It's almost unbelieveable that one could hate their country and the military so much that they would diminish the killing of a notorious terrorist.

Killing Zarqawi was a STUNT??

I suppose catching Bin Laden would be a STUNT.

Just like catching Sadaam was, evidently, a STUNT.

At least they can no longer deny that they view every American victory as being bad for them. It's an odd position to take, especially so publicly, but they seem very comfortable there, and there are certainly a few bizzaros who will join them.

They clearly see themselves as the center of the universe as everything that happens is really about THEM. News flash, Stark and Kucinich---you are not even at the center of your own party. If you were to look up the meaning of the word "insignificant" you would find it illustrated with your pictures.

And "We Don't Need No Steenkin' Jury" Murtha is an embarassment to everyone. The old saying of "once a Marine always a Marine" is probably being withdrawn and rewritten as we speak.

These people are so wrapped up in their own self-importance they simply have no idea of what is going on around them. In Starkland, making such a stupid statement is profound, but only there, in that teeny tiny little country of one. On Planet Kucinich, the High Poobah, Dennis, is quite the embodiment of intellect and leadership, but outside his limited galaxy he is a buffoon. And Murtha is a poster boy for what happens when a family doesn't take swift action once dementia sets in.

Pulling their heads out of their liberal butts would be a stunt.

Anyone else notice how relatively quiet the nutbags have been on this board today? They are steering clear for the most part.

LOL

Prediction...the NY Times tomorrow uses the word "but" by the 50th word. They just won't be able to write an article about what a great success it was taking this guy out without their diahrea diatribe.

Almiranta, you crack me up!

It is so divisive to call this a 'stunt'. Although he was as most experts admit, not running much lately, it is cause for celebration. During celebration much can be done and hopefully this is 'the straw the broke the camel's back' to get Iraqi Defenses organized.

Cheers to our military. It should be a time of celebration for all and not just Bushies.

I say this as a liberal.

Kucinich is flaming idot and and enemy of the Republic. He should be encouraged to go to Iraq and join his terrorist friends. This bum hates his native land and if he had any physical or moral courage he'd back up his mouth with actions.

Thank God we're rid of Zarqawi and can now focus entirely on re-introducing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.

The problem with getting out of Iraq right now is, if we did so, this would likley hand a victory to Al Qaeda and elements of the former regime. If this happened we would be in worse shape than we were before 911. It is unknown how this will turn out right now. If the Democrats want to have credibility on national security, I would suggest they purge the defeatist element from their midst. American national security depends on winning.

What, eight explosions today. Forty plus killed on the streets. Somebody didn't get the memo that the insurgents have given up.

Many are predicting that the intensity of attacks will pick up. And that we are at risk for acts of retribution.

And don't think we will forget Haditha.

Thank God we're rid of Zarqawi and can now focus entirely on re-introducing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.

That's a joke. Right?

You consider protecting American families to be a joke, Ash? Despicable.

Remember, it is for the children.

You consider protecting American families to be a joke, Ash? Despicable.

Remember, it is for the children.

conservative to the core appears to be liberal posing as a conservative. It is kind of funny.

Well,

Its good to see him dead, unfortunately, the US can't really claim the full credit for his demise as he was apparently "given up" by those from within Al Queda. An anonymouse tip so to speak.

But that organization is like a sharks mouth, one tooth falls out and there are plenty more there to take its place. Anyone thinking that this is going to have a major effect of the insurgency is kidding themselves.

The driving forcebehind the insurgency is the hate and animosity derived from the ongoing American occupation of Iraq. Pull out and replace the troops with peacekeepers and you will have a chance at stability.

It is impossible for anything possible to happen in the War on Terror or the rebuilding of Iraq in the mind of the Democrat. Positive things happening go completely against their mindset, thus anything that at first must seem positive really have their negative downside.

Doesn't anyone remember the alleged "October Surprise" of 2004 that the Democrats were harping about all Election Year? Theory was that we had already caught bin Laden, but we would just "happen" to catch him in October right before election time to give Bush a boost. Because you know this is how election politics work.

Democrats are full of it, Iraq, the Coalition and America should be proud of their accomplishments today, Democrats be damned.

Hooray, he's dead. Let's redeploy now. Or is there REALLY no intention of ever pulling out?

Your analogy of comparing the reaction of Zarqawi's death to the reaction of Hussein's capture is wholly appropriate. I recall one Dean blogger that wrote about how she was crying when Hussein was captured because it would hurt Dean's political chances. It's impossible not to read those kind of sentiments and not just have your blood boil...much in the same way some on the left have reacted to Zarqawi's death.

Uh oh, hide your children. Con to the Core is pulling another Michael Jackson...

Wait. Now I get it. Michael Jackson is supplying Republican talking points. Banning gay marriage is "for the children," killing Zarqawi is "for the children," amnesty for illegals is "for the children." Michael Jackson is in the Middle East because Katherine Harris bought up all his makeup. The UAE is running our port security... Michael Jackson is an anagram for A CAMEL-SICK JOHN, John Bolton is threatening to bomb Iran. Iran is attempting a nuclear "lone hijack scam" which is also an anagram for Michael Jackson...

It all makes sense now.

Convulsive & Ghost Mann

What the Hell are you boys smoking?

michael Jackson is a liberal pedofile gay and likely in support of gay marriage because that is the way his sick mind works, same as all you liberals.

Mock me if you will for fighting for the children of this nation, but it doesn't take away from my message: this is for the children!

The democrats shamefully play politics with every issue. They can't even have a funeral without playing politics. They started playing politics with hurricane katrina even before it made landfall. The democrats are pathetic. They have no heart and no soul. I am glad I left that party a long time ago.

"You consider protecting American families to be a joke, Ash? Despicable.

Remember, it is for the children."

