Pretty Bad, Even For The Washington Times
Tweet
Washington Times headline: “Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt”
Number of Democrats cited in the article who call the capture a “stunt”: Zero. Nada. Zip.
Of the Democrats cited, only Rep. Stark makes a derogatory remark about Bush. Rep. Kucinich’s statement in full is here, I don’t think there’s any inaccuracies to the facts he presents. Sens. Reid and Conrad along with Rep. Cheeks all applauded the killing of Zarqawi.
I hope Rev. Moon is getting something for all of his money.
(Their coverage of the Redskins sucks almost as badly)
UPDATE: And now, following the rightist path, the Washington Times has wiped clean the headline.
>> The Washington Times Slimes Democrats With a Lie
Lapdogs : How the Press Rolled Over for Bush
47 Responses to “Pretty Bad, Even For The Washington Times”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“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.
I’m still trying to figure out what the headline has to do with the story myself.
I’ve been quite surprised at the “Conservative’s” response to what I’ve noticed to be a pretty much “bi-partisan” support for the long awaited apprehension or killing of the world’s second most wanted terrorist.
That response being that the liberals didn’t want it to happen.
Experience shows that for each 1 Zarqawi we get there is another one waiting in line.
From the Article:
I definately don’t agree with WaPo that Democrats in general are calling it a stunt but I think this particular representative is saying just that and is probably what created the headline.
I happen to agree with Ollie, crappy headline..
Good point oldseal….guess we should just stop trying eh?
America celebrated when Bush said “mission accomplished”- the killing continued.
America celebrated when Saddam was captured- the killing continued.
America celebrated when the elections happened- the killing continued.
America is celebrating the killing of Al-Zarquawi- will the killing continue?
Seems to be a trend indicating that the killing will continue, don’t you think?
You’ll have to pardon us if we don’t clap louder. We will hold our biggest applause until the killing ends and our troops return home, remembering that they never should have had to be there in the first place.
Factcheck, you remain Chucklehead #1 in my book….
When we beat the British…the killing continued
When the South lost….the killing continued
When we beat the Nazi’s and the Japanese….the killing contued
When the armistice was signed in Panmunjon….the killing continued
Why not just be honest. The ONLY time you’ll clap is if a democrat is in office? Save the electrons otherwise, all you hope for is something bad to happen on Bush’s watch, something that MAY give the demoncrats a chance at the white house.
Hey the point is that a number of Democrats, rather than celebrating a major victory in the Iraq war and the WOT, are grousing, quibbling or doing whatever it is you want to call Stark’s fever swamp ravings. Did I miss something? Aren’t Democrats in this too – the war in Iraq and the WOT? Many of them are showing that domestic poltiics and Bush-hate comes before the war (on terror and Iraq). This is why the American people, those who believe there is something called a WOT and that we need to win in Iraq, don’t trust the Democrats. The people will NOT understand that instead of celebrating with the rest of us, many Democrats are grumbling. And don’t tell me there is more war to come, more violence. Of course there is. Who claimed there wasn’t? That is YOUR strawman to avoid giving the Admin its (good) due credit for the killing of a major terrorist.
Dugger, When I see crap like this frpom the likes of Stark and McKinney earlier, reading Coulter is primal therapy
I don’t know why you would be surprised at conservative’s response. This happens every time there is any good news from Iraq. The hunt begins for comments that prove “the Left” is anti-American. You can see on Memeorandum the wingers are all over this article in Reverend Moon’s paper. This is par for the course, right-wing jubilation and triumphalism followed by the witch hunt for heretics.
O’Reilly was so desperate last night he had to use a comment from Huffington Post as “proof” the “far left” wants America to fail. Imus and the stooge Bernard were all over this morning and they must have been qutoing this article. Imus used the “stunt” BS.
This article in Reverend Moon’s paper is pretty egregious as there is no quote to back up the first paragraph’s claim Democrats claimed it was a “stunt”.
