Third Party & Independents Archives

Zarqawi is Dead!!!

The Iraqi Prime Minister just announced that the leader of Al Queda in Iraq is dead.

BAGHDAD, June 8 — Abu Musab Zarqawi, leader of one of the most entrenched insurgent operations in Iraq, has been killed, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced Thursday.

Let me be the first to congratulate all who particiated in this endeavor. They have struck a blow to Al Queda today. I am sure the violence will njow lessen with his removal and finally allow the GIs to come home.

Posted by Aldous at June 8, 2006 4:54 AM
Comment #155447

Just when I start to know how to write his name!
Now, we’ll have to start over for the next bad guy one… .

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 8, 2006 5:36 AM
Comment #155448

Now I’m curious; who gets the $25 milion?

Posted by: Ouwe at June 8, 2006 5:40 AM
Comment #155450

Not how I see it at all, Aldous. Many have waited in line to take his place. The only good news about this is 1) Bush gets to spin it as ‘progress’, yet again, and 2) our troops get a morale boost since Zarqawi was a primary target in Iraq, and God knows, they needed some some good news.

But, other than this, it changes nothing. Al-Queda is not set up like a snake, cut off the head and the body dies. Not like that at all. And besides, al-Queda is only a very, very small part of the violence taking place in Iraq today. The sectarian violence has a life of its own and is wosening by the month, whether al-Queda is there or not. They are not interdependent. So, the civil unrest and sectarian violence and al-Queda presence continues on without, the now martyred, Zarqawi.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2006 5:41 AM
Comment #155453
Now I’m curious; who gets the $25 milion?

Isaac Newton. And Halliburton.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 8, 2006 5:50 AM
Comment #155466

i thought the most important issue facing Americans was Gay Marriage….

i wish that Zarqawi’s death would have a positive effect on the Iraq war, but alas i feel it will have little effect on getting our troops home and out of the way of Iraq’s civil war.

Zarqawi’s rise in Iraq was the direct result of the US’s invasion of Iraq. He was an enemy of Saddam prior to the war and he got in only after the US opened up Iraq’s borders. Alas, i’m sure there are many, many, many more to follow in his footsteps.

If Zarqawi’s death gets our troops home sooner, then great. If his death is used as marketing for prolonging this horrid war; then not-so-great.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 8, 2006 7:32 AM
Comment #155474

In this age, most things are complex, not simple. We want it to be that if we get the bad guy, then all the fighting is over. We want the 30-60 minute conflict resolution that we see on television.

No longer do we have the situation like in WWII where if we killed Hitler, the war was virtually over. With the increases in technology and communication, the forces we face are like a Hydra.

Its good news that Zarqawi is eliminated. Better yet would have been his capture. But it is not the end of things—its a continuation. Some will spin this as a non-event and show that terrorist actions continue. Others will spin this as an ultimate victory. It is neither.

We must learn to not listen to the polar ends of the scale, but rather to understand the full spectrum of the scale.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 8, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #155483


Its good news that Zarqawi is eliminated. Better yet would have been his capture.

i couldn’t disagree more. Zarqawi needed to be killed, not captured. For i feel if he were captured, his followers would kidnap everyone they could in exchange for his release. He needed to die.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 8, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #155488


You might be right in that. My thinking was that having him in custody would potentially give the US a wealth of information, and also expose Zarqawi as just a plain man, as opposed to the mythic figure he has become.

But your viewpoint might just be right. I’m happy he’s out of the picture, and hopefully those who try to replace him do not have his murderous skill.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 8, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #155497

I am glad that Zarqauwi is now resident in hell. It is a good thing, although not the end of the story.


I don’t know if taking him alive would have helped. In our sensitive world, if offing him some coffee or donuts didn’t make him talk, we probably would have to let him go.

I am waiting for the pundits to figure out how this is a setback for the U.S. and how it makes Bush look stupid. I bet they will have their stories straight by the evening news cycle.


