Democrats & Liberals Archives

1000+ dead later, and Justice is delivered to terrorist.

President Bush said:
“(US Military) delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq.” In reference to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the ex-self-proclaimed leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Quite frankly, I’m not sure how you can sleep at night. You should be ashamed; but either you’re too evil or too oblivious to care about your actions and your empty words.

Bush also said:
"Now Zarqawi has met his end and this violent man will never murder again. And Americans can be enormously proud of the men and women of our own forces who worked tirelessly with their Iraqi counterparts to track down this brutal terrorist and to put him out of business."

Save it Mr. President. And shut up.

Take him out of business? Strong words from the President. Goes right up there with ‘Bring em on” and “(Bin Laden is) Wanted dead or alive” and all the other slogans used to promote this unique brand of war. For when the President promoted his Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive war. He obviously didn’t take that slogan too seriously. It was this white house, not any other white house, that had the opportunity to take Zarqawi ‘out of business’ in 2002. And it was this white house that decided that they didn’t want to ‘put him out of business’ but rather focus on creating the purpose for going to war with Iraq.

Thanks for keeping your eye on the terrorist ball, Mr. President.

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.

Sure mistakes can will be made. Like when the Iraqi police had Zarqawi in custody but let him go because they didn’t realize that it was actually Zarqawi. It’s a simple mistake guys; you probably didn’t see the signs tacked up on your bombed out buildings with Zarqawi’s mug on it with a $25MM bounty attached to it. No problem. People make mistakes.

But after Zarqawi kills over a thousand citizens and US troops, Mr. President claims a victory in the war against terror. Nice words Mr. President.

But what do you tell to Nick Berg’s family, or to the Armstrong family? What do you tell that to the countless families throughout the country that won’t have loved ones coming home because they were killed by roadside bomb attacks at the hands of Zarqawi? How do you tell them that you had the opportunity to ‘put Zarqawi out of business’ but decided it was more important to wage war on 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.

How do you sleep at night? Mr, President.

Posted by john trevisani at June 9, 2006 8:55 AM
Comments
Comment #155934

Oh come one! Can’t we blame this one on Clinton too!?! I’m pretty sure I saw Zarqawi at one of Michael Moore’s premieres…

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #155936

I do love all the excitement, though I really wish we could’ve doen this all without a gold framed picture of the guy’s dead face. (You know that’s going to go for a huge price on eBay.)

Zarqawi - leader of al Queda in Iraq (I’ve seen it on his business card) - dead.

OK - that’s one less ashole in the world, and that’s a very good thing. Also, I’m very glad Bush stayed out of the way and allowed the military to do what it does best. I’m glad that the military can finally see some success.

However, I don’t see anyone really talking about the fact that without the US invastion of Iraq, al Queda would’ve never been able to set up such large scale operations - and they never would’ve had a “leader” in Iraq.

We love killing our own monsters.

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #155940

Tony

Funny how when something goes wrong with the military, Bush and Rumsfield get blamed. When something goes right, Bush got out of the way!

Posted by: Brian B at June 9, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #155941

As I recall, Zarqawi aligned himself with qaeda only after the US invaded Iraq. I’d be interested to compare the number of innocent Iraqis killed by Zarqawi to those killed by the coalition of the blameless.

Posted by: Loren at June 9, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #155952

There is no such thing as a positive event for some people. When we didn’t find and eliminate Zarqawi, it was a terrible thing. When we did find and eliminate Zarqawi, it was a non-event.

Same thing happened with Saddam. Wails and moans about why we couldn’t find him, why Bush was so bad for not capturing him….all these faded into the muted, droning and meaningless buzz of those who then said that Saddam’s capture made no difference.

The anti-war left complains vociferously about many things UNTIL they get accomplished. Then they claim that it was unimportant all along. Its typical, but sadly sickening.

It happened with the initiation of war. The anti-war left talked about the “bloody quagmire” that street fighting in Baghdad would devolve into. When that didn’t happen, they changed their tune into “We knew all along that Iraq couldn’t stand up to US military might—we aren’t surprised.”

Saddam’s capture—same thing.

Iraqi elections and constitution: the election process was going to be marred by spectacular violence. When it wasn’t, the pundits then claimed the election didn’t really matter after all.

These are the typical talking points of the anti-war left. Complain that something hasn’t happened but only until it happens. Then complain that it really never mattered, so that you don’t have to see any good in anything. Remember, for every silver lining, there is always a cloud behind it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 9, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #155955

“How do you tell them that you had the opportunity to ‘put Zarqawi out of business’ but decided it was more important to wage war on Iraq?”

It’s easy, tell them same thing you told the WTC II victims families about passing on the opportunity to get OBL.

“Also, I’m very glad Bush stayed out of the way and allowed the military to do what it does best”

Wow. A few US soldiers do wrong and Bush and Rums should be fired because they are responsible for the actions of everybody who serves under them but when the military accomplishes a meaningful goal, Bush and Rums should be ignored. Which is it? Oh wait. Elections are coming up so all positives must be ignored until we can credit the new left leadership.