Maybe we should focus on finding a solution to the 60% (straight) divorce rate, rather than worrying about gays' "attack on marriage."

Oh, and good luck passing your beloved amendment. Seeing as how it came so close this time and all.

You guys crack me up.

Thanks for the laughs everyone. You really are a riot...And for Con to the Core: If you really want to do something "for the children", consider a vasectomy, please!

Totally and utterly U N B E L I E V E A L B E ! ! !

A stunt? I didn't think even Democrats could stoop that low!

Al-Zarqawi has personally chopped off the heads of many innocent people, including Americans. He was personally responsible for the suicide bombings, insurgency, and IED's that have killed hundreds and hundreds of American soldiers -- American citizens! He has lead the efforts to kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children -- children blown to bits while they reached for candy from our troops. And, torture... Al-Zarqawi was a real pro at torture -- real torture! And, the list goes on and on and on.

How many American troops lives have been lost in the effort to catch or kill Al-Zarqawi? How many tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars have we spent trying to stop his murderous and barbaric reign of terror? How much has Al-Zarqawi hindered America's redevelopment efforts in Iraq? The entire civilized world recognized Al-Zarqawi one of, if not THE leading terrorist -- more barbaric even than Osama bin Laden. But not the liberal Democrats... No... Not the liberal Democrats... They call his capture a "stunt"!

I can imagine how our troops feel after putting their lives on the line to catch this murderous barbarian -- only to have their efforts called a "stunt" by Democrats. Is there nothing Democrats have good to say about America or our troops?

You liberal Democrats still claim you support America's troops. Not in your wildest dreams! Your words and actions clearly demonstrate that!

Yes, America has enemies...

AAR

Well,

Its good to see him dead, unfortunately, the US can't really claim the full credit for his demise as he was apparently "given up" by those from within Al Queda. An anonymouse tip so to speak.

Oh my God Axis, you are a peice of work!!! It will never be good enough for you, or the right time for you, or the right situation for you! YOU HATE AMERICA!!! Not G.B.(symbol), not conservatives(symbol), not the military(symbol), You HATE America!!!

By the way, how the hell did you think our guys would get Zarqawi, sure is conveinent that the very people you say HATE us, gave up Zarqawi, then celebrated in the streets! Uh huh, sounds like your foot inserted to mouth once again!!!

But that organization is like a sharks mouth, one tooth falls out and there are plenty more there to take its place. Anyone thinking that this is going to have a major effect of the insurgency is kidding themselves.

One major flaw in your twisted liberal intelligence or lack thereof. IF......IF the terrorist had a bunch of Zarqawi's waiting in the wings, THEY WOULDN"T BE GETTING THEIR ASSES HANDED TO THEM, DUH!!!!!! Lot's of top Al-Quaeda have lost their lives and their souls in the last year! But like I said, It is never enough for you or right for you! Your a hopeless head in the sand liberal!!!

The driving forcebehind the insurgency is the hate and animosity derived from the ongoing American occupation of Iraq. Pull out and replace the troops with peacekeepers and you will have a chance at stability.

Posted by: axis at June 8, 2006 11:01 PM

Forget Haditha? Of course you won't Ash...you've been celebrating it daily. You want American troops in jail. You've convicted them before a trial.

I have no doubt you won't forget Haditha...you and the left never have supported the troops and that transparency has been seen for anyone old enough to remember Vietnam.

Trust me, we know you won't forget it. You guys are what you are and you can't help yourselves. You have a disease called liberalism.

PS No one said killing Zarqawi would end the insurgency.

It is impossible for anything possible to happen in the War on Terror or the rebuilding of Iraq in the mind of the Democrat.

-- What rebuilding???? There is very little rebuilding going on aside from the $600 million worlds largest Embassy that the US is building on stolen Iraqi land and the 14 or so permanent military bases. Iraqi cities are still in shambles and getting 3 hours of electricity a day, as opposed to 20-24 before the invasion

War on Terror? - Thats going really well isn't it. We can all see the progress. More soldiers die then the month before. More Iraqis die than the month before. Wheres Bin Laden? How about Afganistan where you cut and ran from and where the warlords and Taliban now control 3/4 of Afganistan again.

Positive things happening go completely against their mindset, thus anything that at first must seem positive really have their negative downside.

-- Yeah, we see lots of positives coming from the Republicans. This is the first positive in about 2 months. Torture, Rendition, Illegal wars, spying, murder, nullifying the first and third ammendment, taking away civil rights, taking away due process. Lots of positives alright.

Oh my God Axis, you are a peice of work!!! It will never be good enough for you, or the right time for you, or the right situation for you! YOU HATE AMERICA!!! Not G.B.(symbol), not conservatives(symbol), not the military(symbol), You HATE America!!!

-- Please try to jumpstart your brain bootcamp boy, its still in "yes sir, right away sir" mode.

My point is that he would still be out and about if not for betrayal from within. A tip came in, you dropped a bomb and then try to claim it as a sign that Republicans are doing a good job over there. Obviously, his higher ups in Al Queda felt he was expendable and gave him up to you so they could replace him with someone else.

Funny how the word "stunt" was made up out of whole cloth -- no Democrat was quoted in the piece. Another case of the MSM making stuff up again.

axis,

Keep rooting for the terrorists with your liberal friends.

Keep rooting for the terrorists to kill more American troops.

Keep rooting for the terrorists to kill more Iraqi men, women, and children.

Keep rooting for the terrorists... for enough deaths tomorrow to satisfy your liberal propaganda mill for another day.

Sleep well -- dreaming of those suicide bombers -- and what you will say!

AAR

axis,

RE: "... A tip came in, you dropped a bomb and then try to claim it as a sign that Republicans are doing a good job over there. Obviously, his higher ups in Al Queda felt he was expendable and gave him up to you so they could replace him with someone else."

Glad to know how simple you believe things to be!

