Pardon my unrestrained callousness but the thought of Zarqawi suffering before he died gives me more than a little satisfaction.

WASHINGTON - A mortally wounded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still alive and mumbling on a gurney when Iraqi police arrived at the site bombed by U.S. forces there, a top American military spokesman said Friday.

Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, briefing military reporters at the Pentagon from his post in Baghdad, said he learned that al-Zarqawi was alive after getting briefings on the military operation that netted al-Zarqawi and several others.

"He mumbled something but it was indistinguishable and it was very short," Caldwell said.

Update: Thanks to reader Jack we have this:

Journalists accompanying the US military to the site in the village of Hibhib, near the town of Baquba, on Saturday reported seeing a womanÂ’s leopard skin nightgown and other skimpy womenÂ’s clothes around the bombed house.

The original story assumed that the clothing was used buy some unamed women companion. Debby at Right Truth as well as myself are not so quick to make that assumption.

Companion OpiniPundit

Posted by: Traderrob at 02:38 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

The family of Jack Hensley, an American civilian hostage murdered by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, says justice has been served.

[Right: Abu Musab al Zarqawi can be seen reading a message shortly before he murders Jack Hensly. Below: Jack Hensley appears on Zarqawi propaganda video in which the al Qaeda leader announced that he would murder the hostage unless all his demands were met]

Unlike the father of Zarqawi murder victim Nick Berg--who continued to blame President Bush for his sons death despite the fact that the al Qaeda leader personally cut his son's head off--the Hensly family seems to be having a more rational response to Zarqawi's death.

AP:

The brother of a Georgia man who was taken hostage and killed in Iraq said justice was served in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the presumed mastermind of Jack Hensley's killing.

"I'm thankful this guy can't hurt anybody else," Ty Hensley told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday.

But Ty Hensley, who lives in Charlotte, N.C., also said he feels renewed sadness and anger toward Al-Zarqawi.

"It is a personal thing," he said. "He desecrated my family."

Pati Hensley [Jack's wife] was relieved by the news of al-Zarqawi's death, said Jake Haley, a family friend who spoke to reporters at her home at her request. She left town to avoid the media spotlight.

Jake Haley said he e-mailed the news to Pati Hensley before dawn Thursday. Shortly afterward, he visited the home and the two sat out in the back deck talking.

"We cried," Haley said. "We were both happy about it. It's not just Jack. This guy murdered a bunch of people. There were a lot of really nice Iraqi people that this man killed the same way."

Posted by: Rusty at 11:15 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

As predicted, the Koreans taken hostage by Nigerian rebels have been freed.

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

The leader of the Taliban has expressed his sorrow and grief over the death of al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Boo-freaking-hoo.

Monsters and Critics, with many thanks to George:

'The people of Afghanistan and I express our condolences over the martyrdom of al-Zarqawi but firmly believe that this will not weaken the ongoing resistance movement in Iraq,' the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) quoted him as saying in a statement on Friday.

'The struggle launched by al-Zarqawi is the peoples' resistance movement and every youth has the potential to become Zarqawi,' Omar said in his reaction, adding that thousands of young people would continue al-Zarqawi's movement.

Every Muslim youth would continue the struggle to safeguard their faith, honour and dignity, Omar said, against what he called the continued aggression by the crusaders.

'I want to give the good news to Muslims all over the world that such incidents will not crush the ongoing struggles against the crusaders in Afghanistan and other parts of the Islamic world,' the spiritual guru of the Taliban said.

Above right: Abu Musab al Zarqawi and his Tawhid i Jihad fighters (now called al Qaeda in Iraq) read a statement condemning civilian hostage Eugene Armstrong under Islamic law. Zarqawi later personally murdered armstrong and then released the beheading video on the internet.

WARNING: Below is a very graphic image of Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Eugene Armstrong, a civilian he personally beheaded. Do not proceed unless you wish to see the disgusting works of a man praised by Islamists as a martyr. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

The new U.S. Ambassador to Egypt was recently confronted with questions about bloggers who are in jail because of their opposition to Hosni Mubarak's version of Ba'athism. His response? See if you can decipher this:

We don’t know all the facts. We know that there are at least two sides to every story. We’ve heard one side. I think it’s incumbent on the Government — not to explain to the United States of America, we’re not owed an explanation — but to Egyptians, what are the true facts? And, if the facts are not as portrayed by the opposition, then they should be brought out. And if the facts are even remotely as portrayed by the opposition, then they should also be brought out. And, what measures the Government will take to respond to those facts should also be explained.

Egyptian Sandmonkey has the full story.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:48 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>The State Department continues its long history of avoiding conflict at all costs, even that of the truth. That way they don't ever have to be accountable for anything they said. Personally, I prefer the Crawford style, plain-spoken type of politician. The heavier the drawl, the better.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:57 AM (8e/V4)

2 Any State Department official who stepped up criticism of Mubarak at this time would be fired. They serve at the pleasure of the president. When Condi visited, she didn't speak out aggressively. It's ignorant, Rusty, to pretend that this is the State Department's fault. On such a high profile aspect of foreign policy, the president is setting the tone. At one time, we might have thought Bush was serious about pressuring Mubarak. Look what just happened in the House. If you don't like the policy, don't blame State. It's set at 1600 Penn. Either criticize Bush or sit back and enjoy the policy. Don't pretend that this is something State could do by itself. They can't.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 09:17 AM (DQYHA)

3 Makes me very happy to live in the States

Posted by: Joel at June 09, 2006 09:31 AM (qLO3B)

4 JD, As a long-time follower of State, this is par for the course. Like all bureaucracies, it has its own culture and is rarely affected by who is in charge. Also, remember, Condi is IN the State Department.

Posted by: Rusty at June 09, 2006 10:08 AM (JQjhA)

5 OK, then answer me this: do you think that the State Department sets our foreign policy towards Egypt? Because if you do, you may have been following the State Department, but you have not been understanding it. Any intro text on US Foreign Policy (I'd recommend McCormack, but ANY will do) will tell you that the last 50 years have seen a centralization of foreign policy control in the WH. You could NEVER, as ambassador to Egypt, give a talk that was out of line with the WH on a question of major importance. Well, I suppose you could--but you would face rapid and serious career ramifications. Are you really contesting that? If you are NOT, what is the point of blaming the state department for this guy's comments? He is not, as many are, a pure political appointee. He does come out of the FSO ranks. But he was appointed by Bush because he was a professional, who would take orders. That's what ambassadors do. When they do not, on a question of major importance, they get in big trouble. Right?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 10:17 AM (DQYHA)

6 Your observation about bureaucratic culture does of course have merit. I'm sure you are familiar with Graham Allison's Essence of Decision, and other more formal treatment of organizational theory. But while those bureaucratic cultures are real and relevant to many types of policy analyses, they are not relevant here. For example: if you ask the Marines to become peacekeepers, it often doesn't work that well, because the Marines are trained, beautifully, to be fighting warriors. They have an institutional ethos and culture which isn't apt to the assigned task. Being Marines, they will do their damndest, of course, but it it doesn't match their long bureaucratic and institutional memory and training. Similarly, if you ask welfare offices to become workfare offices, there is a cultural backlash. That's how bureaucacies work. But setting foreign policy on a question of this magnitude--it is Bush and the people he appoints who do that. I agree that the State Department has historically had a more pro-Arab position than most presidents, with the possible exception of Reagan (really the president who was toughest on Israel in modern memory), but you are wrong to blame them for this ambassador's comments. It's pure Bush policy. We agree that it is WRONG.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 10:28 AM (DQYHA)

7 POLICY is set at the WH, but not the language used by State employees. That is really all I'm disagreeing with.

Posted by: Rusty at June 09, 2006 11:35 AM (JQjhA)

8 Well, I agree that state has some autonomy on language. But is it really your position that the problem with this equivocal statement about Mubarak's tyranny is the language? I think the language actually reflects Bush's ambivalence about Egypt rather well. The obfuscation begins at the top. We can't decide how to get democracy in Egypt without turning over the state to the Muslim brotherhood or worse. Hosni has played that fear like a fiddle, by eviscerating his moderate liberal opponents, and largely allowing the brotherhood to thrive by comparison. Thus, he puts it to Bush--either me, or Islamofascism. That leaves the US sputtering lame crap like what you have the ambassador saying. What's wrong with this statement is the policy it announces, not the language it uses.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 12:25 PM (DQYHA)

9 The CFR sets the tone world wide now. All those in the WH, and State who hold the real power are CFR members. That is why the border is so wide open, and Congress does not control the money anymore.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 09, 2006 04:07 PM (D2g/j)

10 You left out the Masons, the Illuminati, Henry Kissinger, Queen Elizabeth, and the Jews, Leatherneck.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:00 PM (DQYHA)

11 I do not know about the Queen, But Henry told Fox news in an interview we were the last great nation state, and that is why we are having so much trouble with our so called Allies. Are you aware the majority of Americans want the border secured. Why does Congress no longer control the money? You did not write you normal three pages on the subject. You just made fun of facts. Do you work for the government? Are you trying to mislead people? Do you think the CFR is loyal to this nation, or to a global government ruled by banking institutions?

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 09, 2006 09:10 PM (D2g/j)

12 I think conspiracy theories involving the CFR are beneath contempt, they are afactual fantasies that LaRouche and many others traffic in. It is very similar to the crap that Pat Robertson spewed in his book about the Rothschild. Like all conspiracy theories, it is oddly comforting to its adherents, because it suggests that whatever is wrong in the world can be solved if we just went after the small group controlling events. There is no group, which is scary for some. Most of history emerges from uncoordinated chaotic random interactions of large historical forces and unpredictable powerful and relatively powerless individuals. Deal with it.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 06:39 AM (DQYHA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

CNN reports that Zarqawi was turned in by his own:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Betrayal inside his al Qaeda in Iraq terror group led to success in a painstaking U.S.-led operation to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

The article also states that 17 other raids were conducted simultaneously based on the same intelligence, garnering a "treasure trove" of information.

And this will make the Kos Kidz kringe:

Last night was the first time that we have had definitive, unquestionable information as to exactly where [al-Zarqawi] was located, knowing that we could strike that target without causing collateral damage to other Iraqi civilians and personnel in the area," Caldwell said.