“I’d be interested to compare the number of innocent Iraqis killed by Zarqawi to those killed by the coalition of the blameless”

Hmmmm? The left says America IS the coalition so you must mean all the “innocent” iraqis America has murdered.
Understand and justify the plight of the terrorist but convict and condemn your own. No wonder our troops feel the left doesn’t really support what they do.

Glad to see people can still take great news, diminish its importance and still find a way to blame their own country for all that is bad.

Can’t wait for the “doesn’t matter, a 100 more will take his place” argument.


Posted by: kctim at June 9, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #155956

kctim:

It’s easy, tell them same thing you told the WTC II victims families about passing on the opportunity to get OBL.

Geez…. i didn’t see thatcomin’.

So what is it kctim, is it a good thing or a bad thing? If you are agreeing with me and using as an example, the (disputed story of) Clinton-Sudan-OBL thing to illustrate that had Clinton taken OBL out WTC wouldn’t have happened? So you’re agreeing with me in saying that Bush and Co DECIDED to ignore Zarqawi in place of invading a sovereign nation.

i’m glad that you agree that Bush’s priorities and messages are inconsistent and are insulting to every American.

It’s just a shame that you use as evidence a story about Clinton that the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had “not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”


Posted by: john trevisani at June 9, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #155957

JBD -

This is about as excited as i can get about this war:

“OK - that’s one less ashole in the world, and that’s a very good thing. Also, I’m very glad Bush stayed out of the way and allowed the military to do what it does best. I’m glad that the military can finally see some success.”

You have the answer to why we anti-war people can not find anything good in this war. (Hint: we’re anti-war.)

We hate this war because is was set up with cherry-picked intelligence and lies. It had nothing to do with 9/11, yet 9/11 was the sole driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. It was a distraction and huge waste of human lives, resources and focus. It was handled with extreme incompetence.

OK - so Saddam and Zarqawi are gone. 2 bullets would’ve cost about $1.50 (use the good ones.) We’ve destroyed a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and have ended up creating a breeding gorund for the exact kind of people we had hoped to eliminate.

You seem to be quite in favor of this war- so you rejoice with positive results. Personally, I’m glad something went right for a change. If you expect to rejoice with you - sorry, it’s still the result of an aggregiously bad decision…

You’re right - no matter what happens in this war - I will never see it as a good thing. If Iraq was worth such an investment, why weren’t these things discussed prior to the invasion - why were we prevented from having an honest & public discussion? Why were we distracted by fear as opposed to given the opportunity to rationalize this decision with clear terms, facts and objectives?

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #155962

kctim -

Wow, what a political twist to my arguments… (yes, it’s an election year, but you guys are the ones who continually make things political.)

I was commenting on the fact that the military in 2002 could’ve taken Zarqawi out and Bush prevented it… this time he let them do their job. Isn’t having Zarqawi out of the way enough for you, or do insist that Bush be given credit? If so, what are your true motivations for rejoicing over Zarqawi’s death - safety for Americans or political points for Bush?

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #155966

I wonder what would the liberal response be if tomorrow we:

1) Captured or killed Osama Bin Laden
2) Found Thousands of pounds of WMD

I bet it would go something like this:

Osama Bin Laden, who really isn’t a threat to the USA any longer, was brutally killed by a torturous group of trigger-happy US Marines today. In addition, a major stockpile of “supposed” WMD’s were also found, which is an obvious attempt by the Bush administration to divert attention away from his ever dropping poll numbers…..

Gotta love the left….living in the land of OZ

Posted by: bcoy at June 9, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #155969

“Geez…. i didn’t see thatcomin’”

Sure you did, thats why you worded it that way.

“So what is it kctim, is it a good thing or a bad thing?”

It’s a BAD thing JT.
It shows the total disregard our govt has for its people, no matter WHO is in charge.

“i’m glad that you agree that Bush’s priorities and messages are inconsistent and are insulting to every American”

Shoot, that was the easy part, I am glad you see that.
The hard part is getting you guys to see that the priorities are inconsistent and insulting when your guy is in power too.

“It’s just a shame that you use as evidence …”

No, its a shame that you use an “investigation” to clear one President, but won’t wait for an “investigation” to make up your mind for another President.

Posted by: kctim at June 9, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #155970

tony:

I am in favor of the war in Iraq. I felt it was necessary. Despite your anti-war stance, I’m guessing that you are in favor of “necessary” warfare, such as WWII. We don’t need to rehash why I think its necessary and why you don’t—we’ve been through that time and again.

I am happy for things that are good for our country and for the world. I’d expect any patriotic American to feel the same way. Saying something is good is not suggesting there isn’t any bad. Some seem to follow the 100% or 0% logic—-when in reality our world is constantly somewhere in the middle.

Its very easy to blame Bush for every bad thing, and to give others credit for every good thing. Its also intellectually lazy. If we blame Bush for losing OBL in Tora Bora, then we must credit Bush with getting Zarqawi. Its hypocritical to do anything else.

You know as well as I do that had the US killed Zarqawi in 2002, the left would have pilloried Bush for killing an “innocent” man. That’s the beauty of the left’s arguments. You can never win. If you had done what they want you to do NOW, they’d have laid waste to you when you did it. Since you didn’t do it then, its easy to claim NOW that you should have.