Yep, his friends just walked right into those "hated and despised" Americans and handed over their number one killing machine so they could replace him someone else.

Do you really expect anyone other than your liberal readers to buy a line like that?

And who is it that had him replaced? Who do you believe were the "higher ups"? Bin Laden? Why? He didn't like the competition? I don't think so!

AAR

Axis, I'd choose bootcamp boy over DUMBASS intellect(supposed) anyday of the week! You are really one stupidMF! You have no clue the time and effort our men in intelligence and S.F. put in to get this kind of information. What, do you think Zarqawi had a little spat with one of his boyfriends who outed him......Dumb ass!

AAR,

Nice try but it is not as easy to turn things around on one of our statements as it is with your flimsy ones.

Where exactly am I rooting for the terrorists? I said that he was ousted from within, so you just took the tip and dropped the bomb.

Terrorists are over there mostly because of the occupation. Insurgents are fighting because of the occupation. US Troops are dying because of the occupation.

You are the ones that want to have more soldiers die by prolonging this illegal war that will have no effect on America. If the democracy stablized, or if it falls and another dictator moves in, it will have no effect on America, and the US had no business going there in the first place.

Troops are dying because of Republican especially Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld stupidity. They are dying because of their niavity and shortsightedness.

We find out today that even George Bush Sr has been trying since January to have Rumsfeld kicked to the curb in a last ditch effort to save his son, his country and his family name. Alas, he is destined to have the son who was named the worst and most stupid president in history. If theres ever been a reason to cut one from a will, George Bush Jr is it.

Axis, I'd choose bootcamp boy over DUMBASS intellect(supposed) anyday of the week! You are really one stupidMF! You have no clue the time and effort our men in intelligence and S.F. put in to get this kind of information. What, do you think Zarqawi had a little spat with one of his boyfriends who outed him......Dumb ass!

-- Bootcamp-mind,

I know exactly about the time and effort required for accurate intelligence. Unfortunately, your dumb president tends to ignore these and listen to the voices in his empty head instead. This is why he has screwed up again and again and again.

He can't get anything right, never could. Failed in every venture he has been involved in. Couldn't even find any oil in Texas and had to go bankrupt.

If you had any smarts, you would be advocating to kick out this dumb chimp in the oval office as he is an embarassment to the Republican party.

Quotes from liberals and democrats on the whacko blogs....you just cannot make this stuff up.

See for yourself

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1646064/posts?page=15

No building going on? Hey Axis, would you like me to personally email you photos on some of the things my relatives in the services are helping to rebuild over there right now as we speak.

Or are you calling my relatives who are doing this work liars now too. Send me your email address or I'm happy to provide a link. Don't be a complete a-hole and disparage the fine work that Iraqis, Americans and others are doing to rebuild that country. Schools, hospitals, highways, electrical grid, etc, etc.

Axis...thousands of people went belly up in the Texas oil dry up at that time. It was an oil bust. You may want to educate yourself and read about it.

The Great Texas Oil Bust - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland,_Texas

As for your claim he has never done anything...I believe he has beaten four Democrats straight in races as well as increased the seats in the Senate and House while President.

Man are you a bitter pussy.

Axis, you never fail to produce more dumbass remarks! You know, I thought Dave Roberts(porn star) aka awangatang took the cake, but you got him beat by a long shot!

Christopher Hitchens, at Slate.com makes a good point-

"Most fascinating of all is the suggestion that Zarqawi was all along receiving help from the mullahs in Iran. He certainly seems to have been able to transit their territory (Herat is on the Iranian border with Afghanistan) and to replenish his forces by the same route. If this suggestive connection is proved, as Weaver suggests it will be, then we have the Shiite fundamentalists in Iran directly sponsoring the murderer of their co-religionists in Iraq. This in turn would mean that the Iranian mullahs stood convicted of the most brutish and cynical irresponsibility, in front of their own people, even as they try to distract attention from their covert nuclear ambitions." "A Good Day's Work: Why Zarqawi's death matters"

Oh, also

The Revival of Cultural Life in Iraq

MEMRI.org: "The revival of the Iraqi cultural scene reveals a strong current in support of indigenous Iraqi culture, secularism, women’s rights, and opposition to terrorism and violence.

As in the past under Saddam, a large number of Iraqi writers, artists and poets receive monthly salaries from the Ministry of Culture. For the moment, at least, these salaries appear to be granted with no conditions regarding the creative work of the recipients. How long this will continue is not known, and very much depends on the nature of the government that will eventually gain the upper hand in the country."

Cool.

I work with a liberal - she is the most miserable, dry, negative human I have met in my life. I'm not surprised the Dimwits would try and make anything good into evil, or twist it; they don't know anything else, because they are twisters and liars, they can't believe someone else wouldn't be. I really do feel sorry for them. My glass is half full; theirs is just flat empty.

I work with a liberal - she is the most miserable, dry, negative human I have met in my life. I'm not surprised the Dimwits would try and make anything good into evil, or twist it; they don't know anything else, because they are twisters and liars, they can't believe someone else wouldn't be. I really do feel sorry for them. My glass is half full; theirs is just flat empty.

-- thats all you conservatives have... HOPE. Hope for amiracle to happen and make all your boo boos all better.

axis,

Deny what you will... Say what you choose.

Your words speak for themselves.

We just have to translate their meaning for your liberal readers.

AAR

FYI - Democrats sure know how to debate like adults....

http://www .breitbart.com/news/2006/06/08/D8I4E19G0.html

yes, AAR

I think thats one of the defining differences.

Conservatives look under Iraqi prayer rugs, hope and wait for things to happen.

Liberals make things happen.

Have any of you folks actually stopped patting yourselves on the back long enough to realize this isn't going to change much of anything? This was an icon, everyone, including Zarqawi knew he wan't going to last very long, that is why he had his replacements already named.

