You remember that little scene from the Wizard of Of when the curtain is finally pulled back on the Wizard?
That’s what Zarqawi’s death reminds me of today. I believe that Zarqawi’s death will actually turn out to be final nail in the coffin of public support for Bush’s War in Iraq.
Oh, don’t get me wrong: Bush will get an initial bounce. And, I suppose, the military and intelligence operation should be highly commended (though I doubt Bush should get credit, though he will): Zarqawi was a murderous asshole who needed killing. And, by all accounts, the operation to get him was carried out with diligence, patience, competence and aplomb. Iraq, further, will without a doubt be better off for the scumbag’s elimination from this earth.
But in the end, Bush will be hurt by this more than he will be helped.
The reason? Because Bush’s base that still supports this war does so largely out of ignorance. The base that still supports this war, largely, does so because they believe Bush’s lies that:
1) All the problems in Iraq are mostly the result of foreign fighters and terrorists causing trouble;
2) That there are a limited number of foreign fighters and terrorists in Iraq–and that if we just kill enough of them, there will be peace; and
3) That Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi was the ringleader of these Al-Qaeda foreign fighters.
I have right-wing gaming buddies who have been saying these things for a good long while now–I guarantee you that this is the mindset held by most of those who still support the debacle that is the War in Iraq now.
—————————————–
Well, guess what? The Wicked Witch is Dead. The Wizard is unmasked.
Al-Zarqawi the ringleader is dead. Checkmate–the King is Dead. Al-Qaeda in Iraq decapitated. PROGRESS.
————————————————-
But still and yet, in the reality-based community, the violence in Iraq continues unabated. Still and yet, the real reasons for the violence–centuries-old sectarian divisions, poverty, hopelessness, hatred of the American occupation, corruption, and so much else–continue unaddressed, and even exacerbated by Bush.
Still and yet, the bad news will keep streaming in.
And those ignorant supporters will be forced to come to terms with the reality that killing Al-Zarqawi–while good in and of itself–solved nothing in Iraq. They will be forced to at least reconsider whether they were misled by their President.
Support for the War In Iraq will fall.
And by extension, so will support for Bush–because as Iraq goes, so goes Bush.
—————————————-
So enjoy your bounce, Georgie of Oz. The fall comes shortly thereafter.
available in orange.
will return attention to the misAdministration’s greatest failure — the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large.
In fact, some commentators are saying that Zarqawi’s death will help bin Laden and al Qaeda, by allowing them to reorganize around bin Laden — that bin Laden does not like to share the spotlight and with Zarqawi out of the way, he returns to his pre-eminent leadership role.
Be careful what you wish for, because you may get it…
Any day now, they’ll come up with a new number one target in Iraq to deflect attention from their debacle.
It wouldn’t matter if they got Bin Laden himself. Though Bush might get a little bigger bounce from that. But this news is no different than when they got Hussein and turned that corner. Dipped they’re fingers in purple ink and turned that corner. Wrote a constitution and turned that corner. Or when Bush announced that there were 80 battalions of Iraqi troops trained and ready for deployment, when in actuallity there were only exactly ONE battalions ready. Turned that corner too.
The curtain has been pulled back many, many times to reveal Bush for what he is. And still nothing is done. He’s running out of positive ratings numbers, and if it goes much lower they’ll have to start counting his positives in negative figures. So no, this will change nothing. And it sure won’t be the final nail in the coffin. Besides, Zarqawi was more a creation of the propagandists in the Pentagon, Cheney’s office, and the media, than a real person. Let alone a real threat. Boogeymen and all that. Murderous asshole? Well, he was in good company, because there are plenty of murderous assholes on this side of the war too. Only they’re exceptional you see. So I wouldn’t exactly say that Zarqawi was hunted down with aplomb, of all things. Not to mention, we have no idea how many more innocent civilians were killed in these bombing raids in the hunt for the elusive figment of Rumsfeld’s imagination.
In other words, this isn’t news at all. And another front page post about Zarqawi only plays into the media’s saturation of the airwaves with fake news, and it’s failure to tell the truth about this war, and this pResident…once again.
Couldn’t agree with you more super and I am also wondering just how many were killed by those bombs that were dropped?…How many will turn out to be again innocent civilians blasted to bits to get one man. More ‘collateral damage'(what a truly obscene term that is)to get a basically made up Boogeyman.
Well,
as long as it was done with aplomb, then what’s to bitch about really.