I’ve read so many posts where someone blames Bush 41 for not having taken out Saddam in 1991. Of course, no mention is made that the UN did not support such an action. Had he done it, the meme would have been that Bush 41 went against the UN. Since he didn’t take that course, now the meme is that he should have. Beautifully simplistic reasoning….it can never be beaten in an argument. But then, its never right either.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at June 9, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #155971

“Gotta love the left….living in the land of OZ”

HA! Now that’s funny. You use a hypothetical situation against a known reality and then say we liberals are the ones living in the land of OZ.

OK, here’s the deal. If they find WMDs that were truly found in Iraq… I will bring you the witche’s broomstick. Until that day, I’d like to have the REPs call themselves “the lollypop guild” - OK?

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #155972

JBD -

The problem with seeing good things within a bad war is like commenting on the fact that your carpet really needed to be replaced while the house is burning down. New carpet is nice, in the context it can’t really be seen as a good thing.

As far as crediting or attacking Bush… that’s not the point of this, is it? Did we kill Zarqawi because it made the world a safer place or because it will make Bush look better?

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #155973

Tony
“Isn’t having Zarqawi out of the way enough for you, or do insist that Bush be given credit?”

The actions of our military got him.
But, if one is going to blame Bush, and not the military, for the bad things, one must also be man enough to give credit to Bush for the good.

“If so, what are your true motivations for rejoicing over Zarqawi’s death - safety for Americans or political points for Bush?”

Zarq was a terrorist. I don’t care why he was one or why anyone else becomes one. Terrorists are the enemy and I am elated each time I hear of another one being dead.
Whether you like it or not, one more dead terrorist means one less person willing to kill Americans.

Political points for Bush?
I disagree with our reasons for going to war and I disagree with post-war handling of this war by the civilians.
I do not care about “political points” for Bush and you should not worry about them.
Bush is not the candidate the left will face in 08.

Posted by: kctim at June 9, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #155977

Just for the record… I do not respect W Bush. He has proven time and time again that he is insanely incompetent to hold the office of President. It’s not my worry to ensure that Bush recieves credit or blame. In my mind, he has proven who he is, and nothing he does from here on out will change that.

(Just in case anyone here wondered what my true thoughts on this were.)

“Whether you like it or not, one more dead terrorist means one less person willing to kill Americans.” I’d be willing to beat that you are dead wrong on this one. You can’t kill your way out of this conflict. The more terrorists you kill - the faster they will spread their doctrine.

Honestly, we need to get the hell out of there and let the Iraqi people create their own future. With the US out of the way, they can finally focus on their own problems and not on how bad they hate us. I know we own it because we broke it - but our presence there is the greatest source of the problem.

Also, at some point, we WILL bankrupt out future… and we as Americans need to decide if Iraq is worth sacrificing our own country.

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #155984

bcoy-

Still holding out hope for the WMDs, eh?

Bush and his military strategy are like a baseball player who’s batting .125 and strikes more than anyone else in history. Then, one day, a player for the other team gets mad at his manager so he decides to tip some pitches to Bush the batter. Bush belts a big, game-winning home run. Not because he was so good, but because someone on the other side handed it to him on a silver plate. Kinda like everything else he’s ever had in his silver-spoon life.

Posted by: David S at June 9, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #155985

The hatered for Bush evidenced in posts like this one is identical to the hatered evidenced in Zarqawi himself.

It apparently does not matter if we succeed or fail. It apparently does not matter that killers like Zarqawi live or die. It apparently does not matter that 3000 plus innocent people died on 9/11.

All that matters is that Anything and Everything done by this administration is pure evil. Bush must be attacked for everything he says or does and is responsible for all that goes wrong in the world.

Do all of you Bush haters realize just how much you sound like the terrorists themselves? Do you realize that you sound exactly like the militia groups of the past?

Your extreme hatered does not serve your purpose. Your hatered appears to cloud your ability for rational thought. Give credit where credit is due. Zarqawi’s death is a great victory for civilized people everywhere. To say anything less is an endorsement of the tactics he used.

I am no fan of Bush, but this is a positive event. Even the vast majority of Dems have conceeded that fact. Those of you that want to blame all the evils of the world on the US and Bush need to examine your own rage and ask yourselves how that mind set advances your goal of a dem controlled congress and eventual win in 2008. It certainly does not and in fact scares most people away. No matter how much you try to compare Bush to Zarqawi or Bin Laden and call him the terrorist, you will not make that connection with most people.

Despite all the rhetoric, I have yet to hear any complete and rational plan presented by any Dem to deal with Iraq, Afganistan, terrorism and national security. Kerry and Murtha want to cut and run which is totally ludicrious and all the rest are content to just criticize without offering any real alternative. If all the Dems can offer is negetive criticism and obstruction they will suffer the same fate as Tom Daschel.

What is truly sad, is that at present, there are no viable alternatives to the status quo in Washington. The Reps have no credability and the Dems have no plan, and sorry Green party, but having someone like Berg on your ticket does nothing encourage a third party vote.