I suppose that the republican party needs some sort of good news after the monster of a disaster they have been feeding our military and Iraqi civilians to, wholesale.

No one on y'alls side wants to talk about anything resembling an exit strategy, that is why our perpetual strategy has been "wait for the iraqi government to take control" , well what happens if they don't? Should we expect 20, 30, 40 years of occupation before we can cobble together a government that is relevant outside of the greenzone? What happens if the country degenerates into 3 seperate zones and continued fighting by Sunnis to claim oil fields from historically Shi'ite lands? How do we mitigate the 95% of the insurgency who isn't foreign fighters, but guys with Ak-47s who are residents of neighborhoods who may be fighting with or against the police? Do any of you ditto-heads know how to speak Arabic? Can anyone tell me the intricate powerplay being waged by democratically elected warlords who continue to smuggle weapons in to stoke the fires of discontent?

But, I won't take away the victory from our men and women on the ground, they are performing a job they aren't meant to do, but i will not play cheerleader for people who think that this is the breaking of some camel's back. When we start discussing the REAl problems that military intellectuals on the ground are talking about, then i'll grab my pom-poms.

P.S. Has anyone thought that maybe the reason we keep turning so many corners is that we are stuck in a box?

Have any of you folks actually stopped patting yourselves on the back long enough to realize this isn't going to change much of anything? This was an icon, everyone, including Zarqawi knew he wan't going to last very long, that is why he had his replacements already named.

I suppose that the republican party needs some sort of good news after the monster of a disaster they have been feeding our military and Iraqi civilians to, wholesale.

No one on y'alls side wants to talk about anything resembling an exit strategy, that is why our perpetual strategy has been "wait for the iraqi government to take control" , well what happens if they don't? Should we expect 20, 30, 40 years of occupation before we can cobble together a government that is relevant outside of the greenzone? What happens if the country degenerates into 3 seperate zones and continued fighting by Sunnis to claim oil fields from historically Shi'ite lands? How do we mitigate the 95% of the insurgency who isn't foreign fighters, but guys with Ak-47s who are residents of neighborhoods who may be fighting with or against the police? Do any of you ditto-heads know how to speak Arabic? Can anyone tell me the intricate powerplay being waged by democratically elected warlords who continue to smuggle weapons in to stoke the fires of discontent?

But, I won't take away the victory from our men and women on the ground, they are performing a job they aren't meant to do, but i will not play cheerleader for people who think that this is the breaking of some camel's back. When we start discussing the REAL problems that military intellectuals on the ground are talking about, then i'll grab my pom-poms.

P.S. Has anyone thought that maybe the reason we keep turning so many corners is that we are stuck in a box?

Whilst I think that the death of this evil man is of itself more of a symbol, if all of you could stop your petty bickering you'd realize the bigger picture and that is the intelligence gleaned from him and his associates. There was 17 other sorties that were coordinated by both the Iraqi and US troops which should glean even more intelligence. Every bit helps. No one, liberal or conservatives have said that this was going to be easy or accomplished in a short time. Petty bickering is just much more fun.

Fox news is broadcasting a live briefing by U.S. military on the death of Al-Zarqawi.

It's not enough that the guy is dead. The liberal media and press are STILL INTENT on making Al-Zarqawi out to be a VICTIM.

They are asking questions intended to imply that U.S. forces may have "helped" expedite his departure for heaven and those 70 virgins!

The news media want to know if the guy was shot in addition to the life-ending injuries he suffered from being hit with two 500 pound bombs.

They want an independent autopsy performed to make sure no one did anything else to Al-Zarqawi... like perhaps shot him when he rolled off the stretcher trying to escape!

Maybe they should ask for an investigation to make sure that no one involved in the operation had any friends or family who had been killed in any of his blasts.

The press wants to know if our military "cleaned his face" before taking the pictures. They want to know if the photos were enhanced. They want to know if someone digitally enhanced the photos.

The press wants to know just how he could have survived the hit by two 500 pound bombs?

Looks like the liberals are working on their conspiracy theories so they can blame the American soldiers for his death!

Apparently they think our troops should have gone in with troops and tried to capture him rather than blowing him to bits like he has done to thousands and thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi men, women, and children!

We all know where that goes. The "poor" defenseless guy deserved to be captured alive. He deserved to have a fair trial. He deserved to have a team of ACLU lawyers to get him off with a reprimand. He probably was raised in a bad home or bad neighborhood and his actions are not his fault!

No liberals, Al-Zarqawi did not deserve a trial.

No liberals, Al-Zarqawi did not deserve a team of ACLU lawyers.

No liberals, Al-Zarqawi did not deserve the loss of even one more American or Iraqi life!

The guy's dead. Get over it. There will be others to provide the daily piles of bodies to feed your propaganda.

Get your pens and keyboards ready. The press is already predicting an increase in revenge killings. In fact, start writing your stories and comments now, just leave the numbers of dead and injured blank until those figures come out!

Typical Liberal Mentality!!!

AAR

Yes, axis,

Liberal do make things happen... ALL BAD!

AAR

Yes, axis,

Liberal do make things happen... ALL BAD!

AAR

No doubt politics reared its ugly head again with the negative comments. However if you read the article, the only person actually using the word “stunt” was Amy Fagan, the staff writer. There are no quotes from any Reps. using that term. As a matter of fact there were many positive statements made:

"This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

"That is good news; he was a dreadful, vicious person," said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat. Mr. Conrad added that he hopes the military can get Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, another top al Qaeda leader.

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Michigan Democrat, said it was good news but added, "I think we have a long way to go."

No, I’m not a Democrat and I don’t subscribe to all of the gloom and doom scenarios. But reading the whole article that this thread is based on clearly paints a more balanced picture than you are lead to believe here.

Liberal do make things happen... ALL BAD!

