Zarqawi Killed in Iraq

June 8, 2006

News reports this morning confirm that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed last night in Iraq.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mastermind behind hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings whose leadership of the insurgent group al- Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in the country, was killed Wednesday evening by an air strike near Baqubah, north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

The stated aim of the Jordanian-born Zarqawi, in addition to ousting U.S. and other forces from Iraq, was to foment bloody sectarian strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, a prospect that has become a grim reality over the past several months.

Iraqi and U.S. officials agreed that his death would not necessarily stem the violence and insurgency — and as if to prove the point, an explosion ripped through a busy outdoor market in Baghdad just a few hours after Zarqawi’s killing was announced.

Still, when a dangerous terrorist can no longer wreak havoc, it’s good news. One relevant angle to this story, however, that has not been emphasized (or even mentioned) by most news outlets today is that Zarqawi could have been taken out years ago, but Bush decided not to strike.

NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

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.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

In fact, this happened more than once.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People 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.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

This NBC report was later confirmed by the Wall Street Journal and Australian journalists who got on-the-record comments from the former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit.

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.

” 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.”

I have a hard time believing that critics of the war would’ve supported a unilateral preemptive strike inside of a sovereign nation at a time when diplomacy/war hung in the balance. Bush would’ve been accused of trying to prod Iraq into war. Besides, ask John Kerry and there was no terrorism in Iraq before the war…right?

  • Rodriguez — We would have had no problem internationally if we had hit Zarqawi before the war. He was in territory outside of Saddam’s control and frequently attacked allies of ours, the Kurds. Its a mystery to me why we didn’t do it.

    Colin — Who cares if he had close ties with the ‘real Al Qaeda’? He killed many people. He had taken a major role in terorism in the mideast for many years. I say good riddance of this vermin.

    In general I am concerned about the grudging response of some people on the ‘left’. I wrote this in response to Steve’s same posting at Washington Monthly (btw you’re doing a good job):

    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.

  • Good riddance.

    But from what I understand he wasn’t the end-all and be-all of the insurgency in Iraq. Far from it. There are 18-22 other self-identified insurgency groups and countless other unidentified groups. Not only that but Zarqawi himself was replaced as the top honcho in Iraq – so while it’s great news that he’s no longer in the picture, he’s not exactly the head of the snake.

    A political and propaganda victory, sure, but not that substantial tactically.

  • The world is definately not any worse off this morning than it was yesterday with this guy dead. At the same time what does it tell you when the announcement is followed by reminders that every other positive news item from Iraq has been followed by increased violence.

    A big thank you an a chuck on the shoulder to the military for killing al-Zarqawi but let’s not break out arms slapping ourselves on the back. It took three years @ $6B per Month, hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of dead American soldiers, nearly countless dead Iraqis, and by the way we have not even found Bin Laden.

    Rodriguez, I’m not sure how to read the tone of your comment but I (of course) has my two cents. First, Clinton launched cruise missle attacks to try to take out Bin Laden and I don’t recall rioting in the streets over it. Second, there was no terrorism in Iraq prior to our invading them. Show me news articles mentioning Al Queda in Iraq and Zarqawi prior to the invasion. While you are looking for them, look for any news that any Arab/Muslim terrorists used ricin, manufactured in Iraq as a weapon.

    My feeling is that this “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.” was likely not air-tight intelligence but part of the load of BS shoveled by the Bush administration to support their plan to invade. Remember, in 2002 the press (liberal NBC included) did not even think of challenging the White House on any information it spewed.

    To recap: Zarqawi dead = good. The impact remains to be seen.

  • Bush propagandists set this guy up as second on the ladder of evil to You Know Who By the Way Where Is He Anyway? so they could make a big deal out of getting him if they ever managed to do that and give a temporary boost to Junior’s ratings. He never has been nearly so important in the Iraqi resistance as the propaganda ministry wanted everyone to think he was.

    CBS News reported Monday that government officials are now predicting a major terror attack in the US “sometime in the next 6 months.” Say, isn’t there an election in about 6 months? Right on time.

