Thursday, June 08, 2006

On Zarqawi's Death - Watch the Spin

This is good news: "Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Killed in Air Raid"- it's good because from all acounts this man was responsible for the slaughter of innocents and the killing of American troops. It's good because a bad guy was taken out.

Considering that hours later two car bombs killed 19 and injured 40 and that the Iraqi violence is largely sectarian in nature and that the insurgency seems well-entrenched, it's reasonable to assume that this won't dull the violence. That's the consensus in all the blog and news coverage I've seen so far. The administration is also being cautious about predicting a downturn in violence.

What this is not about is Bush's poll numbers. So let's see how long it takes for the DC punditry and media talkers to start playing up the effect on Bush's personal ratings. Let's see if the rightwing noise machine uses it to attack liberals and Democrats. Let's see how hastily polls are cobbled together to show a Bush 'bounce'.

Where the spin is headed isn't clear from the blogs in these early hours; most bloggers on the left and right are taking a reasoned approach, rightly cheering Zarqawi's death but cautious about its net effect. Still, several rightwingers can't help taking cheap shots:

Hugh Hewitt goes after a diarist on dKos who expresses doubt that this will reduce the violence and calls it the "Daily Kos response."

Dr. Sanity also pretends that this post is somehow an 'official' Kos response and writes, "Kos: Who cares?"

Gateway Pundit says, "And, just think, this was only possible because the Murtha "cut and run" plan was avoided."

Mark in Mexico lists a few comments from AMERICAblog as evidence of the reaction of the "loyal left".

Let's watch the spin as the news settles in...

UPDATE: Sure enough, CNN's Miles O'Brien and Ed Henry are talking about the smiles inside the Oval Office and wondering whether this will affect Bush's poll numbers.

UPDATE 2: 'Maverick' John McCain on MSNBC: "This may be a cautionary tale to those who want to cut and run.”

UPDATE 3: Some bloggers are pointing out that the White House is in a tough spot. If this is a fatal blow to the insurgency, then when are we getting out of Iraq? If it isn't, then Bush's 'victory' is even more elusive than we think it is.

UPDATE 4: Greg Sargent notes, "The righty bloggers are using the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to engage in a savage tormenting of the father of Nick Berg, who was beheaded by al-Zarqawi some time ago."

UPDATE 5: CNN's Candy 'Green tea' Crowley maintained journalistic neutrality by calling Bush's remarks "pitch-perfect."

25 Comments:

Blogger Magellan said...

Let us not forget that OBL is still a free man. Haven't heard anyone bring that up today. Would there have ever been a Zarqawi if we didn't invade Iraq?

6/08/2006 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what a shame the White House blocked plans to take him out years ago out of concern it would hurt their case for going to war against Saddam...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

3 times

6/08/2006 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that Abu Zarqawi has been killed, it will be interestig to see the comments of liberal posters. As with previous positive developments in Iraq, there has always been a sense of disappointment and diparagement in the leftie community. I'm sure many lefties will feel sad that Zarqawi is dead because of their irrational hatred of Bush and the US..

Reading comments on leftie sites gives one the impression that their is hope the US will fail in Iraq, so Bush will not receive praise..

RT

6/08/2006 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And now comes along Nicholas Berg's father, blaming Bush for his son's decapitation at the hands of Zarqawi..Is he glad his son's murderer has been killed? Does he thank the Iraqi's, soldiers, Jordanians who brought justice to his son? NO! He makes political statements how Bush is a terrorist and killed his son.

But please, don't challenge him or question him, because he is a victim, a left wing victim who is infallible, as Ann Coulter has observed..

RT

6/08/2006 7:38 PM  
Anonymous Devil's Advocate said...

The 33% trolls are out again. That is the 33% fascists, sadists, and otherwise mentally unhinged creatures who support BushCo's criminal enterprise.

If Zarqawi is really dead, then good riddance. He was truly a sick, evil creature.

In the meantime, one has to be brain-dead to believe that dropping 500-pound bombs on a house would leave anybody or anything intact. The impact would have pulverized anyone and anything in that house. Only DNA would identify whatever human remains were there.

