The Next Zarqawi

I understand Zarkawi had become isolated by his actions against shiites in general and "traitrerous" sunnis who didn't embrace his version of jihad. It was only a question of time until someone collected the $25 M. Zarkawi's death, that's a good thing. But it ain't gonna change much in Iraq, where his movement was succesfull at first but had lost most of its steam. Any little bit helps though.

somehow, despite the giant headline on the homepage of the post.com, this seems kind of insignificant. getting zarqawi doesn't really change the status quo in terms of our failed attempts at nation building. we needed to kill or capture this man months, if not years ago for it to have made any difference. perhaps it will briefly throw the iraqi al quaeda cell into disarray, but i don't really have any doubt that someone will take his place. and as noted in the kit, this doesn't have much of an effect (if any) on the shiite-sunni conflict, whichi seems to be the main obstacle in the way of a stable iraqi nation.

AZ's death signals a small victory for W and Rummy... true, the enemy is faceless, some of our counter ops is faceless too, unlike the obvious strolling around in tanks and armor. We rarely hear about our underground counter effort, and for good reason.

Zarqawi is a side issue to the overall thrust of Iraq. His death is more of a police action resulting from his involvement in several gruesome executions. Nobody seriously believes his death will stop the increasingly sectarian insurgency.

The question is how can the United States manage to quell the burgeoning civil war? One reasonable, though politically impossible, solution is not to declare victory and leave, but to allow ourselves to be pushed out by some strong leader behind whom all Iraqi's will unite. To "win" in Iraq, we need to let ourselves be beaten.

Don't hold your breath, though.

Repost on behalf of Tim:
I listened to part of Bush's address this morning, concerning al Zarqawi. I believe he thought that he was delivering an indictment to justify the use of lethal force. He spoke of the many U.S. soldiers killed by this one man, plus the afterthought of the thousands of Iraqis that he did away with; how he had eluded our forces for years; and single-handedly stymied all our efforts to rebuild Iraq, which only now could proceed, now that he is dead. And then he spoke of the "remarkable accomplishment" and "courage" of our soldiers who defeated him.

Let's just consider how this plays in the sticks: he has declared al Zarqawi to be such a mighty and puissant foe that only the unified might of the U.S. military, using technologically advanced weaponry, was sufficient to kill him, and only then after years of tracking him and planning for this moment. Furthermore, it was a remarkable accomplishment that took real courage to kill him with bombs dropped from supersonic aircraft, since he is so mighty that presumably he could have reached out with his mighty pinky and slain our soldiers at any closer range, if they had attacked with any smaller weapons.

It seems like a wiser move would have been to keep it short and simple, to declare him a heartless terrorist and criminal with no regard for the lives of the Iraqi people. A fanatic so bent on taking the lives of U.S. soldiers that he sent young men on suicide missions into crowds of children, murdering Iraqi civilians who hoped for a better life, solely to try to kill one or two American soldiers.Portray him as a rabid animal that had to be put down. Instead, we have made him into Robin Hood. How stupid are we?

Tim, please repost your last comment on the previous boodle, as it is germane here.

I wonder if breaking the country up is an option being seriously considered.

Thank you, Tim by proxi!

I'm reposting this (wwith a little more editing) from the tail of the last Boodle:

I listened to part of Bush's address this morning, concerning al Zarqawi. I believe he thought that he was delivering an indictment to justify the use of lethal force. He spoke of the many U.S. soldiers killed by this one man, plus the afterthought of the thousands of Iraqis that he did away with; how he had eluded our forces for years; and single-handedly stymied all our efforts to rebuild Iraq, which only now could proceed, now that he is dead. And then he spoke of the "remarkable accomplishment" and "courage" of our soldiers who defeated him.

Let's just consider how this plays in the sticks: he has declared al Zarqawi to be such a mighty and puissant foe that only the unified might of the U.S. military, using technologically advanced weaponry, was sufficient to kill him, and only then after years of tracking him and planning for this moment. Furthermore, it was a remarkable accomplishment that took real courage to kill him with bombs dropped from supersonic aircraft. Evidently, he was so mighty that he could have reached out with his pinky and slain our soldiers at any closer range, if they had attacked with any smaller weapons.

It seems like a wiser move would have been to keep it short and simple, to declare him a heartless terrorist and criminal with no regard for the lives of the Iraqi people. A fanatic so bent on taking the lives of U.S. soldiers that he sent young men on suicide missions into crowds of children, murdering Iraqi civilians who hoped for a better life, solely to try to kill one or two American soldiers. A man who sent teams to kidnap civilians who were there to help the Iraqi people, and brutally murdered them on camera. Portray him as a rabid animal that had to be put down. Instead, we have made him into Robin Hood. How stupid are we?

Dear Mr. Pena,

ummmmm, 'scuse me, but AZ attacked property of the United States of America too. True, OBL is the big enchilada but why not have a few tacos as an appetizer...

That's an interesting idea, RD.

Probably more suitable to the reality of the situation than a televised ceremony where papers are signed, and two guys look into the cameras, smiling and shaking with their right hands while the US representative dramatically hands over The Keys with the left.

bc

>I wonder if breaking the country up is an option being seriously considered.

Ours or theirs?

oops.

I too, have read many reports about Iraqis, incuding Sunnis, turning against Zarqari -- his organization has been enforcing very strict codes of dress and behavior on people who do not want it -- al a the Taliban. There's a great section in the NYT web site that features blogs from ordinary Iraqi citizens (I note that they don't report the "good news" either -- must have caught the liberal media bias).

The blogs discuss the fear of being caught in inappropriate dress -- it's s death sentence.

I'm somewhat disturbed by the hyping of Zarqari's death as being a blow for the worldwide al Qaeda organization. It's not, of course. He was al Qaeda in Iraq, very specifically. He had no role in out-of-country operations.

I do believe it is a small victory for Iraqis. They hated him and the bloodbath he fomented. Had Americans pulled out of the country, he would have been dead in days. The only reason he had clout was the common enemy.

I just started reading Nur Rosen's "In the Belly of the Green Bird" -- about how the martyrs have won Iraq. The book ends in January of '05.

The Shi'ite militias were already well formed and de facto running large swaths of the country by then.

Saw Rosen interviewed by Zakaria on PBS -- Rosen now says that the man who runs most of Shi'ite Iraq is Moqtada al-Sadr.

Rosen is Arab (the bio in the book only says he speaks Iraqi accented Arabic -- doesn't say if he is Iraqi or not).

He had unprecendented access to everyone -- insurgents and Bremer.

I would hope for the Iraqi people that this is a turning point -- but I sadly doubt it.

On the note of American troop reduction: I found out Monday that the husband of my favorite nurse at one of my doctor's offices is being deployed in August. He's Air Force. His stated mission: to rebuild the buildings that we have bombed.

I listened to her, watch her tear up, heard her say that the military told them that CNN is not their friend because they never report all the good news from Iraq.

I'm so disgusted I want to cry with her. All the media reports (incuding one today) say that American rebuilding efforts are ending, that by years end the Iraqis will have responsibility for the so-called reconstruction (nothing, of cousre, is actually being built).

Yet we're deploying Air Force troops in August of '06 (for 9 months to a year) under the guise of reconsruction?

Someone please explain this to me. My friend believes it all; she has to. She is a working mother of three who lives a country life with little knowledge of the "bigger picture." She trusts the military --

So Zarqari is dead. Nir Rosen would probably say it doesn't make much difference anymore.

EF: funny, but that's going to get thrown back at you in the primaries.

Iraq clearly needs some kind of secular strongman to kick some ... what? Oh sorry. Nevermind.

I would never have used the word "puissant" in a post, until I was emboldened by the mention of Puissance as an equestrian event a few days ago.

The propblem with Iraqi division is that one group lives largely in the oil rich portion of the nation, while the other lives in the oil poor section. Besides, divisions based on religion have historically been nasty. The geographic displacements imposed invariably cause intense resentment. Think India and Pakistan.

Breaking up the country seems unlikely. Turkey is an ally, and Turkey is dead-set against it -- a separate Kurdistan would be an inducement to their own oppressed population of Kurds to resume their efforts at separation to form a Kurdish state.

On the other hand -- we could bribe Iran by giving them Shi'ite Iraq, bribe Syria by giving them Sunni Iraq, bribe Turkey by giving them Kurdish Iraq. Then let them deal with the inevitable violence from people who didn't want to become part of those countries, either. Which may explain why they haven't advocated such an arrangement.

Sorry for the double repost Tim, our electrons must have crossed when I announced the new kit in the old. I won't do it again, promised.
But your post was so right, Zarqawi if a little piece of crud, he shouldn't be aggrandized in any fashion.

I'm being prevented from posting. My posts getting sent to a site that says it will review the post.

As no one else has commented since my 11:17, I'm guessing this is happening to everyone.

I think the NSA finally got control of the boodle. Joel -- did they get to you too!!

This war reminds me again of what American heroes Robert E Lee and the other Confederate generals turned out to be when they sent their men home after surrender and told them to stop the fight. Many of the soldiers wanted to continue a guerilla war.

If anyone wonders why these guys deserve to still have highways and schools named after them they should remember that they gave up their lost fight and urged their men to "put their ill feelings aside."

We might be against the reasons for why our Civil War began in the first place, but we've got to remember that it did end and our country survived it.

Nevermind. I did have a post agreeing with tim and thanking him -- that then digressed to Coulter.

It was sent to a site that said it was being held for review by the appropriate blog.

It never did show up. Anyone else had this problem?

Nelson, did you have more than two links in it? That is a no-no.

Tim -- I'm glad that my post on Puissance emboldened you to use "puissant" in your post.

It's a very suitable word.

slyness -- no links at all. I wondered if the NSA had managed to "turn" Joel and it now has control of the boodle.

Glad to see we're still free to express our opinions. Probably just being monitored.

>It was sent to a site that said it was being held for review by the appropriate blog.

If there's anyone there actually reviewing they sure are either very slow readers or have very strict rules for what can be posted.

I think if you use nouns or verbs the folks in Held For Review Land will consider it against their standards.

I guess the other name for that land is The Trash.

RD: agree on nastiness, of course (where's my camel?).

India and Pakistan have had three wars since 1948. However, none of those three, to my knowledge, resulted in territorial adjustment and were "relatively" contained.

I see two big downsides in a breakup. First, the Shia mini-state will very likely be mini-Iran. Second, you're right that there very well could be large population displacements that will be future sources of resentment to anyone seen as participating in the breakup (read: U.S.). Also, (I guess a third downside) is that the oil-poor Sunni mini-state could easily tip into either a Baathist mini-Syria or a new islamist state.

On the other hand, "internal" civil wars with a religious dimension aren't exactly nastiness-free either. Think Thirty Years War.

If anyone is having problems posting a comment, you can email the comment to me at achenbachj@washpost.com. And I'll post it. I'm sorry about the filter. You might copy the text before trying to post it to make sure that it doesn't get obliterated.

Note the little j in that email address. Don't ask why we have such insane email addresses.

weird email address: so it takes the NSA .000005 nanoseconds longer to track you down, a lot tougher to track achenbachj@washpost rather than just achenbach@washpost. Ingenious on behalf of WashPost IT Dept.

There still is the question of how to pronounce "puissant" if you've never seen it before. It's not a very common word, after all. I use a semi-French pronunciation that voices the terminal 't', since we's Merkins here, mostly.

pwee-sahnt

These things are important to me, ever since I was shamed in a 5th-grade spelling bee. Early in the bee (usually, I was Last Speller Standing), I was struck a blow most foul, foiled by my lack of state-sponsored religious education. Darn the High Wall of Separation between Church and State! "Sahm," said the teacher. "Som?" asked I, playing for time. "Sahm,"said the teacher. We wrote our answers on a board in that school, rather than spelling verbally. I have a clear visual memory of turning to that board and writing the obvious phonetic spelling for a word that I had never encountered in spoken language, "som." There were hoots, there was derision; or maybe, just a breeze, a zephyr, a murmur of surprise from the class. "Wrong," said the teacher. "Well, how do you spell it?" asked I. Under her direction, I wrote out "psalm," a word I had only ever encountered in written form, while reading "Last of the Mohicans." Damn my accursed secular upbringing!

nelson, I'm very sorry to hear that your friend's husband is being deployed and will pray for his safe return and all others as well. Of course she "has" to believe it. It would be unbearable to believe otherwise.

Tim, I too liked "puissant". Before I looked up the pronunciation on Google, it brought to mind our track coach at Luther Burbank High School in SA Texas who used to yell at us "Run you little pi-- aints! Run!"

>Note the little j in that email address. Don't ask why we have such insane email addresses.

I remember a Dilbert comic where a woman named Brenda Utthead was complaining about the company's email-naming convention of FirstInitialLastName@company.com

Also speaking of email addresses...

I listed my boodle-specific email address here in the boodle ONCE in regular form (with the @ symbol) a few weeks ago and have had several spams sent to it since.

All of them in Spanish!

Tim you made me curious as how to pronounce puissant, I only know it from french, here is what I found on dictionary.com

puissant \PWISS-uhnt; PYOO-uh-suhnt; pyoo-ISS-uhnt\, adjective:
Powerful; strong; mighty; as, a puissant prince or empire.

TBG, there has recently been a flood of spam with sneaky re: lines and senders, so it may be a coincidence.

SonofCarl: I created the address the same day I posted it and it's never been used anywhere else.

I just think it's funny that a Spanish-speaking troll (picture one with a sombrero) found it that particular day.

joel -- thanks for your advice on posting problems. The post that wasn't was mostly a ramble on Coulter finally getting a well-deserved black-eye -- and on how and why it's taken everyone so long to finally call her on her obscene, delusional vindictive ramblings.

I always thought puissant was pronounced piss-ant. At least that's how we say it where I come from. And until I saw it spelled out, I also thought it was spelled pissant. The idea being that the bearer of this perjorative word wasn't worth being peed on by an ant. Or that he/she was ant pee.

Anyway, I'm so glad that I now have various ways in which to pronounce it.

Nani, thanks for your thoughts about my friend. I promised her we go out for a drink, and I would be the designated driver. She said she would get good and drunk.

It's the obscenity of the situation that just makes me sick. Bush is absolutely lying about "stand up the Iraqis, stand down the Americans." If they're still sending troops over (Air Force?) for reconstruction.

I just wish that more people in this country would actually pay attention -- read beyond their local paper, if they even read that.

But I delude myself. Rush reigns supreme!!

Hail to the Wing Nuts! Hail Victory!

Quién está Trick-Tracka en mi puente?

puissant : pwee-sahn
puissante : pwee-sahnt
Merkins pronouncing the final T in puissant will be wheeled, hanged, drawn-at-four-horses and their remains fed to the pigs. Thank you for your continuous attention.

re. spam
I think the servers used in the actual transmission are monitered by bots looking for valid e-mail addresses. I exchanged a few e-mails with a Beijing based Chinese government guy a couple of years ago and was subsequently deluged with Chinese spam. So now I know that V1agra is written V1agra in Chinese caracters.

re. spam
I think the servers used in the actual transmission are monitered by bots looking for valid e-mail addresses. I exchanged a few e-mails with a Beijing based Chinese government guy a couple of years ago and was subsequently deluged with Chinese spam. So now I know that V1agra is written V1agra in Chinese caracters.

Whoa ! Hal the Schemer first falsely accuses me of submitting a post with an empty name field then proceeds to double post it. Another one that should lay off the double expressos.

or expressi ?

Gendarme, kindly keep horses, (such gentle, genteel animals) out of it. You can keep the pigs though.

Not to mention the fact that the Gendarme likes his/her horses with cream sauce.