“I was pointing out how ludicrious it is to expect a single action, even something as big as winning a war, to stop what fact apparently thinks is the end all be all goal& .ending violence.”
Hilarious. Nut you stopped short of the punchline, pedro, tell me what it means to “win in Iraq”?
w Squared,
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. The Democrats allow and encourage themselves to be portrayed a certain way by their behaviour and words. Is joe Biden the only Democrat unqualifiedly happy that Z is gone? How about we not celebrate MLK day or honor MLK because there is still racism ? How about we not honor Dr Salk because there are still a very few cases of polio? What happened to the left wing chorus that we need to get Z and Bin Laden and that Bush was a failure for not doing so? is he a 50% success now?
You ever go out and celebrate a good academic or sports year?
Why not have SOME principals that transcend domestic politics and, for many liberals, Bush hate?
factcheck,
“You ll have to pardon us if we don t clap louder”
Nope. No pardon. The killing of one of the world’s worst terrorists should be a cause for whole hearted clapping – not left wing angst. The troops and their CINC did good on this one.
Dugger, “Now give three cheers. I’ll lead the way. Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!”
Sorry paul, I forgot you are a PhD student.
Let me explain it for you.
I was not more comparing Zarqawi to the Nazi’s than I was comparing to the Confederacy.
I was pointing out how ludicrious it is to expect a single action, even something as big as winning a war, to stop what fact apparently thinks is the end all be all goal….ending violence.
That will only happen in the Kumba-ya dream world of the ignorant leftist
I’m totally with Dugger.
Bush fatigue and “War on Terror” fatigue should never and will never happen. Regardless of how many years we ‘liberate’ Iraq and regardless of the number of revolving door reasons spouted for the reason we ‘liberated’ Iraq in the first place.
Can we bring our troops home now?
No.
Will things get better in Iraq?
No.
Hurrah. It’s great we took this guy out, but let’s be real, it took 3 years, we’re still in Iraq, there is no plan there, no end in sight. Pro-war people get about 8 days of “we’re making progress” headlines until the fact we aren’t making any sort of headway wipes that illusion from the page.
As per factcheck, this is winning a minor battle at best and not winning a war or stopping all wars. Differing from DrDoper, though, I think ending a war is a positive step towards turning the killings worldwide down from a flood to a trickle. Factcheck was very specific in topic to the Iraq occupation and not world wide, so I’m not sure why DrDoper was comparing defeating the Axis powers and ending WWII with killing one replaceable leader among a dozen factions during a wartorn occupation.
I think DrDoper is about 2 inches tall. So many things seem to be above his head or beyond his grasp.
pedro would walk in on George W. Bush banging his wife and George would look up in surprise and say “uh, well ‘peed, uh, as the Decider, it’s … uh, clear that screwing yer wife is an important, uh, strategic move in, well, uh, uh, uhhhhhhhhh SPREADING DEMOCRACY and, uh, uh, liberatin’ Iraq!! Yeah, that’s it, uh, and uh I believe that my gettin’ my rocks off with yer wife will, uh, help in that, uh, effort of, uh, ensurin’ that the U S of A don’t get attacked, uh, again, by those, uh Ehl Kay … Ka … Kayda people!”
peed would look down on the Decider and his wife smiling encouragingly up at him, his chest would swell, his apple cheeks turn a lovely shade of red, a tear would well in his eye, he would hear the national anthem playing gently in the background and he would declare that as long as we continue to ‘liberate’ Iraq, shoving democracy down the throats of people at gunpoint and spreadin’ democracy through the world, then dagnabit, American troops’ lives are worth it, he’ll continue to support the Decider n George can screw his wife anytime he wants coz it s in the name of spreadin , uh, democracy!!!
Over 30 civilians died yesterday in Iraq.
We got 1 terrorist.
I don’t like the ratio. It’s not time to celebrate and shout hooray for my side.
drpedro said:
“& .guess we should just stop trying eh?”
No. Now is the time to get started. I’ll celebrate when NO civilians or servicemen die and 30 terrorist are captured or killed.
