Real world doesn’t work that way. Sometimes the army gets up and goes home, but more often then not the next guy on the food chain takes over.
And as we’ve seen so many times, the next guy that takes over is many times more viscious than the first guy.
The Other Steve
Steve – Amen on that.
Yeah, if we get bin Laden some other guy will take over, but I don’t want him because I think we can take out Al Qaeda that way.
I want him because he was responsible for 9/11.
Mac Buckets
One difference between me and the left/the media is that I’m not afraid to let the Iraqis speak for themselves. I don’t shroud myself in black and cry crocodile tears over how Bush ruined Iraq and how horrible the Iraqi people have it now as opposed to those idyllic, kite-flying days of Saddam’s rape rooms. I’m quite happy to let the Iraqi majority speak with their ballots and their poll responses.
As for their best interests, why don’t you sprout a pair and tell us what you think their best interests are, if they aren’t freedom, hope, and majority rule by law? I’m really curious to find out, though I suspect you’re too gutless to answer.
My posts are clear and concise. They mean what I say they mean. If you don’t like them, I’m not concerned in the least — in fact, it probably means I’m being rational.
Perry Como
Partisan hack. Mission Accomplished!
Eural
So within just a few hours after the death of Mr. Z we have lefties attacking righties, righties attacking lefties and everyone second-guessing, questioning and attacking our war efforts (yet again!).
I think we can put to rest the whole “uniter not a divider” thing from Bush (who is not an effective War President – sorry guys)and see the danger of his real talent – winning elections without campaigning on real substance.
And I’m sure somewhere Osama is thinking…”mission accomlished.”
Folks, we have got to win this thing and that will never be possible with the administration in place today.
Perry Como
Why do you hate Bushmerica?
Mac Buckets
I much prefer “al-Zarqawi justice” to “Moussawi justice,” I’ll gladly admit. I hope bin Laden gets the former.
Today’s situation is much the same as the bin Laden one. Al-Zarqawi was a cruel and murderous terrorist, he deserved to die, and he won’t kill in future, which is a happy outcome in and of itself.
At the same time, no one is silly enough to declare that Iraq is now Disneyland. As Bush said long ago, this (like every other war in history) is about more than a few guys.
I’m hopeful that this will have a negative effect on terrorism greater than just “one more dead terrorist,” but there’s no way to know unless you have special insight into the organization. We can assume that he was very good at what he did, and led others, so eliminating him will at least pose organizational problems for the anti-freedom terrorists and their efforts. It’s also likely that the next guy won’t be as good, a likelihood which has been explored upthread.
Andrew
I wonder if cutting $1.6 billion from the Marine Corps and Army equipment replacement budget helped catch Zarqawi. I mean, they’re redirecting that money to catch brown people, so it might have worked.
tBone
Damn it, that travel agent sold me nonrefundable tickets, too. Lying bastard!
A reasonable position with no hint of lefty-baiting. You ought to try this more often, Mac.
dagon
–err eural,
maybe i’m missing your point but the fact that ‘righties’ are the ones who enabled this disaster it’s a little spurious to be claiming that ‘lefties are attacking righties’ over these events.
and frankly i don’t think that is the case at all anymore. what i’m seeing is people with clear vision, forsight or even remorse attacking individuals who still tirelessly wish to carry water for the bungled handling of the ‘war’ and who act as cheerleaders for every cynically trumped up ‘victory’ that the republican spinmeisters trot out as some sort of tipping point towards democracy.
the reality on the ground does not support this in the least and frankly, it is insulting to my intellect.
peace
Mac Buckets
Bush noted years ago that our fighting Islamic terrorism would outlast his administration and the next.
Because Bush invented partisans? Wow. Slept through the Clinton years, didja… and the Reagan years…Nixon…
I don’t remember “make America more partisan” being at the top of OBL’s stated goals (or anywhere on the list, actually), but my memory seems to be faulty about a lot of “historical” assertions on today’s board.
I just want you to rest assured, Eural, that wherever bin Laden is, in whatever state of health, he might be thinking a lot of things, but “Hey, that really worked out for me!” is definitely not one of them.
srv
Your ignorance of our real enemy is astounding. Osama’s stated goal was to start a global war.