Of course, our military in Iraq are famously known for their aplomb aren’t they? I’d be willing to take a few bets that this isn’t the real story but military press release and the real story will come out later-whatever it may be.
Zarqawi was a murderous asshole who needed killing
Sorry, no one ‘needs killing’, what he needed was capturing. Hearing this kind of crap on a supposed progressive blog not only sickens me but depresses me to no end.
This indeed, is who America has become. A hugely armed and venal Charles Bronson in Death Wish.
God help us all if this is the language and intent of the good guys.
Nicely said. Nicer than I could have managed today . . .
is applied daily to living breathing human beings.
Would that it could be confined only to thrice-killed composite characters with the power to regenerate limbs.
do you think, then, that it is too bloodthirsty to say that “Bin Laden needs killing”?
What exactly do you propose we do with such people? Ask them to turn themselves in?
I do. Bin Laden needs to be captured, tried, sentenced, and incarcerated. That is the way our justice system works.
If we know where someone is, is the most powerful military in the world capable only of killing them, and not of capturing them? Somehow I find this difficult to believe.
sentenced and incarcerated if or when found guilty.
Also, I should add that other than this matter, I agree with your analysis of the effect this will have on GWB’s approval.
well, then, why don’t YOU just capture them?
I suppose that Bonnie & Clyde should been “captured alive at all costs” as well, even though 10 lawmen had died trying to do exactly that.
At what point is it just NOT WORTH IT?
Umm, your first point is fairly ridiculous as I have no training in that area.
As to your second, no, I didn’t say that they should be ‘captured alive at all costs’. But there is a wide gap between ‘needs killing’ and ‘capture alive at all costs’, don’t you think? In fact, aren’t they kind of opposite?
Reading back, I see how you got that though; I was saying ‘needs to be captured…’ to emulate your ‘needs killing’. Please allow me to go back : bin Laden should be captured, tried, etc.
What he needs is to be neutralized, stopped, etc. If killing him is the only viable way to do it, then fine. But I still don’t think he, nor anyone else, needs to be killed.
I’m about to break the “Don’t be a prick” rule.
You’re just an ass spoon. This is at least the third time that I’ve seen you answer questions, or deal with opinions that differ from yours, no matter how strong they might be, with an assinine, and juvenile retort like this one. You sound like a kid who doesn’t have a better answer to offer. “well, then, why don’t YOU just capture them?” I guess that’s better than the others I saw, like twice taking swipes at Greens, or spewing right wing fundamentalist talking points like “on the alter of unfettered abortion”, while wholly ignorant of the fact that you are talking down to the women who make up the majority of the members here.
You seem, still, to have no clue what environment you are operating in. The fact that you’re encountering so much opposition to your style and beliefs here is a damned good sign that it is you who don’t fit here in this community, where being welcoming and tolerant of different views is the hallmark of this place. You seem to revel in your replys. And each time you step in it up to your neck, along comes Booman, or even your brother to protect you. That’s how weak your arguments are. You need their protection.
The majority of the posts you’ve made here since your arrival, are not just the expression of a different opinion. They are directly counter to the culture that makes BT what it is.
Get a clue, or get lost. Or maybe I’ll get lost, if you are an example of where this site is going.
Unfortunately, there are people in the world that need killing. Of course, capturing them can be just as effective, when that is possible.
If Zarqawi is indeed responsible for blowing up the UN headquarters, beheading Nick Berg, blowing up weddings in Jordan, blowing up the Shi’a shrine, and any number of other atrocities, then of course he needed killing. And that is not just from the perpective of an American. The vast majority of Iraqis would agree.
We can quibble that capturing him would do just as nicely. Fine. Maybe. Maybe not.
The real issue is: has Zarqawi ever done any of the things attributed to him? Was he ever in Iraq? Is he really the person we say we killed? And even if all of that is true, so what? He never would have been so effective if we hadn’t made him famous.
Shouldn’t justice for crimes like the ones listed in your comment then also be applied to those on this side who’ve also blown up Mosques and Shrines, bombed wedding parties, and blown baby’s heads off?
Perhaps. But it no way would it excuse the behavior attributed to Zarqawi. Two wrongs…
Unfortunately, there are people in the world that need killing.
Booman, you’re a hypocrite. You just posted a thread on forgiveness and being a progressive and learning from Jesus and his words.
And then you show you’ve absorbed nothing, absolutely nothing. Progressive my ass and patently un-Christian.