By the way. When did war become a spectator sport? Just a veteran wondering how it could become entertainment to anyone.
When a US led coalition led military action to stop ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe under Clinton, where were the Republican cheers?
Why do they hate America so much (when there is a Democratic president)?
drpedro Says:
“Good point oldseal& .guess we should just stop trying eh?”
Never, Ever stop trying. Meet force with more force. I agree that we should never negotiate with terrorists on their terms. But, always keep our diplomatic solution on the table, and most of all. Watch our collective back!
We live in a Christian society where we trust that when a person, organization or country makes a promise or treaty. They do it in “good faith”. The belief systems of these people is so twisted, as the good drpedro knows, that they believe that anybody who doesn’t believe as they do. Is less then a person, more a animal.
What really saddens this “old salt” is over 30 civilians died in Iraq yesterday and 1 terrorist. Here in America it’s “Chalk one up for my side!” ” We got us one!” “Two points for George Bush!” “We showed those liberal sons of beeches!”
We gloat over 1 while over 30 die?
War is such a fun game /sarc
Dugger,
This is a sign that Republican want to PAINT Democrats in this light because it makes them more patriotic. This sort of reporting shows that Republicans want to obliterate the opposition and become one ruling party. You don’t want Democrats to cheer because then how are you to demonize? Congradulation Senor Bush, now will you get that guy who ACTUALLY PLANNED the attack on us on 9-11? “Well you know I don’t think about him that much”-GWB(a/b Osama Bin Laden. Also: How is Coulter Primal THERAPY. I mean if you mean getting in touch with your inner savage, well then I understand but if you mean theraputic then I am total lost to your thinkin Duggs.
Wow pedro, you and Dugger really ought to get together and compare notes. Duggers chastizes Democrats for not wanting “to win in Iraq” but you go on and on about how there will never be an end to the violence. I also find it fascinating, pedro, that you are now comparing the killing of Zarqawi to the defeat fo Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. That’s a bit over the top isn’t it?
Could one of you dipshits suggest what “winning in Iraq” even means?
Looks like the Washington Times is backing down from the inflammatory language in that article, but of course it’s too late. The right-wing propaganda machine has already seized on it and spread the fake story far and wide.
Jay & Co: Why do we say capturing Zarqawi is good, but it doesn’t end the war or bring “freedom”? Because there’s a history, every time when these things happen the right says “Seee! We caught the bad guy! Everything in the war was justified! Surely, the death of one previously marginal terrorist is worth thousands of American lives, and anyone who says otherwise hates freeeedom!”
We heard that when Hussein’s sons were killed, when Hussein was captured, when the neverending list of #2s were killed…. get the pattern?
Actually, Oliver, from the link in your update it’s even stupider than you suggest. They still have the old story up, but there’s also a revised version. I guess it allows people to read (or link to) whichever version they prefer, depending on their degree of wingnuttiness.
“Why do we say capturing Zarqawi is good, but it doesn t end the war or bring freedom ? ”
C’mon. Have more confidence in your argument than that. By denying that capturing and killing Z is, in and of itself, undiluted good news, you have no credibility left to argue on the remainder of the war. Because to do so, requires a realistic assessment of the pros and cons, and if killing TERRORIST NO 1 is not an unimpeachable ‘pro’ , then there are no ‘pros’ in your world and your arguments are thereby meaningless.
Dugger, If we win in Iraq, progressives would say “Why celebrate, there is still cancer”.
Observation 1: This is the second reference to the killing as a “stunt” that I’ve seen today, so this is probably a VRWC talking point.
Observation 2: The righties have a very strong track record of projection – if they’re making an accusation, they themselves are probably guilty of it instead.
So maybe this really was a stunt. Doesn’t mean it didn’t accomplish something worthwhile, but rather that it was done for the wrong reasons. Which, now tht I think about it, is really pretty plausible.
midder, I disagree that it is a minor battle. It is a big battle. But on the other hand, I didn’t see people rushing out to Times Square to celebrate when major WW2 battles were won. I didn’t see any great celebrations when we took Baghdad.
