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.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.