Okay, back to my cowbell.

stein hoist to Cap'n Ed.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:39 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

'Scuse the language, but I've been mulling this over for a couple of days since I read about Ann Coulter's supposed gaffe on Drudge. I'm a little surprised at the reaction, because the accusations she actually levels at the Jersey Girls aren't that different from Christopher Hitchens' "ventriloquize the dead" statements about Cindy Sheehan in Slate. Except that the left was never quite able to demonize Hitchens in the way they'd have liked. But the truth is that these four women did pretty much what Cindy and Papa Berg did, by using their loved one's death to further their own socio/political agenda. If you agree with that agenda you'll probably see nothing wrong with that, but if not you'll see them as either crazy with grief or as manipulative opportunists. In either case they aren't sacrosanct. They made themselves public figures, after all. TigerHawk, who was a lawschool classmate of Ann's, has much more on the "defense of the indefensible."

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:40 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

While the average American is celebrating news that al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, mainstream press reaction to the news of Zarqawi's death has been panic. The story, too big to simply ignore, endangers the carefully constructed memes of Iraq as a Vietnam-like quaqmire and President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as ineffective leaders in the War on Terror.

In response, major news outlets are desperately trying to portray Zarqawi's death as a minor development that will have little or no effect on fighting in Iraq and the greater struggle of the War on Terror. If Zarqawi's death does have an impact, the MSM predict, it will be to increase the resolve of the terrorist insurgency.

Read the rest.

Update: comments have been temporarily suspended while we deal with a mentally ill individual trying to vandalize the site. We apologize for the inconvenience, but point out that this incident validates our points about the Left. They are not on our side in this fight.

Posted by: Bluto at 09:34 AM | Comments (82) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

1 And why would it have an affect on the war on terror? There are a line of muslim fanatics to take Zarqawi's place. Time will tell..

Posted by: Splatter at June 08, 2006 09:53 AM (rtnQC)

2 Splatter, how would it have an effect? Of course as it wont end the war we should have just left him to carry on cutting heads off and bombing innocents. Killing him wont have any effect at all cept its one less bastard willing to cut peoples heads off, if it was you he captured and he got killed before he got his hands on you, you would damn well think that a difference had been made, so fuck him, I truly hope he burns in hell. The BBC news here is really pissing me off, he is now referred to as an extremist and not the mass murdering barbarian that he was.

Posted by: dave clarke at June 08, 2006 10:37 AM (VdBwc)

3 >>>fuck the corpses of our slain soldiers Bluto, please leave that vile post up. Folks need to see exactly what kind of enemies Bush has made.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 10:55 AM (8e/V4)

4 I think the two, long posts are surplus to our needs. The part about using two women to collect intel is almost as good, considering the "chastity" bit. "Women out of the house?!?!"

Posted by: Phillep at June 08, 2006 11:16 AM (OpGpa)

5 Bluto, just crop them down to size and leave it up. It's good stuff, and useful to our side. Karl Rove couldn't do a better job than this guy.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:22 AM (8e/V4)

6 Why doess it matter? Becuase there are only so many leaders who are able to convince others to blow themselves up while they sit back and drink another beer. Because they can only say they are immune to the power of the allies for so long, until they are dead. Then the redshirts start to wonder if it really is worth all the trouble and what other things they have been lied too about. Because the media need a poster-child to dangle for higher ratings. Blood for advirtising. (I kid you not, always remember that is their sole reason for existance) And finally, because its just like the FBI vs. the Mafia. Keep cutting off the top and only the s**t remains to take controll.

Posted by: Rich in Martigues at June 08, 2006 11:53 AM (sYpwq)

7 Rich, I like that: No blood for advertising!

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 11:57 AM (ULAbo)

8 Oyster, Thanks. Its even better when I spell advertising right. But it is so true and you have to always remember that conflict and tension will always be the MSM's goal because it oushes up ratings. Maybe sometimes the Moonbats have it right when they keep refering to the corporate media. heck, tehy detest them just as much as the right sometimes.

Posted by: Rich in Martigues at June 08, 2006 12:16 PM (sYpwq)

9 LOL my ass. I'm retired not dead. I kept my notes too.

Posted by: Howie at June 08, 2006 12:53 PM (D3+20)

10 Would killing Hitler during WWII by the Allies been a good thing? What if Stalin had been killed by the Germans in 1941? Ho Chi Minh by the US? Stephan Harper(PM of Canada) by the Islamofacists? Of course killing the leader of the enemy is a damn enjoyable thing and sometimes its a game winner. I could care less about the corporate media, organized crime or other relentlessly irrelevant thoughts, the fact is, the leader of al-Qaeda is dead and Islamofacists everywhere are in a deep funk. We Americans ought to enjoy the moment, then get on with the business of killing more al-Qaeda leaders.

Posted by: changehappens at June 08, 2006 01:47 PM (Bmhbf)

11 So, changehappens, it sounds as though you advocate the murder of Stephen Harper. Is that really your opinion?

Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at June 08, 2006 02:24 PM (USZUJ)

12 Yay! This means the war is over and there won't be any more bombings or assasinations in Iraq! Yay! When I heard the news I almost cried! We can stop building those huge bases and bring the troops home! The Iraqis are free! Mission Accomplished!!!!!

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 02:28 PM (ZucvC)

13 Bluto, this is ridiculous. No one in the American MSM is "mourning" this death. Their JOB is to report the story. They report how Bush treats it, and go to talk to other people. Just because some people are minimizing this accomplishment, doesn't mean the MSM agrees with it. They have a professional obligation to be skeptical about all government claims. You will not be able to find one MSM outlet that is mourning this. The evidence you have is a quote from Berg, a quote from Zarqawi's brother, and some badly worded polls, and the use of the word "slain". If that's mourning, you don't know what the word means. You hurt the national unity in the war on terror when you tell lies about some people supporting Al Qaeda. I personally think that this is an important accomplishment, but I want to hear what other people think. That's what the MSM does--bring diverse views.

Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 03:09 PM (aqTJB)

14 Bluto your hatred of the American media is ever present. Likewise I believe that you hate all of your fellow citizens who read,watch,buy or support it in any way. You are as off base as those moonbats that are saying that RIGHT is already mourning and missing their loss of the most fearsome boogey man in their arsenal. I would never be allowed to post anything like this on YOUR blog, differing opinions are not allowed to be posted there. As for the MSM predicting this will increase the resolve of the terrorist insurgency, my opinion after following this for 3 years is that NO ONE will be able to accurately predict anything. I have heard pundits predicting turning points so many times I scoff at all of them

Posted by: john ryan at June 08, 2006 03:56 PM (TcoRJ)

15 Damn well said, JR. There have been so many turning points in Iraq, it's a dodecahedron at this point: Mission accomplished, Bremer arrives, council appointed, elections held, Bremer turns over, Allawi brought in, Saddam captured, Uday and Qusay killed, Insurgency in "its last throes", elections held again, constitution written, Jafari put in, Maliki put in...and now this. Hope they aren't blowing smoke, hope this time it really is a turning point.

Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 04:06 PM (aqTJB)

16 Thank you to the US Army, Airforce etc, for ridding this world of this pig waste. It is indeed a good day.

Posted by: MathewK at June 08, 2006 04:44 PM (pVHqF)

17 jd., the MSM does not tell the truth, nor do you. This moon god worshipper was in Iraq before 9-11, yet where is the MSM on the stroy. The economy is going like gang busters, but the MSM report how it will be bad soon. Always, the wrong direction for people to really understand what is going on in the world. But, that is the real point isn't it? Bush said something was wrong, and according to you lefturds there is no right, or wrong. Sounds New Age, and sounds like Europe. Go ahead boys, bugger each other in the ass. There is no G-d.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 08, 2006 05:22 PM (D2g/j)

18 >>>Yay! This means the war is over and there won't be any more bombings or assasinations in Iraq! Yay! When I heard the news I almost cried! We can stop building those huge bases and bring the troops home! The Iraqis are free! Mission Accomplished!!!!! Ingnorant jackoff, I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany had a seemingly endless supply of generals and leaders to replace the ones we killed. But killing them was still a cause for celebration. This would be the equivalent of killing Albert Speer or Goebles. And if some dufus reacted to their death the way you are reacting to Zarqawis death, I think people would rightfully conclude they were dealing with a traitor. You would immediately be put under surveillance as a threat to national security.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 05:36 PM (8e/V4)

19 You people would probably consider me a little left of centre - but I have to say, I did a little happy-dance when I heard that this loathsome little insect had been squished. Having observed the videos of his handiwork circulating on the internet, I cannot see how any rational being could conclude his (hopefully painful) demise is anything but a cause for profound joy. Maybe it will affect the situationin Iraq, maybe not - either way, he richly deserved what he got. For the record, I'm from the UK. But to briefly quote from 'Team America' - "America - *f$$k yeah!*" Good job, boys

Posted by: dave at June 08, 2006 05:46 PM (+nY9I)

20 I don't understand JD. The Islamofacists are against gay marriage.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 08:19 PM (4Ospb)

21 >>>You are as off base as those moonbats that are saying that RIGHT is already mourning and missing their loss of the most fearsome boogey man in their arsenal. john, Libs are obviously off base because you can see and hear with your own eyes and ears how estatic conservatives have been about Zarq's death. So while Lib rhetoric is baseless (as usual), I don't see where Bluto is off base at all. Most of you are acting like it's your mom's funeral. All you have to do is read Splatter's comments and see for yourself. Or read a little bit of Sonic's. Or the dude that got his comments deleted because they were so vile in slandering our troops. Just look at how unwilling the MSM is about reporting this without making it seem like more BAD news. Just admit it, you people are TERRIFIED of any good news coming out of Iraq. You refuse to deviate from your narrative even for one day of celebration. Even the Iraqis are celebrating, so why all the long faces coming from you Libs?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:48 PM (8e/V4)

22 Listening to NPR this morning was enlightening. They expounded on Zarqawi's hatred for the Jordanian government saying it was because they had put him in prison a couple times, but never said why he was put in prison. They just left it up to the listener to imagine the reasons. Jordan's not exactly the 'model' government and one is left with the impression that maybe they put him in prison, as so many other Middle Eastern governments do, on trumped up charges or because he was merely a dissident. In fact, it was was rape and conspiracy. They didn't let anyone in on that though. The very worse thing they said about his growing up years was that he was a thug.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 06:32 AM (YudAC)

