UPDATED: Zarqawi’s Death Brings Hope, Joy And Partisanship
So the U.S. finally got one of the most wanted terrorists. The man who was seen taunting President George W. Bush on a video (didn’t he remember what happened to the last leader in Iraq named Saddam who taunted Bush?). The man who gleefully and mercilessly sawed off the heads of terrified, screaming victims and held the dripping-with-blood heads up so the “snuff video” could be played again and again on Internet sites (and linked to by weblogs seeking to increase their “hits.”)
What more could you say?
Actually, a lot.
In another, simpler time, it would be a time of joy. Even though there is a highly controversial war on and politics has come to mean less about deal-making than demonization and polarization, you’d think there would be a sense of relief: one of the people linked to the group responsible for 911, a man who is believed to have the blood of thousands on his hands, finally faced some consequences for his actions and he won’t be around to give his troops instructions anymore.
And, to be fair and accurate, there was some joy. The Washington Post reports that for the White House the timing could not be better;
White House officials were clearly elated by the good news from Iraq, which also included the announcement from Baghdad that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had filled critical security posts in the new government. With support for Bush on Iraq at a low ebb, and much of the news in recent weeks dominated by grim reports of sectarian violence and deaths, the day’s developments seemed to present a chance to change the story line, bolster public support at home and have a strong launch for the new government.The Iraq enterprise is now largely in the hands of that country’s untested political leaders, and administration officials believe that a successful start — after six months of bickering and rising violence after the December elections — is their last reasonable chance to steady Iraq for the foreseeable future.
“There’s going to be a window of opportunity for this new government to sink or swim,” White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. “They are going to have to demonstrate to the Iraqis and the rest of the world that they are competent leaders who can meet the needs of the Iraqi people.”
And although few believe that Zarqawi having a blast in Iraq will remove the terrorist and insurgent threat, it could disrupt operations a bit. The AP:
With the demise of charismatic terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida will be looking for a new sales approach in its global fundraising campaigns.Al-Zarqawi had become a crucial part of al-Qaida’s marketing.
He was a terror operator who stole headlines with jarring, gruesome attacks carried out by a network of foreign and Iraqi fighters. For more than three years, he evaded an international manhunt.
Counterterror officials have said al-Zarqawi served as a worldwide extremist rallying point and a successful fundraising icon.
“It is like selling for any organization. They are selling the success of Zarqawi and eluding capture in Iraq,” Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent said.
Iraqis reportedly celebrated Zarqawi’s death. But others warned that his death was unlikely to greatly diminish Iraq’s violence.
So it was a day of national unity in the U.S., right?
Wrong.
Bush took a measured tone in discussing Zarqawi and there was no public gloating, given a constant theme he has faced from opponents about both Zarqawi still being on the loose and Osama bin Laden still being at large.
But all Democrats had to do was to repeat their reservations about the conduct of the war and there were a host of comments coming from some GOPers suggesting that (a) Zarqawi’s elimination somehow negated other criticisms of the conduct and management of the war, (b) Democrats were depressed because he was killed, (c) Democrats were against the war on terror.
Yours truly listened to about 4 hours of left and right talk radio (there are few centrist talk show hosts) yesterday. One liberal newscaster on a liberal station mentioned the “so-called war on terror.” Some other callers and liberal talk show hosts asked whether this would have a substantive impact on the war effort — but this was the same question reported on and raised in umpteen stories that any reader of this site can easily find on Google.
Yet, faster than you could say “blow him to smithereens” some of Bush’s supporters were going after all Democrats and essentially calling them traitors — rather than focusing on the elimination of one more terrorist bigwig. Rush Limbaugh said this:
I’ll tell you, folks, the Drive-By Media is — and the libs (and, of course, what’s the difference?) — so predictable. One of my major themes is playing out already, and will soon be visible to one and all. One of those themes is: Any good day for America and the US military and the war effort is a bad day for liberalism, a bad day for the Democrats……Dingy Harry [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] today on the Senate floor. Let’s listen to Dingy Harry and measure his attitude and tone here.
REID: Today’s mission that we’re talking about, and its successful outcome, are a testament to bravery, the skill, and the determination of those dedicated men and women on the front lines.
RUSH: Stop the tape a minute. Does it sound like Dingy Harry is reading this? Does it sound like Dingy Harry is very happy about this? I mean, it’s risky to assign an attitude to someone’s spoken words, but I know these people like the back of my hand, every square inch of my glorious naked body, and Dingy Harry sounds like he’s delivering a eulogy here.