    It’s all bullshit, people. Wake the fuck up.

  • Watch the MSM turn this into V-J Day, the Santino ‘Sonny’ Corleone wipout, and the conclusion of American Idol combined.

    Keeping a daily chart of US fatalities in the Iraq quagmire tends to make one suspicious of celebratory “turning points”.

    It is, of course, nice to see a thug taken out, but I doubt it’ll have any noticeable effect on the flow of events, except in shallow and fleeting perception of the MSM.

  • While it’s good to see this monster get taken down (props to the guys in green on the ground, not the circus clowns in Washington, but that won’t stop them from taking credit), in my opinion, al-Zarqawi’s death won’t put much of a dent in the insurgency. The foreign element of the groups fighting the US made up a small part of the insurgents. There’s still going to be divisions between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds, and it won’t go away anytime soon.

    So while we all should congradulate our forces in Iraq for this success, we have to keep in mind that we still have a long way to go before we declare “Mission Accomplished” again.

    And Ed, Sonny was my favorite Corleone:

    “You gotta get up close like this… badaBING! you blow their brains all over your nice Ivy League suit.”

  • Ahhh…where to begin?

    First, it is already a known fact that, several months before the war began, that the “hanging in the balance of diplomacy/war” was a ruse by the administration. Eventually, I think we’ll see “more than enough” evidence to prove that diplomacy was nothing more than a smokescreen, and the initial planning for invasion was on the table even before 9/11.

    Second, “Zarq” was on the record as having sworn his alligiance to bin Laden. He boasted of it on numerous beheading videotapes. That, in my opinion, would make him a “de facto” member of Al Quaeda, regardless of whether his membership was “official.” Personally, it matters not a smidgen that he didn’t have his secret decoder-ring from a box of Cracker Jack.

    Third, I will be among the first to agree on the concept that this is “a hallelujah moment.” But the celebration must, by a most elemental of needs, include the predetermining factors surrounding al-Zarqawi’s bloodthirsty rampage:

    June 2002.

    “Four months later”…which, if my math is correct, would be October 2002.

    January 2003.

    Those three simple timepoints on the calendar should be burned into the memories of every school-child in this country.

    Those three dates represent “the three cock-crows” upon which this administration refuted its fundamental responsibility to the People of the United States.

    And those three dates also bear the blood of every single man, woman, and child who suffered and died under the reign of this most heinous of individuals.

    George W. Bush may not have pulled the trigger; he may not have placed the bomb; he may not have slit a single throat…but he bears full responsibility for the actions of this terrorist. He “gave” al-Zarqawi the gun, the bomb, and the blade—by not denying the terrorist these things.

    If these reports should prove out as factual, then George W. Bush should either resign the Presidency…or be prosecuted.

    Period.

  • May Zarqawi rot in Hell….. and may he also keep a place there in the next world warm and ready for The Royal Buffoon, The Shooter, and all their evil minions that so gluttonously feed on the souls of the innocents. I am a God-fearing man, but believe that these Lying.Fucking.Dangerous.Bastards are the servants of and agents for Satan, and their time here on Earth merely continues the untold suffering visited on humankind by their horrific brothers-in-death: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam….

    So much death, destruction, suffering, and grief have been the result of these men — truly, they are evil incarnate — that death for them, no matter how gristly or horrific the individual circumstances thereof might be, will be too kind for them. For that reason, I pray that an “afterlife” is a reality rather than just a part of the “opium for the masses” some have stated, that there will be a “day of judgment” for each of them before the dread Judgment Seat of Christ, at which they will receive their “just recompense.” At that time, they will cry “Lord, I didn’t know Thee, and I don’t want Justice…. I want Mercy.” And the Lord will say, “Get thee away from Me, thou accursed ones, and go into the flames of everlasting torment, the place that has been prepared for thee.”

    Amen.

  • I’m glad Zarqawi is up there with the 70 virgins. Eternity with them would be hell, by all accounts.