23 Did you see the Army Briefing today Carlos? The news media was insinuating that we shot him dead after he survived the blast. They also asked whether we gave him medical attention. How Zarqawi survived the blast is a mystery. He died of his wounds later.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 07:46 AM (CnDtU)

24 I don't see any defenses here of the claim that the media is "mourning" Zarqawi. You can't point to a single slice of evidence of that, because it doesn't exist. So, instead of admitting overstatement, we just change the topic and move on. It's a lie. But it makes you feel better. Neither liberals nor the media regret this death. He was a waste of flesh, an evil and vicious killer. He richly deserved the death he was given by our brave forces. But the media MUST ask questions: what does it mean? There are differing opinions about it. And the media DID report that he was in Iraq before the war. In fact, they have also reported that Bush knew about it, he was located, and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:05 AM (DQYHA)

25 Hey I'm not a far right guy. That's Carlos' department. It just makes me sick that people were concerned about Zarqawi's well being when he beheaded Nicholas Berg and Olin Armstrong.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:08 AM (CnDtU)

26 George--I don't think that asking whether he survived the bombing raid, and if he was offered medical attention, means that the questioner was worried about his health from the standpoint of "gee, I love this guy, hope he lives!" Rather, it is an attempt to get the full truth out to the people, which is the media's job. It would be newsworthy if the man survived the raid, and was allowed to die, just as it would be newsworthy if he survived and was later shot. I don't think either thing happened, I think our forces would be smart enough to keep him alive for intel purposes, as we have done with other al qaeda figures. But let's suppose that someone killed him or allowed him to die by mistake? That's news. I know of NO ONE who isn't glad this puke is dead. Not any American, anyway. He was an enemy of civilization generally. This achievement belongs to all Americans, and we are all glad about it. There is no need to politicize his death. For once, let's be united as Americans, as we were on 9/12.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:23 AM (DQYHA)

27 >>>The news media was insinuating that we shot him dead after he survived the blast. George, When you were a kid didn't your mommy tell you not to believe everything you saw on T.V.? And even if it were true that he was shot, so what? Did we just drop two 500 pound bombs on his house? Means we wanted him dead, and I wholeheartedly approve. The last thing we need right now is another poster child for Amnesty International and the anti-American Left.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (8e/V4)

28 Amen JD.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)

29 Amen JD.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)

30 Amen JD.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)

31 Amen JD.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)

32 Sorry for the quadruple posts. The comment section is slow. Anyway Carlos didn't your mommy ever tell you to pay attention when I'm talking. I don't give a crap if the guy was shot. He wasn't Genius. I'm just telling you that the far left media is insinuating that we shot him dead after he was wounded when we didn't. Wise up man. I'm glad the piece of shit is dead.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:30 AM (CnDtU)

33 Oh and Carlos. Please don't hate my guts. Maxie who has disappeared already hates my guts. I want to have a fair debate with you. I don't know you so I don't want to insult you. I'm a moderate like Bill O'reilly. Not a liberal. I'll see you around.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:41 AM (CnDtU)

34 No, I don't think many are sad he's dead. Not even the media, but the way some in the media are downplaying his role suddenly does leave one to wonder why they're doing it. Afterall, if there was a boosting of his role (as some accuse the Bush administration of doing) the media have been just as guilty of it that as well. I don't believe his importance was ever played up too much. Although, I have read on some lefty blogs that outright killing him was wrong and he should have been captured alive and been given the right to a trial and why is it right for some and wrong for others and all that swill. Most of us have a sense of right and wrong and are glad we aren't being subjected to the moral obscenity of another trial in Baghdad for this monster.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 08:56 AM (ULAbo)

35 Oyster, can you tell me which leftwing American blog said we should have captured him because he had a right to trial? That killing him was wrong?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 09:51 AM (DQYHA)

36 Here's one: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/8/75854/67368 "Who are the experts who have determined Zarqawi's guilt? What is the criteria they used, and how did they come to their conclusions? If you agree with this killing, do you also agree with lynchings because people "knew" the person was guilty and should be put to death? Also, do you support the death penalty? I don't, but at least those people have been put on trial. Why should it be different for this person?" Yes, he's merely asking questions, but they're obviously rhetorical and reflect his opinions. Even after so many comments displaying glee at Z's death. I'll be back with more, but I'm really busy at work today.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 10:24 AM (ULAbo)

37 And the media DID report that he was in Iraq before the war. In fact, they have also reported that Bush knew about it, he was located, and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion. So Bush's intelligence of where the Zarkman was located on that particular occassion, was rock solid then JD? just all the intelligence after that was wrong? How was it again, that one of the first military operations in Iraq was to assault the Al-Sunna camp he was believed to be training? You guys pick and choose what intelligence Bush was right/wrong on, almost like you're flipping a coin...

Posted by: davec at June 09, 2006 10:44 AM (CcXvt)

38 Oyster, thanks for backing up your comment. Let me say this: I've never read the Kos comments page before, as I almost never go there. I think I'll start; there's a lot of stupid things said there, a lot of afactual assertions and poor logic. However, let's be clear--the quotes above were not from the blog itself, but from the comments. As you and I both know, one has to be careful to judge a blog by its comments. If I wanted to judge Jawa by its comments, I could easily say this is a blog that endorses genocide against Muslims, and mass murder of liberals, and the idea that ALL liberals are treasonous cowards who are mentally ill. The majority of responders that I saw on the website you gave did not say anything like "gee, too bad he couldn't have gotten a trial". There was a healthy degree of skepticism towards the administration, and many people saying this was very good news. Do you think the majority of reporters and leftists are mourning the loss of Zarqawi, as Bluto says?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 10:45 AM (DQYHA)

39 >>>and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion. jd, and that little whopper is just nonsensical on its face, given that attacking Zarq's camp would have BOLSTERED Bush's reasons for invading, not taken away from them.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 11:04 AM (8e/V4)

40 Whatever the truth of this debate, my point in raising the issue is to shoot down the idea that the MSM didn't report that he was there before the war. THEY DID. Agreed? And do we agree that the MSM isn't "mourning" the loss of its "ally" Zarqawi? We agree that was a whole big load of lies by Bluto, right?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 11:13 AM (DQYHA)

41 >>>And do we agree that the MSM isn't "mourning" the loss of its "ally" Zarqawi? We agree that was a whole big load of lies by Bluto, right? jd, you've got blinders on, and that's the only way to explain how you can't see what's evident to us. Would you agree that people wear blinders sometimes? This is one of those times. Every headline they put out is purposely designed to dampen the good news lest it positively impact Bush and the Iraq war. Every story states as fact that it won't make a difference in the war on terror-- AS IF THEY FUCKING KNOW. But they state it as fact. yippeee!!! And then when one reporter was called out on it-- he was asked, how do you know it won't impact the insurgency-- the reporter fumbled around and said, "you're right, I don't know." In other words he was talking OUT OF HIS ASS. They don't report the news-- they establish the agenda. The MSM is AGENDA driven. It goes beyond mere bias.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 11:51 AM (8e/V4)

42 I agree people wear blinders. In fact, I've been begging Bluto to read an academic study on a documented psychological phenomenon called "the Hostile Media Effect" in which strong partisans of both sides perceive the media as deeply biased, even when it is not. I'm always open to the idea that I'm getting it wrong. I frequently do. Here's what I see when I read the media on this: many media outlets are asking legitimate questions about what this means. The ones I have read are not CONCLUDING that this means nothing. They are asking knowledgeable people what they think. Some, like the WH and some outside experts see this as a major turning point. Some are skeptical. I'm in the middle. I think that's where the media is--waiting to see what happens. There is a brilliant piece up on NRO by Rich Lowry stating that it is just too soon to tell whether this will work. I agree. We've had SO many turning points that it would be irresponsible of the media not to be skeptical. That's their job. Do you think you might have blinders on?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 12:33 PM (DQYHA)

43 jd, I do agree that the Far Left also feels the MSM is too conservative. And by their wack standards they're probably right. Even moderate Liberals are too conservative for their tastes. But that speaks to how far out on Left field they are, not to how conservative the MSM is.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 01:33 PM (8e/V4)

44 ps., in other words, the MSM is too cold for the Far Left, just right for moderate Libs, and too hot for moderate conservatives. Think of it this way, if -10 is the Far Left, and +10 is the Far Right, with Zero being non-ideological, the MSM is a -5. The only people they can please are you NPR Lib types. Which is fine. Bias is almost unavoidable. But bial and agenda are two different things. And the NPR Libs have crossed the line into agenda.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 01:39 PM (8e/V4)

45 Interesting study done a year ago. they asked people three factual questions: Have WMD been found in Iraq? Was Saddam Hussein involved in planning 9-11? Did most of the world support our invasion of Iraq? Guess what? Your likelihood of getting all three wrong was directly related to what media you consumed. Those listening to NPR were most likely to know the correct answers to these FACTUAL questions (the first two have been conceded by Bush before the survey was done, the third is just too obvious to contest). Those most likely to get all three wrong? Fox News viewers. Those getting it from CBS,ABC, NBC television were better than Fox, worse than Newspapers. Perhaps NPR's liberal agenda is in fact, accurate reporting, which is what you perceive as bias.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 03:58 PM (DQYHA)

46 jd, that's not a surprise given that NPR would go out of it's way to hammer that home, while Fox wouldn't. It's in NPR's agenda to hammer that home. Not Fox's. That doesn' mean Fox is deceivig folks, it just means they chosen to hammer other stuff home-- the answers to which Libs would get wrong because they only listen to NPR, not Fox. But if you're going to conduct a study, who gets to choose the questions? What do you think the results would be if that study instead asked: 1) Did Congress authorize the invasion of Iraq? 2) Did America "go it alone" in invading Iraq? 2) Are there U.N. resolutions authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein? My guess is most Libs would get all three of those wrong, and that conservatives would get them all right. But I'm guessing Libs don't get quizzed the way conservatives do. Gee, I wonder why.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 04:42 PM (8e/V4)

47 jd, that's a pretty good example of the blinders you're wearing. It didn't even occur to you that the questions used in that study are examples of Lib bias. To you, Lib bias is default setting, it's as things should be in the universe. It's no more controversial than the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. You don't even perceive it as bias BECAUSE YOU'RE IN IT. Yet I can see it because I'm not. The MSM is in the business of managing perception. They have thoroughly succeeded with you. Dude, I used to be a Lib not more than 6 years ago. I know what it's like in that bubble. I know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 06:05 PM (8e/V4)

48 carlos, that is the best answer I've read here ever. You've really made an excellent, logical point in regards to the nature of the questions. Until they repeat the study with questions similar to the ones you propose, the claims made are not nearly as strong as they should be. Bravo for a very thoughtful response. Incidentally, I used to be a Republican. Bush made me a Democrat. First one I ever voted for (for president) was John Kerry. One of the things I truly believe is that Bush isn't even a conservative. He doesn't believe in the conservative values of Barry Goldwater, that's for sure.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:03 PM (DQYHA)

49 You sum up the condition perfectly. What a shame it is. I wonder if the decent, honorable Democrats will ever regain control of their party. Americans who cheer for the defeat of our country can not reasonably be trusted to govern us.