Another talk show host celebrated Zarqawi’s demise by noting that America had experienced liberalism “it was called 911.” (FOOTNOTE to readers: Wasn’t the President at that time not a liberal? And didn’t the 911 Commission find that administrations of BOTH parties failed miserably to prepare the U.S. for a terrorist attack?)
How did most Democrats and Republicans react? Most welcomed the beginning of Zarqawi’s journey south to a hotter climate:
On Capitol Hill, there’s enthusiasm on both sides of the aisle over news that al-Qaida’s top man in Iraq is dead.Republican John Boehner, the House majority leader, calls the military’s killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an “important and tangible success” for America’s mission in Iraq. Boehner also calls it a victory in the war on terror that makes Americans safer.
A fellow Ohio Republican, Senator George Voinovich, agrees, but also warns against turning complacent.
Senate Democrats are also sounding upbeat. Delaware’s Joseph Biden tells N-B-C it’s a “significant hit,” while Chuck Schumer of New York says anyone who believes in freedom and peace can take solace in what happened.
But in 21st century America partisanship trumps even good news such as the death of someone as barbaric as Zarqawi. Because if you wait to long you can’t wring political advantage out of it and not-waiting means going on the attack.
For instance, you’d never know from this Washington Times story that most Democrats welcomed Zarqawi’s death. The headline is “Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt”. But this is what THE STORY says:
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.“This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer” for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. “Iraq is still a mess — get out.”
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of “a growing anti-American insurgency” and that it’s time to get out.
“We’re there for all the wrong reasons,” Mr. Kucinich said.
Officially, Democratic leaders reacted positively to the news and praised the troops that successfully targeted al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq with 500-pound bombs at his safe house 30 miles from Baghdad.
“This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
So the headline gives a different impression than the content. But this has become a controversial article now.
In fact, the kind of things Democrats said were more in line with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: welcoming Zarqawi’s death but repeating that it doesn’t alter previous questions and criticisms about the conduct of the war:
This morning, news arrived that our troops in Iraq have tracked down and killed the evil terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We are proud of our troops for their tireless work. Their efforts should be commended and their sacrifices should be honored. But the security situation on the ground continues to threaten the safety of our troops. Several hours after Zarqawi’s death, 19 Iraqis were killed and 40 were wounded in a roadside bombing in Baghdad. These deaths are a stark reminder of the ongoing violence facing our brave men and women in uniform……Zarqawi’s death should be a resounding call to President Bush and the Republican Congress that we must have a serious debate about U.S. policy in Iraq. His death does not alter the fact that our brave men and women in uniform are fighting a war of choice in which the President sent our troops into harm’s way without a plan for victory and without leveling with the American people.
Due to posting problems here on the road in Glendora CA we will pass on running a ton of links here from blogs showing the battle now raging on some weblogs as the bitter partisan war continues, following the brief pause of gratitude that Zarqawi won’t be sawing off any heads anymore. You can read those links HERE.
But you could safely say this:
- Yesterday was a good day for the war on terror.
- Yesterday was a good day for the morale of U.S. troops, U.S. intelligence services and the new Iraqi government.
- Yesterday was a good day for the Bush administration because it finally got one of the truly top Al Qaeda figures.
- Yesterday was a good day for the thousands who would now be alive if Zarqawi hadn’t planned their deaths or personally murdered them.
- Yesterday was a not-so-good day for national unity and for those who believe that not every single event needs to descend into bitter partisanship and polarization.
UPDATE by Holly in Cincinnati:
The Washington Post‘s Kurtz Media Notes has a round-up of news coverage and reactions.
Apparently Zarqawi was not quite dead when US troops arrived on site: They approached the stretcher upon which Iraqi police had placed him, he tried to turn away, muttered something short and incomprehensible and died.
44 Responses to “UPDATED: Zarqawi’s Death Brings Hope, Joy And Partisanship”
The war on terror is a ruse.
Wake up America!
Sorry Joe, but yesterday was a good day for reinforcing the lie that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and the war on terror.
Joe: you said “Yours truly listened to about 4 hours of left and right talk radio”.
All I can say is, “ick!”.