...or you could go with espressos if, ya know, you're into spelling and junk.

So nice to see you again, Gendarme. C'est vas?

:-)

Well, Scotty, it's been nice knowin' ya.

Shrieking, Hal the Schemer had to feed the Achenhog-- it's lunchtime after all.

Expressos are faster to make.
My first instinct was to put an s, but as I am wrong most of the time I went for the x...

Nelson--my Navy SIL is also being deployed to the gulf this summer--Bahrain, with lots of travel, he's been told. His main job is processing reservists. Something's up for sure.

And whatever happened to Bin Laden?

Is he now working as a double agent for the US or hanging ten in Gitmo bay? Wait a minute...you mean he's still free and in hiding?

Gosh, in the movies the evil villian is always confronted and caught within 100 minutes, singlehandedly by a lone hero with a few jazzy gadgets. And it didn't cost 400 gazillion.

(Even to make the movie... still not 400 gazillion...)

Aw, c'mon, kb, at least I didn't pronouce a 't' at the end.

*LOL*

nelson, pissant and puissant are two very different words! Pissant has the definition that you gave for it.

Anybody seen this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

I found the last piece on the bottom particularly funny.

I've got pressure! I've got pressure! It's not over!

nelson, our Joel has WAAAAAY too much integrity to ever allow hiomself to be "turned" by the NSA, as you suggest.

It hadda be the Proxima Centaurians that got to him.

bc, pass me another sheet of that Alcoa, will ya? The one with the non-stick on one side. I think some of the muon waves are getting through.

Thank you Scotty, Ça va bien.
SoC
Sauce à la crème is more appropriate for lagomorph, with a hint of Dijon maybe ? Cheval needs a more robust sauce. Ummm bourguignonne or marchand-de-vin maybe.
Nani, read Nelson's and Shrieker's stories about those bone breaking animals. Horses are not gentle and in my experience ponies can be darn right nasty. I love horses and ponies, not only in a culinary fashion, but I have no more problem eating horse meat than cattle ranchers have eating beef.

Au contraire, my dear Wilbrod. Ernst Stavro Blofeld kept getting away from Bond, James Bond, and Moriarity slipped past the great Sherlock numerous times.

(Of course, I'm talking about fiction, whereas you're talking about the Bush White House...oh, wait a minute...)

I keep praying that this war isn't going to be another Viet Nam. Did the VW war have an Osama or a Zarqawi that we couldn't find and annihilate? Were we too proud to say we made a mistake and leave? Isn't war just a racket conducted for the benefit of the very few who reap fortunes at the expense of the masses? How many millionnaires' children shoulder rifles?

Well, back from lunch and I see we've devolved to pissants and muons. And all this pressure!!! Check out Froomkin if you get a chance. Arlen Spector is calling out Dick Cheyney over the eavesdropping mess. Ain't it great when the herd turns and starts eating its own?
Or just starts totally self-destructing (see: Ann Coulter)?

Gendarme, LOL.

Mudge, I note that Zarqawi didn't have earlobes, just like Blofeld. Coincidence?

Current estimate for cost the Iraq war&policing project until now: $325 billions. Pushing on the 1/3 trillion. Ouch ! On the other hand it looks like Zarqy was with 5 of his deputies, or at least some trusted and experienced fighters. So that's good because the experienced guys are getting far and few in his organization. The special forces have been on their case on a while now, the ranks have be thinned out seriously.
Finding 17 years old dummies ready to blow themselves up for an iffy promise of paradise isn't a problem unfortunately.

Merci bien, Gendarme. Good to know my translational phonetic spelling is understadable.

Which is more than can be said for my handwriting.

:-)

SCC: understandable

Unlike my typing! *LOL*

Yes, the Viet Nam war had the Viet Kong that we couldn't annihilate. We were fighting Communism (anybody remember Communism?) but were afraid to escalate for fear of the Chinese would get involved in the war (or more involved), we were also making some certain Soviets very unhappy within the Politburo, namely, Chmns Kosygin and Breshnev. The Communistic Domino threat was real (all nations were to become Communistic, one-by-one, like dominoes falling) and the international political landscape of the 60s was very different from today. We could have won the Viet Nam War if we really tried. Story goes that we never lost a battle in the Viet Nam War, but we did lose the war. But the Soviet Union did crumble and Communism is about dead... except maybe in Cuba...

Somebody can tell I didn't preview previous post?

moron

Have to agree with other posters that, in the middle and long run, this is totally insignificant. Maybe if it happened a few years ago, but by this point it's not like the attacks will dissipate - in fact, they may even reach new levels.

Sigh. And now they're lying about a drawdown next year, even.

Gendarme, bon appetit!

Shriek, $325 billion? Seems the great think and strategist, Paul wolfowitz, was a little off in his calculations (he predicted this war would pay for itself). So he's only, what? $325 billion off, more or less.

Good thing they removed him and gave him a job where accurately predicted financial matters isn't critical. ...Oh, wait...

Viet Kong, nottamember? Was that the movie where Ho Chi Minh fell off the Emprire State Building?

I can't believe Froomkin let this one by without some comment:

Bush on Chavez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as Abramowitz notes in The Post: "Bush took an unexpected shot at Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, with whom the administration has long been at odds. Told by one woman at the center, Lourdes Secola, that she was from Venezuela, Bush said he is worried about her country.

" 'I think it will be okay,' Bush told Secola. 'But it's going to take awhile. Sometimes leaders show up who do a great disservice to the traditions and people of a country.' "

Mudge, I'll pass the Alcoa, and I'll try to find us some lead foil, as long as you promise not to eat it.

bc

Thanks, bc. As it happens, my doctor has advised me to cut back on the toxic heavy metals.

I don't think this one is easily comparable for the simple reason, that in Vietnam you supported a government that was not supported by the majority of the average joes in the street. Vietnam had been at war with its colonial masters for decades and I think no matter what the average joes politics were, they just wanted to determine their fate on their own. They were essentially on one side no matter what side of the border they lived on.

The divisions in Iraq are distinct between groups, along religious and tribal lines, and have existed for years. Just leaving is not the resolution that is needed here, nor is peacekeeping.

nottamember, those were rhetorical questions. My answer is "yes" to each.

Haha, mudge, you're funny! Oh, your Hurricane Hazel story was great (as usual). My "Hazel" was "Kate" who blew through Tallahassee, FL in 1985 at 90 mph (okay, maybe 75 mph, but it seemed like 90). When my cats dove for cover under the bed, I did likewise. Nose pressed against dusty bedsprings for hours, saying about a million Hey Marys, listening to that groaning wind and the crashing noises of neighbors' carports and porches being destroyed. So now I'm back here and the season is just beginning.......

SCC: Not "yes" to the last question.

oops, make that Viet Cong. Nice catch C. Fay Wray kicked up some dust in her urn over that faux pas...

From Britain's Guardian:
The tip-offs were thought to have come from a mix of local Iraqis and those inside his terror network who have been caught by coalition forces.

Anyone else hear anything more on this part of the story?

Linda, thanks for your post on perseverance (Gore boodle), sure beets the alternative.

Re: Bush on Chavez - talk about the pot & kettle! At least Bush sounded like he knew what he was talking about in that quote - he should, of course, he could just have as easily been talking about himself.

Did any of y'all read Arlen Spector's slap in the face to Cheney? Great stuff, especially from a Republican.

News out of Kuwait:

A presidential spokesman denied reports that the air strike that took the life of the leading notorious insurgency chief was carried out as a result of a tip-off provided by the Jordanian intelligence.

The information about his whereabouts were provided by natives of the region where he was hiding along with his aides, the spokesman said.

News from the BBC:

He said a tip from someone in Zarqawi's network put US forces on the trail of Sheikh Abd-al-Rahman, the militant's "spiritual adviser".

He would not say when they received this tip, but said they had clear evidence about a month-and-a-half ago that began the process that led them to identify the safe house where Zarqawi was eventually killed.

USA Today reports ABC News got the tip, too:

The ABC News report was based on a tip phoned from a source to Martha Raddatz, who was named ABC's chief White House correspondent last November after a dozen years covering the Pentagon for ABC News and National Public Radio.

Raddatz, who reported via phone on the air to ABC overnight anchors Ron Corning and Tainia Hernandez, sourced her report to a senior military official.

A little bit more from the USA Today piece:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Thanks to a reporter jolted out of a vacation -- if not sleep -- ABC News scored a significant beat on its competitors Thursday when it was the first on the air to report the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.

ABC broke into regular programming at 2:38 a.m. ET to say it had confirmed al-Zarqawi's death in a U.S. bombing. NBC's report came at 3:16 a.m. while CBS News checked in at 3:40 a.m.

The WH economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey was dismissed for suggesting a cost of $100-200 Billions back in 2002. Rumsfeld estimate's was somewhat under $50B. The Congress Budget Office estimates the current running cost at about $6 B a month for Iraq and just short of a $B for Afghanistan. Afghanistan a good deal because NATO, the UK and our own Canukstanis are footing a (small) part of the bill and providing some troops. These costs are not openly discussed in Congress I believe. The money gets approved as an emergency measure. The emergencies just keep repeating themselves.

Bottom-line: Is the gov't paying out on the $25M reward offered for Zarqawi's head?

This would have been on-topic yesterday: I dug up a story I did on Hurricane Floyd. I just posted it on the previous boodle (climate change wednesday).

the winning $25m ticket holder remains anonymous until he/she consults w/atty, CPA, former spouses, and local dealership for new Beemer on credit until funds are dispersed (after-tax, which means payout will be about $50K).

"The information about his whereabouts were provided by natives of the region where he was hiding along with his aides" is interesting because the region is pretty much exclusively sunni. His rantings against treacherous false muslims probably didn't help in the long run. You don't ear OBL dissing his fellow muslims and he hasn't been ratted on yet.
I suspect the money will be paid and the "street" will know it. Payees are unlikely to stay very long in Iraq...

This headline mocks the many much bigger issues we face.

Salamander: Explain.

FYI, apparently a number of people have made the same mistake I did on Hillary and flag-burning:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/06/hillarys_flagbu.html

Not that it excuses being sloppy.

Regarding UBL. The question is how many people we want to kill or be killed for a largely symbolic event. It's like a bullet next to the spine. Sure it is an irritant, but do you really want to risk something far worse by digging it out?

At going rates, I suspect that $25M can buy an awful lot of "private counter-insurgency." Maybe that's the thing to do -- locate secular Iraqis, respected by their neighbors, impatient with the insurgency that seems mainly to kill Iraqis, and provide a little seed money for vigilante action. Plus, by setting up our own little warlords, we know exactly who it is that we need to take down once they've done their job and started to go corrupt on us. Except for being immoral, unethical, and evil, it might just work!

Or we could spike the water supply with prozac

Tim,

I. U. and E. never stopped us before... shouldn't be an issue.

Joel, at the link you provided, Nyhan describes Richard Cohen as the "hapless Richard Cohen." What's up with that?

"Plus, by setting up our own little warlords, we know exactly who it is that we need to take down once they've done their job and started to go corrupt on us." Isn't that about what we've been trying to do in Afghanistan?

Tim,

take that back, they ARE issues, but don't really seem to be, esp. in warfare.

Somehow, I never previously noticed that Immoral, Unethical, and Evil would boil down to the acronym IU&E. My dissertation research used the IUE satellite (International Ultraviolet Explorer), I met my wife when she was an operator of the IUE, and the ScienceKids' middle names commemorate the IUE and/or my research using it (no, you'll never guess; don't even try).

From now on, I shall try to remember to make it Evil, Unethical, and Immoral = EU&I.

From Joel's story on Hurricane Floyd:

"It has turned people a little bit crazy and desperate, and in some cases made them generous and kind."

After Kate, many were without power for days and some for weeks. My phone was operative and I checked in with my children and g-kids; everyone was okay. I drove to the nearest grocery store, Harvey's on Capital Circle, for more candles and ice. The store was open, but also without power. Managers stood at the front door of the darkened store (just light from the windows) giving out free candles and bottled water. A large hand-painted sign had this printed message: "Please don't steal. Take what you need, bring it to the front of the store. If you can pay, please do. If not, we'll give you an IOU." The quiet after the storm was like nothing I'd experienced before in a city. Birds were chirping, whistling, tweeting and trilling. You could hear leaves rustling, neighbors chatting quitely among themselves down the block. "Well thank the Good Lord, it coulda been lots worse." Home never seemed sweeter.

Umm, Tim, isn't that how Saddam stayed in power?

Going completely off-topic here (sorry, Boss), I found this article about federal agencies reclaiming declassified documents from the National Archives fascinating.
And a bit alarming.
But not surprising.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060701870.html

Re. Floyd paper
I have a vision of JA tied with Helen Hunt to a 15 ft fiberglass Holstein flying up the sidewall of a twister now.

Why not IUD = Immoral, Unethical and Dumb?

*I've succumbed to Boodle hoi polloi think.* Let the entendres and analogies abound.

No need for a new acronym; "Our SOBs" is quite sufficient.

I was going to add a link, but (1) it is likely unnecessary; (2) my google search had quite the load of returns; and (3) there is no third point, but SOBS in the UK turns out to be the Save Our Building Society.

The close relationship with the acronym and my handle were duly noted. Coincidence? I think not.

The 25 million dollar question kind of reminds me of a hypothetical question I asked a friend recently. Is it ok to accept money from the Devil to do God's work? (In which my friend replied with "I think that's the best example of a conundrum I've ever heard.")

I wonder if the anti-war types and IraqBreakup Biden are a little disappointed today. Even the news reports on Iraqi reaction look pretty good... happy Shia and Kurds mixed with some upset Sunni (who should be celebrating Z. 's martyrdom... I know I am : ) I mean today Al Qaeda takes a big hit (Z. + 17 related raids) and Iraqi Gov finally agree on two top Ministers in key Portfolios - one an anti-Saddam Sunni general to lead the defence dept. and gee not much news lately on American casualties... besides an April upsurge (following 5 months decline) haven't they dropped again lately ?

Seems like a pretty good day all around.

SCC: was

dr: see my 11:17

Loomis: I was going to suggest IUD as well, but that opens a whole new can of worms, and I'm traveling 'til tomorrow aft. See y'all.

From the same company that brought you "Iraq Has WMDs" comes the new and informative headline "We Killed [Insert The Al Queda Name of Your Choice To Get The Base Back In Line]". Yeah, these guys got lots and lots o'credibility. I believe it, don't you?

From the same company that brought you "Iraq Has WMDs" comes the new and informative headline "We Killed [Insert The Al Queda Name of Your Choice To Get The Base Back In Line]". Yeah, these guys got lots and lots o'credibility. I believe it, don't you?

Mudge -- I bet the Proxima Centaurians have a btter code of ethics than the NSA -- after all they've managed to travel light years through space to get to Joel. Which means they survived the part of "civilization growth" that we humans may not.

When advanced civilizations (we don't qualify yet) either self-destruct or manage to get through tha nasty juvenile phase of mutually-assured destruction, or the clash of pre-modern and post-modern worlds. I bet the Alpha Centaurians danced through the adolescent phase of fouling one's own nest and rendering most of the other species extinct.

This successful passage comes with rock hard ethics that can't be bent by a few nasty individuals bent on saving the world (or worlds) from the evildoers.

Sums up my mood on where we are now on Planet Earth.

Was at a doctor's office, watching Nir Rosen being interviewed on CNN about the death of Zarqawi.

He pretty much agreed with the boodle on the importance of Zarqawis' death -- except he sees it as simply fanning the flames of fanaticism. Wait for the inevitable "Zarqawi Brigades" to form and begin blowing up people.

We've made him a martyr. More martyrs are gonna march in.