Posted by: pete at June 09, 2006 08:18 PM (bW9IA)

50 jd, again you shame us with your intellectual honesty, lol! Kudos for that.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:26 PM (8e/V4)

51 Pete wins.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 09:09 PM (4Ospb)

52 Well, I'm sure if I keep reading, I'll see a conservative change their mind. I mean, it only takes an average of 100,000 years and six tons of matter to witness a single proton decay....if you're lucky.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 06:41 AM (DQYHA)

53 >>>Well, I'm sure if I keep reading, I'll see a conservative change their mind. jd, our minds are all made up, that's why they call us 'conservatives'. lol!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:15 AM (8e/V4)

54 jd, but you're at a natural disadvantage on a conservative blog, just as I would be if I went to a Lib blog. The posts here go to conservative strengths, while the posts at Lib blogs go to Lib strengths. It's stuff we care about the most, and what we're most well-versed in, and vice versa at Lib blogs. Your choice of ideologies isn't who's the smartest or right most of the times, it's which ideology stresses the things you consider most important. We think killing terrorists and winning in Iraq is the single most important cause today, you folks think killing Tom Delay and winning back the White House is the most important issue of the day. That's why Lib blogs are so boring, and ours are so compelling.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:45 AM (8e/V4)

55 Nice theory, Carlos, but I was making a different point. Even assuming you are right about the broader questions (I deeply disagree), you will not always marshall the right arguments, you will make mistakes. Why? because you are human. What I fail to see here at Jawa is debates in which learning takes place. I offered up evidence, you replied with a thoughtful analysis of what I put forward, I read it and agreed that my evidence on this point had been deeply weakened. Try to get Bluto to admit the slightest error. Try to get YOU to admit the slightest error. The conblogger main arguing tactic is attack attack attack. If you find yourself caught out on facts, never admit it. Go on to different ones, and admit nothing. That's not learning. But it sure reminds me of Bush. He and Rummy seem to think that if they admit a SINGLE error of significance, the entire superstructure of their world view will collapse. This is a sign of deep intellectual insecurity. A confident thinker and a confident movement learns. They admit mistakes. They explore why they made them. Gingrich did that. Goldwater did that. Bluto never does. Howie did a little. Instead of reading posts for learning, people here tend to read posts for ways to remain fixed in their views. Any feeble point will do, so long as you have to concede nothing. I'm proud that several times here, I've admitted to changing my mind. To learning from other people's logic.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:31 AM (DQYHA)

56 Death Could Shake Al-Qaeda In Iraq and Around the World By Craig Whitlock Saturday, June 10, 2006; A01 BERLIN, June 9 -- The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could mark a turning point for al-Qaeda and the global jihadist movement, according to terrorism analysts and intelligence officials. ... It is unclear which of 39-year-old Zarqawi's lieutenants, or deputy emirs, will attempt to fill his role...For recruitment efforts, the importance of Zarqawi's death "cannot be overestimated," Germany's foreign intelligence chief, Ernst Uhrlau, told the Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. Guido Steinberg, an expert on Islamic radicalism at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, said other groups of foreign fighters that kept a loose alliance with Zarqawi, such as Ansar al-Sunna, might turn away from al-Qaeda in Iraq now that he is gone. "It's a great loss for the these jihadi networks," said Steinberg, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to Gerhard Schroeder when he was chancellor of Germany. "I don't think there is any person in Iraq able to control this network the way Zarqawi did. It's very decentralized. He was the only person in Iraq who could provide the glue. "By losing Zarqawi, they run the danger of losing Iraq as a battlefield to the nationalist insurgents and others who aren't interested in bin Laden or the global jihad."

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:38 AM (DQYHA)

57 I've just posted excerpts from an article that does exactly what Bluto said the MSM does NOT do: report Z's death as good news for us. It is almost uniformly positive. Please, here's a test for you conservatives: read this, and answer me this: is Bluto right or wrong in his original post? The conclusion if you read this article is inescapable, but who will have the courage to say so? Surely not Bluto. Anybody else? He said the MSM would portray it as a "minor development". This article in a "liberal" paper does NOTHING of the kind. Who will admit it? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902040_pf.html

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:43 AM (DQYHA)

58 >>>Try to get YOU to admit the slightest error. I can admit to the slightest errors, no problem. Didn't I concede that not all Libs despise christianity? Did I not concede that the spaniards sometimes used violence to force their religion on the indians? People on this blog will attest to the fact that I often concede on points of fact. The problem is that folks like Bush and Rummy have no good reason to admit to the slightest mistakes because they know that the people demanding they admit it are intellectually dishonest partisan wolves intent solely on exploiting their admissions for the purpose of destroying them. Do you think they would say to Bush, "cheers to you for being honest! Let's report back to the American people how honest our president is!" ROFLMAO! No, they would use those admissions to destroy him. Bush would be fool to admit even the SLIGHTEST mistake to those assholes. In fact now that you mention it, even the fact that you Libs are demanding that Bush "admit his mistakes" is RIDICULOUS. What purpose does it serve? None. It's a political gimmick, nothing more.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 10:57 AM (8e/V4)

59 At this point in his presidency, you may be right. But I thought the contrast between him and Blair was deadly. Blair, asked about mistakes, said disbanding the army and too aggressive debaathification. Bush said "Bring 'em on". Bush's error was rhetorical, not policy. What is the point of admitting error? Because it is tough to fix mistakes if you won't admit they exist. It sends the wrong message to our military. No problems, no mistakes, everything going as planned, when in fact, it is SNAFU and FUBAR as far as the eye can see. If Bush had not spent a year trying to confuse the issue on WMD before finally admitting it, we would have been able to put more resources into anti-insurgency. If Bush had been able to admit errors, he would have been a more effective diplomat at bringing in the nations his secdef had insulted (actually, firing Rummy would have done a lot). How about this: GIVING MEDALS TO TENET, FRANKS, and BREMER? After Cheney and Rummy, the very architects of this FUBAR? Tenent--slam dunk on WMD. Franks: no need for more troops to prevent total breakdown of civil society, Bremer: disband the army and debaathy radically. Each of those decisions and acts resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Americans. And this president, unable to say mistakes were made, gave them the highest honor of the nation. Despicable.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:05 AM (DQYHA)

60 Carlos--when you "conceded" on liberals was that you meant your comment to mean the leadership of the party hates Christians. You didn't say that members of the leadership are committed Christians, which is true. Can you admit that the statement itself was wrong, not that your meaning was misinterpreted? I think there are aggressively secular people in the leadership of the Democratic Party who treat fundamentalist Christianity with great disdain, and who have grave doubts about religion generally. They are not the leadership. They are just a part of it. As for Spaniards: ok, you got me. You did go from saying no one was converted at swordpoint to saying that some people were. I withdraw my comment about you as wrong.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:09 AM (DQYHA)

61 The parallel comment would be: the Republican Party is a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who oppose abortion and gay rights. That woudl be ignoring the diversity within the Republican Party, which still has libertarian strains, Jewish members, etc. (and closeted gays in high positions, but whatever). Did you read the article from WPost, Carlos? Do you think that Bluto was right or wrong?

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:13 AM (DQYHA)

62 >>>What is the point of admitting error? Because it is tough to fix mistakes if you won't admit they exist. I don't buy that. You see, "admitting mistakes" isn't about forcing a change in policy for the better-- given that the policy has already long shifted by the time you get Bush to "admit his mistakes." It's simply gotcha politics-- making him feel pain for mistakes that are obvious only to hindsight. It's like a backseat driver warning about stuff in the rearview mirror. Wouldn't you just turn around and tell the guy to shut his big fat hole? Yes, our civilian planners make mistakes. But Newflash! They are infinitely further ahead of the curve than the schmucks in the media and the Democrat leadership, who are only experts because of hindsight. Their calls for "admitting mistakes" is pure gimmickry.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:26 AM (8e/V4)

63 >>>Did you read the article from WPost, Carlos? Do you think that Bluto was right or wrong? That was a great article. The tone was pitch perfect. But I wouldn't make too much about it. It's the exception, not the rule.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:28 AM (8e/V4)

64 Then you are, in effect, saying that Bluto was wrong when he said the MSM reports only negatively about Iraq? that EVERY story follows that "meme". That they sought, in EVERY story to portray the murder of Z as a non-event? Go ahead, say he was wrong. You disagree with him, without saying so. Lack of testicular fortitude?