Iraq started out having little or nothing to do with the war on terror, but Al Qaeda wasted no time in turning it into the front lines of the war on terror. It is their quagmire, and has cost them dearly. First in public opinion throughout the Arab world, and now in key leadership. The hydra will grow a new head, but the thing is that head won’t likely be another Zarqawi.
I’m wondering if Al Qaeda will continue to hit Arab civilian targets. Was that strictly Zarqawi’s M.O., or was it more generally Al Qaeda in Iraq? Time will tell.
Yeah, Joe, listening to 4 hours of talk radio. Talk about taking a bullet for the rest of us!
Don’t forget that Iraq has had a LOT to do with terror for decades. For one thing, Saddam Hussein paid thousands of dollars in “rewards” to families of Arab terrorists who died attacking Israelis.
It’s a sad time for America when politicians and pundits resort to ad hominem attacks in lieu of legitimately debating the issues
Brian of Atlanta-Well, I’m very glad that Iraq has turned into a quagmire for the terrorists. Unfortunately, its also turned into a quagmire for us!
I’ll never understand invading a country, removing its hated dictator, (who no doubt deserved his fate)and then having no plan to secure the country and keep the peace. If we were truly after winning hearts and minds, wouldn’t offering stability and security have been a key priority for the Pentagon? Centcom DID have a plan, but it was ignored by Rumsfeld, who wanted to fight the war on the cheap.
Joe Gandelman for centrist talk show host!
Joe- The only good thing about listening to right-wing radio, is that you get a better idea of how much liberal-bashing is out there, and thus know what to expect from a lot of Conservatives who tune in faithfully.
My Condolences for the lost four hours of your life that you will never get back.
A few observations:
1. Its good to kill a brutal monster and its good that Iraq finally has a full government. Maybe now those who are risking their lives to build a new country can have a bit of a fresh start.
2. The Right Wing always questions the paitriotism of those who question authority. Its their most despicable trait. We could meet in the middle on so many things if they would get off this stupid obssession with demonizing their opponents. The way they talk, you would think that given half a chance they would lock up all “liberals” (whatever the heck that means to them) in camps and throw away the key.
3. It really isnt a “war on terror.” Thats a war on a tactic. You might as well fight a war against massed tank attacks or air bomging of civilian targets. Or a war against suicide bombing. A war against a tactic can never end. If you defeat Muslim terrorists, what happens if, purely for the sake of argument,.the Irish set off a few bombs? Isnt that terrorism? So the war on terror goes on forever as long there are angry people with bombs? Sorry, American freedoms cannot survive a perpetual non-ending war on a tactic. No…this is a war against a fanatic retrograde Islamic kind of fascism. We should have declared war on Afghanistan. That would have been a proper and internationally legal response. We should have declared war on Iraq if we wanted to invade. We could even declare war on specific terrorist groups or countries that support them. Everyting else is a matter for international police efforts including special forces and covert ops. But a war against a tactic is wrong headed and set for perpetual existence which is most dangerous to our freedoms and liberties.
I’m convinced that the deep divide between the extreme right and the extreme left has a lot to do with talk radio. Unlike the written press, these jokers can twist any event or utterance against their opponent, as they did yesterday on the killing of Zarqawi.
Every issue is seen through a partisan prism. ( which is why no one should have been surprised by Ann Coulter’s rant against the 9/11 widows) With 20 million dittoheads alone (Rush’s listeners), the hype builds rage, which leads to extremism and thus the great divide. We need a great centrist movement like “Unity 08″, to bring common sense back to government. The worst possible outcome is to extend this “us vs. them” mentality ad nauseum.
REID: Today’s mission that we’re talking about, and its successful outcome, are a testament to bravery, the skill, and the determination of those dedicated men and women on the front lines.
For this statement Limbaugh rips Harry Reid? And he talks about his “glorious naked body”? This guy must be on drugs.
It is truly amazing how even possibly the best news since Saddam was captured, something that should bring us all together in celebration, can be turned into a partisan attack. What’s wrong with pointing out that he is just one person and that this is not the end of problems? Now, telling the truth makes you unpatriotic?
Nobody stated that this wasn’t a great accomplishment. All that I have seen stated was that this is one of many accomplishments that need to be made before we reach a true victory.
We should celebrate this major accomplishment. At the same time, we should not celebrate too much because we have to remember that the job is not yet completed.