The reporting that neighbors of Zarqawi giving him up sqaures with what I've read about how sick the Iraqis. Sunnis included were of him.

He and his fellow extremist are trying to implement a form of Sharia in Iraq that Iraqis don't want. Back to the dress codes. Cutting off internet access. Killing families who have satellite TVs turned to stations other than Al-Jazeera.

This type of behavior gets old quickly. Iraqi Sunnis aren't (or weren't) extremists. In fact, they're a pretty secular bunch.

I'm not surprised.

Mudge -- I bet the Proxima Centaurians have a btter code of ethics than the NSA -- after all they've managed to travel light years through space to get to Joel. Which means they survived the part of "civilization growth" that we humans may not.

When advanced civilizations (we don't qualify yet) either self-destruct or manage to get through tha nasty juvenile phase of mutually-assured destruction, or the clash of pre-modern and post-modern worlds. I bet the Alpha Centaurians danced through the adolescent phase of fouling one's own nest and rendering most of the other species extinct.

This successful passage comes with rock hard ethics that can't be bent by a few nasty individuals bent on saving the world (or worlds) from the evildoers.

Sums up my mood on where we are now on Planet Earth.

Was at a doctor's office, watching Nir Rosen being interviewed on CNN about the death of Zarqawi.

He pretty much agreed with the boodle on the importance of Zarqawis' death -- except he sees it as simply fanning the flames of fanaticism. Wait for the inevitable "Zarqawi Brigades" to form and begin blowing up people.

We've made him a martyr. More martyrs are gonna march in.

The reporting that neighbors of Zarqawi giving him up sqaures with what I've read about how sick the Iraqis. Sunnis included were of him.

He and his fellow extremist are trying to implement a form of Sharia in Iraq that Iraqis don't want. Back to the dress codes. Cutting off internet access. Killing families who have satellite TVs turned to stations other than Al-Jazeera.

This type of behavior gets old quickly. Iraqi Sunnis aren't (or weren't) extremists. In fact, they're a pretty secular bunch.

I'm not surprised.

Lindaloo, have you been back to see Dr. Sanger? Need feedback from you to write the next episode of the ongoing serial (chapter play) - The Many Lives of Lindaloo. Working on a plot for that beet story!

I read in some column today (forget who, and can't find it) that this anti gay ammendment is simple political pandering to the far right fundamentalists and that Bush and Co. should realize that their constituents aren't dumb and blah blah blah or something like that, and then I thought wait a second they voted for this guy! TWICE!!... Of course they're dumb...sheesh.

not sure how that got posted twice. apologies.

tim -- thanks for explaining the difference between puissant and pissant.

They are my two new words of the day. Will tty to use them in as many sentence as I can in casual conversation and see how it goes . . .

SCC: try

nelson, if your travels take you thru Texas, it's pronounced "piss-aints".

"Is it OK to accept money from the Devil to do God's work?"

Simple. Just ask God what he thinks of the deal. No answer? It's off. ;).

Same as for receiving money for orphans, whatever... ask the clientele if they really want to be grateful to the Devil by proxy or not.

Yeah, pass the buck. Always ;).

Also, if I recall (my Spanish is pretty rusty) puissant in Spanish is gato puffitado. mo, did I get that right?

Geist, I have no problem with accepting the Devil's money to do God's work. However, if the Devil knows what I'm going to do with it, then I would be strongly inclined to reexamine my plans to look for a likelihood of unintended consequences. On the other hand, what about PAYING the Devil to do God's work? That is definitely a conundrum. The question is whether the Devil will be more efficient at doing God's work when I pay him, or doing his own work when he spends the money.

pwilson, I know that there's a tendency to fantasize that your political opponents are unhappy when you are successful with something. Try to get this through your head, which I hope is not too thick: we are arguing about what is good for the American people, not what is good for "my side" vs. "your side." Thus, I am pleased that Zarqawi has been blown away. That doesn't make me rethink my opposition to getting into this war in the way that we did. I am dissatisfied with how Mr. Bush has presented Zarqawi's end, which makes him out to be some sort of superhuman who was finally ground down by the massed power of the U.S., rather than one bug among many who happens to be the one that we squashed today. Regardless of the evidence that we collected and that we present to show that Zarqawi really is dead, do you really think that there won't be rumors about how the wily and elusive Zarqawi escaped the U.S. Army and even now is prepared to strike back for the honor and dignity of (the right segment of) the Iraqi people? By killing him, we made him immortal. Like Elvis. We can never capture or kill a ghost. In killing Zarqawi, we should have made it no big deal. Instead, we've shown that he was enormously important to us, and therefore important to our enemies.

Re: Hurricane altruism

Nani, there are a lot of stories like that. I have a good one from Wilma. My friend Safiya was off work for a week because of the power outages. Her neighborhood was blacked out, so her family was cooking on a gas grill. One morning when she was heating water on the grill, a neighbor from a nearby condominium stopped by and asked if he could have some coffee. One thing led to another, and Safiya and her family ended up spending their days all week making and delivering coffee, water and sandwiches to the mostly elderly inhabitants of the condos, who were getting no help at all from FEMA, Red Cross, etc. What makes this story special is that my friend Safiya and her family are Muslims and the recipients of their charity almost all Jewish. The condo residents had been vocal opponents just months earlier when a mosque was established in the neighborhood (the mosque where Safiya and her family go to services). End result: eyes opened, attitudes changed, friendships formed, community strengthened.

if you win big in Vegas and donate it all to charity... sounds legit. So, yeah, it's okay. Besides, to take money from the devil is to take money from the devil. Better you use for a good cause than him.

Re the posting problem: happens to me all the time. The first button is "Preview", the second button is "Submit". This presumably is to encourage us to think for a moment before posting.

And Osama bin Laden is sitting with his Taliban buddies in northern Pakistan, where the Taliban came from, supported by local militants that the central Pakistani government doesn't want to touch. If the US wanted to go after bin Laden they'd have to fight Pakistani troops. Bush doesn't have the guts to fight a real enemy, that's why we're fighting in Iraq instead and calling that the "war on terror".

Iart from above-- Why should we THINK? This is a blog. ;).

Joel, I thought your Floyd story was every bit as good as Von Drehl's Hugo story. He did a good job describing his personal experience in an extreme situation, but you did more with less material, and both the convicts and the cows are memorable images. That ending was great.

>I wonder if the anti-war types and IraqBreakup Biden are a little disappointed today.

I'm sure some nitwits are, but I was happy to see it first thing this morning and I've been against this stupid war from the beginning. Please tell me how al Qaida can take our freedom? Not possible, only our gov. can do that. They can take our lives yes, but we're giving up the freedoms ourselves.

Not that my thoughts about the actual significance of the capture are all that far off anyone else's here, but it's certainly nice to have a win once in awhile.

Now let's clean up that Pakistan border!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/ap_on_re_us/english_only_cheesesteaks

The great Philly Cheesesteak debate continues. Not to mention they don't say if people HAVE to speak to order food (which would violate the ADA).

I wonder if it would be legal to only serve people if they come in dressed as pirates and go "arrgh, matey! Matey!"

Great prank: When Bush is in town, make a special business deal for people who dress to impersonate the Bush administration.

Bonus points if it's the same site where Bush's speaking.

Squint. "Did I start drinking again this morning?"

Stephen Kinzer, former NYT reporter, maintains in his hot-off-the press, April 2006 book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq " that the Iraq conflict is the only conflict we've been in since the 1893 annexation of Hawaii where we're left scratching our heads and asking "Why?" (although he proceeds to give reasons. One of the words starts with "o." No, not Osama.)

***
Do you think George W. Bush and the neoconservatives inducted "regime change" into American foreign policy's hall of fame? Think again. Long before Iraq, U.S. presidents, spies, corporate types and their acolytes abroad had honed the art of deposing foreign governments.
As Stephen Kinzer tells the story in Overthrow, America's century of regime changing began not in Iraq but Hawaii. Hawaii? Indeed. Kinzer explains that Hawaii's white haole minority -- in cahoots with the U.S. Navy, the White House and Washington's local representative -- conspired to remove Queen Liliuokalani from her throne in 1893 as a step toward annexing the islands. The haole plantation owners believed that by removing the queen (who planned to expand the rights of Hawaii's native majority) and making Hawaii part of the United States, they could get in on a lucrative but protected mainland sugar market. Ever wonder why free trade has such a bad name?

Over the decades, a version of this story repeats, and repeats. Kinzer, a New York Times reporter, writes that the United States has thwarted independence movements in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Nicaragua; staged covert actions and coups d'etat in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile; and invaded Grenada, Panama and obviously Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 110 years, Kinzer argues, the United States has deployed its power to gain access to natural resources, stifle dissent and control the nationalism of newly independent states or political movements.
***
I remember reading quite recently that a group of native Hawaiians made a trek to distant cousin Grover Cleveland's grave to pay thanks for his not annexing Hawai when given the opportunity. See if I can dig it up.

Thinking about Zarqawi's death and what it means, makes me realize the nature of the unifying error in how the Bush administration views the world. It is a common misconception held by most people, but it becomes really dangerous when it's held by people who have been granted power: Mr. Bush subscribes completely to the Great Man Theory of history.

Since Mr. Bush was elected to be President (even better, after a nasty set of trials in which it looked like all was lost and great things hung on small decisions), he must be a Great Man, an agent of history. No wonder he thinks he was chosen by God. If God weren't loading the dice, I suspect even he believes that there's no way that he could have become President. He just doesn't comprehend that enormous effects can result from small causes, and that it happens all the time. A cow can kick over an oil lamp. A single levee wall section can be built sub-par. A slight increase in electrical power demands can shut down the entire Northeast electrical system for days. We like to imagine that big events have singular identifiable causes, but usually the cause is a pervasive readiness for the event to happen, somewhere, sometime.

In the Great Man Theory, there must be other Great Men to be opposed and defeated. Osama Bin Laden. Sheikh Omar. Saddam Hussein. Abu Musab al Zarqawi. The Bush administration's policies are entirely predicated on the idea that we -- well, he -- face singular leaders who have led their people into acts of evil that they would never have chosen for themselves. By destroying those individuals, surely we can destroy the entire structure of evil and redeem the people. No wonder the Bush administration was shocked and unprepared to face an Iraqi insurgency. Without Saddam, how could there be a will to oppose us? The people are sheep, and cannot oppose us without a sheepdog or shepherd to guide them.

What Mr. Bush forgets is that the Great Man Theory is nonsense. Great Men become leaders because they embody the aspirations of enough of the people that they are able to seize and to retain power. A leader may be a Great Man, but his ascendancy to power is because he has the form of Greatness that the people desire; or, at least, that not too many of them oppose.

Osama, Saddam, Zarqawi may be Great Men in the sense of being galvanizing leaders who could unify forces and guide their actions, but they are only steering boats in a river. The river goes in the same direction, regardless of what the pilot does. If we want to change where the boats go, we need to do the hard work of shifting the land to send the river to a new destination. There is no cheap solution.

Hmm, somehow an incompletely edited version of my overly long post also got posted, before I had hacked away some of the excess words. Mr. Achenbach, sir, maybe you could zap my 4:53?

From the Honolulu Advertiser, April 24, 2006:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Apr/24/ln/FP604240339.html

By CHRIS NEWMARKER
Associated Press

TRENTON, N.J. -- When it comes to Grover Cleveland, many Americans, even residents of his home state of New Jersey, have trouble recalling anything about him except that he is the only president ever to serve nonconsecutive terms.

But 5,000 miles away, Native Hawaiians credit Cleveland with sticking up for their rights and sovereignty in the 1890s, when local white landowners and business people overthrew their queen and asked for annexation by the United States.

So it was on Thursday that three Hawaiians landed at New York's LaGuardia Airport, carrying about 20 lei, and found themselves getting lost on New Jersey roads as they searched for Cleveland's birthplace in Caldwell and the town's First Presbyterian Church, where his father was a pastor.

The Hawaiians are in New Jersey this weekend to pay their respects to Cleveland in Caldwell and at his grave site in Princeton. ...

It was Cleveland who set aside April 30, 1894, as a day of prayer and repentance over the U.S. role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. ...

It was not until 1898, when Cleveland was out of office, that Hawai'i became part of the United States. It became a state in 1959.

yeah i'll get out the zapper

It is amazing to me that we cannot come together in congratulations of our President and the troops this one day. We catch one of the worlds most wanted and people line up to put a negative spin on the issue. This kind of thing makes me sick.

'mudge - gato puffitado - inflated cat? ummmmm........

ya gotta unnerstand, mo, that sometimes idoms may seem a little strange in a furen language. There's probably a perfectly good etymology somewhere that explains it (I just haven't thought of it yet).

Of course, there's also the possibility I might have gotten it wrong-- fluffitado, or puffitando, or fluffitando, or...

George, I'll say it again: Hooray for getting al Zarqawi! This is some small form of progress. But please don't turn this progress into a bigger defeat. By making a big deal out of killing one individual person who opposed the U.S. (plus some of his lieutenants), we make it look like the U.S. is so weak and feeble that our nation can be emasculated by a goon with a couple of guns that he doesn't even know how to fire properly. Killing or capturing insurgents is something we want to be par for the course. The only difference here should be that Zarqawi happens to have a recognizable name. By making more out of it, we undermine our own efforts.

Sorry you're sick over this, George. I am happy for our troops, and I think they deserve our thanks. The death of a butcher like al-Zarqawi is cause to celebrate.

But as for "our" president--everyone did rally around and support him, in September of 2001. The thanks we got for our support was a needless war that squandered thousands of American soldiers' lives, and more damage to the cause of American freedom than al Qaeda could have caused in their wildest dreams. He had in his hands the opportunity to become one of the great world leaders of all time, and used that opportunity to become one of the worst.

So, no congratulations to Mr. Bush from me. Our soldiers' accomplishments are in spite of him, not because of him.

The blog has a link on the WaPo homepage...

Hey George - do you get cold if you stop wrapping yourself in a flag?

I sincerely hope we have not committed an incredible blunder. Power abhors a vaccuum. While his successor may be worse than Zarqawi, I do not believe this argument is sufficiently logical to warrant not attacking Zarqawi. I'm more afraid that Zarqawi's successor will be better.

The disparate insurgent elements cannot unify because many elements operate in opposition to both eachother and the US occupation forces.

Until now, Zarqawi was number one because his goal was solely in opposition to the United States. Zarqawi methods pushed Iraqi insurgents away because Zarqawi was willing to kill anyone - including women and children - to accomplish his goals against the United States. Zarqawi's successor is probably going to be someone that can convince large factions to call a truce against eachother to unite against American forces.

So go ahead and cheer the "American victory." We probably just signed the death warrants on many more United States soldiers that Zarqawi couldn't have killed because he was so ineffectual.

And was it necessary to drop two 500 lb bombs on his house? Was it necessary to kill an innocent child? Why couldn't we simply storm the house or besiege it like we did against Noriega?

Even better - how about letting the Iraqi security forces storm the house?

Let the Iraqis have take Zarqawi's head back to their people. Let them have their pride so they can stand up - and we can come home.

Why this is a victory:
1. Indicates a clear turn and change in support by Sunni tribes who decided to turn Zarqawi in.

2. Clear sign to all Muslims that groups that follow Zarqawi's path leads to death (not self inflicted death of suicide bombing - but unwelcome and unasked for death). A clear indication of Allah's will for all Muslims to see.