Zarqawi was an enemy of the U.S. before the invasion. When we chased him out of Afghanistan, he fled to Iraq, where he evidently felt safest. I don’t think he went there to fight Saddam and if we brought the war to him, it just means he didn’t bring it to us.

But now that he is dead, I hope it took him a while to die, but I am reasonably confident that if there is a hell, he is in it.

Posted by: Jack at June 8, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #155505

What’s this all three columns??? Who the F’ gets up at 4:54 am and for what possible reason? Oh who cares they nailed him. Sunni’s will probably hail him a martyr and really I could care less the bastard’s dead, if the fingerprints are correct that is. I for one am quite optimistic—‘nuff said.

Posted by: Novenge at June 8, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #155512


Many of the comments here have saddened me greatly this morning. The number of people here who seem ready to dance in the streets at this news disturbs me.

There is no glory in war. I feel a sense of relief that this man is finally dead — that he will bring no more evil into this world. But there is no joy in the loss human life. As a monster dies, too many use it as an excuse to let the monsters within themselves out. We’re supposed to be the Good Guys. We kill because it’s necessary, not because we enjoy it. When I read lines like…

But now that he is dead, I hope it took him a while to die, but I am reasonably confident that if there is a hell, he is in it.

…I wonder if we’re still fighting the noble fight, or if we’re just battling Evil with Evil.

We’re supposed to be fighting for humanity… let’s not surrender it in the process.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 8, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #155554

Good, one bad guy gone. Now we just have to wait for 1/20/09 to get rid of a few more.

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #155562

David Remer, well said. My sentiments exactly.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 8, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #155580

i posted this on another thread also. It still applies.

Michael Berg, the father of the Nick Berg the man that this Zarqawi beheaded sent an email to a mailing list to which i belong. Here’s what he said:

I was awakened at 4:30 AM with the news of Zarqawi’s death. I have said to over a dozen reporters so far today, that every human death diminishes me. I have said that Zirqawi’s death is a triumph for revenge, for revenge is what killed Nick. I have said that Zirqawi’s death will inflame the Iraqi resistance and perpetuate the endless cycle of revenge begetting revenge begetting revenge. I have said that the cycle must end, and that it ends with me. I take no joy in Zarqawis death.

I am not sure that you will hear all of that in our slanted media. ABC who called first, suddenly lost interest when I reminded them I’d be ready for any tricks they may try to play.

Please let our mailing list at least know where I stand.


Posted by: john trevisani at June 8, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #155583

A terrorist gets killed and he’s now a martyr? I reckon next Hitler will be a martyr.

Who the F’ gets up at 4:54 am and for what possible reason?

I do. And so do most farmers. And it’s to start the chores for the day so they can feed the folks that get hungry now and again.

While Zarqawi’s death it’s good news for his enemies I have to wounder what effect it will have on the war. I doubt that it will end because he’s dead. But will the war intensify? Or will it slack off? I can’t answer these questions anymore than anyone else can. But I know one thing, until it’s over our troops will continue to die. And that’s what bothers me most.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 8, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #155606

R. Brown,

4:54 am is something the average online blogger has never seen with exception to pulling an allnighter and not watching the time. There’s a stereotype there I’m working with. By the way I love farmers!!!(I have no idea what that means but it gets angry farmers with a zeal for farm-chores off my back).

Posted by: Novenge at June 8, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #155619

Ron Brown, yes a martyr. My father thought Adolph Hitler was a man trying to rescue the world from itself and revered him. There will be millions in the world who will regard Zarqawi a martyr, and thousands will flock to his calling. That is one of the many truly sad things about wars of principle or religion or culture as they are purported to the masses. The truth about war is they are always about power, and those who start them in the name of other causes are all, ALL, liars to the core. Choosing to kill, maim, and destroy is no aveneue to principle or just cause, except in self-defense.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #155630

D. Remer,

I know this sounds turncoat to my usual leftist stances but we are in a war on terror now. I know that comes across quite Stepford sounding but we went out in search of terrorists over there—stuck our heads into the preverbial hornet’s nest and we found ‘em now we have to have this war. Not to mention if we leave w could be unleashing a royal bloodbath of sectarian fighting. I’d love to play the moralist role of the monday morning quarterback but this is a war we are in whether it was in self-defense or not.