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 12:53 PM (DQYHA)

65 Well given that 1 out of 10 journalists are conservative, chances are that not EVERY single article is going to be a Leftwing hit piece. So if that's what Bluto meant, he was obviously wrong.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 01:25 PM (8e/V4)

66 I think your numbers are suspect, Carlos. If 90% of reporters are liberal, and 10% conservative, where are the moderates? In fact, the Pew Research Center (one of the best, non-partisan centers in the country) has this to say of a large study of journalist ideology. Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people - especially national journalists - are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public. About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans. *** 1-9 con-lib sounds really extreme. Do you have a source for that? 7-34 (12-23 at local level) con-lib seems much more accurate, and helps explain why I could find MANY examples of Bluto being dead wrong about the media and Z's death.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 03:32 PM (DQYHA)

67 >>>If 90% of reporters are liberal, and 10% conservative, where are the moderates? Let me correct those numbers. Liberal journalists outnumber conservatives by 9-1. That's more accurate.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 04:58 PM (8e/V4)

68 Also, are you sure you mean "liberal"? I've seen a few studies (a Lichter one) that shows something near that in voting by national reporters. But that was 1992. Clinton was not running as a "liberal". He was from the moderate wing of his party, the DLC. He had many conservative positions (end welfare, pro-death penalty, pro free trade, etc). Votes are not perfect measures of ideology to say the least. Also, consistently since the question was studied, two key facts stand out--that national reporters are more liberal than local ones, and that editors are less liberal, and publishers trend conservative. Also, national reporters aren't lockstep liberal even when they are "liberal". On social issues, VERY liberal. On issues like taxes, and particularly free trade, pretty conservative. I'll never forget an MSNBC segment where a reporter made it sound like lowering the mort. exemption to homes valued 300K or less was stalinism--she almost said no one had a house valued that low. National reporters are aloof from the economic concerns of the working class. this gives them a conservative bias on several issues, including things like taxes and free trade. It is also one reason they don't agree with many americans on immigration. It is MUCH more complex than many people here realize.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 05:10 PM (DQYHA)

69 A large study by Rozell of Virginia journalists also shows they are more secular than the American norm, altho again other studies show this is more national than local. Wealthy, highly educated Americans tend to be less religious generally, and national reporters are, compared to the median family income, pretty well paid. One big change since the early years of mass media journalism is that journalists today almost ALWAYS have college degrees, and many have graduate degrees. Graduate degrees are associated with lower levels of religious faith, as well. It is possible that journalists are not more secular than people with similar income and education.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 05:14 PM (DQYHA)

70 Finally, if the media are so uniformly liberal...why did more papers endorse Bush than Gore in 2000? Yes, endorsements are made by editorial boards, and sometimes by the publisher, and sometimes by the combination. But IF the MSM is as biased as you people think, why don't the owners do something about it? And if, as you have said, the editors are the worst of it...how do you explain these endorsements? Give it a shot, folks. See if you can square these facts with your beliefs.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 09:00 AM (DQYHA)

71 >>>Finally, if the media are so uniformly liberal...why did more papers endorse Bush than Gore in 2000? hmmm, that's intriguing. Do you have a credible source for that allegation?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:01 AM (8e/V4)

72 This is from Salon, which you probably don't trust, but the study is from editor & publisher, which you probably do: Since 1940 when industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher began tracking newspapers during presidential elections, only two Democratic candidates -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent. That's because newspaper publishers, who usually sign off on endorsements, tend to vote Republican (like lots of senior corporate executives), which means GOP candidates pick up more endorsements. A lot more. In 1984, President Reagan landed roughly twice as many endorsements as Democrat Walter Mondale in the president's easy reelection win. And in 1996, despite his weak showing at the polls, 179 daily newspapers endorsed Republican Bob Dole, which easily outpaced the Democrats' tally by nearly a 2-to-1 margin. In 2000, the overwhelming trend toward Republicans continued. According to estimates, candidate Bush enjoyed a huge newspaper advantage, picking up nearly 100 more daily endorsements than Gore. On the eve of the election four years ago, Editor & Publisher spelled out the newspaper love affair with Bush in a Nov. 6 article: "The nation's newspaper editors and publishers strongly believe the Texas governor will beat Al Gore in Tuesday's election for president. By a wide margin, they plan to vote for him themselves. And, to complete this Republican trifecta, newspapers endorsed Bush by about 2-to-1 nationally." E&P's results come from industry-wide surveys it conducted among 800 top newspaper executives one week before the election. Asked how they were going to vote in 2000, 59 percent of newspaper publishers signaled they were voting for Bush, compared to just 20 percent for Gore. And even among newsroom editors, Bush won support among 33 percent, compared to just to 24 percent for Gore. **** Does it matter? Well, it kind of destroys the whole uniformly liberal media crap. Please note that editors, who someone here said were the most powerful, voted for Bush more than Gore...perhaps one reason why even conservative Robert Lichter said that Gore got screwed by the media in 2000.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:06 PM (DQYHA)

73 BTW, Carlos, if your source for 9-1 lib-con is Lichter's survey of journalists and how they voted in 1992: first, votes in 92 are not measures of ideology. Second, that survey has vast errors in it, that have been documented by several academics.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:08 PM (DQYHA)

74 Oh, and a countervailing fact: if you add up the circulations, as opposed to the number of newspapers, Gore does significantly better than he does by number of newspapers. This is because (shocking) newspapers tend to (but not always) reflect the views of their market, and urban areas lean Democratic, while rural ones lean Republican. But a counter-countervailing trend: one study I've read suggests that rural newspapers are more influential on their readers. This may be because they are more opinionated, with less professional separation between news and editorial. Or it may be that their readers are easier to sway.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:38 PM (DQYHA)

75 votes in 92 are not measures of ideology. What's that supposed to mean? Libs voted Democrat in 92, just as they do in every election. If there were errors in that study to account for the 9-1 ratio, they would certainly have to be pretty VAST errors. So when you say the publishers endorsed Bush, is that the bigwig capitalists who actually own the newspapers? If so, I don't think that necessarily reflects on joe blow journalist just out of NYU. One's worldview is tempered by the reality of running a business, the other one is an idealist trying to "make a difference." In fact, one might conclude that but for the publishers and people trying to turn a profit (including the editors), the papers would be even more Leftwing than they are now. Interesting about the newspaper endorsements, but do you think it's material?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 04:14 PM (8e/V4)

76 Sure, I imagine that most liberals (say the overwhelming majority) voted for clinton. But the converse statement is not true: all Clinton voters were not liberals. In fact, if you look at the National Election Study data, a non-trivial number of liberals voted for Bush, and conservatives for Clinton. Happens every year. But the more vital number is the number of moderates who voted for both men. Thus, the 9-1 figure of voting is NOT the same as saying that liberals outnumber conservatives in the media by 9-1. If (and there are HUGE criticisms of Lichter's methodology) his data is accurate that 9 reporters (and his study was just washington reporters, not even national) voted for Clinton for every 1 who voted Bush, that doesn't mean the 9 were libs (or the 1 con). They are correlated, but not the same. As for the EP. ABSOLUTELY it's material. It's not just the endorsements--it's the EDITORS voted for BUSH. Think about it. Earlier in this thread and also elsewhere when people talk about the liberal bias in the media, they say that editors are at least as powerful and force the liberal bias into the media. Well...if more voted for Bush...that suggests that they are probably more moderate than you realize. And publishers are not the only ones who determine endorsements. Sometimes they are the only voice. Sometimes they participate with the editors. Sometimes they let the editorial board do it. AND--if I own a newspaper, and I'm a conservative, and I see obvious bias (which is what you all think it is)--well, I'd take action. Unless these owners are just dumb...

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:39 PM (DQYHA)

77 Interesting pattern though. Why did you ask for a source if you didn't think it was impressive evidence of the non-liberal nature of the media? C'mon, give a little.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:40 PM (DQYHA)

78 jd, I can give a little, but agreeing with you that newspaper publishers are representative of most reporters isn't a little. I've always believed that the folks who run the newspapers run it as a business, and as long as the journos are selling papers, the tycoons don't get involved in the micromanagement. Why would I change my mind about that now? I asked for your source because I admit I thought it odd that newspapers were endorsing Bush more than Gore. But when I saw that the endorsements were mostly from the money bags in charge, it all made sense again. There is too much info out there confirming what I can see with my two own eyes-- that the MSM are all a bunch of NPR Libs-- to concede the issue based just on publisher endorsements.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:50 PM (8e/V4)

79 I NEVER said publishers were representative of reporters, did I? Nice straw man. What I said was: look at editors voting. You didn't. Why? And many cons have said, hey, the media is leftwing, that's why Fox is gaining viewers and MSM losing subscribers and viewers. So, why wouldn't smart CEOs fire the liberals who aren't objective? The MSM doesn't see Zarqawi as an ally. They don't mourn his death. They don't twist stories against our troops as a rule. I think they could do a better job sometimes showing the accomplishments of our troops, but the media has a well-established bad news bias. If it bleeds, it leads. If the bleeding hurts liberals or conservatives, it doesn't matter.

Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 06:41 AM (adM2O)

80 >>>So, why wouldn't smart CEOs fire the liberals who aren't objective? dunno. That does throw a wrench into the mix, and I admit I don't have a good answer to that. I'll have to think about that one.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 12, 2006 08:56 AM (8e/V4)

81 Fair enough. It is a complicated subject. I'm certainly open to the idea that the media has a liberal bias on certain issues. It is very tough for fundamentalist Christians to get a fair shake from the national media. The national media is pro-gay rights (along with most similar people of their education and income level) and pro-choice. I just don't think they are anti-American in covering foreign policy at all--in fact, much the opposite (good book showing that is Lance Bennett's News: the Politics of Illusion, if you can't bear to read Chomsky's flawed but important Manufacturing Consent). CNN's coverage is far more pro-American spin than it was in 91-2, thanks to competitive pressure from Fox. They are often selling patriotism. Whether that is bad or good depends on your own views on what the media should do, but it is afactual to argue that they are anti-American. They've become so pro-Am that they now have two coverages, one for domestic, one for foreign, because if they'd shown the world their American coverage during the iraq invasion, they'd have lost viewers, and if they'd shown the Americans their international coverage, they'd have lost viewers. That's how pro-Am their domestic broadcast is. Even more so the national media sometimes takes a conservative viewpoint on trade issues and general economic issues. No reporter is afraid of an illegal immigrant taking their job for half salary. The national media also isn't as sympathetic to the poor on health care, because most members of the national media HAVE health care. They aren't part of the 45 million Americans who don't. One other issue they don't cover fairly--the plight of newspaper delivery people (seriously!). The media has biases and blind spots. They just are uniformly liberal. That's why more editors voted for Bush than Gore.

Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 09:28 AM (aqTJB)

82 Not that anyone who's reading wouldn't realize it, but just in case: the penultimate sentence should have an "aren't" not an "are"!

Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 09:29 AM (aqTJB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead! This post to be updated throughout the day.

[Right: An image of the dead al Zarqawi from Howie]

Vinnie's original report on Zarqawi's death. Demosophist: The Jeb Stuart al Zarqawi connection.