Mac Buckets
Steve’s the very opposite of a loon and never insults my intelligence, so even when we disagree, I usually have no basis or desire to say anything harsh. Believe me, I’d rather have real, fruitful conversations than have to fend off revisionist historians and juvenile namecallers.
Mac Buckets
Speaking of revisionist historians…
Eural
srv already beat me to it but really,really really go find out what OBL has been saying for years – we have played totally and completely into his exact gameplan since 9/11.
Two things to remember:
1) OBL gained his power through the events in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. His goal was to recreate that situation on a larger scale. Currently he is succeeding. Or at least we are enabling him to succeed through this administrations overwhelming incompetence(check out “The Assassin’s Gate” by George Packer for a start).
2) If you’re enthralled by the ass-kickin’ power of the US military’s “shock and awe” don’t forget that the story of David and Goliath is a part of the Muslim tradition as well. (Millions of Muslims do not see us as David, hint hint.)
tBone
Where’s the fun in that? You dickhead. :)
Seriously, you and Steve have a good discussion going. It’s so rare here that I thought I should give credit where it’s due.
Now back to our regular schedule of partisan hackery, smart-ass remarks, personal attacks, and spoofery . . .
chriskoz
Careful Mac, with statements like that you may get mistaken for an America hating liberal trying to downplay this grand “carrier landing” worthy event.
ppGaz
What’s going on in Iraq isn’t about Islamic terrorism, it’s about a civil war.
Your calling it something else does not make it so.
ppGaz
So, you got up this morning, and decided to go with the “just say the opposite of whatever is true” strategy today?
Not like it’s the first time for you, though.
You’re a liar. If you want a fruitful conversation, why don’t you start one?
John S.
You must grapple with yourself an awful lot, Mac.
After all, you are the supreme revisionist historian…why, just the other day you were telling us all that the reason we invaded Iraq was to oust Saddam and Sons.
Pooh
Mac, a suggestion, if you truly want discussion sans potshots maybe you should refrain even if you think we started it. Be the bigger man as it were.
ppGaz
Mac is huge, didn’t you know? He is so big they had to take him out through the window to go to the hospital.
With a crane.
I saw the picture in Star.
BlogReeder
He’s fighting the Soviets on a Global scale?
jg
He wants to be the leader of the ummah. That leader will sit in Baghdad just like he did in the old days. Someone else, until recently, was in charge of Baghdad. We just removed him.
PeterJ
There has been some suggestions that Zarqawi’s position was given by someone in his organisation in a power struggle, with the reward for him being $25 million, is the guy who turned him in going to get that money? And if so what would that guy use the money for?
croatoan
The Bush administration has been exaggerating the involvement of foreign fighters and conducting a propaganda campaign ” to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.” Just last month they were portraying him as a clumsy lummox who can’t handle a machine gun. Now he’s “the operational commander of the terrorist movement in Iraq.”
President Bush shouldn’t have avoided attacking Zarqawi on three occasions before the invasion, and killed him when he had the chance. But then he wouldn’t have been able to claim that Iraq had ties to terrorism, even though Zarqawi was in the Kurdish-controlled north under the no-fly zone and out of Saddam’s reach.
ppGaz
Why does croatoan hate America?
ppGaz
I think I also saw a story float by saying “Bin Laden relieved” at Zarqawi’s death.
Clearly this may not be the “blow to Al Qaeda” that has been represented to be, here and there.
And I am wondering, if we knew exactly where this man was, why didn’t we go get him and take him alive? Wouldn’t he be worth more to us alive than in pieces?
I have no particular reason to think that the people running our show over there know what the hell they are doing. Why would I think so in this case? I’d be less than surprised to find out that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice did a round of paper-rock-scissors to decide Zarqawi’s fate.
John S.
Who is to say that he wasn’t taken alive and sent to one of those jolly black box prisons to be pumped for information? After all, if his terrorist cronies think he’s dead they won’t bother to change their plans or worry about him divulging what he knows, eh?
Pooh
Oh fuck off.
Steve
The Zawahiri letter, which I gather we don’t know if it’s fake or not, basically lectured Zarqawi that his beheadings and the like were bad PR for the movement, so dial it down a notch.
I think we’re just speculating about what’s in bin Laden’s head – how the heck would anyone know he was “relieved” today? – but I can certainly imagine a scenario where bin Laden would be grateful that he’s finally rid of that loose cannon Zarqawi.