Posted by: jwl at June 9, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #155987

“I’d be willing to beat that you are dead wrong on this one.”

Its a fact Tony, you can’t kill if your dead.

“You can’t kill your way out of this conflict.”

If your talking about iraq, you may be right. But if your talking about terrorists all over the world, killing them is our only option.
Kill or be killed is how they live their lives, we should too.

“The more terrorists you kill - the faster they will spread their doctrine”

Their doctrine was well in place before the iraq war.

“Honestly, we need to get the hell out of there and let the Iraqi people create their own future”

Amen!
I don’t care about their future, let them decide it. Nothing in that country is worth one drop of American blood.

Posted by: kctim at June 9, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #155989

It is evident that nothing we could do would make some people happy. Our economy grows at 5.3%, who cares? Unemployment 4.6% , not good enough. Successful elections in Iraq, we knew it would happen. Zarqawi killed, big deal?

On the other side, in my post re anti-Americanism, I found hundreds of articles written by peace/appeasers re sanctions claiming that 50,000 Iraqi children died EACH year, so we had to take off sanctions. I remember the peace movements of the 1980s, the one Moscow paid for to try to get us to unilaterally give up. You guys just never learn.

That is why we really do not listen to you when we have important decisions to make. Thank God RR ignored you in the 1980s. Even Bill Clinton ignored you in the 1990s (sanctions stayed on) and Bush ignores you now. You have to go back to Neville Chamberlain to find your glory days. I am sure you want to create peace in our times too.

It is too bad. You have good ideas and could contribute, but your constant defeatism is too hard to take.

We did a good thing killing the terrorist. Maybe tomorrow we will have trouble. But unlike you guys, I have the capacity to appreciate good news.

Posted by: Jack at June 9, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #155993

John


ummmmm…was that today that Rove was going to be indicted or two weeks ago?

You were full of it then and I see no reason to change my opinion and extend it to this post as well.

You hatred of the administration seems to be clouding your thinking.

Big time.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 9, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #155997

SE -

You so smoothly attacked the messenger without the slight consideration of the message. Wow, you are one obediant eagle. I hope they at least give you a treat.

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #155998

SicilianEagle:
Remember to Critique the message..

Are you addressing this particular topic or rehashing other topics. (if you read my previous post, it started with ‘According to an online report…’. Now that is supposed to mean that someone else wrote the report and not me. My comment was on why the media wasn’t covering the topic.)
But i digress.


My love or lack there of, of this administration is not the topic. It’s perfectly okay, in my opinion, to question authority and to promote a healthy dissent. This administration is all about misinformation and the healthy squashing of dissent.

When Bush infers that he was after Zurqawi the entire time but conveniently forgets that he told his very same military NOT to get him before he did any damage; that’s a lie and there will be a number of us around to point that fact out.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 9, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #156001

Let me take a soapbox here and say despite better or worse we are in a hole with this, that we all as a nation have to muddle and fight our way out of and create some semblance of positive outcome from. And for better or worse that corpo-dingbat from Texas with the peculiar ve’nacular is our president by which to do this with. Yes it did take him “out of business”, in a manner of speaking and it is a pedantic if not petty point to make. My point is that our men and women are fighting over there tooth and nail to the best of their ability as the pundits and bigger league politicos here made faulty assessments of the situation as we would encounter it.

I would never say like Bush or not deride his administration for it’s failures, shortsightedness or complete idiocy but the war to move Iraq foreward and repair the pockmarks we made is all our responsibility now. For better or worse that intellectually uncurious man draped in Brooks brothers is our president and that mess is ours and sadly we own it now.

Bush isn’t calling the shots in Iraq anymore, the same way you take away the remote control from a senior citizen as they might drivel off to watching ronco infomercials. The military is in charge of operations and these are their moves. All the Bushite policies have been proven a failure—torture doctrine worked out well for this administration (sarcasm). Statements like Mission Accomplished should have given Bush whiplash. The fact that they could not connect all this to 9-11 is duly noted by history. Also the fact that Bush was using the same refrigerator magnet speech for the first three years of this war adnauseum will be permanently in the hall of records. Almost everything at the political end is a disaster. But the game is to a larger extent in the military hands and despite policy and politically monomaniacal and myopic errs and mistakes they are fighting to generate a better outcome if at all possible and do what is required of their end of that bargain. When you call in our military it is like swatting flies with sledgehammers and we are fighting a war of flies and gnats and there is maybe no other way to take out that objective than the means we have. I don’t like to see our military used like little green army men to do the bidding of ideological whackos and corporate elbow rubbers who probably have watched one John Wayne movie too many, but this war is ours to muddle through as a nation and we can’t just leave it in the state that things are in right now. The job has to be finished and I don’t trust either the Bush administration or congress’s naddering input to do what is feesible for the people of that nation (if you want to call it a nation noting the divisive sectarianism emerging) but we need to finish the job enough to get out of there.

We let Bush make a mistake in going there, Democratic senators not exempt, based on a nutty argument and a complete lack of intel if not an eye on the reallities (the dems should have known better to trust a damn word of neocon sentiment but didn’t want to appear unpatriotic)—but we own the shit there until route of deployment is made available. I’m not saying it isn’t a mess I’m saying for better or worse it is our mess and our military is handling it to the best of it’s resources so I hope.