    Meantime, as for the long-term effect of this, the proof of the pudding will be in the tasting. Remember that taking out Saddam was supposed to be the back-breaker? It’s going to suck when the violence keeps going on just as it did when we dragged Hussein out of his hole (because, even if Zarqawi’s group disintegrates, there are dozens of others out there eager to blow shit up so they can fill in the vacuum).

    So I predict that nothing apart from satisfaction of retribution will come of this. Insurgencies are decentralized affairs, and Zarqawi probably had as much real authority as a self-styled chieftain of an inner-city street gang.

  • Killing Zarqawi has one possible benefit. In the game of “who is killing the most people in Iraq”, leaders of terrorist and insurgent groups might come to realize that the reward for playing the game is not power but a grave.

    And we have to keep up the decapitations of the various leaderships until they all learn the lesson.

  • Zarqawi gone, but chasing and getting the insurgents in Iraq is just an endless game of Whack-a-Mole. If the Republicans lose a house in Congress, Bush will get the message that “his game” (of deceit) is over.

    W stands for: worst; president; ever.

  • And how many number threes are there? Ya, hallelujah. Whatever. If you think this changes anything you have no idea what is going on over there. As long as we attempt to win a phony war against terrorists while we are in Iraq, it doesnt matter how many #1s, 2s or 3s you kill. We can celebrate how wonderful it is that this nasty guy is gone, but that doesnt change the fact that there will be a constant stream ready to replace him to carry out yet more killings. As long as this mad misadventure continues, for every Zarqawi we kill, weve already created potentially 100s more around the globe, so how can you celebrate?

    And Neil, how the heck does this have any impact on sectarian violence in Iraq? Huh? The world isnt a better place in any way today. Wake up. All we did was get rid of one big dictator/killer in Iraq and unleash 1000s of little ones. And this has nothing almost at all to do with the war on terror – it’s just another giant screwup.

  • I think it’s a little suspicious that all the contentious cabinet members were named on the exact same day as the bogeyman Zarqawi is killed.

    Whoever the new cabinet members are, and what their agendas are, is the main story. The dead bogeyman story looks like an attempt to suck the air out of the real story.

  • “Its not about how it impacts short term political gains in the United States.”

    Nobody here is saying that. The Today Show is putting that question out there (because they’re baffled, on a daily basis, on how to cover anything other than the political jockeying). This is a good day. Whether it’s a great one depends on what happens in the next several months — the militias still exist, we still have a big, bad situation to deal with. We’ll see what happens next.

  • 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.

    more fearmongering. I love it whenever I read ‘U.S. officials’ as this negates any empirical research and infers authority…who was responsible, a pimple-necked, bible-thumpin’, gun-totin’, black-hatin’ redneck?

    Also of interest are the inconsistencies between loving, compassionate Christians and their delight in the death of a fellow dehumanised human being. I wonder how many Christian Americans would use their guns and live ammunition to defend America from invading, say, Russia/China joint militaries?

  • I fail to see why he was killed if we had credible evidence he was there? In my opinion, capture and trial work better than martyrdom. I’m glad he’s no longer able to kill American’s, but might he be more powerful dead than alive? Now, others will struggle in his name to take his place. I think this will lead to an escalation in violence, but I hope we’re prepared to quash it.

  • Maybe I just have trouble putting the pieces together. We droppped two 500-lb bombs which turned the building into a mound of rubble. And yet the dead Zarq’s face looks pretty intact.

  • Ed,

    Who knows what his body looks like? We’re only seeing his face. I can see the skepticism, but it’s entirely possible he was crushed, rather than obliterated.

  • Ed — hearing on CNN now that pics may have originally been too gruesome, so they cleaned up his face a bit. It’s entirely possible. I don’t doubt that he’s dead or anything like that. Just that ultimately, I think it won’t quite make a difference, because so much there has been unleashed that isn’t even under Zarqawi’s control anymore, if it ever was.