-- It would literally be impossible to do anything to make things worse then you already have.

Listening to reports from Fox News, it sounds like the liberal press is very concerned about Al-Zarqawi's replacement.

You'd think they are more concerned about whether or not his replacement is adequately trained to take over from Al-Zarqawi and hit the ground bombing than they are about Al-Zarqawi's death. After all, Al-Zarqawi's death is old news now -- except for the conspiracy theories!!!

Are they are worried about a break or lapse in the bombings and killings which would hurt their propaganda campaign?

Where would the liberal press be without bombings, killings, and bad news to report? How about where they belong -- out of business!

Typical Liberal Mentality!

AAR

"My point is that he would still be out and about if not for betrayal from within. A tip came in, you dropped a bomb and then try to claim it as a sign that Republicans are doing a good job over there. Obviously, his higher ups in Al Queda felt he was expendable and gave him up to you so they could replace him with someone else." Axis

You and the left witng media would like to minimize the efectiveness of our troops, our intelligence gathering and the growing cooperation of the Iraqi people by claiming the Al Queda leadership gave him up. Sorry to disappoint you.

Contrary to your supposition that "someone gave him up" the latest reports indicate that not just one single piece of information was used. The Commanding General in charge reports that it was more like a multi-pieced jigsaw puzzle. A piece from here a piece from there, and finaly it all came together.

In addtion to the strike on Zarquawi, 17 other raids were carried out AT THE SAME TIME. Intellignece gathered during these raids LED TO AN ADDITIONAL 36 RAIDS being conducted during the subsequent hours following the successful strike on Zarquawi. The combined effect of these 54 missions will definitely have a positive effect of reducing the effectiveness of the terrorists, much to the chagrin of terrorist apologists such as yourself, 3 eyes, Maf, Blarney and the Cunuck Observer. and the teenage mutant.

The General also reported that Zarquawi was alive when the American troops got there. So we now know that shortly before he died, he was fully conscious of the fact that we took him down. He rolled off a gurnie in an futile effort to escape. Ouch! that must have hurt (bonus points). He died shortly thereafter from his wounds.

I'm sure the next thing you will do is claim that he was tortured, or that we didn't do enough to save his life.

Actually, there's a big reason why some of us aren't so excited about zarqamwi: His role in iraq was blown out of proportion by the US. They want us to think we're fighting al-qaeda, but the vast majority of violence is homegrown shiite-sunni struggle that has little to do with GWOT. Trotting out zarqawi as our biggest enemy in iraq was done to make people think that al-quaeda is the biggest problem over there. So when I hear zarqawi's dead, i think "great!", but also know it means very little in terms of actually fixing things over there, and gives a lot of "rah rah rah USAUSAUSA" jingoists a false impression that they are "vindicated" or something

Listen up, wingnuts:
For the last time Americans can love their country, support the war on terror, celebrate when a murderer like Zarqawi is killed, support the troops, AND believe that the Iraq War was a mistaken undertaking, which used up valuable resources that were needed to protect U.S. ports, our borders, to fulfill the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (for which Congress recently got an F from the Commissioners),find Bin Laden, and keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Iraq was a war of choice, that has isolated us from the rest of the world, destroying the international goodwill and support that we had after 9/11.
But having said that, I'm as glad as anyone that the dirtbag bit the dust after the beheading of Nick Berg, and countless other atrocities!

Freedom1: I believe it is more than just a suggestion that Iran is funding the insurgency. Iran’s terrorist regime seeks to transform Iraq into a medieval Islamist state —one free of any and all Western influence. Their worst nightmare is a democratic Iraq.

We need to assist the people in both Iran and Syria in their desired quest to overtake their oppressive governments. Democratic countries in the ME = disaster for Islamic terrorists

Gee and hating Clinton and everything that happened during his administration didn't mean you hate America??? How is this possible. You all are the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever. In Vietnam we had a saying "don't mean nothing." The death of Hussein's son, death of Zarqawi, and capture of Saddam Hussein "don't mean nothing." Get over yourselves.

TEO: I don't recall you answering Almiranta's question: "Can you name one war that had an exit strategy?" I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on a viable exit strategy in Iraq.

The inclusion of a Sunni Arab as Defense Minister is a step in the right direction. The new government needs to continue to include all groups in their political system.

"Some" Democrats. The article only mentions 2. Thats a bit fewer then some.

"Pull out and replace the troops with peacekeepers and you will have a chance at stability."

Thanks, General Axis. LOL.

And some more change in your pocket for posting.

they could have killed this guy before the war started, but didn't because they thought it would hurt their case for war...and now you are accusing the dems of playing politics. the hypocrisy of the bush cult is f'ing amazing.

Dig deeper. I didn't claim it a stunt. At first I questioned if it happened, but no longer.

I also credit Bushco when they are right headed.

We progressives mostly aren't monsters. We're just critical of Bush and his administration. But getting al-Zarqawi was good news.

However, I do wish we had captured him instead of blowing him up. We could have learned much from him about terrorism.

Kimberly,

"Plans only exist until the first contact with your enemy"

I've heard that thrown about by Rummy and the generals, and all matter of talking head, and that is absolutely true, but that doesn't alleviate the government from putting up solid goals, if you don't know what you're working towards, then how do you know if you've won...wait for a letter of surrender from OBL? Kill every man of fighting age in the ME? What is the goal we are attempting to accomplish? You can't tell me that we are waiting for the "Iraqi government to stand on its own" because that is something that may take decades, or what happens if a takeover of radical elements gains democratic status like in Palestine?