The question I pose for my fellow Dems of differing stripes is how do we make the mess we now own wholesale better and not how bad is Bush anymore. We know how bad he is—that’s established but look at the situation and think what can we possibly do to make this less of a quagmire. Consider it an exercize in logistics and what these varying factions are.

The insurgents are killing their own countrymen in droves which makes them hardly patriots or minutemen. Lies by theinsurgency are permeating the rumormills even claiming that there is a Masonic conspiracy at work in league with Israel. There is the left’s
assertion that it is all guided by an invisible boogeyman called the Israel lobby. What about the reallity that we are there instead of how we got there and the hopes that it is a miserable failure to embarrass Bush. If the course was to embarrass Bush hey mission already accomplished now is the time to change the direction and see that themessis ours and how do we make a synthetic silk purse out of a dying sows ear? So what do we do reallistically because leaving will put us in a very dark historical perception as we leave them with hell on earth and zero opportunities if we do not meddle now correctly so they may gain some semblance of civility for a remedially brighter future if at all possible.

Bush is a dick we know that—now what? THat’s the 2000 pound gorilla I want to get to.

Posted by: Novenge at June 9, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #156004

Isn’t it ironic that when bad things happen in Iraq or anywhere else in the world, the President and/or the Republican Party is to blame; however, when good things occur the President and/or the Republican Party are not even mentioned. This is the true hypocrisy of the Democrats/liberals/anti-American!!! What do you think?

Posted by: Rich Frey at June 9, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #156005

Novenge,

Excellent post. Its time for some solutions rather than the simple criticizms.

So Dems…How do we fix this????

And lets throw out the cut and run of Kerry and Murtha. Honestly, we all know that won’t work.

Posted by: jwl at June 9, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #156013

John
My point precisely.You tell a sitting president of the United States,in war time,that he is either too evil or too oblivious,and then tell the guy to shut up and that the message you are trying to deliver?

Very bad choice of words and those comments can only evoke a harsh retort from those of us that do not feel that way.Your agruement becomes lost in the vitriol.

Your Words:

“Quite frankly, I’m not sure how you can sleep at night. You should be ashamed; but either you’re too evil or too oblivious to care about your actions and your empty words.”

“Save it Mr. President. And shut up.”

My words:How sad it is that you feel that way.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 9, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #156019

From media blogger Ron Franscell @http://underthenews.blogspot.com

Today, a plaque was placed at the site of Hitler’s Berlin bunker — and his death — by German historians. Some people complained that neo-Nazis might now use the site as a shrine to one of the great criminals of all times. More than 60 years later, we worry about Hitler’s symbolism.

Ironically, today we also hold the corpse of Musab al-Zarqawi. Presuming we will not desecrate him any further than dropping two 500-pound bombs on him, how does one dispose of the body of terrorism’s great symbols? If you give him back to his people his symbolism will transcend his mortal coil. If you toss him in a dumpster, it doesn’t say much about who we are.

What should be done with a monster’s corpse?

Posted by: Ron Franscell at June 9, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #156024

john:

My comment was on why the media wasn’t covering the topic .)

Hint: The reason the media wasn’t covering the topic was because there WAS NO TOPIC!! Rove was not indicted, therefore there was no story to cover, unless you wanted to see the headline “ROVE STILL NOT INDICTED”.

By the way, your attempt to claim that you were questioning the media’s lack of coverage is just a tad disingenuous too. Here is what you actually focused on: : “I wonder what this will do to both the upcoming election season (as Rove’s role recently was reduced to a Party advisor) and Bush’s approval ratings. One can only image how low the approval numbers could go.

i guess we’ll see.”

Wow, you really speculated about the media aspect…..riiiiight.

Just so you know…this is NOT an attack on the messenger. Its an attack on what the messenger said. Taking your words and showing what you actually said, as opposed to what you NOW say you said. Big difference between the two.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at June 9, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #156027

Ron,re: June 9, 2006 12:50 PM ;

Cremation and ash dispersal at the North Sea (or the NYC sewer system). But, what to do with dead bodies and flesh is a critical component of Mid East sensitivities. Just look at the Israeli-Pal activities in this arena.

SE,re: June 9, 2006 12:38 PM ;

How sad it is that the president and its minions are such fu**ing a**holes that it makes many people flip the bird at the TV when we see him. (do you like the avian analogy?)