  • MNProgressive, you are right to point out Clinton’s attempted bombing of bin Laden, but the streets werren’t that quiet–don’t forget there were a lot of people complaining about it. No, no, not the left as the fool in #1 above seems to be insinuating. But darn near every person in leadership in the GOP. Yes, the right was whining about it. Rodriguez, get your head out of your ass before you comment here, please.

  • g2000 — Zarqawi reperesented a particlularly virulent strain of jihaddism that believes that the Shia are also infidels in need of death. I believe (though I could be wrong) that he has helped to bring foreign fighters into Iraq, and that they have been reponsible for many of the most horrific killings.

    Killing Zarqawi will not stop the insurgency, which has many groups and motives backing it, but it might reduce the international component. Time will only tell. Perhaps there are 100s if not 1000s waiting in the wings to take over. I hope not.

    Killing Zarqawi does not justify pre-emptive war, incompetence of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush, or the many other disgraceful acts of the present US administration, but I think that it is a moral and tactical victory for all of us. It is also just. Zarqawi earned his death. I wish it had come sooner.

  • Niel – Your belief, whether wrong or right, on Z bringing fighters to Iraq just proves my point – Iraq is now a complete mess, a breeding ground and training camp for terrorists. With no useful government, why wouldnt you set up camp here? We did them a huge favor. No matter how many we kill there, the fact that we are there will keep them streaming in faster than we can hunt them down. This is a no win situation.

    But even if he did bring in some nasties, do you really think that he changed the entire face of that country? Hell no. Their was a lot of hatred waiting ot be unleased, jsut like there was in Serbia/Bosnia/et al. Just destabilize, add water (weapons) and you are off and running. We only managed to trade organized murder by a thug (Saddam) for slightly decentralized murder by various factions against each other, with or without the help of the terrorists.

    I’d like to believe that killing Zarqawi would change things, but that would mean I have no clue about organizations. Ive been in many in my life, and there is always, always someone who just cant wait for the #2 man to kick (or be blown up, in this particular instance). Do you really think that organization is so weak as to have been completely cowed to whatever Zarqawi wanted? I seriously doubt it. This is an international hydra, and while it might depress a few supporters, it will anger so many more and bring them to the cause.

    And let me ask, how many moral victories in the name of revenge do we need? How is it that the death of 3000 americans, means the best way to honor them is to have 2500 and counting other americans die, in the process of killing 100s of thousands of others. Where does all this killing get us? In case you havent noticed, Islamist extremist have gained in power since our misadventure into Iraq. We have utterly failed in the real task at hand. Yes, we should have attacked a few terrorists in Afghanistan, and really gone after bin Laden. But after that, it should have all stayed on the down low, quietly being taken care of. When you make a giant war out of it, and you put it as the lead in the international news every day for years, you just make a giant recruiting poster, and nothing more. We have made no real progress on the war on terror, and no moral victory, such as you call it today, could possibly do anything to change that.

    Until you and others learn, we will sink deeper and deeper intot the much, while we fritter away the chance to focus on real problems.

  • Raise your hands, everyone who really believes Zarqawi is dead?

    Hmmmm… no hands. Surprise surprise.

    Raise your hands, everyone who really thinks that if he is really dead, this will change anything in Iraq?

    Hmmmmm… no hands. Surprise surprise.

    Raise your hands, everyone who thinks we just gave them a martyr, assuming these lying assholes were telling the truth for the first time in their lives, that Zarqawi is dead, and that things will get worse there now. (“I’m Spartacus!” “No! I’m Spartacus!” “No – it’s me! I’m Spartacus!”)

    This will have about as much effect on this as the “capture” of Saddam has.

    Wow! Look at that sea of hands!!!!!

  • Warning: Before reading further place your tin-foil hat squarely atop your dome.

    I wathced the video of the attack that killed Zarqawi on CNN. Maybe it is just me but as the tape rolls the entire area looks the same except for the middle of the shot. The house we so expertly demolished stands out as vivid and bright. Was this enhanced or am I to assume Al Queda in Iraq picked the bright white building in a neighborhood of dark buildings surrounded by trees as a safehouse?