What bothers me most about this whole issue is the fact that special forces have admitted that the "safe-house" Zarqawi was in had been montitored for some time before the two 500lbs bombs were dropped. The two F-16 pilots were told that a HVT or High Valued Target was inside the building, but were told by special forces that they could take their time since they had the place under surveillence...why you ask does this bother me? Well post the dropping of two 500lbs bombs we recieve confirmation that the target, Zarqawi, was killed. This is a man who as I listen to Fox News is repeatedly mentioned as evil and a killer of innocent lives. Wait lets backtrack...Let's reveal a little snipbit of news that wasn't posted as tragic. A woman and child, presumed to be Zarqawis famiily were found dead in the building that had been reduced to rubble, by our bombs. If we are calling a man evil for the killings of innocent lives are we being a little hypocritical? Of course we are!!! If the place was under surveillence by special forces there is no reason that a sniper could not simply take Zarqawi out with a single bullet since they had visual confirmation that he was in there. It would not be as dramatic of course, but it would be as effective in killing him. I can't help but wonder if special forces saw the little girl and woman inside and failed to mention this little snipbit to anyone. I guess killing the killer of innocent lives is worth killing two innocent lives over.

Also note that today Democrats were holding a huge rally in Las Vegas with all the big figure heads. Obviously republicans got really "lucky" with the timing of Zarqawi's death... Cough cough Conspiracy theory...ahem

I'm going to hope and pray that most of the commenters here are NOT working as government intel analysts.

Actually Asgerd. I'm pretty convinved everyone here is.

Hey Loomis!

Go ahead and whine about Hawaii - I'll take 50 cents for pineapple juice with my rum ANYDAY! =p

Joel, Gee thanks for the "Who will be the next Yamamoto" aspect of your post. Gotta make sure none of us get too carried away with actually cheering on our forces. And, great that you made the military death of a hostile combatant, albeit a leader-type, equivalent to the beheading of a non-combatant hostage. Are you making some Bill Maher-like point here? What is the point? Well, it did troll out the "reality-based community" of Post readers.

Is everyone commenting in this site sympathetic to the terrorists?? I can't even believe what I'm reading. Zarqawi was faithful to Bin Laden. In case you all forgot, Bin Laden murdered over 3,000 of our people, Americans. Zarqawi was doing Laden's work while laden is hiding out. Of course this was significant. Of course this was a victory for our Military, you know, the ones fighting to keep us free from people like Bin Laden and his posse. How can people be so naive?

Kim, what you are seeing is the ravaging dementia that results from six years of visceral hatred of George W. Bush. They're going to bark on the internet all day and night, but if you find their world view contemptable (as I do)please do everything in your political power to keep these moonbats as far away from the levers of real power as possible. Regards.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13204020/site/newsweek/

For starters, the best-known face of the enemy in Iraq is now gone. The Bush administration started making Zarqawi a poster boy for terrorism before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Colin Powell's remarks before the U.N. Security Council in February 2003, before the launch of the Iraq war:

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

More from Dickey's Newsweek article:

From those early days in Afghanistan, Zarqawi had a distant, sometimes hostile relationship with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda ideologue Ayman al-Zawahiri. They did not send Zarqawi to Iraq. He went on his own to link up with a group of radical Islamists in the rough mountains of the Kurdish north, outside Saddam's control.

Man you guys at the wapo are clueless.

Walt, I think they will accomplish that all by themselves with their own narrow-mindness and stupididty. Hate Bush if you must, but don't hate America.

Try as I might, and I'm a journalist of 30 years' experience, I can't understand your mindset, Achenbach. It is just beyond the pale. Your view of the world is so skewed, so disconnected from what is real, so, well, sad, that I can't describe it. I feel sorry for you.

I find it interesting to read the blog and the comments. Those who wish to minimize the impact of destroying such an important part of Al Qaeda are exposing more about themselves than they perhaps wish to.
The opening paragraph of the blog is priceless. I will attribute to poor writing skills the impression the blogger left that he envies Zarqawi's more personal style of killing.
Otherwise, this whole thread reminds me of an observation made in a different situation, that the final stage of degeneracy is when one cannot even find the will to fight a declared enemy.
This blog posting reeks of that, frankly.

I thought you'd be happy that they didn't capture him and send him to Gitmo. He didn't get tortured, after all.

I love the first sentence in this site's Post a Comment section, especially the "even challenge" part. It's painfully obvious that this paper considers their readers to be in their back pocket. Why else would they say "even challenge," as if they didn't expect anyone to do so.

Achenbach is just another member of the elitist media who only hangs with like minded people. What a knucklehead.

Hey Joel, it's okay to be happy when a terrorist dies. Especially one who made a video of himself decapitating a civilian! I bet you and your wimpy friends didn't even see that video.

If anyone out there wants the truth discussed from both sides of an issue, then listen to Hugh Hewitt. The guy is smart, caring, and intellectually honest.

It's this kind of "thinking" that makes me so confident that Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November 2006, 2008, etc. One of the most evil men who ever lived, a brutal sadistic mass murderer is killed, and the overwhelming majority of the moonbat mainstream of Democrats cannot muster even a single cheer. It's like crazed FDR-hating Republicans reacting to the news of the killing of Admiral Yamamoto by reminding people how FDR "let" Pearl Harbor happen...

except for the fact that there weren't any Republicans that crazy.

Any American who is sad, downcast, depressed, or otherwise out of sorts over this news is simply not an American.

Period.

The conversation is degenerating into invective. People, this is not helpful. Nobody here is denigrating anyone's patriotism. The news is good and everyone who frequents this space is glad for it. Even those of us who wish we hadn't started this war.

Is there a full moon tonight?

Some of these latest comments really disturb me. Sympathetic to terrorists? Hate America? Please point out the specific phrases to which you refer.

All I can do is laugh at the mini-RoveStorm.

*shaking my head*

:-)

WaPo's Jeff Morley, who covers international news, provided the link to the Reuters article, from which I excerpted the following text. Jeff is filing late today on the Zarqawi story, just before 7 p.m. EDT.:

Zarqawi's reputation for personal savagery stood out even in a country where brutal killings have become routine, and sparked reports that Al Qaeda elder statesmen Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahri were worried his homicidal zeal would undermine support for their militant network.

Although bin Laden anointed Zarqawi as prince of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the two men were widely seen to be rivals, with Zarqawi keen to outshine bin Laden's fame and notoriety.

Feeding the myth
US forces also sometimes found it convenient to feed the Zarqawi myth. Most experts believe his foreign fighters make up only a fraction of the insurgency, but the US military portrayed Zarqawi as its most dangerous foe in Iraq. The $25 million price put on his head matched the bounty on bin Laden.

The Washington Post reported this year that internal military documents showed the US military mounted a psyops (psychological operations) campaign to magnify the role of Zarqawi in the insurgency.

"Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will, made him more important than he really is," military intelligence officer Colonel Derek Harvey was quoted as saying.

As a foreign militant whose attacks killed far more Iraqi civilians than foreign troops, Zarqawi was despised even by many Iraqi insurgents fighting US forces, and at times the hatred spiralled into fierce battles between insurgent groups.

My, my, where did these folks come from? I can feel the hate through my computer. At first I thought, gee, I must have pulled up the wrong blog. I don't believe it would be safe for some of these folks to own guns. Wow, such venom. We could have our own Iraq right here in America.

Loomis, I forgot to tell you how sorry I was about your friend. Can't remember anything.

Omni and Nani, thanks for the ideas about the kids. I forgot about "tag", a good game. Everyone should be tired after that. And the art would be something to keep them quiet, Nani.

I have family that came home thirty days ago from the war, and is now back in the war. His mother and her husband are seriously ill. One's on dialysis, and the other has heart disease. The mother told me she just cannot think about her son because it is too painful, and it makes her afraid. She worries about him, but tries so hard not to. When speaking about these wars, I believe our conversations might be a little kinder if we put ourselves in the place of that soldier and his family. I am not a supporter of war in any fashion. If war solved problems, why do we need so many, wars that is?

Cassandra, once again you say it all so well.

Looks like some levity is called for.

I have a dial up service at home and use an accelrator program to make it work just a little faster. What I gain in speed, I lose in graphics quality. Joel you will be delighted to know that your photo looks really looks great at a lower resolution. The fuzzy round the edges look really suits the picture.

Cassandra,

Over the last few years, the "religious right" has attacked almost every moral, ethical, and patriotic belief that I hold dear. This, as well as 150 years of attacks on my profession of paleontology, had caused me to have an automatic distrust of anyone that claims to be religious.

My attitude has changed over the last year. In large part, this is due to your posts on this blog. They have reminded me that those currently in power are not speaking for, or representative of, every person of faith.

I thank you for that, and I'm glad you're still here.

The video you watched from the briefing should be interpreted with some historical context. In the past, the view would have been like those films of carpet bombing from Vietnam or WWII where to hit a target, you had to hammer large areas, including a lot of civilian neighborhoods.

The fact that we can pinpoint JDAMs like this with a minimum of overkill is a testament to our concern about the horror of innocent bystanders being killed in war.

Would you prefer that they had strapped explosives onto one of special ops soldiers and sent him to knock on the door?

I don't want our troops to play fair when they're up against the most evil, nihilistic enemies we've ever faced. These people can't be deterred by the threat of death. The more of them we can kill at a safe distance the better.

Hmmm.

I'm going to stay in my aluminum foil tent a little longer.

bc

Let's see the numbers:
Over $325 Billion spent.
Close to 2500 U.S soldiers killed
According to Mr. Bush about 30,000 Iraqui civilians killed.
Vast majority (Over 75%)of world opinion with a negative and sometimes even hatred of the U.S since Mr. Bush took office.
North Korea has more nuclear weapons than before.
Iran is on its way to become a nuclear power.
Mr. Bush talks about "democracy" and "freedom" and blah,blah Saddam was a despot. Gee Wiz we deal with many despots and dictators. Isn't Pervez Musharaft a freaking dictator,Lybia is run by a dictator (We Forgot Khaddafi the Dictator),Saudi Arabia run by despots,Egypt. That is why we have NO CREDIBILITY, We just have more money and therefore more power than the rest of the World and for now they have to put ut with our foreign policy. Don't kid yourselves they really don't like us. We reelected a fool and incompetent man for four more years. We finally after 3 or 4 years kill a punk and that's a major "Victory",please.
Just give a few millions to any colombian or mexican cartel and they would hand us Bin Laden's head and the rest of the nuts in a silver platter in a few weeks time.The strongest military in the world,$400 Billion a year budget, more than the rest of the world combined think about that and it took us over 3 years to get that punk who is probably already replaced by another which would take us about 2 or 3 more years to find.
59 million people voted for that man who does not have a clue yet.Who is the joke on?
Who are we kidding?

I don't understand the point of this author when he compared the tactics of the U.S. military and Zarqawi's. Is he trying to make a moral equivalence argument?

The left seems to have a true aversion to what can only be interpreted as good news for our troops in Iraq. They are so defensive about the notion that President Bush will try to use this to his political advantage, the can't help but look at the downside of this event. All this writer can muster is a complaint that a child was killed in the process of getting to Zarqawi, and a bizarre comparison with the way the military does their business and the way the throat-cutting, video-taping Zarqawi does his.

What planet are you people from?

I have to agree with AST on this one. Warfare is horrible no matter how you look at it. But this war, if it had taken place 50 years ago, would have resulted in tens or hundreds of thousands killed on both sides. If we're going to have wars, I want our troops to have every advantage we can give them.

There has been speculation on why, if the military knw aZ's location some time ago, they didn't strike earlier. My guess (purely a guess), is that the house was under observation to gather intelligence. Who has been going there over the last few weeks, that wasn't killed in the attack?

We got a :
"This blog posting reeks of that, frankly"

Do you think the misanthropic equine whose father was an a$$ is back ?

How did Tim put it in the blog history, I just can't remember?

They're reading the words, but not the meaning.

LOL at Mike's last post.

For five years, hapless lefties have worked this "Bush is stupid" mantra while he steamrolls their backsides - policy by policy, month by month, again, and again, and again.

How stupid does that make the nihilistic, inept, powerless and pathologically bitter ghouls of the American left/Democrat Party? Like you, Mike?

Hey Mike: Your media commissars will commission another bogus push poll showing Bush at negative 10% popularity to make you feel better. Meanwhile, the Pubbies WILL pancake the Democrats again this November. Koskooks and DU miscreants will screech about Rasputinish Rove and thieving Diebold. Again.

Incidentally, James Lileks presented a very energetic and convincing defense of his former colleague Mr. Achenbach's core integrity and overarching good will on the Hugh Hewitt show this afternoon.

Another left, whimp, limpwrist opines. Like I, the Rangers, Delta, F-15 pilots care.

AST-- how are "those people" in Iraq + Al Qaeda more evil than the Nazis, especially Hitler, etc?

The Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor a and the kamikaze pilots fighting against us in WWII weren't deterred by the threat of death either.

I suggest you review WWII history. You'll be amazed at why they were called "The Greatest Generation." Just the story of the London Blitz is a testimony to courage. For the Londoners there was NO "safe distance."

I personally find the prevalent attitude of "kill the terrorists before they kill us" as a sign of cowardince. I cannot serve in the military.
But I'd rather die in a terrorist attack, indeed I lived very near to the Pentagon and was there one hour before 9/11.
I'd rather do that than walk my life in fear and support such a disastrous war.

I notice the people most upset and most "I would surrender some civil liberties to be terrorist-free" are those who tend to be those who do NOT live in either NYC or around DC. NYC did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004. Neither did the DC area.

Isn't that odd?

I'm just wondering here: do the media commissars also run Fox? Because their "bogus push poll" also shows Bush to be in the vicinity of 30% approval rating.

Talking top myself here, in my lead lined casket to prevent the muon waves from leaking to the Proxi Centaurians. We were supposed to go dancing in the streets and shoot fireworks after the announce this morning ? Just like the spontaneous demonstration in North Korea and in China at the time of the Cultural Revolution.
One guy didn't get the very factual first graf of the Kit! Speaking of which all those pseudo-experts shouldn't second guess what the special forces did. (likely: they painted the safe house red with lasers from a safe distance and let the precision ammo do its thing). They are the pros and shouldn't be second guessed. If they decided by themselves that dropping bombs was the safest (for the non-involved) and surest way that's the way to go. Rumsfeld and cie second guessed Shinseki and it didn't go too well when came time to secure the bloody place.

The left, who generally support the terrorists (if not, prove to me otherwise), have some kind of mental disorder. They seem to live in an alternative reality where they can compartmentalize on the fly and ignore/discount any information that threatens the alternate reality. I don't know why they are like this, but maybe it has to do with fear? On Katie Couric's last day earlier in the week, she and Matt Lauer talked about shaking on 9/11 and how traumatic it was. But now, they have seemingly forgotten about the horrors of 9/11 by latching on to the alternate reality: it's easier to blame Bush for everything than to face the fact that there are people who want to kill us all. This must be why the left is so against showing 9/11 footage. We all should see this footage on a regular basis. This alternate reality obviously extends to the rest of the media as they ignore any good news and only report news from an anti-Bush perspective - and don't even realize they are doing it! Somehow the lefty's can equate al Zarqawi to Bush. For those of us not in the alternate reality, it is an absolutely silly notion and it's like having to talk to someone who says the sky is always red when it is not. These lefty's remind me of some of the characters in Monty Python sketches where the character is obviously a buffoon and is ignoring some obvious fact. It's funny in Monty Python, but I wish these lefty's would get some help!

For the people that are writing notes on blogs on the logic of matters like this, you may not know about their alternate reality. That is why logic never works with these people. I used to just spend time explaining things until I realized that they don't care about logic! It's all emotion! They ignore any and all logic that distorts their safe little alternate reality.