We held that a goal for us was to train and equip a functional army and police apparatus, we attained the latter, but unfortunately they were all members of the existing militias, so now we have armed sectarian groups who may or may not be helping or complicit in the civil war that is currently underway. We put a lot of weight on the ideal of building a functioning Iraqi army, but they have yet to step up in any signifigant role, infact as the recent debacle of troops throwing down their uniforms when told they were being deployed outside of their hometown, you can see people want to protect their neighborhoods and families, not fight insurgents or other members of their religious sects in other cities. Maliki, as soon as he was ok'd for the PM position began the task of integrating the militias into the regular army, so you're going to have a bunch of thugs and goons running around with American supplied guns and trucks...how long before we see our first coup attempt?

So as you can, we are short on expectations for our little jaunt through the sand-box...we have only jingo-istic banners to fly, but no real plan on how we can extricate ourselves.

You askeed about my plan, but I already addressed that in an earlier post, basically, we need to eat some crow, ask for international help, put muslim faces on the ground, and start using our forces for what they are good at, small, precise attacks on positions we are gathering from our ever extending intelligence networks around iraq, and leave the police duties to boys who can speak the language and the religion.

Axis: Your suggestion of replacing troops with peacekeepers as a chance for stability is ridiculous. UN peacekeeping troops have been involved in numerous crimes and scandals across the globe, including torture and murder.

Because Conservatives haven't been playing politics with the terrorist issue?

Kimberly,

"Plans only exist until the first contact with your enemy"

I've heard that thrown about by Rummy and the generals, and all matter of talking head, and that is absolutely true, but that doesn't alleviate the government from putting up solid goals, if you don't know what you're working towards, then how do you know if you've won...wait for a letter of surrender from OBL? Kill every man of fighting age in the ME? What is the goal we are attempting to accomplish? You can't tell me that we are waiting for the "Iraqi government to stand on its own" because that is something that may take decades, or what happens if a takeover of radical elements gains democratic status like in Palestine?

We held that a goal for us was to train and equip a functional army and police apparatus, we attained the latter, but unfortunately they were all members of the existing militias, so now we have armed sectarian groups who may or may not be helping or complicit in the civil war that is currently underway. We put a lot of weight on the ideal of building a functioning Iraqi army, but they have yet to step up in any signifigant role, infact as the recent debacle of troops throwing down their uniforms when told they were being deployed outside of their hometown, you can see people want to protect their neighborhoods and families, not fight insurgents or other members of their religious sects in other cities. Maliki, as soon as he was ok'd for the PM position began the task of integrating the militias into the regular army, so you're going to have a bunch of thugs and goons running around with American supplied guns and trucks...how long before we see our first coup attempt?

So as you can, we are short on expectations for our little jaunt through the sand-box...we have only jingo-istic banners to fly, but no real plan on how we can extricate ourselves.

You askeed about my plan, but I already addressed that in an earlier post, basically, we need to eat some crow, ask for international help, put muslim faces on the ground, and start using our forces for what they are good at, small, precise attacks on positions we are gathering from our ever extending intelligence networks around iraq, and leave the police duties to boys who can speak the language and the religion.

Axis... you're Canadian remember. You don't mean anything to anyone!!

That's not even the right Democratic talking point. Calling it a stunt is overboard. I don't think most Democrats agree with that position, which is why there has been no liberal defense of it posted here (even though this blog post was linked from Salon).

The somewhat cynical response is that the U.S. could have taken Zarqawi out before the war in Iraq if they'd wanted to, because his camps were outside of Saddam's control and were, in fact, in the US-controlled No-Fly zone. Bush opted not to take him out before the war because Zarqawi's presence was essential to his "Saddam is in league with terrorists" argument. War in Iraq was Bush's goal, not stopping terrorism.

Me personally, I'm glad we got him. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the death of a truly evil man like Zarqawi.

But if you think it's only the left playing politics with Zarqawi, you are dead wrong. Bush has been playing politics with him for over 3 years, ever since he decided not to dispatch him because he needed him alive for political reasons.

LaMano,

I heard a story on Fox News this morning about a U.N. pull out!

They were talking about having the U.N. pull out of New York so they can turn their headquarters' building into something useful. They were talking about turning it into condominiums!

Perhaps it's time that America asks countries around the world to make a decision. Either you are with us... or you are against us. Those who are with us, come join the NEW United Nations. The rest of you, stay with the OLD ineffective U.N.! (I was going to say something like useless, or worthless U.N., but I didn't want to "offend" axis, Eyes Closed, and their associates!)

Oh, and figure out how you will get the money to carry on with your anti-Americanism!

Axis, replacing our American troops with U.N. peace keepers? How much did they pay you for that comment?

You mean the same U.N. that depends on the United States to provide the military strength for their "peace keepers"? You mean the same U.N. that packs their bags and runs when a terrorist bomb hits their headquarters? You mean the same U.N. that has done very little to help the United States in Iraq?

That U.N.? We might just as well turn Iraq directly over to the terrorists! You would like that, wouldn't you?

AAR

Kimberly said "UN peacekeeping troops have been involved in numerous crimes and scandals across the globe, including torture and murder."

And this makes them worse than the US forces? How exactly? I would suggest trying to get a force from the Arab league in there.

AAR wonders "Are they are (the liberal press) worried about a break or lapse in the bombings and killings which would hurt their propaganda campaign?"

This is so ridiculous it's breathtaking. Nobody wants more killing, except the extremists on both sides.

Democrats haven't learned that national security is not a political issue

Unless it's the centerpiece issue for Bush's political campaign. Whoops....

Times has already changed their article. No democrats called it stunt. That part was made up by the Times writer. Sorry.

AAR,

We were responsible for the UN security, and we failed...infact we have pretty much failed at securing anything in iraq short of the oil fields and our own greenzone...unless ofcourse you think the way to secure a town is to raze it and displace half its residents.

The U.N. isn't doing anything for us because we went against their better judgement and decided to invade a sovereign country with little more than excuses held together by "best-estimates" and bubble-gum. Or how about the constant vitriol Bolton keep spewing at the UN? Don't be stupid the reason the UN isn't in there is because we told them in no uncertain term we didn't need them there.