  • Actually, all you gullible types who think this “news” actually has anything worthwhile to report should go rent “The Battle of Algiers.”

    The Algerian resistance began in the cities in 1954. by 1957, the French had wiped out the urban resistance. All the “terrorists” were dead or in prison.

    In 1963, faced with either granting the Algerians independence or turning the battle in France into a civil war, France granted Algeria its independence.

    Let us also remember that the United States only ever won two battles during the War of Independence, and that the British were ultimately defeated by “winning” every battle in the South (other than King’s Mountain).

    In other words, don’t believe the hype from a bunch of known liars and incompetents.

  • While the U.S. likes to impose a top-down structure on Al Quaeda, the unique part of the organization has been how decentralized it is and its structure as a cellular organism. Zarquawi may have been critical organizer, but I doubt decapitating his organization will leave it in disarray for long.

    Islamic extremists love their martyrs. Zarquawi could prove a more powerful figure to his followers in death than in life. This war on terror is really a battle of ideologies and the way we’re fighting this fight doesn’t seem to be winning over hearts and minds very much. Did we win a battle and take another step to losing the war?

  • g2000 — There is nothing you wrote that I disagree with. However, I woiuld say that it is not clear that the conditions in Iraq for civil war were so ripe that they could not have been avoided. Divisions always exist in countries. Sometimes they explode. I’m not sure why they become violent in one case and not the other, e.g., who would have thougth that South Africa would have a generally peaceful transition from apartheid.

    Nonetheless, we are given this set of circumstances. An incompetent and venal adminsitration has gotten the US into a war. Furhtermore they have run it so badly that we are worse off that if we had simply stayed with containment. We don’t have to like it, but that doesn’t change anything. What do we do now?

  • Basically what we do is call a truce. We say, look, we are not at war with Islam. Period. We however, will not live with terrorism, and we will defend ourselves, if attacked, and we state that clearly. As a gesture, we completely pull out of Iraq, and give the massive base weare building, to the Iraqi government. We let them stand on their own, and we give them no excuse whatever to blame anything else that happens in Iraq on us. If we lose 2mil bpd of oil, oh well. Deal with it. We have much bigger economic problems facing us, and the $100 bil a year we save on the war could be used to fix other issues. The improvement to the deficit alone would help confidence in the economy, which continues to take giant steps backward on with our idiotic policies.

    Yes, this is a bold plan, but we have to realize we have been going for years down exactly the wrong path, and if we stay on it, things get worse, not better. And frankly, we need to take our lumps now, and not let things continue to deteriorate.

    The chances of this happening? Zero, as long as we have in place the kind of mentality we do now, substituting for what we need, which is called leadership.I dont see a middle road of turning this into a multiyear struggle, because that will just provide fodder for growing extremism. See Somalia…

  • Who cares if he had close ties with the ‘real Al Qaeda’?

    It is relevant because the presence of Al Queda is used as one of the (retroactive) justifications for the invasion of Iraq in the first place. I am sure everyone here is aware of it, but it bears repeating: there was no Al Queda in Iraq while Saddam was around. That the occupation of Iraq subsequently attracted all kinds of unsavoury types who want to take a whack at the US troops is another matter entirely.

  • From “shock and awe” to the death of Zarqawi we must have celebrated hundreds of victories, captured or killed operatives, democratic elections, turning points, last throes of insurgents and other assorted triumphs as freedom in Iraq marched along.

    But the reality is that Iraq is worse off than ever, and in a complete shambles compared to the country we invaded, and that was after they’d been clobbered by crippling wars and
    sanctions.

    Fodder for another contest, CB. How many great victories have we achieved along the road to ruin in Iraq? Hey, remember that 52 card deck of nasties we dispatched, including Saddam? Made a big difference, didn’t it?

  • Steve –

    IMHO, you’ve missed a significant part of the story. Not only did Bush pass up several chances to take Zarqawi out, but at the very same time the administration was using Zarqawi as a justification for invading Iraq.