I argue through emails with someone who is in the alternate reality and he just keeps sending Bush hate mail and doesn't even realize the hole he is in. I point it out and he just keeps coming back with how the Bush's are getting rich off Iraq, or how we oppress people, or how we armed Sadaam, or how we pollute the world, or how the rich are taking from the poor....it's just a litany of emotion and very little logic, fact checking or any type learning from mistakes. These lefty's in the alternate reality are really delusional.

Closing the casket now. THEY aren't going away, THEY follow the leaking muon waves.
Night night.

SCCs-- Mind is shutting down from the sheer disgust at the idea that being angry with Bush for sending us into Iraq is unpatriotic.

I have a relative who died in Iraq, doing his job. He knew the risks... but he didn't know that he was sent there based on lies and misrepresentations of the facts.

Where are those weapons of mass destruction, anyway?

Achenbach may be biased, but facts are facts. There is no pretty way to wage war.

Anybody who goes on about honor and glory should re-read "The Red Badge of Courage". It's short and easy to read.

You want to glorify war, read up on all the cultures that glorify war.

Take the Romans for an example. The father had absolute power in the home, he could order his children killed at a moment's notice. Women had limited rights. They took brutality and slavery very causally. They'd watch people killing each other and being torn apart by animals for fun.

War is hell. We're keeping a lot of brave people out there who want to serve their country, and sending them in 120 degree hell.

It's not because we can sit in the comfort of our homes and go "thank god thousands of proud, patriotic americans are dying so I can be safe."

It should be "Thank god they are fighting to keep our country secure, independent, and strong. And I will do the same."

But if they're fighting the wrong people, they're not making us any more safe, no matter how hard they try. And it's very right to be angry at our leaders for wasting their ability, talent, health,and heart in a godforsaken desert.

I hope some good will come out of it. I just don't believe in it.

Time to show my SCC membership card.

My mind is shutting down from the sheer disgust at the idea that being angry with Bush for sending us into Iraq is unpatriotic.

I have a relative who died in Iraq, doing his job. He knew the risks... but he didn't know that he was sent there based on lies and misrepresentations of the facts. Where are those weapons of mass destruction, anyway?

Achenbach may be biased, but facts are facts. There is no pretty way to wage war.

Anybody who goes on about honor and glory should re-read "The Red Badge of Courage". It's short and easy to read.

You want to glorify war, read up on all the cultures that glorify war.

Take the Romans for an example. The father had absolute power in the home, he could order his children killed at a moment's notice. Women had limited rights. They took brutality and slavery very causally. They'd watch people killing each other and being torn apart by animals for fun.

War is hell. We're keeping a lot of brave people out there who want to serve their country, and sending them in 120 degree hell.

It's not because we can sit in the comfort of our homes and go "thank god thousands of proud, patriotic americans are dying so I can be safe."

It should be "Thank god they are fighting to keep our country secure, independent, and strong. And I will do the same."

But if they're fighting the wrong people, they're not making us any more safe, no matter how hard they try. And it's very right to be angry at our leaders for wasting their ability, talent, health,and heart in a godforsaken desert.

I hope some good will come out of it. I just don't believe in it.

I am a lefty. I do not support terrorists. But I do not go into a war gladly, because war creates more problems than it solves, often. War makes good people do things they would never do otherwise. War should be a last resort. The Iraq war was not necessary. I can't celebrate the death of a child, even if the father was a terrorist.

We have to do better. We can do better.

"There still is the question of how to pronounce "puissant" if you've never seen it before. It's not a very common word, after all. I use a semi-French pronunciation that voices the terminal 't', since we's Merkins here, mostly. pwee-sahnt"

So that explains why my performance brought down the house at the Folger and simultaneously ended my career as a Shakespearian actor:

"Trailest thou the piss-ant pike?"

Al, actually we DID sell weapons to Saddam Hussein. We also trained Bin Laden.

It's fact. At those times, we were attempting to play with the balance of power in those regions to be favorable to us. It was part of the cold war stuff.

Those acts took place during the Reagan-Bush Administration. Remember the Iran-contra scandal?

Yes, politics is based on emotion. It always is. Emotion is our "fast check" of the world's reality based on our experience and knowledge before we have the full facts. Putting emotional weight on various things is what we need to make correct decisions.

There is a good deal of neuroscience research on why we have and need emotion that you might find interesting, instead of condemning everybody who disagrees with you to their own delusional reality.

The fact is that people value different things.
Some people value their own selfishness and skin a lot more than the idea of fair treatment.
Others value self-sufficiency and don't understand those who can't be.
Others have strong desires to punish anybody who breaks the rules.
Others would rather not punish the innocent until proven guilty.

None of those attitudes are completely right or wrong. All are shaped by experience.

When Bush told us about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, we "experienced that" as true, even though it was not. That's a betrayal of the national trust.

If you wonder why liberals don't want to trust Bush, it is very simple. His policy and decisions do not reflect their values, and he has not proven himself to be a trustyworthy leader even if they disagree with him.

Those are two very simple facts.

Durn good thing I got the bunker ready the other day for the Hillary storm that never materialized. I'm down there now, bc (hope you got that tent flap sealed good and tight). Had a can of Dinty Moore for dinner, played some Eights Off (solitaire variant) by lantern light, listened to the weather report on the emergency radio, and so to bed. Tomorrow I'll raise the periscope and see if its safe to come out --but I don't know, I don't like the way the geiger counter's ticking.

bc and I had a conversation earlier today about the impending World Cup, and we briefly discussed starting a boodle pool to predict the total number of goals scored during the 30-day tournament. I predicted a total of 1, but bc, that wily dude, went for a fraction, and I'm totally ticked I didn't think of it. If we can't find any suckers willing to place their money on a double-digit number, we may have to abandon the plan altogether, and instead try to predict the total number of dead from rioting.

Jeez, I miss football.

'Night-night and hugs and kisses, all you limpwristed heathen Zarqawi-loving traitors.

Mudge, I'll take limpwristed over being limpwaisted anyday.

Since David Hardy mentioned piss-ants, it's worth mentioning Colorado's Piceance Basin. By the way, cartographer Mark (not Marc)Monmonier has a new book on the cleaning-up of American place names. http://www.markmonmonier.com/

Gee Timmy, are you talking about the most recent Fox poll where Bush's popularity rating was at 35%? Given, the 4% margin of error, and assuming A LOT OF ... UH ... ERROR ... Bush at 39% is almost as close to 50% as he is to 30%.

And, regarding your terribly outdated Fox reference: Is this the Fox owned by Rupert Murdoch who recently hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton?

This is a network that prominently features liberals Alan Colmes, Mara Liason, Juan Williams, Susan Estridge, Greta Van Sesterun but because they actually have ... conservatives as a balance ... they're in the bag for Bush. You people are fruitcakes.

Me and my pals are gonna take your lunch money in November Tim. You and your pals can't be happy over one of our murderous enemies being killed. You and your pals need a political butt kicking. Queue up for your discipline boy. November is 5 short months away.

"But no human beings are visible in that jet-fighter footage. I actually couldn't tell what I was looking at -- it could have been a warehouse demolition in Tulsa. It was an impersonal obliteration."

AZ should be hiding out in Times Square? Our laser bombs are accurate but they are bombs, not lasers. Does Achenbloch not know what he is writing about? Or is his moral equivalence of ultimate importance?

Joel seems to be in a moral muddle with his analysis. Perhaps the Post should include a milbloger who actually understands military strategy and has sympathy for the US military. To equate a murderous beheader whose jihadist ideology is a 7th Century throwback which would offend most Muslims today with that of strategic bombing to terminate said animal, is a problem that the Left has when always dealing with enemies of this nation. During the Cold War, the Soviets were really not bad chaps. Mao was an agrarian reformer and of course, Bin Laden and the dead guy our guys just eliminated was a freedom fighter! Joel needs to grow up, say the Pledge, go to church or do something which would allow, by osmosis, if needed, a moral mandate which really understands the difference between good and evil. This blog today shows he is far from understanding that difference.

Well I guess I've been accused of being a leftie.I guess the rightie who criticized my posting could not come up with any facts. NUMBERS are facts.When Mr. Bush approval ratings were 70,80,90% you guys were beaming.Like it or not the FACT is that you can no longer exploit 9/11,That the real slim shady (Forgive me eminem, you are way smarter than Bush)came out.Katrina, forgot that one? Torture, Vast amount of OUR treasure squandered and wasted $325 Billion and $68 more coming this week,see "lefties" like me pay for this wars too.As a matter of FACT "Blue" states pay more in taxes than "Red" states and get Less back.Time and time again Mr. Bush and time have proved that they are very efficient at being inefficient.When anybody wants argue,do your homework,study do research. That garbage about being a terrorist loving commie lefty does not hold. Come up with something better.I'm sure a lot of lefties are fighting in Iraq and dying,that is a fact.It's funny that all of those chicken hawks that love to wage war, MOST of them have never served in Theather (WAR if you did not know what Theather means).FACT not partisan garbage will set you free.FACT is after Mr. Bush gets out of the WH whoever is next will be stuck with the mess.His legacy will be Mayhem, not the grandiose Churchillian or to a lesser extent Reaganesque image he so eagearly wanted.His legacy will be of incompetence and that is the FACT.

"And was it necessary to drop two 500 lb bombs on his house? Was it necessary to kill an innocent child? Why couldn't we simply storm the house or besiege it like we did against Noriega?"

Because some friendlies might get killed doing it. End of debate. 500 pounders are actually pretty small, but adequate for a precise strike. As far as others in the house with him -- sorry, but you ride with the outlaws, you die with the outlaws, and life is not entirely fair.

Zarkawi is dead. Rejoice, America!

Any adults in the house where Zarkawi died knew exactly who he was, what he did, what he risked, and what they risked. Maybe they weren't complete volunteers in their end, but their end would have come one way or another. Any children who died were the victims of the adults who put them at risk.

That the reports of the war show a synthetic view of war should come as no surprise. In fact, contrast the surgery of a couple of 500 lb bombs seen through a gunsite with Nick Berg's end. That considered, Zarkawi actually got the swift, painless ending he denied all his victims.

Were I a mad dog Islamofascist observing this event, I'd be imagining how my particular end might appear to the world. No glorious brandishing of a sword on a battlement, no rearing stallion, just a gun camera view of an obliteration.

Not the sort of end your average exhibitionist sociopath hopes for, is it? Pour encourager les autres is about right for this one.

So, here's "Cheers" to the USAF and USA, a pint lifted and drunk, another day without an airplane in a skyscraper, a sociopath dead, and a lesson to the mad dogs of Islam: One more down, however many more to go. And we will get you. Professionally, and with nothing but a crater to mark your end.

You apparently love death, and we're happy to give you what you love.

Patrick Carroll
Atlanta, GA

sheeeeesh. yes it's good that zarqawi is dead. yes collateral damage of 6 is not bad. it's just hard to celebrate when you know there are more zarqawis coming and that our presence in iraq, the result of flawed intelligence and bad decisions, has become the primary tool for recruiting and inspiring more zarqawis.

bush sr didn't want to go into iraq because he didn't know how to win the peace. if anyone needs a reality check, it's the "transformational democracy" folk who thought we could just go into iraq, win a war on the fly and nation build on the cheap. and this after years of trying to help post-soviet countries build democratic and free-market institutions with very mixed results. and no lessons learned.

Good morning, friends. I'm up and moving about, and, oh, so early. Getting ready for that walk. Thanks for the nice comments. Joel, I see you've touched a really sore spot. Well, I for one, hope the day goes better. I'm off to the hospital this morning for a test. Got a chance to talk to the elderly gentleman yesterday, but not much. He was in fine form, but my aunt did all the talking because she knew him since she was a child, so they talked about folks they knew. He lives on his own land about so many acres and there isn't a soul around for miles. I mean if you scream, no one would hear you. He used to be a farmer. Anyway, he told us that three men came to his house one time to rob him. He said he couldn't get to his gun, which was under the pillow on the couch because one of the robbers was standing by it. They asked him for money, and he told them he didn't have any. They then told him to take off his clothes. When he got to his underwear he stopped. They told him to take off his underwear, and he said he refused. They wanted to know if he had change for a hundred dollar bill, and he said he told them no. They finally left. I asked him if they ever found the men, and he said they caught them in South Carolina. He told us that some nights he sleeps with his door open. My aunt told him he shouldn't do that. He told her he refused to live in his house afraid and scared. He played his music and sang, and if anybody came up, they heard him having a good time. He said God is over everything, and he knows where I am. He walked us out to the car, and talked some more. I believe he enjoyed the company. When we left he was sitting on a stool waving goodbye. He had a picture of his mother and father, and all of his siblings which totaled about ten or eleven. All dead except him. He will be 100 years old in November. My aunt asked him why he thought he had lived so long, and he told her, he thought it was because he had always treated people the way he wanted to be treated. He's a deacon at his church, and says he goes to get his mail every other day in the nearest town. He has a truck and a car. He said people are always coming around trying to get him to sell his stuff, but he hasn't so far. When we arrived, there was a man there trying to get him to sell his tractor for three hundred dollars. He told us he wanted more than that for his tractor. My aunt told him not to sign anythiny. Since meeting him, I am a little worried, because I feel someone may hurt him because of the land and his stuff, but I'm praying that will not be the case. He had been married twice, and both wives dead. His son dead also, but he has other kids, and many grandchildren. In fact his grandson moved me in this apartment. It was good to see him, and I asked if I could come back to see him. He said come anytime I wanted to. It was a good day. Please know that God loves you more than you can imagine through Him that died for all, Christ Jesus.

Was just reading the morning news and saw this article, about passport requirements. This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts, knee jerk reactions without much basis in fact. I would love to challenge the esteemed Republican from Indiana to walk a portion of our vast unmaned border to see why it is unmaned.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060609.wxborder09/BNStory/National/home

Joel: Are you trying to set up some kind of equivalence between the Air Force pilot who dropped the ordinance and Zarqawi in this graph?

"But no human beings are visible in that jet-fighter footage. I actually couldn't tell what I was looking at -- it could have been a warehouse demolition in Tulsa. It was an impersonal obliteration. You could argue that it was the opposite of Zarqawi's style of killing -- he preferred to murder hostages by beheading them in front of a video camera."

Beware the terrorist of South Toronto indeed. Such an ignorant windbag, a stain on the reputation of the engineeering profession.
What is South Toronto, Mississauga? Not my favorite place on earth but hardly a hotbed of terrorism. Oh ! I see. He was referring to the large South Asian population probably.

Mudge, we will channel you when the Proxi Centaurians are back in their garrison.

New kit soon, please.

Beware the terrorist of South Toronto indeed. Such an ignorant windbag, a stain on the reputation of the engineeering profession.
What is South Toronto, Mississauga? Not my favorite place on earth but hardly a hotbed of terrorism. Oh ! I see. He was referring to the large South Asian population probably.

Mudge, we will channel you when the Proxi Centaurians are back in their garrison.

New kit soon, please.

Sorry for double post. Hal the Schemer gives me a pink screen with a "failed to rebuild" message then posts it anyway.
Off to the ponies.
Pony club exams today, girls are in a tizzy.

Shrieking, technically "South Toronto", would be assuming you mean the core of Toronto the area south of Bloor in the middle, essentially taking in Bay Street the financial district, theatre district, Queen Street West etc. Its a hotbed of capitalism and the arts - those radicals.

Mississauga is to the west. The southern most part of the area is the lake, although I have heard that due to our liberal transportation laws we have allowed quite a few alien species to enter the water as well.

Sorry everyone just ticked off this morning.

'Mudge, if we don't get a new kit soon, will you let me come in the bunker with you? I promise to be quiet! I'll bring my own laptop and let you play Snood...AND I'll cook, if I have to!