Hey TEO: My bad! I do remember your "plan", which I thought sounded pretty good.

How about providing a set timetable to the Iraqis?
An opinion poll in Iraq showed that a majority of Iraqis wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawl. And, I think we should do so. Why? Most Iraqis are fighting the US because they don't believe we will ever leave. Some people have suggested, and I totally agree, we don't completely withdraw, we redeploy. We leave some of our Special Forces in Iraq to work with the Iraqi military, and keep our military in Kuwait, and Marines and Navy in the area, just in case Iran decides to intervene (which, of course, is their ultimate plan).

As we begin the withdraw from Iraq, we can bring our National Guard home to help secure our borders and assist in national disasters and also send troops back to South Korea. A set timetable (perhaps by the end of 2007) would not only defuse a large part of the insurgency, but also give the Iraqis incentive to make compromises with all groups involved and start building their country.

And, a hopeful future for Iraqis?
We need to continue with our reconstruction efforts (and pressure the nations who promised to provide billions to pony up). Most of Iraq is stable because of economic progress. The five provinces, in which there is continued unrest, need to be made aware of that progress so they can visualize a future for themselves. Has AQ offered any type of future? Has the insurgency offered any type of future? Nope.

BTW, I think there is a very good possiblity Iraq will break up into three different areas. And it might not be a bad thing, if the Sunnis are given a share of the oil revenue, and/or even some of the oil fields.

Hey TEO: Oops. I do remember your "plan", which I thought sounded pretty good. Although, I'm not sure other nations will get involved if they can't even keep their promise of donating money to the reconstruction process.

How about a set timetable?
An opinion poll in Iraq showed that a majority of Iraqis wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawl. And, I think we should do so. Why? Most Iraqis are fighting the US because they don't believe we will ever leave. Some people have suggested, and I totally agree, we don't completely withdraw, we redeploy. We leave some of our Special Forces in Iraq to work with the Iraqi military, and keep our military in Kuwait, and Marines and Navy in the area, just in case Iran decides to intervene (which, of course, is their ultimate plan).

As we begin the withdraw from Iraq, we can bring our National Guard home to help secure our borders and assist in national disasters and also send troops back to South Korea. A set timetable (perhaps by the end of 2007) would not only defuse a large part of the insurgency, but also give the Iraqis incentive to make compromises with all groups involved and start building their country.

And, a hopeful future for Iraqis?
We need to continue with our reconstruction efforts (and pressure the nations who promised to provide billions to pony up). Most of Iraq is stable because of economic progress. The five provinces, where there is continued unrest, needs to be made aware of that progress so they can see there is a future for them too. Has AQ offered any type of future? Has the insurgency offered any type of future? Nope.

BTW, I think there is a very good possiblity Iraq will break up into three different areas. And it might not be a bad thing, if the Sunnis are given a share of the oil revenue, or even some oil fields.

AAR,
If we form a United Nations of our own and ask other countried to join us. For a moment stop to think what if China says no to that.
We would go bankrupt.

Eyes Closed,

Baloney!

AAR

Kimberly,

Personally, I want us out of the wider ME all together, but until we solve the Israel/Palestine issue, and get off our oil-dependancy, I will have to live with falling back to reaction-force levels in friendly countries.

A time-table is the only option we can have to prove we mean what we say. Everyone complains that a timetable just allows for the insurgency to wait until (x+1 day), but as soon as you show that we are leaving them they won't be able to use us as an unwilling patsy for their political wrangling, until then they will just use our prescence as an excuse to not have to do something that might make them a target for political/physical execution. Al Sistani is gonna have to round up Sadr and his boys quick-fast or we are going to find ourselves in a mini-war with the south, and THAT isn't going to go over well in the poor ranks of the wider ME.

Reconstruction is a joke, my dad works for DoD in Anbar, and while being a staunch supporter of the war, even he admits the people aren't getting anything for the billions we are spending; I don't know why an escrow account hasn't been setup so the money we provided for the reconstruction can be saved from raiding by our lawmakers. We would get a lot more support from the Sunnis from smaller advances, like pre-war levels of electricity and potable water.

As far as Iraq breaking into 3 regions, it sounds really easy to do, but our own interests lay in the eventual pumping of oil, and if the sunni's are gonna get shafted from oil revenues then there is no point for them to allow the Kurds and Shi'ites to walk away from the table without a fight; I think the problem with 3 autonomous zones really comes down to how much revenue gets shared, and who holds the purse strings of that escrow account. No one will trust any of the other groups, and the Kurds will want to keep their own reserves and forget about everyone to the south.

The key to me of this whole debate comes down to what is it that will make the run of the mill Iraqi see an investment in themselves? You have to find a torque point they will buy into so that they make their rabble-rousers go back to driving taxis instead of planting IEDs...the problem is what that torque point is, obviously it isn't appealing to them its in their best interest and the best interest of their kids, I think you need to start talking the universal language of humanity...money. You start attaching the money we are providing to set, verifiable goals, and I bet the government starts real quick making sure that everyone is staying in line, and that the Clerics are making sure their followers know that their actions have monetary consequences.

AAR said:
"Eyes Closed,
Baloney!"

HAHAHAH! That's the best you can come up with? At least you spelled 'baloney' correctly.

A lot of what Third Eye says makes sense, which is presumably why you were incapable of understanding or responding to it.

Here's some advice from Mark Twain:
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

"Democrats Play Politics With Zarqawi Killing" ???

Please. There is always some politics being played on both sides when these things occur, but Bushian Republicans do it at a whole other level. In fact, the Bushians have made an art of politicizng national security. While Democrats have almost entirely agreed that killing an evil man is a good thing, their "politicizing" of this issue has pretty much been limited to voicing skepticism that this will really change the situation on the ground in Iraq. What's so unreasonable about that? Given the history of these "corner turning" events (corner turn number 617 by my count), some skepticism seems warranted.