    In Colin Powell’s famous February ’03 speech to the UN, in which he tried to justify the impending invasion of Iraq, Mr. Powell declared, “Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.” Powell went on to discuss Zarqawi at length, using the name “Zarqawi” more than 20 times while carefully dancing around the fact that Zarqawi was operating in a region of Iraq where Saddam had little or no control.

    The text of Colin Powell’s speech can be found at the text of Colin Powell’s speech at http://www.themoderntribune.com/colin_powell_un_february_5_2003_-_colin_powell_present_case_on_war_on_iraq_to_united_nations.htm.

  • (Turns out Zarqawi’s 70 virgins are angry lesbian activists intent on gay marriage.)

    Zarqawi’s death simply is what it is — the greasing of a terrorist leader. That in itself is good news, and reason for satisfaction. What is unsatisfactory is the attachment of so much importance to individuals by the Bush administration’s star system. In the end, they turn out to be far less important than billed, but are used by the administration as critical successes. Had General Stroh (I’m sure you remember him) been killed in the third year of WW II, it wouldn’t have concluded the war.

    I’m not a conspiracy buff, but do wonder why we don’t capture these people. I’m sure that may not be possible in some circumstances, but if Zarqawi was the kingpin of the insurgency, surely he would be more valuable alive.

    When surrounded in a house, Kusay and Uday were shot to pieces after an hours-long gunbattle. Wasn’t there some teargas in the U.S. arsenal? The story was that the house may have had a secret exit, but the guy who told Americans about the brothers *owned* the house, so he would know.

    Anyhow, one rodent down, thousands to go.

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

    Two can play at this game…

    One relevant angle to this story, however, that has not been emphasized (or even mentioned) by most news outlets today is that [Osama] could have been taken out years ago, but [Clinton] decided not to strike.

    “Still, when a dangerous terrorist can no longer wreak havoc, it’s good news.”

    I think this is the line to end on. Just a thought.

  • Why I think killing Zarqawi matter.

    In the end, it’s not the death of Zarqawi that is important. It’s the fact that his policies of sectarian strife in a country already dealing with occupation (that would be us) and criminal instability was finally seen by the locals as counterproductive enough that they informed on not only his location, but on a meeting with seven of his subordinates. Al Qaeda in Iraq may reestablish itself, and certainly dozens of home grown insurgent groups exist. But I believe their leaders will reconsider the extreme policy of trying to start a Sunni-Shia war in a country occupied by Christian armies and suffering from wide spread criminal activity.

    I might be wrong. Or it might take additional strikes at other leaders who follow Zarqawi’s policies. But this is the way to achieve some basis for a political settlement in that country (IMHO).

  • Lance, Id like to believe you are right. However, Im not sure it takes a village, so to speak, to inform on one person. With the bounty on his head, it only takes one person to decide to take the bait. It isnt clear how many people have turned on him and what he stands for. Iraq isnt so messed up that there are no people left that dont want the terrorists out. So, Im not sure this represents any seachange in sentiment.

  • There were WMD in Iraq? Huh. And Bush wanted to make the case for the war with our allies instead of acting unilaterally? Huh. And our biggest problem is going to be winning hearts and minds, but this is just a propaganda victory?

    Would people make up their minds which stick they want to beat George Bush with?

  • “So, Im not sure this represents any seachange in sentiment.” – G2000

    Well, I caught a quote this morning that the number of tips from Iraqis jumped from 400 to 4000 in one year. I’m not sure how valid that is (actually, sounds damn bogus), but it might also represent the change I’d hope to see.

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

    Bunch of baloney and Leftwing urban myth. No wonder you Leftards are so retarded:

    “One CIA source puts this aborted Zarqawi raid in the same category as Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9-11,” which spreads such false information as George W. Bush’s conspiring to get Osama bin Laden’s relatives out of the U.S. after the terrorist attacks.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/iraq/

    We’ll see how long this post lasts before it gets deleted.

  • Lance at #40, even 4,000 tips a year in a country with a population the size of Iraq’s is not really all that much.

  • “No wonder you Leftards are so retarded:”

    Grade school finally out for summer, I see. Shouldn’t you be posting over at Yahoo or something?

