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

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

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

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

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

Don't hold your breath, though.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Tim by proxi!

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Pena,

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

That's an interesting idea, RD.

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

bc

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

Ours or theirs?

oops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a very suitable word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pwee-sahnt

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

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

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

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

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

Also speaking of email addresses...

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

All of them in Spanish!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I delude myself. Rush reigns supreme!!

Hail to the Wing Nuts! Hail Victory!

Quién está Trick-Tracka en mi puente?

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

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

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

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

or expressi ?

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

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

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

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

:-)

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

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

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

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

And whatever happened to Bin Laden?

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

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

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

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

*LOL*

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

Anybody seen this?

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

I found the last piece on the bottom particularly funny.

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

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

It hadda be the Proxima Centaurians that got to him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gendarme, LOL.

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

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

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

Which is more than can be said for my handwriting.

:-)

SCC: understandable

Unlike my typing! *LOL*

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

Somebody can tell I didn't preview previous post?

moron

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

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

Gendarme, bon appetit!

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

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

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

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

Bush on Chavez

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

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

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

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

bc

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

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

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

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

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

SCC: Not "yes" to the last question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

News out of Kuwait:

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

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

News from the BBC:

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

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

USA Today reports ABC News got the tip, too:

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

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

A little bit more from the USA Today piece:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This headline mocks the many much bigger issues we face.

Salamander: Explain.

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

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

Not that it excuses being sloppy.

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

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

Or we could spike the water supply with prozac

Tim,

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

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

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

Tim,

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

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

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

From Joel's story on Hurricane Floyd:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not IUD = Immoral, Unethical and Dumb?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems like a pretty good day all around.

SCC: was

dr: see my 11:17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not surprised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not surprised.

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

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

not sure how that got posted twice. apologies.

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

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

SCC: try

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

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

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

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

Yeah, pass the buck. Always ;).

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

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

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

Re: Hurricane altruism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let's clean up that Pakistan border!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Honolulu Advertiser, April 24, 2006:

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

By CHRIS NEWMARKER
Associated Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

yeah i'll get out the zapper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Loomis!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Dickey's Newsweek article:

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

Man you guys at the wapo are clueless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Period.

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

Is there a full moon tonight?

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

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

*shaking my head*

:-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cassandra, once again you say it all so well.

Looks like some levity is called for.

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

Cassandra,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm.

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

bc

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

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

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

What planet are you people from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL at Mike's last post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't that odd?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are those weapons of mass destruction, anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to show my SCC membership card.

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

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

Achenbach may be biased, but facts are facts. There