Contrast that reasoned stance to stuff like this coming from the NJ Republican State Chairman Tom Wilson:

"...This moment also provides a clear and compelling reminder of why Bob Menendez should not be sitting in the United States Senate. If Bob Menendez had his way, Zarqawi would still be leading a campaign of car bombings, assassinations, suicide attacks, kidnapping and beheadings in order to make Iraq a safe haven from which al Qaeda could continue its war against freedom and the American way of life. If Bob Menendez had his way, Mr. Zarqawi would be alive and plotting the next attack on America, Great Britain, Canada or who knows where."

So our armed forces killing of Zarqawi is just another opportunity for the RNC to take cheap shots at dems. Yawn. Clearly, there are quite a few in the military who are getting sick of constantly being used as a political prop in the RNC's quest for perpetual power.

Thats right! It is all our fault. We may be the pathetic, powerless minority, in the peanut gallery talking trash, but it is OUR fault the war in Iraq has such rare good news.

AAR,

if you think im blowin' smoke up your skirt, then tell me who was responsible for UN security in baghdad after the fall?

Do you think we are making friends in the UN with Bolton playing G-man?

and lastly, please, i'd love to hear your explaination for what Colin Powell was presenting the the Sec Council? wasn't it our "best-estimates" and faith in curveballs and dissidents.

Let me explain to you the liberal outlook on things.

We are very happy that Zarqawi has been taken out.

We just honestly are very skeptical that this is going to make a difference. For me, this is because a great deal of the violence in Iraq right now is due to 3-way power struggle of Sunnis vs. Shiites vs. Kurds.

Al Qaeda is happy to make things worse to further their own ends...but I don't think these power struggles won't end even if we get **all** of Al Qaeda. The power struggles will need their own solution.

Do I care that we aren't making friends with the corrupt UN 3rd eye? How about they get their crap in order first.

You guys are on the war path (pun intended) on Haditha yet there is not one single scream from you guys about the raping under UN forces. Why not?

How about Oil for Food corruption...nothing.

The hypocrisy is in full swing today libs.

Warriornation,

I don't think I was making any excuses for the UN, they have learned well from American politics and has become a swamp of money and favors. The oversight within the UN is contemptable at best, and I think Mr. Annan is a toothless tiger ... but it's all we got, so what is the point in sending a guy there who is just going to go off on non-coherant tyrades while the rest of the world doesn't listen...

People on the right don't respect the UN, so what makes you think the rest of the world should respect us? Maybe we could have spent a little time to present new ideas in rehabilitating the institution instead of just scrapping the idea because they wouldn't give us what we wanted ... sounds like a toddler throwing a temper-tantrum to me.

I don't quite understand why the right hates it UN so much, we had veto power over just about every panel we were on, including the security council, but I guess when you have the executive, legislative, and are working on the judicial branch, anything less than complete control is disheartening. huh?

Eyes Closed,

As I recall, the U.N. didn't want our help with security until they blamed our military after the terrorist attack.

I'll have to see who actually made that statement, so I am not stating it as fact just yet.

Another thing, our troops were just a little busy with other things. They are really, really good, but they can't be everywhere and do everything for everybody!

Regardless... can't the U.N. do anything to provide their own security? Do they depend on the United States for everything... peace keepers, troops, military protection, money, etc.?

AAR

Good theory about the Left wanting us to lose the War on Terror.

Now, how about some proof.

AAR,

As an invading nation, we carry the responsibility for security; that's like saying the Jews should have been responsible for security in Jerusalem, not the Romans.

Yeah, our troops were busy securing the interests of the US.

Ofcourse the UN relies on us for protection and troops, we are the Hyper-Power...you don't go about building a super-power and claim providence to re-make the world in your image without having to bear the lion's share of responsibility for it.

Eyes Closed,

Here's an excerpt regarding the panel investigating the security of the U.N. headquarters in Iraq following the bombing:

"22 October 2003 – An independent panel investigating the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad said today that the UN's security systems were 'dysfunctional,' providing little guarantee for personnel safety, and needing to be reformed."
"In the view of the Panel, the UN security management system failed in its mission to provide adequate security to UN staff in Iraq."

"The failure of UN management and staff to comply with standard security regulations and directives left the UN open and vulnerable" to the attack..."

"In particular, the UN security system failed adequately to analyze and utilize information made available to the system on threats against UN staff and premises. The security awareness within the country team did not match the hostile environment. The observance and implementation of security regulations and procedures were sloppy and non-compliance with security rules commonplace."

"The main conclusion…is that the current security management system is dysfunctional. It provides little guarantee of security to UN staff in Iraq or other high-risk environments and needs to be reformed," the panel said.

You can find more details on the Net if you would like.

I haven't had a chance to find out what security they had requested from the United States -- if any -- but I'm sure the U.S. gave them all they "thought" they needed.

Perhaps you can help research that one.

AAR

Robert,

Some things are obvious.

Where have you been for the past three or so years? Haven't you been reading and watching the news and listening to the comments from Democrats.

They may not state it that way, but the desire is there and obvious to those who look.

Maybe not all, but a great many!

AAR

AAR,

You're right, the UN did'nt ask for the security, mainly because they saw it as inviting an attack (catch-22 in hindsight, huh?).

Personally I think the UN was a bit too pie-in-the-sky about the realities on the ground. They wanted to show that while the US was in the business of war, they were in the business of peace, I guess stupid assumptions lead to stupid decisions.

The US had said that they were controlling the central area of baghdad, I surmise this is why the UN felt it could be so cavalier with what it was doing, but I suppose everyone has learned since then that the place is not secure, no matter if you are wearing a blue helmet or not.