  • Zarqawi was a cruel, brutal actor on the Iraqi stage. He was working against the interests of our troops and the Iraqi people. So, although I would rather have had him captured, I am glad he is gone. My hope is that his death will diminish whatever influence he had over the continuation of violence and strife in Iraq. Like others who have already posted here, I worry that his death will not bring what I hope for. Rather than breaking the back of foreign jihadi influence in Iraq, I fear he will inspire others to follow his brutal example. At a minimum, we can now evaluate rather than speculate what the killing /capture of this thug will mean to the situation in Iraq. If the violence does not abate or escalates, I can only wonder what the Administration’s next excuse will be.

  • TuiMel – clearly if this doesnt help, the only other card they have left to play (at least on the kiling side) is Bin Laden. And the chance of getting him now is slim, since he is in a country we cant really invade militarily – one where an increased US troop presence would be a huge mistake. So, this kind of leaves them with the continuing hope of “when the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down”. And of course, that’s working marrrrrrvelously. We train troops so they can join militias and death squads and pick up where Saddam left off. Brilliant!

  • Bunch of baloney and Leftwing urban myth. No wonder you Leftards are so retarded…. We’ll see how long this post lasts before it gets deleted.

    Delete this? Why would I delete this?

    One of my larger goals is to help people understand what both sides bring to contemporary political debate. “You Leftards are so retarded” is, perhaps, the perfect phrase to capture what today’s right is all about. I don’t want to delete it; I want everyone, everywhere, to see it.

  • Take a look at Zarqawi’s Resume ( here and here). Prior to the invasion of Iraq it contained only two career highlights. The first was the failed attempt to blow up the Radisson Hotel in Amman Jordan and the second was the assassination of US aid official Laurence Foley again in Amman. It is worth noting that the attribution of the latter of these achievements to Zarqawi should be looked at skeptically, since the event occurred as BushCo. was rolling out its new Iraq war product. In all, his resume as a terrorist prior to the Iraq war was pretty thin to say the least. He seems to have come into his own with the beginning of the war.

    Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that he has done everything that BushCo. has attributed to him after the start of the war. I think we can fairly conclude that without the war Zarqawi would have remained a fairly unimportant figure in international terrorism and that BushCo.’s war of choice in Iraq created the monster that it finally destroyed today. Do not give BushCo. any credit for killing its own monster.

  • Furthermore, Rege, dont forget that if we know that he is this incompetent, dont you think that Al Qaeda does as well? The convenient thing for them is that they are a mafia of sorts, but one that has an easy way to get someone else to carry out their inter-family squabbles. Anytime they need a leadership change, they know the US military is ready, willing and able to follow up a lead that will take care of their problem. We might even have helped them today.

  • I wish every media outlet in the U.S. would reprint this page of comments on the front page so Americans could see exactly how idiotic the left in America has become. Really, you guys are truly pathetic and this event leaves little question that many of you are indeed terrorist sympathizers attempting to undermine the war on terror. You guys are a freaking joke.

  • Sunlight, I know reading, thinking and responding to specifics is hard, but give it a try. Then we will respond in kind.

  • So Zarqawi is dead, about f*ing time. Probably outlived his usefulness to the real powers in Iraq.

    re: Sunlight – I wish the media would reprint these comments too, but reality is not what the MSM is interested in. BTW did you actually understand any of the comments that were posted?

  • Don’t need us to “undermine the war on terror”, Bush and Rummy are doing that all by themselves

  • Thanks for nothing Sunlight. Now go back to your cave and think about why you named yourself after something that youve never seen. While you are at it, think up some actual arguments and facts to back up your point that we are sympathizing with terrorists. Since you are aiding and abetting their activities through what I guess is your support of the misadventure in Iraq, wouldnt that really make you the sympathizer?

  • C’mon, gang! Sunlight was promised 70 Hummers and Ann Coulter to post here.