As usual, the rightnutters, being dumb, ignorant, and gullible, believed the pictures of a dead Al Zarwaki.

Gee! How the hell are you going to find an intact body after 500-pound bombs were dropped on a house? Are you trolls remotely acquainted with the fundamental laws of physics?

As for Nicholas Berg's father, leave him alone, you chickenhawk scumbags. You are too cowardly to either go to war yourself or to send your children there.

You are just as sociopathic and mentally deranged as your Fuhrer.

6/08/2006 10:23 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

This is an opportunity for politically tuned-in people, from both right and left, to show their colors. I'm on the left, and I've been hoping for Zarqawi's death for some time. This makes me happy. I don't know what it means. I don't care what it portends. Zarqawi is dead. He deserved a painful, protracted death, so he appears to have gotten better than he deserves. It is pointless to spin this, and I appreciate Peter Daou's restraint.

6/08/2006 10:33 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

This is an opportunity for politically tuned-in people, from both right and left, to show their colors. I'm on the left, and I've been hoping for Zarqawi's death for some time. This makes me happy. I don't know what it means. I don't care what it portends. Zarqawi is dead. He deserved a painful, protracted death, so he appears to have gotten better than he deserves. It is pointless to spin this, and I appreciate Peter Daou's restraint.

6/08/2006 10:33 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

This is an opportunity for politically tuned-in people, from both right and left, to show their colors. I'm on the left, and I've been hoping for Zarqawi's death for some time. This makes me happy. I don't know what it means. I don't care what it portends. Zarqawi is dead. He deserved a painful, protracted death, so he appears to have gotten better than he deserves. It is pointless to spin this, and I appreciate Peter Daou's restraint.

6/08/2006 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How the hell are you going to find an intact body after 500-pound bombs were dropped on a house?"


Umm, care to show me where these pictures are of an intact body? Can't seem to find them. Perhaps you have access to intelligence that the rest of the world doesn't.

This happened yesterday. The military stated that they cleaned up his face before taking pictures. They called the state of his head as "very blood, bruised and swollen." That's all we have at this point. For all we know, the rest of his body is in a similar state, and in several pieces.

I love you conspiracy theory nutjobs. So painful is it for you to think that our military did something RIGHT that you're willing to pull anything out of your ass to try and explain it away.

You are the definition of scum.

6/09/2006 1:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Devils Advocate:

Let's see..In one post you have managed to express yourself with:

fascist sadist
unhinged creatures
criminal enterprise
trolls
chickenhawk scumbags
sociopathic
mentally deranged
dumb
ignorant
gullible
brain dead

This could be a new record for the use of most invectives in a single post. Are you unable to express yourself in any other way?

FYI, 500 lb bombs do a lot of damage but don't necessarily pulverize everything into dust. You must be thinking of bombs in your favorite video game.

And I appreciate your concern about my military service and those of my children. I was a commissioned Naval officer. How about you?

RT

6/09/2006 1:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As for Nicholas Berg's father, leave him alone, you chickenhawk scumbags."


Why? He made some ridiculously outlandish comments today and deserves to be called out on them. Free speech works both ways, something liberals such as yourselves like to conveniently forget.

You know, if Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg had a child together, I bet it'd be just like you. Reprehensible and idiotic.

6/09/2006 1:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Richard said...

Richard, thank you for your straight forward comment. You also, showed great restraint.

RT

6/09/2006 1:41 AM  
Anonymous tbh said...

Note how the chickenhawk scumbags here DON'T DENY being chickenhawk scumbags (unless they're actually posting from Iraq and are confident enough not to brag about it; riiiiiiight....).

And you guys probably think you're Christians, yet you shit on Nicholas Berg's father for basically expressing the sublime moral sentiments of the gospel according to Matthew.

It's really amazing, though, that media anchors now automatically ask relatives of victims "Aren't you glad this villain is dead?"

America is the most powerful country in the world. It can afford to exercise a little forbearance. Nietzsche himself said as much when he wrote that the strong should treat the vermin that pester them only with an indifferent shrug that shakes them off.

But all these chickenhawk screeches for blood and revenge are simply the plaints of the fearful. Thus, you're still chickenhawk scumbags.

But that's cool... If you're happy with that...