But my reaction is, so what? Let’s assume Zarqawi was terrible PR for al-Qaeda and that millions of Muslims watched him and said, “Ugh, look at that awful Zarqawi, butchering innocent Iraqis right and left. No way am I joining al-Qaeda now!” Does that mean, since he was bad for al-Qaeda’s recruiting, we should have let him keep running around killing people?
Regardless of how closely bin Laden and Zarqawi actually were, it’s indisputable that the guy was the head of some sort of organization that was killing innocent people in Iraq (and Jordan). It’s a good day when that guy is no longer with us. How many “al-Qaeda points” are gained by killing him is something the scorekeepers can debate, I just like seeing such people dead.
Andrew
Again, it’s fairly clear that Zarqawi wasn’t really a member of al Qaeda until the U.S. started saying so, which, in the greatest of ironies, served the purposed of Zarqawi, bin Laden, and the U.S.
Andrew
AND/BUT
I think that the reasonably well recieved appointments of three cabinet level appointments for the Iraqi defense, interior, and national security ministries will have far greater effect on security and terrorism in Iraq.
BlogReeder
Where? In the toilet? That would fit the “relieved” part.
Par R
Andrew says:
God, but it’s good to see completely brain dead folks posting their brain farts here. Personally, I think “Andrew” is just another pseudonym for the ever popular ppGaz, a totally retarded idiot from Arizona.
RonB
Par, what Andrew said really isn’t that far off base. It is a fact that Zarqawi is unaffiliated with Al Qaeda proper. He used the name for his group of thugs to increase his reputation, and by buying into this boogeyman, the US made him more notable than he actually was. Making him iconic did make Al Qaeda seem more the pervasive specter of death than it already was.
It goes without saying that this is fantastic news and I am gladder than glad he is in many pieces.
RonB
While this may be true, Mac, why do you troll for reactions from these people? Irresistable impish urge on your part?
ppGaz
Well, Par, “poot”, as they say ….
From Alterman at MSNBC blogs.
Andrew
A response to Spoofmaster Par, from yet another America-hating liberal apologist:
Emphasis mine.
croatoan
Why does croatoan hate America?
I’m glad you asked that question. First, I’m an evildoer, so it’s in my nature. And of couse, I hate our freedoms.
John S.
You know, Pooh, I merely posed a hypothetical scenario in response to ppGaz’s thinking out loud. I didn’t say that I believed that was the case, I just floated the possibility. Who are you to say with 100% certainty that it isn’t possible?
In the meantime, I’ll fuck off.
After you go fuck yourself.
Darrell
Wow. Is it a “fact”, given bin Laden’s annointing Zarqawi as one of his top deputies? And how do you define Al Queda proper? especially given the decentralized nature of the organization
ppGaz
Various versions of this have circulated widely in the last 24 hours; this particular one is TPM:
radioleft
Zarqawi’s death was a temporary battle victory in Bush’s so-called War on Turrer. But American gloating and Bush’s obnoxious sore-winner attitude will translate badly throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
blog.radioleft.com/blog/DavidTaffet/_archives/2006/6/8/2016023.html
Darrell
ppgaz, that scenario is possible. What I objected to is Ron’s definitive claim that is was undeniable “fact” that Zarqawi was unaffiliated w/Al Queda proper, especially given his pledge of allegiance to OBL, and OBL’s tape (if it can be believed) a couple years back publicly endorsing Zarqawi as one of his top guys.
I think many on the left are so extreme that they (Ron is a perfect example) now want to minimize Zarqawi’s importance, no matter how dishonest they have to be in doing so… because they cannnot bring themselves to celebrate ANY good news coming out of Iraq, as it may interfere with their ‘sky is falling’ narrative.
John S.
Watch out for those ‘mad-lib’ style posts, Darrell:
You make it too easy.
Darrell
radioleft, tell us what, in your opinion, specifically constitutes “obnoxious, sore-winner” gloating? All I’ve seen are measured reactions along the lines of “this is a really good thing, but no silver bullet in the struggle”
Another example of how so many leftists are so extreme that NO celebration of good news can be had, without shitting on it as “obnoxious” gloating. Fucking aholes
ppGaz
Wouldn’t you get better results saying “some on the left” or just “some?” Your style impugns in a wide swath and is the reason why you take so much abuse around here. It’s not necessary to do that in order to make your point.