The last few hours of posts make me pessimistic for the future of rational thought in this country. Joel contrasted the visual impression of the military footage with Zarqawi's brutal little shows. I certainly never got the impression he was drawing a moral equivalency between the two. The boodle was engaged in a very thoughtful and rational discussion of the long-term implications for Iraq in a post-Zarqawi world. Hardly a lefty rant. Yet the swarming hordes of far-right critics descended.

And Mudge, it really upset me to have the boodle go at stormy because, well, Mr. Stripey got his first blossom yesterday. It makes me so, so,...oh I promised myself I wouldn't cry.

RD, I think its similar to the article I posted that upset me so. Before the boodle drift in different direction, KB told a lovely story about the after affects of a hurricane, how kindness and generosity brought people together. I think solutions to many things can be found there, the answer is not to concentrate on the tiny fanatical portion of any group, there are nuts in every culture and religion. To me it would seem there is a need to reach the majority, to raise awareness that although there are differences in cultures and religion is does not mean you have to be at war.

scc "go all stormy."

Yay, RD, here's to the first Mr. Stripy tomoato, ready to be picked on the Fourth of July!

SCC: tomato

Sheesh.

Again, all I can do is laugh at those that think emotional volume and invective trump rational discussion.

*trying to not shake my head so much 'cuz my neck's getting stiff*

:-)

*faxing 'Mudge a case of Dinty Moore, since he might need it*

You say tomoato, I say tomatoe...

With a wink to Dan Quayle.

Dooley, now there's a name from the past. Has anyone heard from Dan Quayle recently? What is he doing?

Holy wingnuts, Batman!

Did Ann Coulter post a link to this blog?

I just really hate polarized politics. The idea that anyone who dares view the world through a different filter must be either mentally deficient or have some odious hidden agenda drives me batty. And don't fool yourself into believing that this behavior is constrained to the right. It is my experience that Ann Coulter has a number of polar opposites who hurl invectives with equal delight.

Although it is comforting to believe otherwise, I think people can view the world differently and value different things yet still be rational and of good heart.

RD, you have a bloom? Oh, I know you're so happy in spite of the talk here. I do hope it goes well for you with the new bloom. I'm rooting for you. My plants have blooms too. Everyday I look at them, and tell myself I'm not going to get caught up in this, and know in my heart I'm already so caught up if anything happens to my plants, I'll probably be really, really, sad. It will probably be as if someone dropped me on concrete. You know, a body slam. I've got it bad.

Joel, you're doing what a newspaper guy does, and I might add, doing it just fine.

Oh yeah, Hugh Hewitt sounds like a real peach...

"Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It" by Hugh Hewitt

*laughing*

scottynuke, if the headline read

"Crushing the Republicans in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It"

would you think the author was a nicer and smarter person?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be fair.

To quote Pat Dollard's "Young Americans", I don't need your love, I don't need your respect, and if you don't like it ... " well, see the trialer.

Absolutely not, RDP, I was trying to imply a title like that generally argues against rational discussion. Even "Crushing the Opposition in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It" qualifies for the rant label. I vote on my own analysis of candidates and issues, not on party labels.

Oh Haaaaaaaaalllllllll... where ARE the italics???

:-)

Hmmmmm... Can't even put real HTML tags in here... (i)rant(/i) was what I meant...

And SL, your point is?

You are clearly a man after my own heart there scottynuke. When rigid ideology gets in the way of creative problem solving the world suffers.

Now I must smugly go make the world a better place.

At least that's the plan.

Very true, RD. The left has its fair share of Coulter-like pundits, too.

However, i'd rather sit next to the moonbat on the bus who wants the U.S. to "give itself back to England" than one of these "kill them all and let God sort them out" wingnuts.

Good morning all. Hi Cassandra. I enjoyed reading about your uncle, except the part when his home was invaded was sad. Wish him a happy birthday for us when he reaches that 100th year! Gosh, just think of all the history he's experienced, all the changes (good and bad) in this old world. If you don't mind me asking, how old are your g-kids?

I saw the preview for the movie Prairie Home Companion and it looks like fun! Lily Tomlin is the greatest comedienne ever (and that's the truth!) I've been listening to PHC for 23 years now. Love that Bebop-a-ree-bop Rhubarb Pie ditty!

Joel,

It's been a year since I've blogged this boodle, can't recall it being of such chat room variety. Achenblog has taken on a life of its own... random electronic Darwinism subject to some canned filtering and plenty of third party of surveillance. The result of which is evolution in reverse.

Here's some irony the Google ads on my screen read:

World Vision Canada
Let's Build Wells
Middle East Peace

I apologize for my earlier rants, I know most of the people on this blog are very rational and it was not directed at any of you, but unfortunately I have no access to the people on either side of the border who react like the Republican from Indiana in the article.

Hardy, you have some interesting ideas about "personal responsibility." Sorry - I don't play the blame the victim game. If Saddam Hussein puts SAM sites in residential neighborhoods and we bomb those SAM sites we don't get to blame Saddam or the innocents for being "too dumb" to live in a neighboorhood with a SAM site. We still dropped the bomb.

>"Because some friendlies might get killed doing it. End of debate. 500 pounders are actually pretty small, but adequate for a precise strike. As far as others in the house with him -- sorry, but you ride with the outlaws, you die with the outlaws, and life is not entirely fair."

Key word in your paragraph: MIGHT. Friendlies MIGHT have died if we besieged the house. However, the course we took GUARANTEED that an innocent child would die.

And it's not the "end of debate." We live in a free country. The military is subject to civilian rule in this country. Civilian rule is allowed to debate military policy. Particularly, it is our American duty to debate strategic policy.

I believe it would have been a better strategic policy if we had allowed the Iraqi Security Force to seige the house. We should have allowed them to appear to be in charge of the situation - it would have helped us in Iraq for more than dropping a pair of bombs.

Zarqawi is a criminal - not a warrior. We granted him a warrior's death. I don't think Zarqawi deserved the honor of dying at the hands of American military greatness.

Zarqawi should have been subjected to a siege - like any other criminal. After a week in the stinking heat without food or water, let the Iraqis drag him out into the street like an animal. Zarqawi should have been given a trial where he would have a pedestal to stand up on and spout his hate-laden drivel for the entire world to hear. A trial would have shown him for what he is - a monstrous criminal following a nihilistic dogma that pales in comparison to the future of a stable, law-abiding Iraq.

In death, we have granted Zarqawi what he could never have in life: glory and legitimacy.

----

And to the rest of you righties:

Sorry - I don't celebrate death: period. I don't care if it was Bin Ladin himself was killed. I prefer to live in a world of law and order. Randomly killing "enemy combatants" doesn't give me cause to celebrate. Treating criminals like criminals and dragging them before the light of the law makes me celebrate.

Could there be hope for Congress yet?? From WaPo coverage of the supplemental spending bill:

"One item dropped from the bill: $700 million for a railroad relocation project along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The compromise package also trimmed $1.2 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster fund, which provides individual assistance and pays for debris removal. And it struck language that would have compelled the Pentagon to cover hurricane damage to shipyard facilities that would otherwise be covered by private insurance -- a provision that budget watchdog groups have pounced on as a perk for a major Northrop Grumman facility in Pascagoula, Miss."

It's been a year since I've blogged this boodle, can't recall it being of such chat room variety. Achenblog has taken on a life of its own... random electronic Darwinism subject to some canned filtering and plenty of third party of surveillance. The result of which is evolution in reverse.

Please explain

Boy,

Thinking like this will surely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[bc peeking his head out from the tin foil tent flap]

Is it safe?

bc

Joel,

re: explain.

What is boils down to is I miss Achenfan and Beavis, but good to see Linda Loomis is still around for plenty of banter. Please forgive me if it appeared that I slighted your boddlers in any fashion, and, of which, alas, I am one of them...

Did your Mexico City piece ever appear, in what was it, National Geographic ?

Why must victory have jaws?

Can you only declare yourself victorious when you've tasted the blood of your enemy?

Sounds very medieval and barbaric to me.

And before some wingnut goes off on how the enemy is medieval and barbaric, therefore we have to be, let me quote my mother, a very wise woman who passed before her time: "If you have to stoop to their level to win, you've lost."

Slyness, you're welcome in the bunker any time. You play Gin Rummy? Casino? Acey-Deucey?

Shriek, your desire for a new kit will be granted shortly (I have it on good authority.) And not a moment too soon.

Whoops, BOOO'ed myself. New kit up already. (Boy, am I Karnac or what?)

See you there.

I have never seen so much conclusion jumping in any other form of philosophy (not a science, as I believe Science Tim has said in the past) than I have seen in politics. The "If you question your government then you are committing an act of blasphemy" sentiment that seems to be a popular among the right is not only getting old, but only really tip toes around the real issue. Zarqawi's true position and level of power may never be truly unearthed or at least publicly known but asking what snake will be the next figurehead of terrorism is TOTALLY LOGICAL. The showboating of this victory should end as soon as possible. In regards to the WaPo being "too this" or "too that" all I can say is read another FREE news source. Read a lot of them, I do. Find a few pundits that can logically and statistically (without misrepresenting the numbers) back up their points. Unfortunately, I think too many people read or watch one or two of the major news sources and then think they understand the complex animal that is politics.

Also, anyone follow this blog posting at all?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/05/chomsky_at_home_abroad_1.html

Scroll through and read some of the cheers and jeers on Chomsky.

There is a link to a CNN transcript of a debate with Prof. Chomsky and Bill Bennett from 2002. Short but interesting.

I <3 Achenbach and the Achenbloggers!

Also, anyone want to list a few sites they go for news? I'll start.

www.crooksandliars.com/
www.discardedlies.com/

I have a few more really good ones, but those links are at home : (

Hey, nottamember, I'm here.
Just hiding out in my tinfoil tent, like bc.

Heh . . . heh heh . . . heh heh heh.

Geist wrote "The showboating of this victory should end as soon as possible."

Before someone could end the showboating of this victory he'd have to have STARTED it.

This is what we on the "right" point to when we, quite legitimately, question the patriotism of so many of those on the "left". If you are unwilling to celebrate the victories with us, even for a SINGLE day, we quite understandably view your constant criticism as more a product of sick motives than sober analysis and discount it accordingly.

I'm willing to celebrate the victory, Fred. Just not with the likes of you.

What a sad expose this blog and most of the comments have been. I'm sorry I wasted my time, but taking my medicine (reading what the left has to say) is a necessary pain if sanity is eventually going to triumph over moral bankruptcy and self-flagellating defeatism.

Some twerp above wanted to run the numbers. Okay, let's do it: by the UN's own accounting Saddam's years in power resulted in 30,000 to 50,000 Iraqi deaths per year for nearly 30 years. Mostly children. So, lament the expense of our blood and treasure it you will, but don't fob off on us the notion that the past three years represent an increase in violence in Iraq. The vast majority (approx 75%) of the 30,000 estimated dead since March 2003 have been killed by the murderous folks like Zarqawi -- not our troops.

I cannot help but remind this sad crew that EVERY single one of the Democrat leadership supported regime change in Iraq -- right up until the time that things got difficul. This includes the great majority of asses who voted for the Iraq Resolution for wicked, purely political reasons and not out of principle. There is a special place in Hell for them.

So, quote your racked and stacked costs and whine about how war is hell. In the meantime, 50 million people are free. Liberals (excuse me--'progressives') used to care about things like that. Now you are more concerned with the failure of any and every George Bush project, even if that failure has awful implications for your own country and the rest of the free world...most of which is too weakened by socialist atrophy to do more than writhe when attacked.

Joel A: you're moral equivalence argument reeks of anti-Americanism. I DO question your patriotism and that of many contributors to this comment section. I do not wrap myself in the flag -- and I loathe many of Bush's policies. But I sure as hell know who we're fighting, why we're fighting them, and why we're fighting WHERE we're fighting. Those of you who don't get it are simply lucky that the breave men on whom the burden falls will also protect you and your families when the wolves come for you.

Achenfan and Beavis ! together ! at last !Life is good...

PD Quig... if you consider us lefties "morally bankrupt" for being against this war from Day One because we believed then (and still believe) there are non-violent alternatives that are just as effective (if not more) than simply bombing a regime out of business, you need more than "medicine".

Is it always necessary to destroy a country before you can help make it better? Hmmm... let's destroy Iraq's infrastructure, let's destroy their economy, let's turn the whole freaking country on its head and then we'll all act surprised when the people who live there get tired of no electricity, no water, no medical care, no schools, no jobs and no security get ticked off because we "accidentally" just blew up several thousand civilians while going after the bad guys.

I'm not condoning or otherwise supporting what the terrorists do -- violence is ALWAYS the worst possible solution. But there IS a better way to stop them. If we were to have invested a fraction of the billions spent on bombs spent on this war on peaceful and humanitarian solutions and incentives, we wouldn't be in this stinking mess.

Reading these posts by the American haters, anti-military, pro-insurgent liberals, do you wonder why you will blow it in November? Why you lost NY born women like me to the republican party? Why my Ivy League education was nothing compared to meeting the wonderful people in flyover country that the MSM told me were stupid and ignorant? Achenblog is another left-wing, anti-US website that is really an I LOVE KOFI fan club. You libs stopped thinking for yourself, believe what the NY Times, Kos, and WaPo tells you. Canada was targeted why? Your arguments stink. The internet lets silly, self-loathers like Pete Stark and the entire WaPo blog division be exposed for their cocooned liberalism and foolishness. Please, keep blogging. Once again dems will lose in November because of the insults to American people who vote by those with the progressive, liberal and democrat labels. YOu have never met anyone who disagrees with you, and you have convinced yourselves you are right. The republicans will not have to spend a dime.

I believe that the general consensus from the left is:

1.Most did not want to go to war with Iraq, and the ones that did, wanted to withdraw after realizing that this war was executed under false pretenses.
2.Being that we are stuck in Iraq due to the current administration, we have no other choice but celebrate any progress made at all. Guess what? We would STILL like to leave Iraq.
3.It is not the US's job to remove every despot in power around the world violently. The only reason we removed SH from power is to try to gain power over a very important region of the world and to tout his capture as some sort of victory. No more no less. Genocide has been going on around the world for centuries. It's sad when the end result is ending genocide with another form of mass violence.
4.The current administration can no longer kill innocent Iraqis with the justification that they are killing terrorist. The math just doesn't add up. 1 innocent death+1 terrorist death= victory?
5.The war on terror should not be fought at the cost of civil liberties
6.The current foreign policy is in shambles. (the only good thing Bush has done is provide aid to Africa and various other counties for disaster relief)
7.The $325+ billion spend on the war could have been used to try to united the world. Perhaps people from other counties would chime in and try to help us instead of looking at us like the guy starting a fight at the bar because someone insulted his girlfriend.
8.Contrary to popular Republican belief, we do not support terror or terrorism. We also do not support another form of terrorism to combat terrorism.
9.If you don't like the questions, then provide better answers. Stop avoiding the problem because you can't provide anything else other than a ruse.

This is just a sample of some of what the left thinks. Thank you, come again.

SCC spend, "spent"

Oh bother. Why do I try to debate with these people when all they do is argue...

> "You libs stopped thinking for yourself, believe what the NY Times, Kos, and WaPo tells you."

You know, Karen, that the same could be said about those who share your opinions. Just stick Fox News and Wall Street Journal in there.

What I find truly ironic is that all of you "thinking" righties picked the most unthinking monkey in the zoo to lead you. Where does your leader get his news? Oh... that's right. He says he doesn't read the news. About the only thing he's good for (imho) is a laugh when he makes up new words or uses existing ones incorrectly.

Yeah... you thinkers did one "heck of a job" picking Bush.