Compare Ms Pelosis statement that this changes nothing, and Kerry’s renewed call for withdrawl, with the following statement of a patriot
“June 8, 2006
Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on al Zarkawi
“As a leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarkawi was responsible for despicable attacks that claimed the lives of too many Iraqis and Americans. I saw firsthand the terrible consequences of Zarqawi’s terrorist network when Bill, Chelsea and I visited the hotel ballroom in Amman, Jordan last November where Zarqawi’s followers had detonated a bomb at a wedding party, killing and wounding innocent people. We owe our thanks to our men and women in uniform and others in Iraq who have been fighting Zarqawi and other insurgents and who are responsible for today’s success.
I hope that this will be a blow to the insurgency in Iraq and affords an opportunity for the new Iraqi government to build on this success and provide greater security and stability for the Iraqi people”
If we could find Zarqawi, why can’t we get the guy who attacked us? That would be Bin Laden. The violence that will continue in Iraq will be a good indicater of what a useless stunt this was. And no, that doesn’t bring me joy.
At best/worst, in all probability taking out Zarqawi is going to enlarge the opening on an already open can of worms. By this I do not mean that Zarqawi should not have been taken out.
It does however state that bush and his administrators, know very little if anything about terrorism and terrorist organizatiins…at least not the way it is taught to U S military personnel in “special operations.” I know a bit about this because I was in special operations for 18 of the 22 years I spent in the military.
bush and his funny bunny farm evidently think that somewhere “out there” is a big ole group of terror leaders that have tea every day planning and organizing terror operations.
The very reason that it took as long as it did to find and take our Zarqawi, and the very reason bin Laden has not been found is because of the fact that these religious fanatic terrorist organizations are single cell units of a gigantic many headed Hydra that are less than more in cooperation with each other.
It already seems to be popular opinion among the stupid extreme right wing and the bush admiistration, that now that Zarqawi is dead that his terror cell group will all but cease to function.
Nothing could be further from the truth, especially among the fanatic Islamic terror groups or any other group of fanatics all too willing to die for their causes and entry into what they conceive as godlike martyrdom.
Zarqawi’s own death, very much expected by himself, death he had long prepared for, meant nothing to him.
Rest assured that Aaeqawi’s own group had multiple, individual cells within it, with leaders trained by Zrqawi himself or by other even more qualified terrorist leader/trainers quartered around the mid east and other parts of the globe.
In essence removing Zarqawi was akin to removing a rock from a gigantic pile of rocks.
I in fact expect, due to Zarqawi’s death for terror activity to increase significantly very soon…but that is my own mostly uninformed personal beliefs based on rather old training that ended in 1987.
Those of you that have actually read my comments should have already noted not only was I in special operations, that I “was” also a weapons expert, expert in use of just about every weapon available during my 22 years of service and those weapons effects during and after they are used on the battle field.
Once again something smells a bit rotten about the Zarqawi bombing incident especially the “framed” type photograph of his head.
If this was indeed a death photo of Zarqawi, I can declare exactly as a fact, that Zarqawi was not killed by a direct hit from a 500 pound bomb, much less direct hits from two 500 pound bombs to the farm building where it has been stated he was, not even if that “farm house” was made entirely out of steel reinforced concrete as has already been alleged by the right wing organization and their pundits.
Again. If this Zarqawi death photo, showing him in death with a few small cuts on his face, is actually Zarqawi, he was killed as a part of collateral blast damage effects, caused by concussion/shrapnel and at quite a distance from point of bomb(s) impact for his (body) face to be in such a highly recognizable condition.
If he was allegedly in that farm house when the first bomb directly impacted and exploded and wasn’t vaporized by the first bomb, the second bomb would have surely vaporized the bodies of every person inside that building.
I’m sure by now almost everyone has seen the explosions of IED weapons used against our military vehicles, and the effects of those blasts ie damage to the bodies of U S military personnel. Arms, legs, heads blown off, torso’s eviscerated; all very grusome.
Well folks, those IED’s are generally made out of stolen cannon bullets, 105 to 155 mm artillery rounds with about 50 (not 500) pounds of explosive encased in metal jacket projectiles.
And unless you have personally (not on TV or film) witnessed the detonation of a 500 pound or larger bomb of any type from a fairly close distance, you cannot imagine the effects of concussion, flying shrapnel, and total destruction at point of impact.
At 440 yards, 1/4 of a mile, the effective killing radius of a 500 pound bomb, upon detonation the effects on an exposed lightly protected human body is about 92% total devistation.