America knows not to start the party too soon. When we bring our boys (and girls) home, and Iraq is a safe, democratic nation, we will party like it’s 1999. Until then…….
This is really a stupid wingnutty argument, though, what are we supposed to do with the news of Zarquawi’s death? Hurray for us? Should we pop a bottle of champagne?
Would a $7.99 bottle of champagne be good enough in Dugger’s eyes, or do we have to spring for Dom Perignon? If we don’t buy the good stuff, do we hate America? If I buy the Dom on sale, does that mean I’m am not as happy as someone who bought it full price?
Do the Yankees celebrate every single win, or do they have the big celebration when they win the World Series?
The difference being I’m a guy with a website who is clearly an admitted partisan. The Washington Times is a newspaper purportedly presenting the truth.
Washington Times sucks.
If they gave out a Pulitzer for Hyperbolic Headlines, Oliver, they’d keep it at your house.
Hilarious. Oliver says that “capturing [?] Zarqawi is good, but it doesn t end the war or bring freedom. And Dugger declares him utterly irrelevant:
“… if killing TERRORIST NO 1 is not an unimpeachable pro , then there are no pros in your world and your arguments are thereby meaningless.”
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline writes: There’s something seriously wrong with any non-terrorist anywhere in the world who isn’t celebrating Zarqawi’s death … On the other hand, I don’t think Zarqawi’s demise is going to change things in Iraq.” http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014339.php
And your response is what exaclty, dugger?
If “winning” in Iraq means we can now remove our troops from “policing duty”, a role for which the US military was not created in the first place, and we can stop losing Americans to keep those who started this in the first place from “losing face” then I’m all for it.
The sad mistake is the article appears to jump on these people because they did not buy into spin that this was the “turning point”. After so many “turning points”, after a while there’s a tendency to feel a little cynical about projections. That aside, its just too bad that he was not forced to face the same type of execution that he was so willing to carry out on others.
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.
If this Congressman was not implying that it was a stunt, what was he implying ? That it was a fake ? A charade ? Questionable timing ?
Does he think that if the poll numbers were higher, our military would not have taken this terrorist out? Does he think that the US military takes public opinion polling into consideration when conducting their operations ?
Since you on the left say that he was not calling this a “stunt”, pray tell exactly what this Democratic Congressman meant.
Where is the rest of the quote from Stark? Why is that not provided? Face it, you cons have been Mooned again with selective quoting.
Unless you want to place your faith in (another) cult leader.
“Does he think that if the poll numbers were higher, our military would not have taken this terrorist out?”
Hmmm what were Bush’s poll numbers when he decided not to take out Zarqawi before the invasion?
Dugger;
Even the good dr. agreed the Times Headline was bogus. I Know the
WTimes is a sacred cow to you, but give them credit for being wrong
when appropriate. That is, unless you REALLY think the BushHaters are grumbling about FINALLY taking down a bad guy.
Semant,
I say 50%. WT was clearly wrong for using plural and I think in general the right has been a little too eager to hear the left ‘poo poo’ Z. But Stark clearly suggested some nitwittery that deserved the WT approach (but in the singular) and in general even the responsible left has been of the frame of mind “good, but…”.
Christ. Soldiers are dying for us all. Cowardly (my word of choice for highly trained killers slaughtering innocents) terrorists killed 3000 of our countrymen. Can’t we celebrate killing one of their leading SOBs just one day w/o a lot of hand wringing??
In my world, I think this is done all the time to us so I’m maybe less ensitive to it being a big deal when its done (exaggeration) to the other side.