Oh…that’s a ridiculously strong standard you’ve set up Wilfred. First of all, I am not Jesus and I can’t emulate him perfectly. But going beyond that silliness, I can forgive Hitler for his sins, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t deserve to get hit with a tomahawk missile.
Where do you get off with this holier than thou bullcrap?
Holier than thou is a cop out. Challenge my ideas, don’t tell me my standard is too high when many countries have laws upholding said standards. Capital punishment and revenge killing are wrong and are certainly not the benchmarks of progressives.
What is the point of following and learning from Jesus if you say the opposite of his teachings as your truth? What a slippery slope you are on Booman. Why should we try Ken Lay then? what’s so bad about abusing the public trust anyway, it’s so hard not stealing money.
Jesus, Buddah and the spiritual guides have not set an impossible task for us, it would be quite cruel if they did. It’s not brain surgery, it’s just humanism and empathy. The unreal parts are the man-made additions like celibacy and sex-negativism.
When you and thereisnospoon spout that Archie Bunker crap I will always stand up to you. And when you are talking shit that you can hear coming out of his mouth it should clue you in, bigtime.
Capital punishment is one thing, war is another.
How many men would you be willing to risk to take Zarqawi alive?
When police are on the trail of a wanted criminal, how much risk do you want to expose them to before you’ll allow them to discharge their weapon?
There is a difference between capturing as a goal, and being irresponsible.
You are conflating these things.
Capturing Zarqawi might have been preferable. But it’s quibbling to complain that he was killed instead. The same goes for any dangerous criminal that is armed and resisting arrest.
You’re way off Booman, on many fronts here.
First, it’s not war it’s Occupation. When did Congress declare War? You fall right into the neo-con agenda when you play there and so have all the Dems save Feingold.
Secondly, no one is crying at his demise here. We reacted (me and my holier than thou comment got eight 4’s so we’re a large holy component here i guess) to the statement by a supposed progressive that ‘he needed killing’ which he indeed did not. He needed capturing. Pure and simple statement of ethics. If he is somehow killed during the attempted capture that is one thing but it was not even attempted. And I completely object to that kind of blanket statement about human beings.
I sense quibbling, as well as hostility to anything spoon writes.
I think your point has a lot of validity, but where it breaks down is that we knew that trying to take him alive would involve a delay in actionable intelligence that could lead to his escape and there was no chance for a negotiated surrender. At least, we had no valid reason to have that expectation.
You’re just nitpicking. That’s my opinion. There’s a valid argument behind your nitpicking. But it is nitpicking nonetheless.
Amen, my friend. A-MEN.
that’s rich.
believe me, if it was nitpicking it wouldn’t be the highest rated comment on this thread. Nuff said.
As far as having it in for ‘spoon’ i don’t really know him/her. the only time i remember commenting on their thread anyway it was quite positive. i certainly had no preconceived idea opening this thread. i could have left a comment disagreeing in another thread but have no memory of it.
to state again, i (and i’m not alone here) intensely dislike ‘trash talk’, that kind of Neocon/Archie Bunker/Dirty Harry kind of junk we are forced to swallow contantly in the MSM. and yet again, because of the aboliton of the Fairness Doctrine we are subjected to it endlessly and in most cases not confronted.
I believe strongly in the concept of forgiveness, and of rehabilitation. Even for Arabs you don’t like.
People who need killing?
In defense of others or in self-defense WHEN the person in need of killing is in the act of attacking. I can go there.
Tell me you’re kidding. Really, where’s the 🙂 emoticon after your statement?
Bin Laden needs to be caught, all criminals need to be caught and tried in a court of law. Then we need to try and rehabilitate them in ‘correctional facilities’ whether they are in for 6 months or life. The fact that we are failing miserably doing that says alot about the decline of our society. This is what we should be doing in a civilized society. The only major countries that ‘kill’ criminals are the US and Saudi Arabia. I don’t like keeping that kind of company.
When you talk shit like Rush Limbaugh and the Little Green Football crowd you need help.
And by the way, my boyfriend worked in WTC 2 so I’m no stranger to Bin Laden and his ilk.
Who is directly responsible for more deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq; Zarqawi or Bush/Cheney?
Why is this relevant? I understand why it matters in the big picture. But why does it matter when we are discussing this Zarqawi figure and what he deserved?
Even under the best formulation of the argument, Zarqawi has been more focused on killing Shiites than Americans. He (supposedly) has been targeting people for no other reason than their religious beliefs. He (allegedly) has been trying to create a civil sectarian war that will destroy the historic (relative) amnity that Sunni and Shi’a shared in Iraq.