When a 500 pound bomb explodes a human body at 440 yards would first be hit by shrapnel very closely followed by a rib (at least) crushing, bone crushing, ear drum rupturing, nasal passing rupturing, eyeball popping, concussion wave of compressed air very near as solid as concrete wall crashing into human bodies (or animals) at near twice the speed of sound.
More than once I watched B-52′s drop 50 or more bomb strings of 500 pounders, carpet bombing areas in Southeast Asia, and have personally seen farmers and their plow Oxen simply disappear, vaporized when they were unfortunate enough to be at impact/detonation point.
So since I feel that the bushites read these blogs lets see if they can deny my facts.
Eh, talkradio wouldn’t be such a problem if not for narrowcasting. People have a natural tendency to prefer information sources that confirm what they already believe.
The difference between Right Wing dittoheads and, well, everyone else, is what happens when unfiltered facts somehow make it through the deflector shields.
Most people adjust what they think is true to accommodate what is provably true – even if only incrementally, and even if reluctantly.
Dittoheads don’t. Their automatic reaction – they don’t even think about it – is to contaminate the source of the unfiltered fact so they can say the unfiltered fact is wrong. At no time do they consider the facts per se; it’s all about maintaining their worldview.
And they do so as a collective, tuning in to Rush or going off to Malkin’s website, to not only get the spin that serves them, but also to echo-chamber it around until everyone believes the same thing.
Which is quite hilarious, really, since the idea of submerging oneself into a hivemind used to be anathema to “real conservatives.”
Looks like the Washington Times is backing down on the “stunt” article, but of course the meme is out there and will never be corrected.
CaseyL said:
The difference between Right Wing dittoheads and, well, everyone else, is what happens when unfiltered facts somehow make it through the deflector shields.
A politician or even a media person can beat you to death with what they say or write, or don’t say and/or omit to say and write.
At a media conference I once confronted former house rep dick armey abut why, since the texas state government repealed employee rights, why the congress didn’t step in and institute law protecting Texas workers.
His reply was short and cutting in tone armey said, “Because the people I represent don’t want the congress to step in!”
Just as sharply I shot back at armey, “Then just who in hell are the people you represent congrressman…or are you telling me that the hundreds of thousands of unprotected Texas workers ust love their employers all over them!”
armey had no reply and promptly deferred me to one of his flunkies.
Well dick armey is no longer in the congress. Now if he would do the decent thing and drop dead and go straight to hell…Texas would be better off for it.
rush limbaugh and the washington times engage in the usual GOP spin, highlighting two stupid democrats and ignoring the vast majority. limbaugh is without a doubt one of the most repulsive people around. Only he can spin a postive statement by Harry Reid into something negative. I don’t know who’s worse rush or ann coulter.
Liberalhawk, that is precisely why the far left nuts hate Hillary, because she dares to believe we should actually fight terrorists.
Holly don’t you know by now that it doesn’t count as terrorism if it’s directed against Israelis?
Getting back to rush, I think he’s projecting. It was he and other right wingers who rooted for U.S. military defeats when Clinton was president.
Laura, you said:
“Liberalhawk, that is precisely why the far left nuts hate Hillary, because she dares to believe we should actually fight terrorists.”
****************************************************
Laura..I propose these questions to you.
What if another city in our nation is hit in the future by terrorists of unknown country origin?
What nation do you suggest we attack and invade to avenge the crime?
The 911 attackers were 15 Saudi Arabian nationals, and the other four were Kuwait, Egyptian, Yemen nationals, so tell me why bush and the congress including mrs clinton didn’t decide and vote on to invade those countries and instead attack and invade Iraq, a nation that had absolutely no part of the 911 attack?
You answer these few questions correctly and you may qualify for a Nobel prize.
WAR SHOULD !NEVER! BE MADE IN HASTE.
The attack on 911 caused the congress (influenced by the bush administration) to act like a dog stung by a bee…snapping out at thin air, biting at anything and everything without solidly backed up intelligence data confirming absolutely what had happened and what or who did it, nor thinking consecquences and everything else through.
In short, after 911 bush and the congress acted in avenging panic. Their hearts were in the right place, all but bush, cheney, and rumsfeld, but their minds weren’t.
Jules Crittenden in the Boston Herald:
Can we drop the partisan B.S. just long enough to celebrate the demise of a homicidal monster?
Apparently not.
Smash
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
That’s long enough.