Dugger, honest answer
Dug;
Maybe they are loathe to get overly optimistic about the death of largely
a symbolic figure. In the ‘people are paper to be thrown away AlQ crowd’,
Z probably outlived his usefulness. The criticism of those shouting’Haditha,
Haditha’ was never about the troops who have been placed in an impossible situation (daily rotating shifts/no days off) and who, occasionally crack. The
left’s derision of Haditha was about the civilian leadership and the Brass who
have exacerbated the abuse our troops endure. Some try to deflect blame
from the Leadership and circle the wagons by attacking the critics as ‘not
supporting the troops’, whereby their own lack of support for same is outlined by the careless and hasty planning which led to constant fire drills,
reacting,rather than proactively pre-thinking the strategy that best provides for our boys in uniform. We can celebrate the demise of one the lowest forms of life on planet earth , but within the context of it’s overall significance.
First, how about we acknowledge that before the U.S. invasion, Zarqawi was virtually a nobody. A nobody until the military decided to give him an image boost.
So yes, we killed a bad guy, one of our own making whose previous attempts to rise to any significance failed until we intervened. If any of this sounds familiar, it should, because we armed and proped up bin Laden bak in the 80′s, too. As for his demise being a “stunt,” I would hope it’s just a coincidence, his death being so closely timed to the Haditha revelations and the impending elections. You can’t fault people for having their doubts, though. I mean, here is an administration that is notorious for politicizing terrorism at every opportunity.
Aircraft carrier landing and hopping out in a flight suit to declare “Mission Accomplished – stunt
Staged pulling down of a Saddam statue to give the illusion that massive throngs of Iraqis were gleeful for the U.S. invasion – stunt
Barrage of color coded terrorist alerts right before the election – stunt
Staged Thanksgiving photo op with the troops – stunt
(and so on, not to mention dropping “9-11″ into virtually every speech and press conference)
Now after numerous large scale operations to get Zarqawi that have all failed:
Like this one
Or this (www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=701049)
We finally nail him with what appears to be a surprisingly focused and well executed bombing attack that seems almost stunningly competent given our history of operations over the past three years. The fact that Bush is getting hammered in the polls and support for the Iraq war is rapidly dwindling only fuel speculation.
None of this proves the death of Zarqawi was a stunt of any kind, but given the administration’s penchant for playing the “WoT” card at every turn, you can’t fault people for being skittish. Particularly when it is widely believed that Zarqawi was allowed to go about his business unfettered during the initial run-up to, and prosecution of, the invasion in an attempt to a.)avoid angering Turkey (which actually makes some sense since Zarqawi was known to be operating in the Kurdish northern regions of Iraq, free from interference from Saddam, but also bordering turkey), and b.)to try and add legitimacy to the claim that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq and so the invasion was justified as part of the “WoT” (ironic, since that is undercut by reason “a”).
Frank, Dugger, JD, and everyone else …
Relax, and don’t let this get to you. This is just rehersal for the massive backtrack and spin liberals are going to need when we get Bin Laden:
“That’s not really him.”
“He’s been dead for months.”
“We question the timing.”
“He’s just a figurehead and not a real leader.”
“This will have no impact on the war on terror.”
“Bush had three chances to take him out before we invaded Afghanistan.”
Just sit back and enjoy the hole liberals are digging themselves into, as they try to explain that Bush should have sent special forces into Iraq to “take out” al-Zarqawi in 2002, even though we didn’t really know who he was at that time, and — as all good liberals know — there were NO terrorists in Iraq – EVER!!! until April 2003.
To Mike, who is probably just trolling:
When (if?) we get Bin Laden, it will be too little, too late. Yeah, we’ll get the big number one, but that would have had much more of an impact if it had happened back in 2002. If YOU had been in charge of things, I’m sure Bin Laden would be long gone by now!
However, it’s now 2006, and we’ve been in Iraq for three years. Our Soldiers have been in the HELL that is Iraq for Over Three Years. Pray for them. Pray for their bodies, and pray for their SOULS! Because that’s what they’re risking. They are in a HELL over there, and I, for one, don’t think that what they’re accomplishing is worth what they’re risking.
If Bin Laden is ever gotten, it really won’t make much difference on the ground in Iraq, or much of anywhere else. al-Zarqawi’s death won’t make much of a difference, either. See what happens over the next month, or the next six. If things are better than they’ve been, I’ll cede the point. But if they’re not, think how much worse they would have been if killing al-Zarqawi really did make a big difference.