Geist, you're right it's pointless to argue. But just in case, you leftout:

10. Your side lied.

11. Even if you were correct, your side screwed it up.

It takes a specialized ignorance to write,
"...and then, after pondering the situation, sent in another 500-pounder to bounce the rubble.", as must now be apparent even to Joel Achenbach. What with Z-man having survived, if briefly, both bombs.

This sort of ignorance, that a steel reinforced 10-inch-thick concrete "farmhouse" will not be vaporized by a single 500-pound bomb, is a forgivable ignorance. Most folks don't know the first thing about physics, constuction techniques, demolition, ordnance.
Nor how any of this stuff works.

But didn't Joel make a nice living and a bit of a name for himself writing about How Stuff Works?
A bit of Googling and one finds this written about Joel.
"WHAT IS REALITY, ANYWAY?
FUNNY YOU SHOULD ASK.
Washington Post columnist Joel Achenbach refuses to take "I don't know" for an answer."

Well.
What a nice blurb.

But Joel, where did you get the idea that those F-16 pilots dropped bomb #1 then "pondered" about dropping bomb #2 then decided, "Oh well, might as well bounce the rubble."
I ask where you got that idea because I think the honest answer would be, "I don't know."

So what gives Joel?
Why write such a thing?
A thing of such NONsense?

Joel you've got the resources of The Washington By God Post at your disposal.
You could pick up a phone and in mere seconds have a conversation with an Air Force General.
At the end of that call you might have learned something.
The only thing that would have been easier than making that call would have been to look up from your desk and ask someone in the office who had military experience.

Oh wait.

Stephen, only you would be dense enough to take Joel's line and fail to see he was being flip. (And if you want to argue being flip was inappropriate, then fine; have at him. But jeez, the reading comprehension skills on your side of the aisle are just appalling. I recommend the Sylvan Learning Center for the lot of you. It's very brave of you folks to be so open and honest about your adult illiteracy problems, and god knows, we liberals know illiteracy is nothing to make fun of. We have the utmost compassion for your infirmities and special challenges, but for cryin' out loud, take your meds before you hit the "submit" button, please.)

I don't know Hugh Hewitt and am reluctant to criticize him, since he may be a wonderful chap, and his ridiculous distortion of my blog item may be an anomaly and not part of a self-serving effort to sow division among the American people for the sake of ratings and page views. But I will respond to some of the commenters here.

Someone writes: "To equate a murderous beheader whose jihadist ideology is a 7th Century throwback which would offend most Muslims today with that of strategic bombing to terminate said animal, is a problem that the Left has when always dealing with enemies of this nation."

I quite clearly CONTRASTED a murderous beheader with the American military. What part of the word "opposite" don't you understand?

Let us review the passage that apparently put Hugh's knickers in a knot:

"It was an impersonal obliteration. You could argue that it was the opposite of Zarqawi's style of killing -- he preferred to murder hostages by beheading them in front of a video camera."

To say that I am suggesting there is a moral equivalence is absurd. Of course there's no moral equivalence-- they are, rather, and I apologize for quoting myself again, "the opposite."

Many thanks to Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit, who writes: "I have to say that I didn't read it that way. To me, it seemed that Achenbach was juxtaposing the bestial approach of Zarqawi with the matter-of-fact tradesmanlike approach of the U.S. military."

I invite those of you who are new to this site to click on some links and get your own sense of what kind of blog it is. Then re-read the item above: There's no criticism directed toward the United States or the United States military. I'm thrilled that Zarqawi is dead, as he was, to quote the item, "a bloodthirsty killer and terrorist mastermind." What does it mean for the war? I don't know. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of intelligent people who have insight.

You may also note that the item links to Ivo Daalder, of Brookings, Tony Cordesman of CSIS, and Charles Pena of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, and formerly of the Cato Institute. Yeah, that's a real Murderer's Row of moonbat lefties! How did I forget to include Ramsey Clark?

Pssst, JA...

"sow division among"

:-)

Yesterday "nelson" wrote: "I'm somewhat disturbed by the hyping of Zarqari's death as being a blow for the worldwide al Qaeda organization. It's not, of course. He was al Qaeda in Iraq, very specifically. He had no role in out-of-country operations."

Dude you have to be kidding me? Are you reading the paper? His group blew up a wedding party in Jordon a few months ago. Jordanians protested. He was involved in other attacks in Jordan, some successful, some not.

And Zawahiri had asked Zarqawi in a letter to expand his role in attacks against other countries. He was, by any definition, an international terrorist.

I find Achenbach's opening paragraphs to be quite disgusting. We just eliminated a brutal killer and we did it following accepted rules of combat, yet Accenbach attempts to draw us into some sort of moral equivalence game here. Well, sir, there is no equivalence whatsoever. We bombed the right strucure and we do not kill innocents on purpose. This war against terrorists can only be "lost" by those in the media like Achenbach who willingly fight a propaganda battle against the USA and misportray events for reasons only they can possibly fathom. Honestly, Achenbach and his fellow travelers on the left are the lowest types of scum we have here in the USA.

Hello, everyone. I've missed some good boodling again. Blame it on final exams. Well, maybe I should celebrate final exams. They're the final stretch.

I have a question for Wilbrod. In your answer, you say that hormones don't get cooked out of food because they are heat-stable (I think that's what you called it). If that is so, are we all absorbing the hormones fed to cows to make them grow faster and bigger? Granted, I'm not getting any taller, maybe just wider. But will my kids be bigger than me, and their kids bigger than them (barring mass extinction) because of those hormones? I've read that people have gotten bigger in the last century due to improved nutrition and health care. But what if the pace is picking up?

And about whipped cream, why did RD ask for that translation in the first place?

Now I can read today's kit.

But what kind of scum? I mean that's a fairly broad, phylogenetically diverse group of organisms. We like to be more specific on this blog!

Yeah, and there are a lot of us to describe as scum!

tailhooker, er, tribehooker, writes:
"Achenbach and his fellow travelers on the left are the lowest types of scum we have here in the USA."

And the slow people should stay to the Right.

bc

Not only that, Joel, but some of them are quite tasty -- wakame, arame, dulse, hijiki, nori and kombu -- and are a valuable source of iron and iodine.

Achenbach,

Don't be such a naif.

Dimwitt highlighted your post because he heard somewhere that you were the WaPo's most popular blogger, and he said to himself, "Well, I've got to show that the left is not sufficiently enthusiastic about the death of Zarqawi...I could check the Daily Kos...but wait, Malkin covers that beat...I do MSM...Let's see what this Achenbach guy said...Oh wow, you think I could hang a moral equivalency rap on him? It's kinda of flimsy...Ah heck with it, the minions won't care...BOMBS AWAY!!"

Joel can't help himself, his bias shows through, even though he does not even want to admit it. Let's break down the writing; the "real" salient facts of this bombing were that the USA military killed a brutal terrorist and many of his key aides and lieutenants, including two female aides. Does Joel include this important bit of information in his lead paragraph? No, but whta he does do is to add the superflous bit of information that a "child" was killed in the attack.

I ask you, what was the purpose in telling us in this piece that a child was killed in the attack? How does this add to the story? What was Joel's intention? I submit that the ONLY reason that this tidbit was added was to tarnish the accomplishment and attempt to bring down the USA military towards the level of al-Zarqawi by showing that they too killed innocents; otherwise this piece of information has no place in the opening paragraph as it is not central to the story, and it certainly is not as important as knowing that many other al-Qaeda terrorists were also killed. So, Joel tops his hand right away in the first paragraph and shows that he wants to tarnish the USA military by accusing them of killing innocent children.

Joel also diplays a profound lack of undertanding of air military operations. The use of the word "pondering" is so absurd that it makes me cringe. I can only guess that Joel ust be in some way associated with Naptional Public Radio, because you just can't be this stupid otherwise. Fighter jocks don't "ponder". They have missions which they execute. This particular mission was executed brilliantly and with a degree of precision that borders on the sublime. No pondering, Joel....that is left to hisotry majors from Princeton who live next to some famous twit ...aaahhhh but who care about that anyway?

Joel...I suggest you stick to writing about something you know about; it certainly is not this topic.

tribehooker. Please deal with what Joel said, not what you think he meant. You are not a mind reader.

re: RD Padouk

I dealt with what Joel wrote. His comments about the dead child were not newsworthy in regards to the event at hand. It displays his bias. Enough said.

Wilbrod, yes we supplied Sadaam weapons - against Iran. We also joined with the Russians against the Germans and just a few years later joined with the Germans against the Russians. (The left of today would have been ina tizzy over this back then!) Times change. Circumstances change. The lefy's love to bring up the fact that we supported Sadaam or that we have supported all sorts of nasty dictators - but they always decide to forget to mention the circumstances, the situation, the alternatives, etc. The nice thing about blogs is we can dispute their emotional arguements with some good old American thinking.

Gee, thanks for that lesson in military procedure, tribehooker. I didn't know pilots had missions to execute. I, too, was led to believe they did a lot of pondering up there. I mean, I saw "Top Gun" three or four times, and I could swear I saw some pondering going on (though as you'll be quick to point out) it wasn't during combat.

And boy, you really put it to him with that NPR crack! Devastating! What a bunker-buster that was! Can't wait to go home and tell the wife.

> "Joel can't help himself, his bias shows through, even though he does not even want to admit it."

I suppose it's only "bias" when it's not coming from the corner of Dick Cheney's mouth, huh? Or your buddy Hugh?

> "the superflous bit of information that a "child" was killed in the attack"

Superfluous my butt. Do you have any children? Or are you one of those righties who believes contraception is a sin, so you have so many kids it doesn't matter if one dies? Talk about a sicko.

I'm sure Jesus would approve of that attitude.

Isn't that a big part of being a rightie? You're unshakable faith and morals? Give me a break. You're all a bunch of hypocrites.

re: Curmedgeon:

Like I said, Joel should stick to writing about something he understands and knows about. He doesn't understand military operations and he displays his bias against the USA military in his writing. Perhaps he can write about wines, or classical music or antique furniture, or basket weaving. Perhaps he can write with expertise on pottery, who knows? But, after his first two paragrapsh, I knew I was reading the words of a left wing hack.

I typically don't listen to the NPR when I want useful analysis of military operations; they aren't really staffed up to handle that type of thing. Last time I checked Joel doesn't really have the chop's to be writing on this topic and to be considered seriously; he's kind of like one of the Kos kid's...just another left wing nut job.......

'mudge - got some more room in that there bunker? bc - room in the tent?

does it seem to anyone else but me that a lot of those rants seem to be a bit too similar to have been the work of more than one person? all with double names?

let me illuminate something for all you oh-so-smart-righties - this is a BLOG! it is NOT a news article. it is about HUMOR! it is not anti-military, anti-american, or anti-republican or even anti-bush! it is not supporting the left or liberalism. it did not claim to be reporting news! it is humorous writing for entertainment benefits! tribehooker - get down off of that soap box and save it for a more appropriate time.

mo, don't bother--it's waaaay too late to try to explain anything to them. Just run for your life. There's plenty of room in the bunker; bring a pal and we'll have enough for bridge.

And people wonder why we lost Vietnam, and more than 2,700 In Iraq. Jeez.

re: martooni

You are way, way off base. The key facts of the al-Zarqawi story are that he and many of his key lieutenants were killed in this bombing attack. I pointed out that Joel's lead paragraph made no mention of this fact, but that he chose to mention that a child was killed in the attack which is a very minor fact in comparision to the rest of the story.
The fact that Joel chose NOT to report that many other key figure were killed, but rather chose to report that an innocent child was killed points out his bias, and his attempt to lessen the accomplishment of the US military.

I made no comment about the loss of this child's life. I wonder if you grieved as much for all of the children that were butchered during Saddam's regime? Hundreds of thousands died during his reign....your comments?

You continue to dodge my point which is that Joel's bias is so glaring so obvious that if you can read, you can't miss it. Instead you lanuch a personal attack; yet this is the typical style of the normal leftist. I am quite comfotable in my skin and with the state of my salvation, so cast as many stones as you wish at me; I am not concerned at the way that Jesus Christ views me, as I know how He sees me.

tribalhooker - So your argument comes down to because Joel mentioned that one of the six people killed was an unidentified child he must, by definition, be a lefty fanatic? Then so too must be the military spokesman who first reported it.

Look, there are plenty of true wild eyed lefties on the web. Go after them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_J8UBEwOg

tribalhooker - Now you are dancing like you are on hot coals. Joel's blog is not hard news. Go to the mainpage for this. If you want to see a "bias" in Joel's blog, feel free. Expressing an opinion is what he does.
You and the others have made your point. You think Joel and the rest of us are a bunch of left nut jobs. Message received.

from Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn:

HH: Now I've got to read to you two paragraphs. Joel Achenbach is the most popular blogger for Washingtonpost.com by far, I'm told, by people who know. He gets the most attention. And I went to see what he had to say this morning. He posted at 9:38AM Eastern time, and here are his first two paragraphs, and you can read this at Washingtonpost.com, America. The military briefing this morning featured footage of the bombing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout. We've become familiar with this kind of image - the jet fighter's view of the terrain, the target in the middle of the screen, the flash of light, the erupting cloud of smoke and dust. American fighters hit Zarqawi's lair with a 500 pound bomb, and then, after pondering the situation, sent another 500 pound bomb to bounce the rubble. Six bodies were later found, including that of an unidentified child. One body definitely belonged to Zarqawi. American Soldiers identified him every which way from scars to fingerprints. Paragraph two. But no human beings are visible in that jet fighter footage. I actually couldn't tell what I was looking at. It could have been a warehouse demolition in Tulsa. It was an impersonable obliteration. You could argue that it was the opposite of Zarqawi's style of killing. He preferred to murder hostages by beheading them in front of a video camera. What is he talking about, Mark Steyn?

MS: Well, this man is disgusting. And to hell with him, frankly. I find it harder and harder as the days go by to take this kind of talk. You know, the Archbishop of Canterbury made this point. He said that the terrorists and the United States Air Force were both equivalent. They were only capable of viewing people at a distance. The guy in the plane, with all those anonymous buildings as little blips on the radar screen, on the GPS positioning thing way below him, he has more understanding of the humanity there. He knows which is the schoolhouse. He knows which is the hospital. He knows which is the restaurant. And he knows which is the one building he's allowed to hit. What's interesting to me about the people we're up against is they look you in your eyes. Zarqawi can look American hostages, British hostages...poor Margaret Hassan, an Iraqi aid worker, he can look these people in the eye and he fails to recognize their common humanity, and he reaches for his scimitar, and he cuts their throat. The guys at the Beslan school massacre...they looked those kids in the eye, and then they killed them. And the guy in the plane dropping the 500 pound bomb has more understanding of the common humanity that links us and the Iraqis and all peoples on this Earth than Zarqawi does. So to hell with that twerp at the Washington Post. I've got no time for him on a day like this.

A Twerp....An apt description of Joel I'd say...

Always a good sign when you turn to someone else's misunderstandings to support your own, tribehooker.

> "I wonder if you grieved as much for all of the children that were butchered during Saddam's regime? Hundreds of thousands died during his reign....your comments?"

Since you asked...

YES. It makes me sick to my stomach to see what happens to children the world over -- including here in America. And YES, I do contribute to organizations that help feed and educate children.

I don't really give a flying duck who is responsible for the death of a child. If it can be avoided, it should be done so at any cost. If the right is going to make a stink about abortion and euthanasia, why the hell can't they get as fired up about kids who are actually ALIVE and BREATHING?