I am glad that peice of waste is gone (joy joy dance dance).
Ok now back to reality.
If anyone noticed that last video peice Zarqawi put out you will notice he couldn’t use the weapon he was holding properly. And afterwards the idiot grabbed the blazing hot barrel. Not a very smart guy, and infact did him damage in his backyard, since most anyone that’s ever fired their AK in celibration knows afterwards the barrel is hot. In a nutshell Zarqawi was a figurehead, and an idiot. Now fear the new guy Abu al-Masri , an Egyptian bombmaker, and head guy behind IED’s, this guy probably knows his business, and won’t make vidoes showing his face, or making an ass of himself like the aforementioned overrated idiot Zarqawi, whom by the way was outed by his own people, not by US intel sources as the gov. wants you to believe.
But do a happy dance for Zarqawi today anyways, I did.
“Laura..I propose these questions to you.
What if another city in our nation is hit in the future by terrorists of unknown country origin?
What nation do you suggest we attack and invade to avenge the crime? ”
We didnt attack anyone to “avenge” 9/11. We attacked afghanistan to eliminate the AQ bases there and disrupte AQ. Which we did with some success, though much work remains to be done, and OBL escaped to Pakistan. We attacked Iraq because Saddam was a consistent opponent to the development of peace in the region, because Saddam supported terrorism (as Holly pointed out) and because, as we believed at the time, he had an extensive program of WMD’s. AND because establishing a democracy in Iraq would be the first step in addressing the root causes of terrorism. Whether the war in Iraq will end up a success or a failure is impossible to predict, but it looks less like a failure today than it did two days ago.
If, under President Rodham Clinton’s watch, there is another major attack by AQ, I trust Pres Clinton will look to see where AQ is based and who is supporting it, and will act appropriately. And will also sustain the effort to reform the mideastern region. I very much hope that she will do so with an emphasis on competence and planning that has not always been shown in the WOT thus far.
It was a good day no matter how one tries to spin it…
AubreyJ………
“If we could find Zarqawi, why can’t we get the guy who attacked us? That would be Bin Laden.”
Uh, cause zarq was in Iraq, and Bin Laden is in Pakistan. And cause Zarqo was an operation leader of his group, in daily contact with his organization, while OBL is hiding somewhere, emerging rarely to send a brief message.
In any case, if taking out Zarq was so unimportant, why would taking out OBL be of greater operational importance?
Zarqo was VERY good at recruiting jihadis, raising money, etc. And his strategy of attacking Shiites was MORE effective at making Iraq ungovernable than ANYTHING the allegedly more numerous other groups were doing.
liberalhawk,
, but that he had become decidedly less popular in the overall insurgency over the last year. I think that’s also true for his recruiting efforts in Europe. Zarqawi was fingered by people either in, or formerly in his group. He was so reckless that he distracted from whatever goal other insurgents were trying to do. That goes for the regular old Sunni ex-Ba’athist groups as well as the Islamists. Zarqawi was like Santino in the Godfather. Out of control and a popular target for those fighting for AND against the Iraqi government.
I think the operable word in your last post is “WAS”. Not because he’s now dead
As for the sectarian civil war now raging in Iraq, Zarqawi played a massive role in fomenting it in 2004. But that battle is thoroughly joined by both parties at this point such that Zarqawi had become just a Sunni factional leader in the larger Sunni-Shi’ite war.
Kim, our fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq has taken a lot longer than anticipated (largely due to Bush/Rumsfeld lack of vision at the start) but it’s been much rougher on Al Qaeda than on us. Over 3 years into this and we are still far below the 5,000 casualties we were prepared to suffer in the initial assault.
Anyway, we’re talking about drawing down our forces there as the Iraqi military improves and takes more control. Al Qaeda doesn’t have that luxury. There are certainly still issues, but the trends are in our favor. That doesn’t sound like a quagmire for us, but it does for them.
“Uh, cause zarq was in Iraq, and Bin Laden is in Pakistan. And cause Zarqo was an operation leader of his group, in daily contact with his organization, while OBL is hiding somewhere, emerging rarely to send a brief message.
In any case, if taking out Zarq was so unimportant, why would taking out OBL be of greater operational importance?”
Operational importance? WTF? Bin Laden attacked us in the US. “Zarqo” was a joke who was due to be taken out by his own. Get the terrorist. Of course, we won’t. He’s a FOB (Friend of Bush). Bin Laden’s brothers want him free. He is. “Zarq” was of importance as a PR stunt. It worked with those who haven’t been paying attention.