Seems to me that the right is upset that the left doesn’t have enough foam on its mouth with it comes to stating how happy they are that Zarqari is dead. Factcheck talked about how the killing continued…its worse than that. The killings increased…not spiked but increased. It must be lovely living in the wingnut bubble…. to live as if each kill and each election is its own singular event. Like a shattered mirror with each shard reflecting a single section with no knowledge of its part in a larger picture. This administration brought Connect Four to a Chess match and we are all paying for it.
Standing alone Zarqari’s death is a great moment. In the context of the war in Iraq with all the variables involved…not so much.
Semant (BillL),
As far as I know, The Admin has been very careful to indicate that there is plenty more violence to come – so I’m not sure who’s overly optimistic about the LARGER WAR. Nevertheless, people aren’t robots. Fighting a war is a horrible, hard thing to do. It is composed of countless small, bloody battles. Re the people fighting those battles, their families, their friends and supporters at home die a thousand deaths everyday worrying about them. So why is it not permissible and a good thing for the patriotic left to let these people have a (note the indefinite article) positive thing to to cheer about without p*ssing on it? I mean a sizeable portion of the left in Congress voted to permit this action to start with. They have some responsibility here too.
And not all of the left’s derision was for other than the troops. I hope you remember there are ongoing posters here who have used Nazi metaphors for the troops (most don’t). And I refer you to Bill Ls paranoia above where we are told that our MILITARY inflated Zs importance (despite his being a genuine outside-Iraq terrorist handpicked by UBL to lead AQ in Iraq) and that the “timing” (as if we could have done it whenever we want) Zs death was curious. Isn’t it obvious Bill L and similar true believers on the left has the military in on this great Fascist conspiracy which includes Zs death?
Dugger
I point out that Bushco has earned all the scorn dumped on it and that people, especially those derided as traitors and terrorist sympathizers (meaning anyone not in complete zombie lock step with this administration), and even provide links to stories supporting my position, and Dugger responds with…nothing. Just the usual “paranoia” rap that the Right uses to blunt any discussion involving this administration’s rampant violations of international law, civil law, the Constitution, you name it. As for those Dems who voted for the war, who is letting them off the hook? Why is that constantly brought up like we’re as stupid as the Right and feel obliged to rubber stamp every action undertaken by anyone even tangentially associated with our side. Only wingers seem to think they have to fight to the death over any and every action or word from a Republican, no matter how indefensible.
As for the military inflating Zarqawi’s rep, that’s a fact. Something not lost on you, I assume, since you avoided dealing with the linked article from the Post, but that’s the Right’s hallmark isn’t it. Heat up the rhetoric, make it about patriotism or “decency” (as you define it), and above all never actually engage the facts. How is a discussion on a liberal blog “pissing” on anyone? I’m not going on t.v. or writing op-ed’s or making personal phone calls to widows or something. Gosh, I must be some sort of heartless monster to engage in such discussions in a relatively private group. I smell a whiff of the “heartless, traitorous, America-hating, Godless Left” in the air. Who said Zarqawi wan’t a terrorist or that al-Qaeda hadn’t signed him up for Iraq? The fact is he wasn’t particularly notable until we delibertaly passed on taking him out multiple times (in the Kurdish controlled North, outside of Saddma’s influence, which is documented) and engaged in a “psy-ops” program to bolster his rep and inflate the “al-Qaeda menace” in Iraq to build support for the invasion both in Iraq and at home (also documented). If you paid any attention at all, you would note that I said that although there are reasons for the Left to be suspicious of the sudden success in taking out Zarqawi given previous prominent failures (especially since we almost seemed to take him out with the military equivalent of a “shrug,” 1 F-16 and a couple of bombs in a picture perfect airstrike), that there wasn’t any hard proof for such a position and to put such suspicion aside for now (a position I’ve held in other threads on this subject as well). In fact, my whole point was that you can’t expect a group of people completely ideologically opposed to this war to do handsprings for this criminal administration finally cleaning up one of their own messes.