Did we have to do it?—probably not but we are in the thicket and we have to fight our way out of it and my conscience bothers me alot but to leave would be an error for the people of that country as the Mahdi army would eat the Sunnis and sectarian cleansing would reign. That would be the worst of all possible outcomes as I see it. Who really has the answers but I think not getting that country stable would be a mistake.

We have accomplished all of our goals except one—stability and fully lidding the sectarian strife that could blow up in our faces.

Posted by: Novenge at June 8, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #155646

“We have accomplished all of our goals except one—stability and fully lidding the sectarian strife that could blow up in our faces.”

So, then you’re in favor of instituting a draft, and then staying there forever in order to keep a full scale civil war from ever happening? Or do you think we should “stay the course” with too few troops, allowing those who are there to be stoplossed indefinitely until they are all killed, maimed, or driven totally insane — all for the sake of this stability, and avoidance of sectarian strife? And in a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 or Bin Laden, whose people want us gone, and whose insurgency has only continued to grow by leaps and bounds?
Do you believe that this stability, and a never-ending military occupation which will be needed to enforce it — not to mention US access to Iraq’s oil — is worth every last one of our enlisted soldiers lives?

Posted by: Adrienne at June 8, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #155685

Well, I’m sure glad he dead , but now there will be more action with insurgents. They are going to make a showing, and Hell no Iraq’s not worth one of our soldiers.

Posted by: Fred Wilkes at June 8, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #155720


follow this link to send an email to your Congress people on the “Net Neutrality” vote!

Posted by: Craig Dawson at June 8, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #155724

We cannot leave Iraq until Al Queda there is destroyed. We must stay until a peaceful stable Iraq exists.

No matter the price.

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #155740

Novenge, I appreciate your argument, but, I don’t agree with your premise, which was Bush’s before invasion, that we can win a stable unified Iraqi democracy and leave. Bush was wrong then and I was right. Your premise is wrong as well in any foreseeable time frame. Sure, if we are willing to bankrupt our nation and diminish our All Volunteer Army to the point that recruitments cost $150,000 just for the signature on the dotted line,($40,000 currently)and waive all other foreign and domestic matters as secondary importance. But, you see, we won’t survive that either.

We can’t afford to remain there for a decade or more, doing so grows the conflict, and attracts our enemies, giving them cause. It also is bankrupting 10’s of millions of Americans here at home in through opportunity costs of being in Iraq. We have to plan and implement a draw down and withdrawal sooner or later, and we can’t afford later, so, it has to be sooner. End of 2007 is now being bantered about. We the people owe it to ourselves to hold our government and Pentagon to that. If Iraq can’t defend itself internally then, they never will be able to and it is wasted American lives and tax dollars to try.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #155766

David R. Remer:

We cannot leave Iraq. There is such a thing called responsibility. We got it. We broke it. We bought it. You argument of cutting and running due to money and blood is inherently weak and will get us killed in the long term.

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #155790

I for one, am glad he’s dead and I hope he suffered, frankly.

Huzzah to the special forces and intielligence working this one out. I say split the $25 mil among them.

Jack, I’m dissapointed with your sarcasm and negativism here. Drink a skol to it.

Rob, I am sad for the passing of many useful and tender hearted folk. I will not shed a tear for this mass murderer. I am sad for the day he moved from being an innocent child to a monster, but not for his death today. He earned it. Not all people are worth having around. Some are pure evil. I would spit on his grave or worse.

Posted by: gergle at June 8, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #155793

“We cannot leave Iraq until Al Queda there is destroyed. “

Actually - by official estimates, foreign fighters account for less than 5% of the insurgents. That makes 95% home grown, and I don’t think they have too much allegance to OBL or Al Queda. More than likely, they don’t like any of the foriegn fighters there no matter what side they fight for.

