Skip to main content

View Diary: Zarqawi is dead, a victory in Iraq, a defeat for trolls (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you believe that the US can 'win' in Iraq (19+ / 0-)

    then this must be good news.

    Of course, that's completely delusional.

    This is theater, nothing more.  Just like the purple fingers.  Just like "ladies and gentlemen...we got 'em!"  Just like shooting Saddam's sons.

    Bad guys?  Sure.

    But a significant turning point?  What the hell are you smoking?

    This is utterly meaningless.  Except to the republican propaganda machine.

    •  amen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Those were good times, as far as we knew. --Colbert

      by AmericanHope on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 01:38:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would have been much more impressed (7+ / 0-)

        if they captured him alive, then maybe they could have gotten some useful insight into the workings of AQ-Iraq (unfortunately, he would have probably been "rendered")

        On a side note, he looks to be in awfully good shape for having 1000lbs worth of bombs dropped on him.

        Yet another corner it time to bring the troops home yet?

        •  I also wondered about that...... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Karma for All

          One would think bombs would have blown him to pieces yet he looks like someone who died peacefully in his sleep. Before I was completely awake this morning I heard a reporter asking the designated military spokesman this question.  He completely ignored the question and continued to talk at length about precision bombing.  Wish I could have asked a follow-up question.  "Really, sir, you mean you can bomb a house, kill a paticular terrorist and leave no sign of damage to his body?  Now that's impressive".

          "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

          by Lying eyes on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 02:31:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  if he died AFTER capture (0+ / 0-)

          the question that should be asked is "What did Zarqawi know that the Bush Administration doesn't want Americans to find out?"

          My other thought about this is that judging from what I've heard about friction between Zarqawi's people and the rest of the insurgents, that Zarqawi might be more useful to the insurgency as a martyr than as a leader.

          What does it mean in the short term? I expect the pace of insurgent attacks to go UP for a while. Maybe Bush gets another dead cat bounce in the polls. Long term? Not much, to get maximum propaganda boost, this should have been timed for late October.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 06:43:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Win or Lose (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cappy, Noah in NY

      Your opinion is noted. If Zarqawi wasn't a total fiction (is that your view?) and committed 1/1000 of the violence attributed to him this is good news for the Iraqi people regardless of the effect on the situation in Iraq. I never once mentioned anything close to 'significant turning point' in this diary. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth.

      •  He's probably not a total fiction (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wonkydonkey, cappy, mango, blueoasis

        Just the latest convenient surrogate for Osama that the Bushites picked out and elevated in stature so they could claim a great victory when he was eliminated.

        No doubt he was an evil thug, but that's certainly no great distinction.

        My point is that there's little to rejoice over here.  Iraq is the same clusterfuck it was 2 days ago, with or without this one guy in sneakers.  Will it make any difference to the situation in Iraq?  Of course not.  Anyone who really would entertain such a fantasy doesn't understand things there.

        •  Did you even read the diary? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cappy, sofia, bobbobgirl

          I cited the 9/11 refutation of Powell's UN presentation. I cited the MSNBC report (and others) that the Bush administration failed to attack Zarqawi in the run-up to the Iraq War. I cited the April '06 WaPo piece that said the US was stepping up a propaganda campaign using Zarqawi to focus Iraqi discontent.

          The point of this diary was to refute what I thought were efforts to paint Daily Kos and Democrats as weak on terrorism. I agree with you that Bin Laden should be the focus - everyone but complete kool-aid drinkers agree on that point. Rumsfeld said "no single person on this planet has had the blood of more innocent men, women and children on his hands than Zarqawi." WTF! What about Bin Laden? I'm as pissed as anyone that the US is ignoring Bin Laden but that doesn't make killing Zarqawi a non-event. I would have preferred he be killed in January 2003 - as I said in the diary.

          I didn't suggest Iraq is going well anywhere in the diary - merely that killing a single terrorist was a positive development. At no point did I express anything more that a hope that Iraq has peace. I'm fully aware that hope is not a plan.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site