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #156035

Dave
…As long as your watching Bill or Sean and at least are trying to better your understanding…..:)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 9, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #156039

Once in a life time a leader comes along that will tell the people of his country exactly were he stands on every issue.George W. Bush is that leader for my life time.Democrats are used to leaders that change there stance on issues every time the polls change.It takes courage to stick to your guns in this country as Democrats do not want results they want status quo.These are lazy people they would rather take bribes and stash 100 dollar bills in their freezer and use the National Gaurd to remove said freezer during a natural disaster.These people are the biggest fakes in the history of American polotics.They starve for any kind of win because its been so long since theyve had a win.And they will go to any extreme regaurdless of who they put in harms way.These are people who claim they love their country but in the same breath will call our military terrorest and baby killers.Its time to send a strong message to these traitors and that message can be sent loud and clear with your vote.Any Senator or congress person who condemns our President and our troops during a time of war does not deserve your concideration on election day.To those who have family members serving in the armed services you should take what these folks say as a personal insult.These people have no souls.We killed a top terrorest two days ago and the liberal democrats refuse to call it a win for the United States.Ive seen spoiled children that are adult like compared to these snakes in the grass.The future of this country depends on keeping a republican House and Senate.We know for a fact Republicans will fight and will finish the job once its started.We know for a fact that Democrats are not willing to fight no matter what the cause.All they can say is lets quit lets run lets hide.Lets make a deal.Well the liberal deal making of the past put us in dire straits and if they get the chance your sons will end up wearing turbans.These liberal democrats are cowards plain and simple.They are shameless and they will never grow what it takes to secure the future or security of this country.

Posted by: lookingout at June 9, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #156042

R. Franscell,

There’s always the military latrines that we spent millions putting in. I say a goldfish burial.

Posted by: Novenge at June 9, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #156044

joebagodonuts:
The fact that Rove hasn’t been indicted proves that i WAS WRONG speculating on what would happen should the announcement occur during that week (you’ll recall it was a few weeks ago that Rove’s role was reduced to a political operative). i did not write the online reports (i cited both of the reports). Although, in hindsight, i would benefit from a little restraint to let the dust settle before posting
But hey… welcome to blogosphere: the place where swiftboat villians become prime time heroes.

Now… back to the original topic. shall we?

Posted by: john trevisani at June 9, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #156051

Looking out,

You really want them brownie points for the republicans don’cha? Bush went in there and he dropped the bombs that killed Zarqawi himself, by hand—well he and Dick ofcourse. Bush got us into a mess—the military is dealing with the objectives set forth. Kerry the swiss national sucks and Kennedy can always lay claim and boast that he never voted to give the president such powers by his own moral convictions. Murtha knows full well the costs of war and probably doesn’t want to see that replayed and would rather have us out of a highly unworkable situation. They do lack something—the crap that will ensue should we dissolve our presense there.

Posted by: Novenge at June 9, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #156057

David S.

So let me get this straight…. We take out a man responsible for killing thousands of innocent people and personally cutting off the heads of Americans…….and you can’t stop hating Bush long enough to celebrate the accomplishment without pointing out that Bush had Zarqawi served up on a platter. If Clinton got Zarqawi, I’m sure he would be a hero for ridding the world of a psycho killer.

Posted by: bcoy at June 9, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #156062

John, great article.
You realize though, no one on the right is going to really want to debate the issue you’ve raised here. It’s true that Bush passed on Zarqawi before, giving him the chance to become someone they now want to break out the champagne over, but your reminding them of this is an unwanted dose of reality at the moment. They know they need to spin this as another big “turning point” or they may see the president’s approval numbers drop again and ruin their chances in November. The fact that we who have been against this war from the beginning can acknowledge this as a morale booster for our troops (much needed) and a good thing for the Iraqi’s, we still know it remains to be seen whether or not there will actually be less violence as a result. Of course, such comments automatically become just another opportunity for them to take shots at us for “our pessimisim”.

Tony, great posts. I’m right on the same page with you. This is good thing that happened in a BAD WAR that had nothing to do with Bin Laden. No matter how many Al Qaeda are killed in Iraq, the truth is, there were very few of their terrorists in that country before this war, (which was unnecessary, and pre-emptive, and has killed too many of our troops, and far, far too many innocent Iraqi’s) but it did become a training ground for many.

kctim:

“Understand and justify the plight of the terrorist but convict and condemn your own. No wonder our troops feel the left doesn’t really support what they do.”

Save it, Tim. No one here is “justifying the plight of the terrorist”. As for our troops not being supported by the left, that’s complete horsesh*t and I’m sick of hearing this from you. Look at how Bush and Rumsfeld have treated our troops and cut their benefits for a change. And then look at how Democratic war veterans have been smeared and disrespected for their service and their wartime experience here at home. Think of how people like Gore, Kerry, Murtha, or Max Cleland have been fair game for so much of their trash-talk. Oh sure, the right “supports the troops” — but only as long as they can use them for their photo ops. They’ll fawn all over them as long as they’re scorced-earth, gung-ho Republicans who’ll make partisan comments for the GOP, but the moment one our troops or their families begins to question their any of their policies, they’re quick to show just how very conditional that “support” truly is.

“A few US soldiers do wrong and Bush and Rums should be fired because they are responsible for the actions of everybody who serves under them”

Hell yes, they should be fired. Because they’ve institutionalized torture and murder, and then they allow the soldiers take the fall as a “few bad apples” for their war crimes. It’s bullsh*t, and our enlisted troops don’t deserve to go to jail simply for following the morally bankrupt orders handed down by these assh*les.

“but when the military accomplishes a meaningful goal, Bush and Rums should be ignored.”