6/09/2006 3:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And you guys probably think you're Christians, yet you shit on Nicholas Berg's father for basically expressing the sublime moral sentiments of the gospel according to Matthew."

Matthew expressed sentiments that "Bush was a killer, worlds's worst terrorist and murderer of Berg's son?"

6/09/2006 3:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boo Hoo, tbh, cry me a fucking river. You're as much a piece of shit as Michael Berg.

We oughta ship your ass over to Iraq and make you EARN your freedom. I did my time. How 'bout you do yours you piece of shit.

6/09/2006 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

STILL waiting to see those pictures of the "intact body."

Gee, what a shock. A liberal caught in a lie. I hadn't seen that happen since 5 minutes ago.

6/09/2006 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Devil's Advocate, turns out Zarqawi SURVIVED the bombing and died afterwards on the way to a military hospital.

Spin that one you piece of ignorant shit.


"In the meantime, one has to be brain-dead to believe that dropping 500-pound bombs on a house would leave anybody or anything intact."


Looks like YOU'RE the one who's brain dead. I'm laughing my head off at how stupid you look now. Got any MORE conspiracy theories for us? Maybe Zarqawi was really Elvis.

Cat got your tongue dipshit?

6/09/2006 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Gideon S. said...

Anonymous RT:

If liberals really hated the U.S. and wanted our country "to fail in Iraq," we would support your president.

And the use of "one" when "I" would suffice is sadly pretentious. Further, it doesn't mask your ideological or intellectual inferiorty.

6/10/2006 6:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberals are doing a great job now hating the military, government, and country. A quick read of comments by your fellow travelers on this and other leftie sites tells a sad tale. Your vote didn't matter, did it? Fotunately, the all volunteer military concept excludes most liberals from serving and Republican voters exclude most liberals from public office.

P.S.: Your concern about my correct use of grammar is noted and appreciated. Thanks.

6/10/2006 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Gideon S. said...

Anonymous:

I see many sweeping (and rambling) generalizations, but no concrete data to support your assertions.

Here's some homework for you: Please provide a link to evidence that no Democrats, Greens, or liberals in general have volunteered to serve in the U.S. military.

Now, regarding your comment that "Republican voters exclude most liberals from public office," Democrats need only fifteen seats to retake the House and six to retake the Senate; if so many liberals were being excluded from public office, those numbers would be muuuuuuch higher, wouldn't they?

6/10/2006 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gideon;
"Here's some homework for you: Please provide a link to evidence that no Democrats, Greens, or liberals in general have volunteered to serve in the U.S. military."

You need to read more carefully. I said: "the all voluntary military concept excludes "most" liberals from serving." By it's nature..

I don't have a problem with liberals or anyone else being in the military as long as they understand why they are there and can follow orders..

People with anti-war, anti-gov, or other similar sentiments should stay out of the military. They don't want to be there and fellow soldiers don't want them there, either.

I'm OK with conscientious objectors and do not consider them unpatriotic. The "volunteer" nature of our military sorts this out to the satisfaction of all.

You have excellent math skills. Yes, if there were fewer liberals in office, that would mean higher number of Republicans in office. Remember that, because it may be on one of your tests.

RT

6/10/2006 7:10 PM  
Anonymous Gideon S. said...

RT said:

"You need to read more carefully. I said: "the all voluntary military concept excludes "most" liberals from serving."

The all "all voluntary military concept" also excludes most conservatives from serving, so what's your point?

As for reading skills, your own aren't very well-developed, as your reply demonstrates.

After incorrectly claiming that most liberals are kept out of public office, I pointed out that such was not the case. Either you're incapable of admitting you're wrong, or you didn't read my reply -- let alone your own previous post -- very carefully.

6/10/2006 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gideon, ask your teacher to explain all of these things to you. That will help. Ask your teaacher about the forest and the trees. OK? Good.

6/10/2006 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Gideon S. said...

Well, Anonymous, I can only take your juvenile attempt at condescenion as a signal that you can't defend Ann Coulter's behavior with a logical, well-reasoned, factually-supported case. I accept your surrender.

6/11/2006 12:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still waiting for those pictures Devil.

6/13/2006 11:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home