Zarqawi was a menace and it’s good that he’s worm food, but he never would have been afforded the opportunity to do the damage he did had we not invaded, which goes back to the “the Iraq invasion has made terrorism worse” debate, and we know where that leads.
Dugger, the perpetually ineffectual creep, says the following “people will NOT understand that instead of celebrating with the rest of us, many Democrats are grumbling.”
Can I point out to the forum, that Dugger is the same guy who doesn’t think that 2,500 American deaths and countless maimings, isn’t that big of a deal within the context of other wars?
He’s the one asking US to be emotional?
Dugger…when you start mourning the deaths of the kids that sacrificed their lives, so that you could have a warm and fuzzy feeling when “terrorist #1″ is killed, then I’ll listen to you.
You’re a loathesome creep.
JK
Bill L, I relented and read your earthshaking article. It doesn’t make your point. One Army analyst believes the psyop campaign against Z MAY have made him bigger than he actually is. Now from that you say categorically that the military has inflated his importance and even more that (“we killed a bad guy, one of our own making”). we made him. Really? You get that from the Post articel or is there another one I need to read – the one that explains we made Z. Haven’t seen it or heard of it myself.
And, then, do you now disown the CLEAR implication of this statement:
“We finally nail him with what appears to be a surprisingly focused and well executed bombing attack that seems almost stunningly competent given our history of operations over the past three years. The fact that Bush is getting hammered in the polls and support for the Iraq war is rapidly dwindling only fuel speculation.”
If not, I think paranoia fits.
Dugger
MAY my ass:
“In a transcript of the meeting, Harvey said, “Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will — made him more important than he really is, in some ways.”
“The long-term threat is not Zarqawi or religious extremists, but these former regime types and their friends,” said Harvey, who did not return phone calls seeking comment on his remarks.”
Idiot.
Yeah, I’d say we “may” have inflated Zarqawi’s rep is an understatment (from the previously linked WaPo article):
So we go from levelling whole cities (Fallujah, which was often described as an assault on the “Zarqawi network”) and the occasionally mistakenly targeted wedding to one F-16 and two bombs. That’s quite an improvement, isn’t it? Such a drastic improvement in tactics may be the result of reliance on intelligence over pure brute force, an approach long argued for when dealing with terrorism by many against the invasion. From Time:
Even better:
So Zarqawi was unpopular even in al-Qaeda? That doesn’t strike me as much of a mastermind. Descriptions of him as a low level thug before the invasion seem more accurate. A man whose solution to any problem was to bomb first and ask questions later, which appears to have only built animosty between him and the populace, the exact formula for a failed terrorist leader.
However, as I asserted earlier, with the exception of the obvious right leaning commenters on this forum, no one here trusts the Bush administration to take a piss without trying to use it for political gain. That mindset is the basis for this blog and many others. That doesn’t mean we believe that Zarqawi’s death was a “stunt,” but it does mean we wouldn’t be surprised if that turned out to be the case. Consider it a variation on the old Reagan “trust, but verify.” Nor should any doubts about political motivations be construed as disdain for the accomplishments of our troops and intelligence operatives who brought this operation about, though I know that on the heels of numerous heated Haditha discussions many can’t resist the lure of the ‘military hating liberals” meme.
Bill L
Long post that (a) did not establish that the military “made” Z ( which would mean somehow we influenced UBL to put him in charge of AQ in Iraq) and (b) resolve how a leftist could be suspicious of Bush having orchestrated Zs demise while at the same time saying the intent is too not diminish the military – yet blithely ignoring the fact that if your suspicions were correct, the military, who got Z, would have to be complicit in Satan Bush’s stunt. Can’t have it both ways. The military got Z, and if you are suspicious of Zs capture re Bush, logically, you have to be suspicious of the military.
I sense (maybe I’m wrong) you really aren’t against the military here, so maybe your suspicions are a wee addled, laddie.
Dugger