  • Kadnine: The author of that story, Mansoor Ijaz, is a loud source of the ‘Clinton had X opportunities to get Bin Laden’ talk, though there are a couple of others. However, consider that he was also the source for a story that claimed the US had negotiated a deal with Pakistan NOT to capture Bin Laden:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1028044,00.html

    The ‘Clinton had X opportunities…’ claim is also refuted by testimony to the 9/11 commission by Madeleine Albright and by testimony to the same commission and in the book “Against All Enemies” by Richard Clarke, who both claim that Clinton was willing to use force to kill or capture Bin Laden. Granted, Clarke’s book is fairly one sided, but Ijaz seems like a less reliable source that Curveball turned out to be.

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187

  • Here’s an interesting analysis I haven’t seen elsewhere, by a friend of mine who is a former Marine intel officer, with experience in the middle east:

    Killing Zarqawi is a pretty good indicator that things will change in Iraq, almost certainly slowly. But for the “better”.

    I read in the online paper that a new government has been sworn in today, which means that the last two ministries – the most powerful ones, which everyone had been bickering over for months — are filled. Which means a deal was struck with the Sunni leadership. Zarqawi killed almost simultaneously: coincidence? I seriously doubt it. The insurgency is al the bargaining chip the Sunnis had, and they used it vigorously. Zarqawi could not have operated as long, or escaped as many times, as he did without at least the sufferance of the Sunnis.

    In the grand scheme, his operation was not critical to the insurgency, which is after all comprised almost overwhelmingly of Iraqi nationalists/Baathists. Zarqawi and his foreign jihaadis were a useful tool, but a dangerous one as well – his constant attacks on Shi’ites was threatening a backlash on the Sunnis they could not withstand.

    So … deal is reached. Sunnis give up Zarqawi (and are no doubt glad to be rid of him). That he was killed by F-16s with LGBs – and not a hip-shot hellfire missile dropped by a UAV – speaks volumes. We knew exactly where he was and how long he’d be there – long enough to get F-16s airborne, coordinates loaded and Special Ops folks in place, ready to foto the body. The disinformation that he was sold out by a foreign jihaadi is a nice touch – the fuckers will spend some time trying to plug a leak that almost certainly does not exist.

    So – maybe this gets the Bush League a 5% bump now ….. but the real payoff is in November, when things are quieting down, troops are coming home, and rethuglikans are crowing how they won the war.

  • Wasn’t “Sunlight” promised 70 hummers BY Ann Coulter to post here? That, of course, assumes Sunlight knows what’s supposed to be hummed.

  • “We knew exactly where he was and how long he’d be there – long enough to get F-16s airborne, coordinates loaded and Special Ops folks in place, ready to foto the body.” (From Tom Cleaver)

    This is exactly what bothers me. We’d be far better off with al-Zarqawi in custody, and it seems like the military could have arranged that, given what they knew about his whereabouts. His death obviously removes his threat as a figurehead, but now he’s being turned into a martyr by his followers, which can’t bode well for us.

  • Story can’t be true… Couldn’t have found ricin and cyanide in northern Iraq. Iraq contained no weapons of mass destruction, remember?

  • If you are in house that is hit by two 500 lb bombs you are buried under slabs of concrete and masonry and you have to be dug out by machines. An AOL video shows a massive pile of rubble from which Zarqawi conveniently surfaced. Yet all the reports suggest he was just lying there with just a few facial bruises when the Iraqi military arrived. I guess it was him but I think they had had him for while.

  • Bush needed to do Zarqawi in to get the massive media attention and higher approval rating. The “illegal immigration” debate was becoming too great in the media. Haditha and Zarqawi took the punch out of the media. Iraq has dominated the news ever since. This was done purposely. But, Americans are still eagerly awaiting the outcome of the Senate betrayal with the immigration debacle. Everything done in this administration is carefully planned and calculated and nothing is done by chance. That’s why this administration scares me so much. And don’t go and write that I’m a liberal on your next comments. I am a strong Reagan Republican that feels that this whole thing is BS. Bush loves war! Can’t you tell? It will go on as long as he is in power.

    • Comments are closed.