My understanding of this particular situation is that the house had been under surveilance for MONTHS. They knew exactly who was in there -- including the kid. They could have taken alternative measures to get Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies that would have at least given the kid a chance to survive. Dropping 1000 lbs of ordinance on the house was just overkill, if you ask me. It was the easy way out. What about all the fancy non-lethal weapons at our disposal? What do we train special-ops guys for? Anybody can go in after the fact and count bodies.

Your comment came across like "so what, a kid died". If that kid was a white blonde American, you can bet your subscription to Right Wing Nut Times that they wouldn't have dropped those bombs. They would have gone out of their way to find an alternative other than "kill them all".

tribehooker, did it occur to you that the writer may have been implying that Zarqawi, knowing he was a target, intentionally put children in harm's way, thinking that the US would be hesitant to strike in that situation?

One could infer that Joel is calling Zarqawi a coward.

But that would require thinking, and not just doing the bidding of your Masters.

Gads, the Right's got us building Adobe Curtains, making protectivist laws that penalize minorities, prosecuting a highly destructuve war that was started on false pretenses or just being plain wrong, submitting to reductions of freedoms that our forefathers bought for us and that thousands of Americans paid for with their lives, with foreign policy that has just about every nation in the world hating us, was utterly ineffective in dealing with the worst (yet predicted) natural disaster in decades, with an economy in barely checked inflation and energy costs skyrocketing, propagated the most damaging American social divides in 40 years, and engaging in the worst kind of transparent pandering to their conservative religious power base on moral issues that are light-years away from dealing with *real* problems that this country is facing, and these guys are still on the offensive?

Go back to your cesspools of paranoia and hatred, you scoundrels!

The Bush Administration has not proven themselves competent to lead the honorable men and women in our military. Period.

They've broken our trust, demonstrated repeated incompetence, and are showing signs of corruption in the Executive and Legislative branches.

They SHOULD expect to be questioned at every turn, as a small price for their untrustworthiness.

It's my duty as an American to shine the light of truth up to our government, and to demand justice for wrongs where it is warranted.

I will not be silenced by herds of drones cloaked in the security of illusory righteousness, that seek to obfuscate by regurgitating the moral pablum they've been fed, rather than seriously thinking and considering other people's points of view.

I will continue to think, and to question, and to hold those that wield the powers we've given them accountable for their actions.

Narrowmindedness and parochialism stemming from fear and distrust and a desire for control has brought us to this point in American history. But lordy, why would anyone want to keep doing the same thing when it's so clearly NOT WORKING?

I and my kind are watching you, and will *not* shut up and roll over. Our founding fathers didn't, and we aren't going to either.

bc
P.S. I'd rather have Democrats that can't seem to find their a$$es with both hands, than Republicans that have one hand on my throat and the other reaching for my wallet.

P.S.S. For those of you Red Heads who don't understand the use of humor as a political tool, go read some friggin' Benjamin Franklin. And if you still don't get it, consider a G0DDAMMED sense of humor implant.

Whew, I feel better.

Mudge, this is all your fault.

bc

I think all this analysis of the column is kind of silly. Joel writes like a literate slacker, slouching his way across the page with a bored, superior attitude. Yep, today it was "Hey, man, I just thought I'd compare beheadings to 500# bombs." Tomorrow it will be "Dude, I got a home loan - they asked me all kinds of stuff about my life like they thought they were my mom and dad."

It's not a slam on the military any more than it will be a slam on the banking industry or whatever topic Joel casts his half open eyes upon next. Get off his back. He's got enough problems without you helping out. From the looks of his prose, he's probably approaching middle age and trying to wear his pants around his thighs at the same time.

Rock on, Joel.

LOL, bc... I have to say that when I read your first postscript, the immediate mental image wasn't them going for the wallet, but attempting to perform an unnatural act.

Of course, they'd still go for the wallet afterward.

And expect you to thank them for it.

WE kill one one the most dangerous men in the world and some of you complain and say that it is not such a big deal because there is still killing going on in Iraq? What do you people want? It is arrogance and stupidity such as this that is going to lead to a further melt-down of the the American, moonbat left. I can't wait for the fall.

BC:

I wonder when you'll be scolded for mind readind like I was; I won't hold my breath. I would not be too worried about what the rest of the world thinks, believe it or not they are not that worried about what America is doing anyway. By the way I lived in the Middle East and in SE Asia and in Europe. Most folks I ever met had a very profound interest in America and liked Americans and America very much. I would not place too much stock in any polls that say that people don't like America; they were probably run by leftists such as yourself with an agenda.

I'm glad to see that you can admit that the left is incompetent and unable to defend America; now we are getting somewhere. We do have enemies and one of them is Islamofacism. I wonder if you are at all happy for the people of Iraq who have had the yoke of oppression lifted from their necks. They are in a struggle for sure right now; it is difficult to birth a nation without a struggle, yet I think they will make it with our help. I think we can help them become the first truly functional democracy in that part of the world, and that will be a great accomplishment. I know that will make all of you lefties sick to your stomachs, since it will have happened on during the Bush presidency, but this will have positive implications for the long term security of thr USA; even a leftist should be able to grasp that. As far as a sense of humor is concerned, watched any Month Python lately? I think you guys on the left are the one's that lack a sense of humor. Plus, I wonder why is it that you always seem to have to assert that you are "smarter" ...ie And the slow people should stay to the Right...I see no evidence anywhere I have ever been that leftists are smarter.....

Joel

Are you incredibly stupid, or are you just incredibly arrogant? You need to read Mark Steyn's comment about you ( if you have the guts to do it, but I doubt it ). Maybe you can learn a thing or two about what real writing and the truth is all about from someone you will never measure up to.

re Martooni:

Your comments pretty pathetic. The USA killed more blonde haired white kids during the bombing of Dresden and Berlin than you can number. Why do you have to make it about skin color and ethnicity when in fact it has nothing do do with that? This is a war we are fighting, or do you not consider the situation in Iraq to be a war? Innocent civilians get killed in war. Nobody wants this to happen but it does happen. I think you continue to ask the wrong questions and accuse the wrong side. A butcher was just killed and you act as if something went wrong; something went right.
The better question to ask is why was that child there in the first place; who placed that child in harms way? But I don't think you will be able to see it that way, as you are a blame America first type.....do you want me to give you Jimmy Carter's phone number so you two can have a chat?

"I will not be silenced by herds of drones cloaked in the security of illusory righteousness, that seek to obfuscate by regurgitating the moral pablum they've been fed, rather than seriously thinking and considering other people's points of view.

I will continue to think, and to question, and to hold those that wield the powers we've given them accountable for their actions."

I've never been prouder to be part of the 'boodle, BC.

DV

Y'know what, tribe? You're right, but it goes both ways.

You see, your comments are just as pathetic to me as mine are to you.

I do have one last thing to say that you won't be able to spin or deny or insult away -- my vote will definitely be canceling your vote out in the next election.

So go ahead and keep spouting off about how violence is the only solution and if we let those "lefties" run the place, we're all gonna die!

That might have worked in 2004 (barely), but you can't keep going back to the well with that one -- not on this administration's record.

The public is tiring of your message and your president. You only encourage more voters to shift leftward with your invective and for that, I thank you.

Just in case anyone is checking this tonight or tomorrow when I'll be offline and on the road, please check the full response to Hewitt posted on this site this afternoon:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2006/06/hugh_hewitt_desperate_for_mate.html

I should note that the URL is an accident: The headline originally ended with "material." I don't mean to imply that Mr. Hewitt needs to pair-bond with anyone.

I am going on Hewitt's show at 7:30 EDT in case anyone wants to tune in.

tribehooker, you are funny indeed.

I never said that I thought the Dems could be worse than the Repubs at defending the country, you did.

9/11 and the Gulf Coast hurricanes happened on the Republican watch.

Could the Dems have done better when faced with those situations? I don't know for sure, but can you honestly tell me that the Republicans running the Executive and Legislative branches have done a good job?

Please give me an example of anything that those branches manage or provide - the economy, our security, our military, government services, our relationships with other nations, the environment, whatever - that's in better shape now that it was seven years ago when the Dems were in charge?

I can't think of anything. Not ONE.

How much of what the Republicans promised in 2000 and 2004 have they delivered?

Have you guys got all those Constitutional Ammendments you were promised? Is the Iraq Mission Accomplished (and are the WMDs secured?)? Is Osama bin Laden's head on a pike in front of 1600 Penn Ave? Has drawing down the strategic Petro reserves dropped the price of a gallon of gasoline noticeably? Has making the Department of Homeland Security made this country safer?

I could go on, but I think the answer to those questions and more is NO.

I think that the Republican party and the Bush Admin has played all of us for patises, tribehooker. You, me, all of us.

I see it, and I'm not going along with it any more.

The first ammendment hasn't been rolled back *yet*.

You call bullsh!t when you see it, and I will too.

This is what I believe.

bc

bc, great points.

I don't understand why the right is so angry at "the left" or the "liberal press". Republicans have held all the power - for years - and they have shown how inept and incompetent they are. I'm not surprised, but apparently many of their supporters are. Now if only they would stop shouting and work toward resolving some problems...

You righties are stupid. The same guy that's telling you that Zarqawi was some global terrorist mastermind leading the Iraqi insurgency and threatening the free world on par with bin Ladin was the same guy that told you that Saddam Hussein had WMD. How many times do you have to be lied to before you stop taking anything that comes out of the War Department on face value?

"Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. [Pause.] Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

And before you spread your thoughtless right-wing garbage, why don't you read a book or something? Turkey has been a stable, secular democracy for 100 years. Turkey is Iraq's neighbor and is also predominately Muslim. Even if we magically morph Iraq into a democracy - it will hardly be a first, nor will it be a model for the Arab world. The vast majority of Iraqis are Shiite Persians - not Arabs. The only reason they speak Arabic is because the minority Arab Sunni/Secular Baathists mandated Arabic when they took power 50 years ago.

God, you people are stupid. Morons. Complete morons. Go back to the HH blog. We don't poo in your pool.

And Islamofacism is a joke. German fascism had an army - and was capable of conquering the world if unopposed. These people have to bribe families to sell them a son to go blow himself up. Instead of a Panzer tank, they have tinfoil, gunpowder, and a remote control.

To even compare these idiots in the Middle East with real fascism shames our grandfathers and the struggle they fought for us.

Bush is not America. The only anti-Americans are the ones that accept anything that comes out of his mouth without questioning him and are willing to swallow his lies and dispose of the American way of life in exchange for fleeting security from shadow puppets.

Joel, I just read the HH interview transcript and thought you did remarkably well. Indeed, it would have made distinctively good radio.

Context: I'm politically much more in tune with HH than with the boodle. I'm also an admirer of your writing.

And of your resistance to having words put in your mouth. You reacted honestly in a way that I wish more interviewees and testifiers before Congress would react. HH is a lawyer. Next time you go on the show, find a way to use the phrase "Objection, leading." Because that's precisely what he was trying to do. Next time, you'll be ready for it.

Uncork your wryness on him. I predict radio stardom.

Achenbach and most of his bloggers are throwing cold water over the tremendous feat of finally killing Zarqawi. He deserved it, he was the main architect of past and present unrest in Iraq, he was Al-Qaida in Iraq, and he was infinitely more dangerous over the last few years of his life than bin Laden has been since going into hibernation. Of course this doesn't mean the war on terror has been won, but this is a major victory. And it gives the Iraqi people more hope that their country will succeed in the transition to democracy. Major victory, more hope. Period.

For what it's worth, I disagree with appell8 (with due respect). A radio show following a column is more akin to cross examination, where leading is fair ball.

The main difference in court vs on radio is that on radio as the questionee you can answer, just change the subject, or pose your own rhetorical question, or whatever suits your purpose.

martooni:

What you really need is 15 minutes in a room with Zarqawi's successor. Short of that there is no hope of convincing you of the banality of your views. As your heartbeat pounded in your eardrums while he grabbed your hair and wrenched your head back perhaps you would have a moment of clarity -- perhaps the first in your lifetime.

You can't even get the economics right: foreign aid doesn't work, fool. Only foreign direct investment has a chance, only that's not going to happen as long as murderous terrorists run rampant.

You have no ideas worth listening to. How did you grow up so blinkered? Have you never traveled, never had a gun pointed at your head, never heard a bullet? No, I suppose not.

Sonofcarl: hoist on my own metaphor. It is indeed fair to ask leading questions if drawn from the column. What I find objectionable is posing a phrase completely different from any used by Joel and asking for a yes or no answer.

You're right that the askee is entirely free to come back at that in any way he chooses. I was merely suggesting a way. Most important, it seems to me, is to resist that kind of interrogation box, as Joel did.

You didn't see it in the briefing video, but there were Special Ops troops on the ground guiding those bombs in with lasers. They went in immediately and took Zarqawi out of the rubble. This was not the sanitary, long distance operation you seem to think it was, but the operations that led to it will not be known for years, if ever. If the military let anybody in on what they're doing, you know that Zarqawi would be reading about them in the NYTimes or Washington Post.

President Bush told us all this when this started, but the press doesn't seem to have been listening. I think he deserves more trust, patience and less complaining.

Update!

I'm only doing this so the blog reaches 300...

Forget the Nats ! How about them Tigers !

300 !

Hello Mr. Achenbach. I tried leaving a trackback to this post, but received an error message saying trackback pings had to use "https posts," or something like that. If anyone can help me out with how to use trackbacks, I would be most grateful.

Anyway, you can read my little pontifications, if you have the time, here.

Hmm, the url didn't seem to show up: it's http://nathanbauman.com/seoulhero/nfblog/?p=274 .

Don:

You are much better at insults than you ar at history. Modern day Turkey was founder with Ataturk as president in 1923....this would be by my accounting significantly less than 100 years ago. Perhaps YOU need to read a book and study your history a bit more before you are so quick with your not so rapier wit. Quite dull you are along with the rest of your tired liberal friends who can do little but mout the same old tired diatribes, while the real action is taking place in the Middle East being executed by conservative men of the MArines and the rest of the armed services. You aren't worthy of their spit.....

Geneva Convention rules grant protection to legal combatants. Legal combatants are those who wear a uniform, recognizable at a distance, have a chain of command,and who follow the laws of war.
Those laws of war include protecting prisoners, and avoiding damage to civilians and civilian structures.

We have seen what Al Z did to civilians who he captured. We have seen that he does not avoid damage to civilians and structures such as schools, religious structures, or hospitals.

When an illegal combatant violates the rules of war, by occupying a hospital, or a mosque, or hiding behind women and children, he is not thereby protected, but rather, he removes the protection normally accorded to such buildings or people. The law is written that way to encourage any combatants to follow the rules, and to minimize the disadvantage associated with following the rules.

Al Z does not gain protecting by hiding in a house with his 16 year old wife, and his 1.5 year old son. Rather, he endangers them. If he doesn't mind endangering them, then we are not required to give them greater consideration than did he.

There is no moral equivalency here. The US targeted a very evil man with a precise weapon, and fortunately, the US has finally killed him. Al Queda has long made a practice of attacking civilians, civilian structures, and fire fighters. To claim that Al Queda should be granted the protections of legal combatants is the worst kind of irrational bigotry.

The US ended the occupation long ago. The US and the government of Iraq have since then fought as allies against a common enemy. The US soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors are doing wonderful things. The Iraqi military are very good, and getting better day by day. The Iraqi police have further to go, in part because the combination of authority, force, forbearance, and integrity of the police is a tougher task in the middle east.

The US has long brought freedom to oppressed people. The Muslims of Mindino in the Phillipines in the 1930s requested that they be permitted to remain under the US. They appreciated honest limited government that much.

Having said that, I want you to know that I am against continuing the war. The terrorists should surrender immediately.

test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test

test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test