Yes. Because they’ve already proved how they run their wars, and everything our troops have managed to accomplish through their hard work, and sweat and blood has been no thanks to them and their lack of planning before this pre-emptive war of choice based on lies. As far as getting Zarqawi, that was no thanks to Bush or Rumsfeld. Al Qaeda GAVE HIM UP to the Iraqi police. Think about that for a moment. They gave him up because they obviously want to put someone else in there. Zarqawi had become a liability to their cause and his killing of innocent people wasn’t making them any new recruits. It’s entirely possible that from here on out Al Qaeda attacks against our troops will get much worse (and possibly insurgent attacks as well), and we’ll see far less killing of Iraqi citizens. The fact that our troops were able to take him out is indeed a very good thing (Great work, Troops!), but it still remains to be seen whether this one guy and those closest to him will make things better, or actually make things tougher, for our troops. We’ll see.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 9, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #156070

Adrienne

“Al Qaeda GAVE HIM UP to the Iraqi police. Think about that for a moment. They gave him up because they obviously want to put someone else in there.”

HAHAHAHA!

That joke is better than your acceptance speech on the other side….


HAHAHA! What a gal…what a sense of humour….

I wish I could put you in a bottle and sell you because your humor brightens up the greyest day….HAHAHA…you kill me….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 9, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #156085

SE -

You do know that high ranking Al Queda members gave up intelligence on Zarqawi… right? They turn info on him - it was not the American intelligence community that magically came up with this intel.

I have no idea why they gave him up - but they did. Maybe it was for the $25 million… who knows.

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #156087

Adrienne
“As for our troops not being supported by the left, that’s complete horsesh*t and I’m sick of hearing this from you”

Are you really arguing the fact that the military believes the left does not support them as much as the right?
It would help if you would read ALL of what I said.

“Understand and justify the plight of the terrorist but convict and condemn your own. No wonder our troops “FEEL” the left doesnt really support what they do.”

How the troops FEEL, Adrienne. I was not questioning the lefts patriotism.

“It’s entirely possible that from here on out Al Qaeda attacks against our troops will get much worse”

Its also possible that from here on out, these attacks will NOT get worse.
But your hypocritical stance you just outlined and your blind hatred of your President doesnt allow you to look for a positive in anything.

“They’ll fawn all over them as long as they’re scorced-earth, gung-ho Republicans who’ll make partisan comments for the GOP, but the moment one our troops or their families begins to question their any of their policies, they’re quick to show just how very conditional that “support” truly is”

What the hell do you call what the left has done with sheehan and the 4 WTC widows?
They have taken sheehan and made her opinions gospel while totally ignoring all of the parents who have said they are behind Bush. A parent says they support Bush and the left calls them ignorant, brainwashed drones. The only opinions that matter are the ones whose you agree with.
The widows? Well, what they say must be true so lets give the American people the appearance that ALL WTC families believe the same way. Get more votes that way.
Or how about Iraq. One person states things are going bad over there and that is all you want to hear. The hell with what all the troops, that you support, have to say about anything. I mean, what the hell do they know, they are only there living the experience. But their first hand knowledge is NEVER taken into consideration by you guys is it.

Tired of the BS?
I’m tired of the different sets of rules you guys play by in order to get the most votes.

Posted by: kctim at June 9, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #156092

It’s no joke, Sic Eagle, this comes straight from the briefing that General Caldwell gave at the Pentagon.
Here’s proof from the second page of this WaPo article:

In the hours leading up to the attack, “we had absolutely no doubts whatsoever that Zarqawi was in the house,” Caldwell said, adding that the tips leading to the safe house had come from within Zarqawi’s network. “It was 100 percent confirmation. We knew exactly who was there, we knew it was Zarqawi, and that was the deliberate target that we went to get.”

Actually I’ve heard two different versions, the first as I’ve said, that the info was given to the Iraqi police, and a second from a NYT article that claimed that someone close to Zarqawi had first disclosed the identity and location of Abd al-Rahman to Jordanian intelligence. Either way it seems that this info was then given to the US, which gave us the ability to begin a constant surveillance of al-Rahman, which in turn quickly led to their locating Zarqawi.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 9, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #156097

“Even so, Scales cautioned that an insurgency is defined not just by the person at the top, but by an entire network.

And that, says Scales, is one of the most important aspects of Zarqawi’s death. It’s not just that he and some of his top lieutenants are dead; it’s that somebody — probably somebody close the insurgency — told someone where Zarqawi was.

The intelligence that will be gathered from computers and files on the scene could give great insight into how al-Qaida, and perhaps the indigenous insurgency, are organized and run.

But the insurgency is not going away after Zarqawi’s demise. Neither is the escalating death toll, which usually claims about 1,200 people a month in Baghdad alone. When asked about that figure Thursday, Prime Minister Blair said, “This isn’t going to change with the death of al-Zarqawi. We should not have any illusions about this.”“

(from NPR…)

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #156098

“intelligence that will be gathered from computers and files on the scene “

I guess those 500lb bombs aren’t quite what they’re cracked up to be. I can break my laptop with a 3 foot drop from a table.