Chippedchips: Assuming that’s Zarqawi in the photo, is it possible that he was in the house, heard the jets and was running away at the time the bombs hit? I seem to recall that he had barely escaped assassination several times.
Brian- The war has dragged on 3 years passed “mission accomplished”-it was supposed to be a slam dunk. It has cost us about as much as the entire Viet Nam War in revenue, and has stretched the army very thin.The oil production that was supposed to pay for reconstruction never materialized.
Casualties are relatively low, but we have suffered a lot of loss of international prestige because of scandals like Abu Ghraib. The Iraqi government is in its infancy, and the next six months will make or break it. The insurgents, terrorists and religious extremists know this and will step up attacks (also will try to exact revenge for Zarqawi). I’m not saying we haven’t made progress, but I don’t see us drawing down our troops, unless Bush decides to bring a few home to stimulate support for Republicans in Nov. To give the new gov’t a chance against the sectarian militias, I think we have to stay.
Also, from what I understand Al Queda has used the war as a very effective recruiting tool, using our prolonged presence as proof that we are an imperial power with designs on invading and occupying sovereign countries in the region in order to exploit them.
The British tried to establish democracy in Iraq after WWI. After 12 years, the occupation became too costly and unpopular domestically. When they pulled out, the democratic institutions collapsed because of sectarian violence. I don’t want the same thing to happen to us. That’s why I think its a quagmire.
In my area (DC) we get almost exclusively right-wing talk radio. Liddy, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Ingram,Jerry Doyle—more conservatives than you can shake a stick at.
If you call in and disagree even slightly with any of them, they will label you as a left-wing liberal with an agenda, then hang up on you rudely.
So most of the calls are from fawning sycophants who tell them exactly what they want to hear —-what great Americans they are, how honored they are to talk to them, how they are making a priceless contribution to preserving American heritage, etc, etc. All that nauseating flattery and fantastic pay too-just for spouting right-wing ideology!
“Assuming that’s Zarqawi in the photo, is it possible that he was in the house, heard the jets and was running away at the time the bombs hit?”
Why would the special forces have possible intel blown up Holly? They can hit the house nextdoor and kill him, while saving computers, files, and hard drives.
2 500 pounders would have turned Zarqawi, and the possible intel data into atoms, so you hit next to the target, not on top of it. That’s why I think he was in the house nextdoor to the bomb blast.
Pyst – that’s an interesting idea!
WP:
liberalhawk,
Its refreshing to learn you have all that absolute inside information about Zarqwi, Afghanistan, and bin Laden.
I suppose all your replies were based on personal firsthand information you saw with your own eyes.
My friend our military winning a few or even many battles does not win a war anymore than a few non scoring hits win a baseball game.
First, my money says bin Laden hasn’t been near much less in Afghanistan or Pakistan in several years.
Anybody smart enough to plan and execute an attack like 911 isn’t going to sit around and wait for some lucky strike golden BB to take him out. If I was a betting man I venture to say that bin Laden is safe at home in Saudi Arabia succored by one or more of his family members…but that is just as an uninformed guess as your replies indicate.
Second, I seem to recall that after winning battle after battle, Korea after 50+ years is still a grudging standoff. And after winning hundreds if not thousands of battles won by U S military the socalled Viet Nam war, my war for three years, that actually encompassed three Southeast Asia nations…after 10 years (six years longer than U S involvement in WW II) was lost and lost for a single reason…politicians and bureaucrats in Washington D C that had no idea how to prosecute a war that gutted the authority of the generals in the field, just like the politicians and bureaucrats that have no conception of how to prosecute a war are doing right now today in Iraq.
I advise you read Viet Nam veteran Colonel John Paul Vann’s book “A Bright Shining Lie.”
But you hang in there liberalhawk, keep on a swinging and eventually you’ll get some wood on the bat even if it is another foul ball just like the majority of the totally ignorant about war media, politicians and bureaucrats do.
(link)Holly in Cincinnati (mail):
Chippedchips: Assuming that’s Zarqawi in the photo, is it possible that he was in the house, heard the jets and was running away at the time the bombs hit? I seem to recall that he had barely escaped assassination several times.
****************************************************
Yes maam it is possible, but unlikely that he heard the jets coming..it is more likely however he received a bit of early warning from one of his henchmen at a fairly nearby outpost watching for attacks from both air and land approaches.