Until we truly understand who and why we are attacked in Iraq, we will never stand a chance of fixing these problems or stablilizing Iraq.

Posted by: tony at June 8, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #155835

Problem to solve: Zarqawi’s death is a great thing, but it can actually strengthen the insurgency. It will probably come out that insurgents themselves helped give Zarqawi up. Home grown Iraqi insurgents thought his tactics were brutal, alienated the Shiites, and put a foreign face on the Iraqi resistance. I am sure that bin Laden and al-Zawarhari are actually smiling right now and polishing an Iraqi to take his place as the “face” of the insurgency. They will really try to unite the Iraqi insurgency now and focus on winning more hearts and minds by focusing their brutal killings on more soldiers and police rather than civilians. It will be interesting to see if as many Shiites mosques will now be attacked.

What am I saying? 1) Zarqawi’s death is a great thing. 2) BUT, it will have no change in the level of the insurgency (40 were killed today) 3) BUT, BUT, it may represent a tactical shift in the insurgency’s objectives. Targets may change.

Posted by: Steve C. at June 8, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #155846

Staying in Iraq is getting us killed in the short run, and broke besides. Prolong it, or plan to end it. Perpetuate it is the most idiotic position for our President to take. Yet, that is his position for as long as the military generals feel compelled to throw live soldiers onto the heap of the dead all in the name of finding some kind of dignity in victory which is not in the offing in the foreseeable future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #155870

Adrienne & David Remer,

The situation as I see it is that we are so damn entrenched right now with occupation not to mention whatever is going on in Afghanistan right now that simple options are off the table. I am not in favor of staying I am saying there may be no option or we are accountable for whatever aftermath results from it.

WE busted up the Hussein regime to let the cards land where they may and whatever sectarian bloodbath comes from it is what we leave them with. I’m seeing that we can’t leave until we can guarantee that stability somehow. Hell or highwater sadly we are in the roach motel for the long haul and it will cost billions more and I wish we had done it all a bit smarter with perhaps better timing if even at all. we had no plans on the table really and this is the result—quicksand that we have to foist our way out of.

the more I look at it the question that crosses my mind is how can we leave? It’s not a question of pride it’s a question of logistics. WE invade, take Hussein out of power for what? There is no greater objective here then, as we left it far worse than when we came in. That will never sit well with the world community as hardly anything now sits well. It’s a question of what the hell did we do? with a follow-up: What now? so we leave and they have no electricity, water, a civil war, a powerless government in place that will get toppled within days of our leaving. Shiite rule and religious war with death squads. Chaos and weapons pouring in and a vulnerable populace on both sides. Then guess what will come over time? Another dictatorship that will be the result of that civil war and probably theocratic.

That should be the inheritance to Iraq for what we did?

Posted by: Novenge at June 8, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #155874

No ones angry with ya. You asked a question and I answered. Didn’t mean for it to sound like I was angry. Sorry.

I once new a German guy that thought Hitler was God incarnated. He was a kid during WWII and his farther was some kind of Nazi official. He wasn’t to well liked in the community. Some folks were out to get him. I was transferred to another base so I don’t know what ever became of him. But he was actually a likable guy if folks would’ve taken the time to get to know him.
The only good thing I see that ever came out of the third reich was the VW Bug.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 8, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #155904

Ron, I know what you are saying. My father was in the Army during WWII, but, he did not serve a day overseas, I never knew why. People who didn’t have to live with my Dad thought a great deal of his charm and good humor. Especially in bars. Those of us who had to live with him or grew up with him saw the other side of the man, ignorant, uneducated, unread, bigoted to an extreme, intolerant, prone to fits of violence and intimidation. Yet most who had associations with him said he was very likable. At his funeral there were more people than I have ever seen assembled for any of my deceased family members.

Says something about the public charm and charisma of my Dad, and Adolph Hitler as well, apparently. My Dad learned to be charming and self-effacing as a means of getting himself back into people’s good graces after beating the crap out of them, or insulting, or intimidating them in some way. I do however, thank my father immensely for teaching me the meaning of what it is to lack integrity. He had none, whatsoever. He held so many opposing opinions, spiels, and ideas in his head that it was truly amazing that he was able to function at all.