Today is one of the happiest days of my life. When I heard the news, I literally started crying.

To quote myself: Ding dong, the bitch is dead!!! Update: Great minds think alike.

Long-time readers know that The Jawa Report has had a personal grudge against al Zarqawi. Zarqawi first appeared on our radar screen when he was the leader of Tawhid and Jihad and began producing beheading snuff films distributed on the internet.

It was the murder of Nick Berg by Zarqawi, more than anything else, that set The Jawa Report on its present path. Seeing Nick Berg being murdered by al Zarqawi caused a reaction in my that is difficult to describe. It angered me. It made the war on terror personal. It made killing Zarqawi a personal goal for me.

In fact, over the past year or so not a single day has gone by when I have not fantasized that Zarqawi was either dead or captured. Today, my dream has come true!

Flashback: Nick Berg Gave Password to Terrorist

Log-time reader and hostage watcher George: Nick Berg and Eugene Armstrong's killer has finally died. I would have prefered he be beheaded but at least he's dead. Nick and Eugene are smiling from above. I am sure of that. Maybe now we'll finally get Bin Laden. I have more hope now. I always knew we would get Zarqawi since he was in Iraq. Today is a good day Rusty. RIP Nick and Eugene.

Amen!

Report from Baghdad on Iraqi reaction:

Mid-morning local time the news broke, Abu Musab al Zarqawi has been killed. The celebrations on the street and the cheers at the press conference announcing this news may seem odd to some in the comfortable confines of the west. While a BBC reporter today referred to al Zarqawi as a “controversial leader of the resistance” the reaction among most Iraqis lacks such nuance, they are glad for one simple reason, al Zarqawi is dead.

The reactions among Iraqis to the death of al Zarqawi is quite different than that to the similar demise of Uday and Qusay. The deaths of the brothers Hussein was met with a jumble of emotions among Iraqis in 2003: some saw them as leaders while most saw them as the homicidal maniacs they were. The reaction to the death of al Zarqawi is far more visceral, akin to ridding oneÂ’s house of a menacing rat.

A reserved Sunni intellectual who is quite particular in the language he uses summed up the feeling surrounding al Zarqawi’s death: “Goddamn that motherfucker for what he has done to Iraq.”

The death came courtesy of Task Force 145.

Zarqawi Air-strike video.

Video of al-Maliki announcing it.

Zarqawi family reacts:

The husband [of one of Zarqawi’s sisters], who identified himself as Abu Qudama, said: “We’re not sad that he’s dead.”

“To the contrary, we’re happy because he’s a martyr and he’s now in heaven,” added the man, who said he lost one of his legs fighting Russian forces in Afghanistan as part of the Islamic Mujahedein.

Reaction from the Left. Cut-and-run. And more. More Lefty 'elation'.

Nick Berg's father feels no relief that son's murderer killed. More from the 'peace dad'.

More insanity from Mr. Berg: Zarqawi's death will foster anti-American resentment among Al Qaeda members

Image before it was cleaned up via Michelle who has a roundup of her own.

How is Haditha related to Zarqawi's death? Because pro-insurgent forces love to lie about each and every incident in which someone in Iraq is killed. For instance, Lawrence at Is Full of Crap points us to this reaction from a resident of the town in which Zarqawi was killed as reported in the NY Times:

"Zarqawi. Zarqawi. Zarqawi. That's all we hear about. Zarqawi was not here. This home belonged to displaced people,'' said a village resident, holding up a teddy bear and a child's knapsack buried in the destruction.

Bush on Zarqawi death.

Think Bluto's post about the MSM reaction is overblown? Read this report from the Financial Times. Not only is the importance of the Zarqeermaster's death downplayed, the al-Qaeda link is also questioned.

Right reaction: Beth:

HAHA, you fucking son of a whore, may the maggots in hell choke on the stench of your filthy rotting corpse. Fuck you, you dead piece of less-than-worthless garbage! Let Satan himself and all his pet goats skull-fuck you until your ugly fucked up head pops off. 72 virgins? Heh. Virgin leper hogs, maybe.

Welcome to hell, Abu, you goat-raping half-a-man.

Hot damn, pizzas for everyone!

Good News.

The elimination of Zarqawi and his henchmen will kneecap the foreign insurgency.

See-Dub: I guess that machine gun he was working so hard at firing didnÂ’t come in to handy, now, did it?

Rest in pieces Zarqawi.

National Day of Mourning declared by French youth

Human Rights Groups Kill Abu Masab al-Zarqawi

Oyster: do not pass go, do not collect any virgins:

Pundit with good roundup. Lot's over at Hugh Hewitt from Hugh and Mary Katherine. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:05 AM | Comments (64) | Add Comment
Post contains 1335 words, total size 12 kb.

1 when did he suddenly become enemy # 1? for example Rusty said " Iraqis Seek Extermination of Small Vermin Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." from chipmunk to surrogate OBL? how silly.

Posted by: Michelle Z. at June 08, 2006 09:20 AM (fXkLc)

2 Oh you have a link. Sorry! Anyway, he's enemy #1 in Iraq. Now we should focus on getting Ibrahim al Douri who was one of Saddam's top lieutenants.

Posted by: Jack Miler at June 08, 2006 09:22 AM (CnDtU)

3 >>What pisses me off is that Nick's father doesn't appreciate the fact that his son's killer is dead. Let's chop his head off too. That'll learn him.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 09:28 AM (UHKaK)

4 Nah, I don't want to chop off his head. He lost his son after all. A good beating with some soap in some socks ala Full Metal Jacket is good enough for me.

Posted by: Jack Miller at June 08, 2006 09:39 AM (CnDtU)

5 Maybe. But I still say we chop his head off. His wife's too. Maybe the neighbors.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 10:20 AM (UHKaK)

6 Just reading the links show that Nick Berg was a jew traitor to this country giving passwords and assistnace to these filthy arabs. He got what he deserved in the end--a just reward for his anti American activities. I personally plan to show the Berg video at my 8 year olds birthdy party next month and to all of his friends so they can see what happens to traitors and who the enemy really is, all arabs. So Zarqawi is finally dead, fine. We will not rest until every arab man woman and child has also been slaughtered. God Bless America

Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at June 08, 2006 10:22 AM (Nhfns)

7 Holy Moly. I got a link! ~;-)

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 10:31 AM (ULAbo)

8 This will be a national day of celebration in Iraq, and should be great cause for celebration in the free world. There is even hope that my country (Canada) will slowly wake up to the fact that this is not just "Bush's war on so called terrorism", which I just heard today on the CBC when reporting on Zarqawi's death. Even though we just had a close brush with the real devils, Canadians, as a whole, just do not get it. This is a REAL war. Keep up the good fight.

Posted by: Grim Reaper at June 08, 2006 10:33 AM (fO5UN)

9 GMTA! Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead! I was singing that in the wee hours of the a.m., when I heard the news (I leave FOX news on all night). What gets me is that suddenly this asshole's arch enemy #1? What about OBL? Breaking news is one thing, but this animal doesn't deserve to take up so much news time. Good thing for Bush now, since his ratings plummeted. Maybe now that Zarqawi's dead, it'll take the heat off of those poor Marines accused of shooting civilians at random.

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 10:33 AM (WeRWZ)

10 Though if they're found gulty, you gotta admit the heat'll be back on.

Posted by: glenn at June 08, 2006 10:41 AM (UHKaK)

11 Berg's dad is even trying to deny that it's Zarqawi. Man, is he ever whacked out.

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 10:44 AM (ULAbo)

12 Can we put Nick's head back on so we can cut it off again?

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 10:51 AM (UHKaK)

13 What's the deal about Nick's Dad? Is he whacked out or what? They positively id'd Zarqawi. Know what? They should string his ass upside down and let the Iraqi's piss on him. Too bad he died a swift death, unlike his victims. RIP, Berg, Armstrong, Bigley, and all the others. This news is not going away anytime soon. The allegations against those Marines will take a much needed break. I hope they get off, fuck 'em, this is a war, right? Anything goes.

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 10:57 AM (WeRWZ)

14 >>>What pisses me off is that Nick's father doesn't appreciate the fact that his son's killer is dead. That seals it for me. I need no further proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:00 AM (8e/V4)

15 Not according to the Marine commander who's overseeing the investigation. But what the fuck does he know about war?

Posted by: glenn at June 08, 2006 11:05 AM (UHKaK)

16 >>>> fuck 'em, this is a war, right? Anything goes. Exactly, screw this "winning hearts and minds" shit. Blow away a couple of their toddlers and old ladies, maybe they'll start getting it: don't fuck with the USA.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 11:12 AM (UHKaK)

17 Good ! that muslitard is now in hell with mahomet the fake guru but real pedophil and murderer, today the world is more free and happy without that muslishit murderer's people. just thx to the usa for that good news and continue the good job guys. http://angelaaronscc.blogspot.com/

Posted by: slimangel at June 08, 2006 11:20 AM (ZYbRZ)

18 Thanks for the link! Thanks also to all those who would have pushed for rights for this maniac had he been captured. The US Military was thinking of you when they decided to drop bombs through the roof instead of special forces through the windows!

Posted by: Fred Fry at June 08, 2006 11:22 AM (JXdhy)

19 This is just a small victory. The real victory will be when the last arab man woman and child has been slaughtered and the streets of the world flow red with arab blood. Arabs are subhuman filth lower than cockroaches. I teach my son that if you ever encounter an arab you shoot them first no questions asked. He must know that arabs only wish to harm others and rape children. Praise Jesus and God Bless America

Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at June 08, 2006 11:28 AM (Nhfns)

20 Do we get the burn his corpse and drag it through the streets now?

Posted by: Cmunk at June 08, 2006 11:31 AM (7teJ9)

21 This cat used all of his 9 lives up.

Posted by: Greg at June 08, 2006 11:41 AM (q5wwn)

22 >>>>> Think Bluto's post about the MSM reaction is overblown? I think ALL of Bluto's reactions to the MSM are overblown, fueled largely by sweeping generalizations, logical fallacies and non sequiturs that stretch the bounds of reason.