I noticed Pyst knows a bit about the effects of 500 pound bomb direct hits..hat off to him or her.
Do notice from the picture shown, that Zarqwi had small cuts on his face which would indicate at least a 90% probability he was facing the blast when the bomb(s) detonated.
Not being able to see a complete body picture, and only his face it is hard to estimate or even extrapolate how far away the person in that death picture was from detonation point.
I can say with some exaction that the person in the picture wasn’t very close to the point of impact because there was just too little damage showing. It would appear that the shock wave from the bomb more than shrapnel killed that person. But its just a guess.
But I can say one thing definitely. The person in that picture was not, repeat was not, at the point of impact when either of the 500 pound bombs impacted and detonated.
Nor has any specific information as to what type 500 pound bombs were used, ie, explode on impact, delayed action explode after penetration, or proximity fused bombs that explodes “near” or just above the target.
You see dear,that is in great part what is wrong with government and media reports…its not the things reported…but the things they intentially leave out and/or omit reporting….just to keep the general public and retired people like me that are experts in explosive devices and their effects in the dark and excluded and as well, keeps the part of the media that would report the truth, guessing about actual facts.
liberalhawk said: We attacked Iraq because Saddam was a consistent opponent to the development of peace in the region, because Saddam supported terrorism (as Holly pointed out) and because, as we believed at the time, he had an extensive program of WMD’s.
****************************************************
If you were around and lucid during the 1980′s YOU MUST remember that the United States Government under r r reagan subsidized Saddam Hussain in Iraq in Iraq’s war with Iran. Iraq was a friend of the U S as long as the powers that be could use him!
Almost every canister of poison gas the Iraqi’s used against the Irani’s came straight out of the Hermiston, Oregon U S Army Weapons Storage Depot repainted with Arabic lettering, skull &crossbones and Iraqi military insignia logos. It might interest you to know that my half brother Ordinanceman and Senior Master Sgt. Charles Norman Tarver, supervised the repaint project.
Plus, the accurate figures for the tens and hundreds of thousands of tons ammunition and bombs of all types and aircraft and support equipment the U S A furnished to Hussain and his army will never be known, and much of it came straight out of our Air/Army National Guard armories.
So which pot should call which kettle black where terrorism is concerned liberalhawk? None of us even have the right to pop their mouths off and label others while our own nation and its government, throughout its history, exersized and continues exersize FRIEND TODAY ENEMY TOMORROW GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY ALL OVER THE GLOBE!
In your esteemed opinion, was the U S Government’s involvement and support of Saddam furnishing him weapons of war against Iran promoting peace in the Mid East or an opponent of peace in those lands where civilization began?
Me thinks you need a return to school to study history my friend, U S and world history. Then I suggest you join up and get a first hand taste of what war is!
(link)AubreyJ (mail) (www):
It was a good day no matter how one tries to spin it…
****************************************************
It not spin made here that is bothersome..its the “spinoffs” that’s going to get more of our troops killed.
In death, as a martyr, Zarqawi is going to be idolized and far more effective for and on the other fanatic die for Allah nitwit causes than he ever was in life.
Its very plain to see. Few in the U S A really know who the enemy is and what the enemy stands for, or why the enemy continues to fight determinedly with all odds against them and them knowing they can never be much more than a bee sting; taking out their enemies a few at a time, equipping themselves with stolen or smuggled enemy weapons all the while keeping some 130,000 of their enemies off balance and constantly on the move searching for them in an area as large as California, almost fruitlessly, while using up GI’s, resources and time.
The real spin is calling this a war by insurgents, when it is in fact a war against a well led, fairly well equipped, highly trained, disguised in mufti, very talented groups of determined religiously fanatic guerilla warriors.
I suggest folks study up on the Maori guerilla war fighters aka “The New Zeland War(s). These so called insurgents did and learned, and practice Maori guerilla war tactics as does today’s small highly skilled very mobile U S military special operations hit and run groups like SEAL’s Army Rangers, etc.
In fact here is a first good website to go to to study up on the Maori’s and guerilla warfare even though the Maori’s are but a single example of guerilla warriors. The Amerinds known as Dog Soldiers were also excellent guerilla fighters and if they had the same weapons as the white man did, sorry…white man loses.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=maori++war+tactics
There are hundreds of other websites on the subject of guerilla warfare as well.