He was not alone in these qualities in Saginaw and Detroit, Mi. however, which accounts for his many “friends” and family at his funeral.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 9, 2006 4:48 AM
Comment #155905

Novenge, Iraq, as I have written many times since 2003, is like Viet Nam. Having failed to win the peace, ultimately one has only one choice, leave now or leave later, in defeat of stated objectives and goals. We reached a point in Viet Nam where the cost of victory would have been too high, because to win we would have had to destroy damn near the entire Northern Viet Nam population. That would have rendered us no better than our enemy. That was a price too high for victory. Hence our only choice was to leave sooner or later in defeat. We stayed there years and thousands of American dead past the time when it was clear we should have left. The years we spent looking for some political victory way out of the conflict only wasted our resources and American soldier’s lives.

We are in that very same position now in Iraq. We can defeat the insurgents and al-Queda in Iraq, but to do so, we must become as immoral, illegal, and inhumane as they are. The price of victory in Iraq is now too high to accept. Hence, like Viet Nam, we have only 2 choices having turned our backs on the options to victory, leave sooner or later. And the differences between sooner or later can be counted by number of dead, dollars spent, and loss of respect in the world for perpetuating the international conflict.

Once we left Viet Nam, what happened afterward in Viet Nam was the Communist’s responsibility, not ours. We are only responsible for what happened while occupying Viet Nam. The same is true of Iraq. We are responsible for everything that happens in Iraq as long as we occupy Iraq. When we leave, the responsibility for what happens in Iraq is the Iraqi Government’s and the Iraq people’s. History is quite clear on this point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 9, 2006 5:04 AM
Comment #155925

Can somebody explain to Michael Berg that the sacrifice of a son to God, or to any kind of god whatsoever, even if it is called Pacifism, is totally out of fashion, at least since Abraham’s time?

Posted by: Francisco Gerardo at June 9, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #155942


We are responsible for everything that happens in Iraq as long as we occupy Iraq. When we leave, the responsibility for what happens in Iraq is the Iraqi Government’s and the Iraq people’s.

I beg to disagree here. I think US are responsible for everything that happens in Iraq *when* you occupy Iraq.
Not “as long as”, because it implies that every responsability of actions done during the occupation will automagically expires when occupation ends. Sorry, but it’s too easy.

One is responsible for the consequences of his acts, his acts only, but whatever long these consequences last.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 9, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #155944

David Remer,

So we leave the country a hundred times worse and more chaotic than we found it? Won’t history be quite clear on that as well? we went in decimating the infrastructure, replacing nothing, letting in all terror groups from neighboring countries, laying off the entire population from their jobs, and leaving about 100 thousand plus civillians dead. If we left now history would not be kind to our actions and so to the preemptive basis of this war, which history already has taken note of. I just see that an avenue of getting out of there in the short term is not available any longer. We have a duty to undertake there now as we opened Pandoras box of horrors, it is up to us to close it even if up to now every path we took politically and policy-wise has been a sham if not a near failure in reason. I don’t want to see it going on any longer than it has to for the sake of our nation either, so in some respects I concur.

Ron Brown, I know you weren’t angry.

Posted by: Novenge at June 9, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #156259

Novenge, and how kind do you think history will be toward our economic collapse as a result of staying in Iraq?

Does anyone hold the U.S. for what is happening in Viet Nam today? Of course not. That’s the point, Phillip and Novenge. Our mission was to topple the Hussein regime and install a democratic government. We did that. Mission Accomplished. Now it is time to pull out.

What happens afterward will be the responsibility of the Iraqis and their new government. We can continue to provide technical and some financial aid for infrastructure, especially for their oil industry, but, we need not keep our magnet effect focused on their country. In the end, our staying will have the most negative effect both on them and us.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2006 11:30 AM
Post a comment