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #156099

Dave -

I wonder if they are talking more about the other terrorist cells they raided, or maybe they have some very good recovery people… but you’re right… one building/(2) 500 lbs… sizzle sizzle sizzle…

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #156103

Dave -

check out the main image on CNN’s web site ( http://www.cnn.com/ )

The 500lb bombs pretty much did what you would expect…

Posted by: tony at June 9, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #156129

I’ve been trying to read the comments on this page from my workplace, but the server filter stops me because the page has exceeded the number of objectionable words. That says something.

It’s a good thing that a terrorist is gone. But GW and buddies are getting credit for putting out the fire in the bathroom when they started the fire that burned down the house and killed many of the firemen.

Posted by: Loren at June 9, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #156139

—I really think some lookout for their information in the land of Oz if you get my ” drift! “

Posted by: DAVID at June 9, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #156189

tony,

big hole in the ground! amazing anything came out in one piece.

SE;June 9, 2006 01:18 PM :

Are you saying I should watch Bill “the GIs killed the SS at Malmedy” O’Reilly to “improve myself”? Thanks for the laugh. As for Sean, he’s a joke up against anyone but a milquetoast like Colmes.
Improve yourself please, try:
The Rise and Fall of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Young Analyst Tracks Traffic on Jihadist Web Sites

P.S. You never did answer; do you view Bill as The Pontif(icator) or as a “Journalist”?

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #156201

John Trevisani:

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

(From the NBC report)

If this is true, and we had a chance to take out Zarqawi, then obviously we should have taken him out. However, one news report doesnt wholly convince me that the government had a chance to take him out and didnt.

But in any case, dont you appreciate the fact that we at least got this guy now? This is what I hate: when the left wing, in the face of reality, concots any half-baked excuse to undermine the president or the war effort, or anything the GOP stands for. You dont applaude our military for executing this painstaking attack, you dont preface your argument by acknowledging the importance of Zarqawi’s demise. Instead, you attack the government, based on one NBC report, and fail to recognize the fact that maybe the war isnt going so badly.

The left always has a problem when the GOP does anything right, particulary with the war. When we establish a unity government in Iraq, the left says we didnt do it fast enough. When we eraicate a vicious dictator and put him on trial, the left says we shouldnt have been there in the first place. And now we catch the most wanted man in Iraq, the backbone of the most insidious terror organization in the world, and you would think, that maybe for once, the left could muster up something positive. But, instead, you decide to bash the administration for not getting him sooner.

Please, drop the act, quit the charades, and face reality, instead of hiding behind your pretentious wall of deceit.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at June 9, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #156230

Ok , just a little obsevrvation from an ex military guy, if i drop at least 1000 lbs worth of explosives on you how much would there be left to identify. NO point in general you do the math

Posted by: Invictusmanen at June 10, 2006 4:06 AM
Comment #156245

“ok.
come on.
we took out zarqawi,
an EXTREMELY important terrorist leader,
and you blame bush for not doing it earlier.
fuck you.
all of you.”

I think Dr. Suess forgot to take his meds.

Posted by: tony at June 10, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #156263

We,as a people,failed after the Vietnam tragedy to do what we had too to remove the militarist( the military-industrial complex as Eisenhauer called them) from power. It is important for the world that we do that when the inevitable tragdic end to the Iraq fiasco happens. It will not be easy. They are powerful and ruthless.
Peace is the last thing they want. The war on terror should have been a short policing operation. Instead they pulled the strings to make it into an endless conflict. That is what the needed. How they missed the cold war. So now we are spending at near ww2 levels with little opposition on obcenely expensive ,destablizing weapons systems of little utility in this phony war while our troops lack body armor and r&r.

Posted by: BillS at June 10, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #156309

“Funny how when something goes wrong with the military, Bush and Rumsfield get blamed. When something goes right, Bush got out of the way!”

We cant’ help that that’s the way it is.
Maybe he learned his lesson from screwing up the initial invasion. (Shiniseki ring a bell?)
Can a turd learn? No, but it can float out of the way.

Posted by: norby at June 10, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #156345

—Republican,the nat from the Circle of Confusion with all that profanity why would you even consider your diatribe be believed.

Posted by: DAVID at June 10, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #156551

Bill Clinton had the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden while he was in Sudan, and he CHOSE to do NOTHING. Had he acted, 9/11 and the impetus to go to Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn’t have been a necessity.

Posted by: Kristy at June 11, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #156578

“Bill Clinton had the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden while he was in Sudan, and he CHOSE to do NOTHING. Had he acted, 9/11 and the impetus to go to Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn’t have been a necessity.”

This has been proven to be complete BS… why do REPs continue to bring it up?

Posted by: tony at June 11, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #156687

Stephen You want to give our military every thing they need to fight with but you want to tie their hands so they cant hurt anyone.SHADES OF VIET-NAM

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #156744

This has been proven to be complete BS… why do REPs continue to bring it up?
Posted by tony at June 11, 2006 04:24 PM

The GOPer political model is to throw out every piece of crap you can think of. The sheep will, of course, not know or care that it is crap. Then, enough sheep will remember enough crap so that between all the sheep, all the crap can be regurgitated forever. After all, Truth never gets in the way of the Republican agenda.

Posted by: Dave at June 12, 2006 1:46 PM
Post a comment