Posted by: glenn at June 08, 2006 12:46 PM (UHKaK)

23 Zarqawi's death will foster anti-American resentment among Al Qaeda members More evidence Liberals suffer from a mental disorder. I'm staring at the pic of dead Zarqawi and it fills me with such a calm and peace. I can actually feel the endorphins and dopamine begin to flow. Is that wrong? He looks like he's sleeping peacefully, but his soul is now burning in an everlasting eternal hell.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 12:50 PM (8e/V4)

24 Hoorah. The SOB deserved it. Though I am somewhat saddened, now who will I make fun of for being a stupid monkey unable to fire a gun in a propaganda video made to make us fear them? Unashamed Patriot...you sound like Guy de Lusignan or Reynauld de Chatillon. They believed much the same thing before setting out for Hattin. God and Jesus were on their side, it did not matter that Saladin held vast numerical superiority in a startegically and logistically superior position. It did not get them too far (especially Reynauld). Fighting smart, not zealously, wins the day.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at June 08, 2006 12:53 PM (S+598)

25 Wait a sec ... this is the guy who's planning to show Nick Berg's beheading at his kid's eighth birthday party. You can stop reasoning now.

Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 08, 2006 12:57 PM (UHKaK)

26 not so fast.Zarqawis death might be a huge pentagon psyops to prepare us for a huge attack here that they can then say was revenge.watch!!!

Posted by: judd at June 08, 2006 01:03 PM (PTskS)

27 Screw that, I'm gonna wallow in my bliss right now, I don't care what they have planned for us. You know how cockroaches are...kill a few, twice as many come back. Same thing with these insurgents. Zarqawi's just the tip of the iceberg. Gotta chip away at the rest of the ice too. I saw a reporter ask someone why didn't they show the rest of Zarqawi's body, and just the face? They said it was "too gruesome" from the attack....bullshit! Bring it on! Hey, we saw the beheading videos, this would be a piece of cake to watch! Then again, maybe his head is all that's left of the bastard. GOD BLESS AMERICA. REJOICE!!!

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 01:12 PM (WeRWZ)

28 he got fucxed up good SOB byy see u in hell ass wipe

Posted by: blackdog at June 08, 2006 01:13 PM (U5mdE)

29 Hey I don't support the murder of innocent civilians Laura and Party Pooper. That doesn't help our soldiers out there. I believe in innocence until proven guilty but if the Marines are guilty than they should serve life in prison. Snap out of it Laura. Zarqawi got what he deserve. The U.S must prove to Iraqis that it is better than the terrorists. We are humane. Zarqawi was not.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 08, 2006 01:19 PM (CnDtU)

30 Read my posts carefully George...do you REALLY think I'm on the same page with this Laura person? Or was I parodying her and her ilk? Hmmm....

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 01:28 PM (UHKaK)

31 Oh sorry. There's a lot sick people in this world who like killing civilians. I was directing my post to Laura. Sorry Party Pooper.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 08, 2006 01:30 PM (CnDtU)

32 I know ... I run across a few of them right here. Thank God they're insignificant. No problem.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 01:33 PM (UHKaK)

33 Amazing! He gets two 500lb bombs dropped on his ass and there's a no more than a scuff mark on his face! No wonder we can never kill OBL. I'll bet he has even more of the "Muslim magic."

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 02:31 PM (ZucvC)

34 >>>> >>>What pisses me off is that Nick's father doesn't appreciate the fact that his son's killer is dead. That seals it for me. I need no further proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder. Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 8, 2006 11:00 AM ------------------------------------------------ Yeah, really. Wasn't Jesus a screwball? I'll bet that wacko is spewing some kind of love your enemy garbage that only liberals with mental disorders agree with. Kill'em all. The real god will sort them out.

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 02:34 PM (ZucvC)

35 I hope they get the labtop, and cell phone. That way, we can see who has been giving them the bombs to place in the street. I bet it is Iran, or China. ROPMA

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 08, 2006 02:49 PM (D2g/j)

36 *shakes head* I guess youse guys don't "see" my tongue in my cheek, eh? Do you really think I condone innocent civilians getting killed? Hell no. But when insurgents are shooting at you, using them as human shields, what the fuck else is left to do? Stand there and take it? War sucks, get over it.

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 02:49 PM (WeRWZ)

37 No Jesus was not a screwball. Loving your enemy does not necessary mean not punishing them. You love your children but if your children made a big mistake would you not discipline him accordingly? anyways i just like to say Al-Zarqawi got Pwn3d!!!!!!11111 C'mon say it with me. ALLAHU AKBAR! indeed. ...you gotta say that phrase at the correct moment.

Posted by: Billy Faeth at June 08, 2006 03:18 PM (c6Dyg)

38 No one said war didn't suck. And no one said civilians don't die in war. And no one said insurgents don't use the lowest tactics known to humankind. We all know these to be true But what if it really is revealed the three Marines the investigation is targeting actually walked in to this house, shot that old lady in her wheelchair, a mom and her kid in bed, and 19 other unarmed men, women and children? I'd say it kinda makes it hard to sell ourselves as liberators and friends, not to mention un-doing the "hearts-and-mids" work of tens of thousands of other soldiers over the past three years, don't you think? Are you willing to "Get over that?" Betcha the miliary Courts-Martial won't.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 03:40 PM (UHKaK)

39 Amazing! He gets two 500lb bombs dropped on his ass and there's a no more than a scuff mark on his face! No wonder we can never kill OBL. I'll bet he has even more of the "Muslim magic." Posted by iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 8, 2006 02:31 PM Is he any less dead? conspiracy kooks coming out of the woodwork I see -- did Karl Rove use the Roswell space saucer, with it's anti-matter ray to kill him IJ? Have you see his body below the neckline?

Posted by: davec at June 08, 2006 03:48 PM (CcXvt)

40 Why are you so quick to judge the Marines as already guilty? I've known a few Marines and they go through very rigid procedures...they're not known to "crack" like that! The media has done nothing to show our boys in a good light....any little thing that can grab onto to make them look bad, so that they (the libs) can look smug and say "I told ya so, this war is illegal!", they will. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Were you an OJ supporter as well?

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 03:59 PM (WeRWZ)

41 >>>>Amazing! He gets two 500lb bombs dropped on his ass and there's a no more than a scuff mark on his face! Can you imagine the field day you conspiracy theorists would be having if he had been damaged beyond recognition??? lol! Sorry to dissapoint you.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 04:22 PM (8e/V4)

42 He's dead. A job well done. The fat bastard can rot in hell with all the other islamic dogs.

Posted by: Jester at June 08, 2006 04:23 PM (oDbIP)

43 The backpack, teddy bear and sandal belonged to Zarqawi's child. One of his wives was also killed in the blast.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 08, 2006 04:47 PM (CnDtU)

44 >>>>Why are you so quick to judge the Marines as already guilty? Did you see the words "what if" in my post? That means "WHAT IF they are," not "they are." You gotta take a minute to read all the way through for comprehension.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 05:43 PM (oxMjD)

45 Hey...He's probably dead BUT wouldn't dropping 2 500-pound bombs on him do a bit more damage than that photo???!!!! I mean, I'd expect nothing but small chunks of charred flesh and bone. His hairdo still even looks decent like he's ready for a night out. I guess direct hits by multiple 500-pound bombs is only mildly lethal! -C

Posted by: Chris at June 08, 2006 05:52 PM (EHnBF)

46 When do we get to piss on his grave?

Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 08:23 PM (4Ospb)

47 So, Mr. Ramos. What are you trying to say?

Posted by: REMF at June 08, 2006 09:09 PM (7RMSi)

48 I'm just saying that Zarqawi's wife and child were killed in the blast. I don't need a far right guy telling me what I can and cannot say.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 06:59 AM (CnDtU)

49 Rusty using as an example of left wing bias in MSM and linkung that to the Financial Times I mean really, the Financial Times is now on the left side of politics ?

Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 07:46 AM (TcoRJ)

50 George, Who gives a crap. Serves the bitch right for being married to the guy. Too bad for the kid I guess. I consider him just another victim of Zarq's terrorism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:08 AM (8e/V4)

51 I just read that now it appears that there was no kid in the house. Thank God for that. Some Iraqis were apparently Bsing. Make no mistake though. I have no sympathy for the wife Carlos. She was crazy for marrying the guy and deserved to die. There were three men and there wives in the house. They deserved to die.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:26 AM (CnDtU)

52 Why is it whenever I say something I'm considered a far left guy? Why do I even bother posting. I'm a proud American. I hate Zarqawi, Bin Laden and Zawahiri's guts. I'm a moderate guy. I give both sides a chance to express their opinions. Wise up Carlos. I don't care about Zarqawi's wife.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:34 AM (CnDtU)

53 Oh and Carlos. Please don't hate my guts. Maxie who has disappeared already hates my guts. God only knows what happened to Agent Smith. I disappeared after some dickheads used my identity to spout vandalism in this board. I want to have a fair debate with you. I don't know you so I don't want to insult you. I'll see you around.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:42 AM (CnDtU)

54 Hey, I heard on the news this a.m. that Zarcoward didn't die right away! He tried to escape from the gurney!!! He didn't have any last words though, and died shortly thereafter. This would make me assume that he didn't die instantly, so maybe the bastard did suffer. Alan Combs bitched about them killing him. He said he was probably more valuable alive than dead. He said if we knew he was in there, why didn't we take him as prisoner? Well, maybe it's because we failed on the other 56 attempts!

Posted by: Laura at June 09, 2006 08:42 AM (WeRWZ)

55 Yeah Laura. The guy wore a suicide belt and probably had spotters on the rooftops. Zarqawi could not be allowed to escape. I'm surprised he survived the blast but am totally glad that he died slowly and suffered. That way he knew that we got him. And besides, Zarqawi was sentenced to death numerous times. No point in capturing him if we were going to put him to death anyway.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:59 AM (CnDtU)

56 The only good thing to come out of capturing him alive is any information that may prove to be valuable to us....like maybe he'd have to squeal about where all the other cells were, or something to that effect. But yeah, he'd be sentenced to death and killed quickly by lethal injection, in a nice sterile environment. Too good for him. I don't know if it's true though, that he tried to escape from the gurney.....the reporters have said that the only took a head shot of him dead because the rest of him was "too gruesome" to be shown....which would mean the rest of him must've been blown off or mangled, so how could he try to run away? I believe this with a grain of salt, like I do all other reports. But one thing we do know for sure....the bastard's DEAD!

