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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve, your last paragraph should read:

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

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

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

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

You should have waited at least one thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is also 3-4 years too late.

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

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

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

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

Heh.

Pot, kettle, black, etc.

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

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

Stevie,

Good job finding that gray lining in the silver cloud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also check out some of the military blogs.

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

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

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

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

Yeah, conservatives would never do such a thing.

Hardee har har.

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

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

Tens of thousands.

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

Whooohoooo!

What a coup.

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

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

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

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

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

Why does FK hate America?

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

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

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

I got the full scoop from Al Jazeera.

Instapundit and Hugh Hewitt and PowerLineBlog have tons of links.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*sigh*

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

Moron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mission Re-accomplished

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So was Saddam's.

Or for that matter, Hitler's.

Two things gleaned from NPR during the morning commute:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin, is this the same

there's no Kevin here. learn to read.

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

NBC News

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

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

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

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

Carry on.

AFG,

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

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

Hey There,

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

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

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

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

Thanks and have a great day!
Karen

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

When you are talking about liberals.

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

rdw: They are Al Qaeda's worst nightmare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

better late than never....

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

congrats...

as to deeper meaning...

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

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

than in all his time in power...

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

All things have opposites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

t-web....focus...

the pentagon had plans in "early" 2002

drum beat didnt start until august...

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

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

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

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

Sick bastard.

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

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

There's also this bit from the story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never joked about dead kids.

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

Sick bastard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well, so much for this thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me: No. I'm not implying that.

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

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

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

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

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

...Unacceptable rhetoric.
Posted by: Jay

You should know Jay, you should know.

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

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

Hmmm, not true. And check the trackbacks.

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

cleek surrenders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right. Another Jay lie.

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

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

Yet more evidence of your ignorance and stupidity.

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

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

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

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

Cheney: I have never joked about dead kids.

Sure you have, Charlie.

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

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

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

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

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

"Missing a humanity gene"

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

"an inconsiderate asshole"

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

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

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

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

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

I keep seeing ads on those sites for her book.

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

It is good that he is no longer.

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

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

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

Apparently you are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean there are radical Muslims posting on this blog?

Who knew!

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

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

Advocate for God,

I know nothing about who posts here. Do you?

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

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

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

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

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

You ARE capable of rational thought!

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

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

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

Thanks for the admission.

We appreciate your honesty about being dishonest.

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

Pretty much a description of the American Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advocate for God,

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

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

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

This time, we've really turned the corner.

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

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

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

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

Who would know better that a Coulter-lover?

And if the shoe fits . . .

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

Now, conservatives change their tune.

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

Now, he's just a nobody.

Sorta like Bush's "Abramoff who?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPI's Pamela Hess ...

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

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

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

Advocate for God,

You're boring when you're wrong.

Good luck with your life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally! Finally it is over.

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