There’s a variety of views on Zarqawi. I think it’s not only reasonable, but sensible, to assume that the “official” view as prepared and marketed by the government is probably not accurate. Let me put it this way: Their track record doesn’t inspire confidence. Citizens would have to be fools to take their pronouncements at face value and look no further.
Darrell
But the crux of my point is that it’s not just one or two odd lefties doing it, it’s MANY, probably most liberals who are guilty of this sort of dishonest minimizing of any good news out of Iraq. See this thread as an example, see KOS, and other leftist sites for more proof of this phenomena.
ppGaz
About 80% of the rhetoric is just theatrical. On both sides.
Sometimes it’s useful to put that aside and just talk plainly without the zingers.
Also keep in mind that the blogosphere is probably something like one tenth of one percent of the population. It isn’t really representative of much of anything, except for those of us addicted to it.
Most people out there, right and left, probably don’t really know who Zarqawi was, except that he was some kind of bad guy. I think we can all agree that he was a bad guy.
Andrew
probably most conservatives who are guilty of this sort of dishonest minimizing of any bad news out of Iraq.
Unfortunately, one of these is in sync with reality, and the other is not.
John S.
I’m telling you guys, comments that read like mad-libs are bad news. If a point of view is actually substanitive, there is no way it should be subverted so easily merely by swapping a few words around.
RonB
Troll away, Darrell, I ain’t bitin’. Zarqawi’s death is of much significance regarding our ability to reach out and touch the inner circle of jihadists, and that is a good thing, period. As for his death signifying any corner turning in Iraq, not very many on either side of the political spectrum are willing to say that his death is going to change anything, and you know it.
RonB
Drink much, Darrell?
Darrell
There’s hope for you yet. But how do you square your statement that Zarqawi is one of the ‘inner circle’ jihadists with your earlier statement that it’s undeniable “fact” that Zarqawi is not affiliated with Al Qaeda proper at all? Maybe if I was drinking that would all make sense.
srv
Darrell, Mr. Z wasn’t news to the left at any point. We didn’t believe Colin in 2/2003, and we didn’t believe Mr. Z was behind everything when GW and Rummy tried to make it that way in their insurgency denial phase.
Just because losers like you and your dear leader made him into Mr. Bogeyman, and then were embarrassed by taking so long to get him – to the point that many on the right started writing about how marginal he was last year.
And we’re the dishonest ones? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
ppGaz
The problem you guys are going to have is that “affiliated” doesn’t mean anything in particular.
We’re not talking about the operation of Fortune 500 organizations here, we’re talking about a loose collection of sociopathic criminals. What the heck is “affiliation?”
And even if “affiliation” can be established, who decides what, if anything, it means? And even if you had that capability in place, what difference would it make? The future of Iraq is not being decided by rational, organized, clear thinking people. It’s being decided by a bunch of lunatics and sociopaths and radical fundamentalists and power-mad dickheads. No, I’m not talking about the Bush administration :-) I’m talking about the factions in Iraq. The ones that have kept that place an ungovernable cesspool for a thousand years.
BlogReeder
Is someone impersonating ppGaz? I can agree with his whole comment. I’ve never been able to do that.
srv
It means if a terrorist who didn’t really have connections with AQ before the war, but was used to justify the war (and not bombed because then he’d be one less lie to start the war in the first place), and then ex post facto pledged some sort of allegience, then every other falsehood told about him becomes mute, because Darrell has declared him affiliated.
Darrell
Keep up the cliches “Dear Leader”.. it shows you for what you are, a recycler of leftist talking points.
And of course, only ‘losers’ considered Zarqawi to be a dangerous threat.
Darrell
I was wondering the same thing, as he is sounding too sensible today :)
srv
Wow, you’re already giving up ground, pal. Stop backpedaling. Just dangerous? I thought this guy was the mastermind! This is a spectacular and seminal achievement! We must all jump for joy and embrace the righty meme! We got the bogeyman! We’re WINNING, and those ungrateful leftists aren’t jumping thru a hoop for us!
ppGaz
You silly gooses. I am always impersonating ppGaz. He’s a character, just like everybody around here.
The real me is a rather quiet person who prefers Duke Ellington to politics.
How many times do I have to tell you? This is theater. Check the name of the blog.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well Said…