If this is true, the guy needed to be neutralized. And if it took a remotely fired missile to do it, so be it.
I want to establish a context for the “Zarqawi needs killing” meme and test it’s legitimacy based on whatever the criteria are for that statement.
I suppose if we’re going to travel down that “some people need killing” path, a good case could be made that the fine folks responsible for the mass extermination of countless thousands of civilians in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan (and perhaps soon Iran?) could easily be viewed in such a light. And being the true southern gentleman that I am, I reckon I could certainly understand why someone who’s family or friends have been on the receiving end of said extermination might want to settle accounts with the perpetrators accordingly.
Then again, figuring out who “needs killing” and who doesn’t seems a might tricky. I could imagine how some might view certain perpetrators of mass extermination as defenders of freedom and democracy, or as protectors of the civilized world from the barbaric hordes, etc., and hence completely undeserving of being executed. Folks holding that view wouldn’t take too kindly to efforts to kill those particular mass killers (or spreaders of freedom – takeyerpick), and might view such actions as “terrorism”, and God forbid that anyone actually even so much as thinks such actions might even be justified.
The more I think about it, the more I think I’ll just stick to being against this whole notion of killing folks – “deserving” or not.
I’m with you.
Whatever the criteria might be that qualify someone to be deemed “in need of killing”, the advocates for this idea always apply those criteria selectively, never including themselves as worthy of the same fate.
As someone once said; “Those who seek revenge, dig two graves.”
Here`s an excerpt from MR. BERG`s interview.
O’BRIEN: I have to say, sir, I’m surprised. I know how devastated you and your family were, frankly, when Nick was killed in such a horrible, and brutal and public way.
BERG: Well, you shouldn’t be surprised, because I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.
O’BRIEN: No, no. And we have spoken before, and I’m well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, ‘I’m glad he’s dead, the man who killed my son’?
BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?
He has an admirable attitude.
I thought I was the only one taken to a bad mental place today with all the cheering and yee-haw’ing. I watched the press conference live at stupid o’clock this morning due to an insomnia attack and almost jumped out of my skin watching the glee of revenge be held up in honor. more of my thoughts here
I was sickened at the fact that they’d show his face on TV, being that he was dead and all. No, he did not look like he was sleeping. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a close ups of a corpse’s face on TV, over and over again.
I should be thankful I’m at work (shh, don’t tell my boss). I do recall the corpses of the Hussein brothers having prominent television time when they were killed…I guess we need another reminder of what democracy and Freedom on the March™ looks like in the 21st century.
I agree with Wilfred above. Zarqawi, or bin Laden, or the pedophile priests or whoever else commits heinous crimes against humanity *need to be apprehended and suffer the consequences of their actions through whatever mechanisms (supposedly) civilized man has devised for holding criminals to account for thewir crimes.
Whether the world is a better place now after such people are removed from it is a different story altogether, and I certainly will not shed any tears for the demise of this murderous thug Zarqawi. But I regard my callousness on this as a shortcoming, as an indication that for all the progress I may or may not have made on the path toward enlightenment, there’s certainly a long, long ways yet to go.
And, of course, missing from all media coverage is the simple observation that, from a purely pragmatic view, capturing Zarqawi and putting him on trial could have been quite beneficial diplomatically and as far as the political machinations within Iraq are concerned.
I should have added, for the sake of clarity, that while it would be a vast improvement if our criminal justice system was oriented towards rehabilitation and our society supportive of such efforts in a meaningful way, such is not the reality today, either here in the US or anywhere else I can think of. So, where others might argue that seeking rehabilitation is essential, I say that given current reality, I accept that removing threatening transgressors from the public so they are not able to continue to harm others sometimes is the best we can expect. A lamentable reality, but I don’t see this situation changing much in the forseeable future.
Like I said in another thread yesterday, things get curiouser and curiouser, don’t they?
I read an interview on CNN with MR. Berg, the father of the man beheaded alledgedly by Zarqawi. His take on the killing of Zaqawi is surprising & extremely well founded. I would suggest everyone to read it. It`s actually beautiful.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/berg.interview/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
for linking the interview transcript. Wow.
ourselves to smithereens. All is cumulative and it all will blow back.
Meanwhile Michael Scheuer writes of Bin Laden’s jihadi spring in Asia Times.
Marisacat
So if Bush is getting a bounce, why isn’t the Dow up today?
This was the paunchy guy in tennis shoes with the jammed machine gun?