Posted by: Laura at June 09, 2006 09:04 AM (WeRWZ)

57 Fuck him, his kids,all his wives, and anyone like him. They'll be on the skewer right next to that filthy piece of shit for all eternity soon enough. I hope he was conscious for long enough after the bombs went off to at least say, "oh shit".

Posted by: Spanky at June 09, 2006 09:57 AM (Xk8Hy)

58 Stop hateing on Zarqawi. The man has past away, leave him be. He played the game and he payied. And please stop saying evil things about his relatives you all don't even know them. So stop judging them. Their human beings too. It sickins me to see all of you celebrateing a persons death. His gone know, who are we to judge him or his relatives?

Posted by: Nice man at June 10, 2006 08:50 PM (c7ncZ)

59 USA help dictators in AMERICA and make war all over the world....USA IS going to suffer all that killings.

Posted by: ARGENTO at June 10, 2006 11:09 PM (tuzo2)

60 Nice Man go to hell. We celebrate the death of someone no more human than a blowfly.

Posted by: Jester at June 11, 2006 04:16 PM (TuAMG)

61 Don't you get it? You live your lives hating, being afraid, and allowing your government to strip you of your rights so you can be "protected" from the "big, bad terrorists" by doing this, you accomplish what the bad guys wanted-for you all to walk on eggshells, forever. The very term "terrorist" denotes one who uses terror as a primary weapon. Guess what? They win-even when you blow one up. They'll just recruit another one. You, on the other hand, still go to bed afraid, and still allow your government to strip your "American way of life" in the interests of "security". You still keep spending boatloads of money that could be fortifying dikes in LA, sending boatloads of men to die in Iraq that could instead be helping to rebuild New Orleans. You think blowing up one guy or even 1000 guys is going to make the rest of them run and hide? You obviously don't get the mentality of these ppl. There is only one way to win the "war on terror". Stop making it a war. Go about your day, live your life like it's your last day on earth, stick up for your constitutional rights. Be an American. Sure, there will still be bombs, hijackings, and shootings. But there's also going to be earthquakes, floods, cat 5 hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters that take lives. There's gonna be car accidents, and gas line explosions, and house fires, and heart attacks, and cancer, and accidental overdoses, and drownings, and all other manner of death. So ask yourself if it's worth the headache.

Posted by: CanadianThinker at June 12, 2006 12:53 AM (kl/Lw)

62 It's to bad some people are bad. check out this wierd site www.paulthev.piczo.com

Posted by: pual at June 12, 2006 03:32 PM (c7ncZ)

63 Hello fellow mujahadeen, This is Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. I have come back from the dead to tell you that Allah has run out of virgins. Instead, you will all have to screw your own mothers after you die as martyrs. I personally have chosen to screw my mother's rear end for all eternity here in heaven. Allah bless you and curse the American Satan!!! Yours truly, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi

Posted by: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi at June 13, 2006 02:15 PM (jmn+D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm somewhat tentative about referring to Musab al Zarqawi as al Qaeda's Jeb Stuart, because I don't want to be misunderstood as suggesting that the two are comparable in every respect. The two commanders were alike in the sense that they were important second fiddles, but there's no comparison in terms of their ethics and morality. The difference is quite uncomplicated: Jeb Stuart, while arguably a defender of slavery, never blew up or sawed the heads off innocent noncombatants. And his military successes can rightly be called that, rather than the sort of piddling incessant vandalism that has undermined as much as advanced Zarqawi's co-called "cause." But the two are alike, in spite of what "terrorism expert", Richard Clarke, says, because they were both irreplaceable in the hierarchy of their respective armies, and their deaths will be seen to have marked a turning point.
more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 08:10 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 4 kb.

Image from Fox News:

ABC News is reporting that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, along with his "spiritual adviser."

I have nothing to link to, I haven't found any web-based corroboration. Not even on the ABC website.

It's 2:19 a.m. here, and I'll do the best I can. Look for updates.

Cnn.com has it as breaking news.

I admit, I saw this on Kos too, looking for fodder for a different post, but Caltechgirl beat us all!

Well, except for ABC on the teevee.

Update: ABC news is reporting that Zarqawi was injured in an airstrike, and then later died after being transferred to Iraqi authorities

Update, Too: Foxnews has a banner.

Update Again: According to Fox, Iraqi PM has announced that Zarqawi is dead, to a cheering room.

Watching live press conference now.

"It is a good omen for Iraq..."

Gen. Casey:

"This happened in an airstrike which was conducted against an identified isolated safehouse"

"We have been able to identify al-Zarqawi through visual verification"

Right before the PC started, the Fox reporter stated that Zarqawi's death was verified by DNA, but the anchor cut in for the PC

Update IV: Oh holy Shiite, as sure as the sunni rises in the East, I will wake up with a headache in the morning.

He's DEAD!

Update V: He's F***ING DEAD, YEAH!!!! Below the fold is NSFW

Update Seex: Expect the leftists to ask.."Where's Osama?" He's reading your blogs, you assmonkeys.

Update Seven: Even Vinnie sleeps. Take it away, Rusty.

more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 01:27 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.

Michael Crook, of Forsake the Troops infamy, is back with a new pile of crap at www.disownthetroops.com.

Actually, it's just the same crap in a new bag. And nah, I won't link it, you'll have to type it in.

Crook is arguably one of the most hated people in America, so it always shocks me that he's still sucking oxygen.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:14 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Disturbing report by the ISN on the growth of Islam south of the border. I would be more frightened by it if I did not know that there is a much larger threat of home-grown Islamists here in the United States, than in Mexico. But still, the threat is real.

The ISN report tends to whitewash the rise of Islam in Mexico, citing lack of evidence of Muslim groups their to violent jihad. However, as we have said for a long time now, the threat is not just from jihadis committed to violence but to those who advocate the same goals as jihadis, even if they wish to pursue those goals non-violently. That goal, Sharia law and the Caliphate, is every bit as dangerous and evil as Communism was and must be fought with the same vigor.

In the same way that wherever Marxism has gone, political oppression followed, so to wherever Islam goes, radicalism must inevetably follow, since the core text of Islam, the Koran, advocates both violent jihad and the institution of Islamic law.

Here are some of the highlights from the ISN report. First, a this on an Islamic group with links to Nazi apologists: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:32 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 731 words, total size 5 kb.

Congrats to Padawan Interested Participant on his 5,000th post. At last count, nearly 4,000 of those posts were about hot female high school teachers having sex with their students. We see he has already been turned to the Dark Side. You are hereby elevated to Sith Master.

Also, we hear that Mrs. Participant is recovering from surgery. We wish her a speedy recovery.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:44 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Lorie Byrd has an interesting post about a British Leftist whose view of the Iraq war changed when he read the new book Le Livre Noir de Saddam Hussein (The Black Book of Saddam Hussein). Saddam Hussein killed over one million civilians, and the book is a firsthand account of some of those murders.

It's a biting indictment of both the Hussein regime for the countless attrocities it committed against its own citizens, and the French government's support of that regime. Next to the Soviet Union (and later, Russia), Saddam Hussein's biggest arms dealer was France.

The book is especially condemning of Jacques Chirac's cozy relationship with the tyrant. Not surprisingly, Lewis Jones reports the book has been ignored by Le Monde & other leading French publications. You can read AEI's review of the book here.

Unfortunately, the book has not yet been published in English. However, it's publisher Oh Editions, has released several excerpts in English, some of which I've republished below. While the authors clearly come from the European Left--they repeat the tired arguements that the "neo-cons" were looking for any reason to justify the war, have naive faith in the power of the U.N. and its resolutions, and repeat the lie that the Bush Administration never mentioned human rights or democracy building during the lead up to the war--they do support the end result of the war--the removal of the dictator Saddam Hussein. I eagerly look forward to the English language edition. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:59 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 948 words, total size 6 kb.

(Baghdad) In late 2004, UK/Iraqi citizen and CARE International employee Margaret Hassan was kidnapped and murdered and her body has yet to be found. Hassan's death was known only because Al-Jazeera received a videotape of her execution.

Last May, five people were captured (See here and here) by U.S. Forces and admitted complicity in her killing. The trial of three of the suspected killers has concluded.

From Times Online:

The family of the British aid worker Margaret Hassan today said that a court's decision to acquit two of three Iraqis charged with her murder was a "green light" to kidnappers.

Mrs Hassan's relatives also criticised the British Government's "inept" handling of her abduction and chastised detectives for their "incompetent" investigation which led to today's acquittals.

One of the three accused, Mustafa Salman al-Jabouri, was jailed for life after a hearing lasting only two hours before a panel of judges in Baghdad. He was found guilty of aiding and abetting the kidnappers who snatched Mrs Hassan, 59, as she drove to work in October 2004.

Mrs Hassan's family believe that police failed to gather evidence which would have led to al-Jabouri's conviction for murder, for which there is a mandatory death sentence.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 02:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

William Jefferson claims that large bundles of cash he delivered to Nigeria's Vice President was "African art".

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:39 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

This conversation between Vital Perspectives and Hans Brix reveals what a truly foolish person he is. It's almost like I've heard this somewhere before........

Posted by: Rusty at 01:26 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

A Navy Corpsman suspected of shooting Iraqi civilian shackled for months, no charges filed. Torture! Geneva Convention violations! Where is the Cindy Sheehan & the Left when they are most needed? But don't question their patriotism.

Update: I earlier said Marine, but the man is in fact a Naval corpsman. He's also shackled only during the time he's out of solitary confinement for 23 hours a day.

Vinnie said he'd kill me if I didn't change that. Apparently, to a Marine, there is nothing worse than being called a squid.

Which reminds me of an old joke about a certain number of submariners going down..........

UPDATE DEUX: Now I'm in trouble for calling the corpsman a "squid". Sorry. That's what you get when you try to hang out with the cool kids and use the lingo, but when you are in reality a certified geek. You may all now turn your backs and pretend you don't know me.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:25 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Five South Koreans were taken hostage in Nigeria yesterday. Is this surprising? Of course not! Which part of this equation are people not getting?

Demand ransom + governments and firms pay ransom = more hostage taking

Forbes:

Gunmen kidnapped five South Koreans in an overnight raid on a gas plant in southern Nigeria owned by Shell, the militants and officials from the company and Seoul's Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:18 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.