Some flaming idiot rightie actually titled a blog post, “Zarqawi Still Alive, The Left Celebrates.”
I kept readng to find out how “the Left” celebrated:
Not that killing the al Qaeda in Iraq leader–and the man personally responsible for beheading innocent civilians—would really end the Salaafist insurgency in Iraq. It wouldn’t. But it would be nice to know he was dead.
Vengeance: natures way of calming the nerves.
Of course over at dKos, when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops.
The “signs of dismay” link takes us not to dKos, but to another rightie blog post:
Ever willing to downplay any strides towards peace or a more stable Iraq, Armando at Daily Kos is downplaying the significance of Musab al-Zarqawi’s possible death after a protracted gunbattle today in Mosul:
[quoting Armando]The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq.
What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd.
Let’s boil this down.
A. Rightie #1 says the death of Zarqawi would be a good development in the struggle against terrorism, although Zarqawi’s death wouldn’t end the violence in Iraq.
B. Rightie #2 says the death of Zarqawi would be a good development in the struggle against terrorism, although Zarqawi’s death wouldn’t end the violence in Iraq.
C. Armando at dKos says the death of Zarqawi would be a good development in the struggle against terrorism, although Zarqawi’s death wouldn’t end the violence in Iraq.
In RightieWorld, statements A and B are righteous, while statement C is depraved and unpatriotic.
Righties don’t dislike us because of our opinions. They dislike us because they are stuck in the Twilight Zone.
Righties #1 and #2 might be surprised to learn than we Lefties bitterly complained when the Bush Administration passed up at least three chances to kill Zarqawi before the Iraq War began. You can read about this here.
Related Link: David Neiwert is up to Part Four of his series on Michelle Malkin — “Unhinged: Unhonest.” Don’t miss this.
Update: Rightie #3 links to Rightie #1 and writes, “The Jawa Reports that the Left is rejoicing that Zarqawi may still be alive.” Typically, #3 offers no documentation of the “rejoicing” other than the link to #1.
Update update: See also Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest.
Update update update: See Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog.
Will Durst calls Bush a lying sack of **** here http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19894
Well, of course you’re not supposed to actually follow the links in the rightie blogs. They’re just there to give the illusion that there is actual evidence that liberals are as vile and murderous as all good Americans already know they are. (What better proof is there of the intellectual laziness of the American right? To support their claims they offer links that actually show the exact opposite, confident that none of their fellow righties are going to take the trouble to follow the trail back to its source.)
… alas, I fear these boys do not read Juan Cole.
Actually, what rightie #2 said was:
What #2 said, was that Zarqawi’s death would end most attacks in Iraq against civilian targets, while Armando said, “Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq” which is a blatant lie, as his organisation (as opposed to native Iraqi insurgents) has been the primary cause of suicide attacks versus civilian targets.
They are not the same thing at all.
Fact checker: You entirely miss the point. The point is that it is absolutely absurd to accuse Armando of “celebrating” Zarqawi’s escape from death. Righties #1, #2, and #3 are guilty of bearing false witness and unjustly smearing Armando and all Lefties based on NOTHING but their own imagination.
ALL THREE bloggers do agree that Zarqawi is a bad guy and that his death would reduce but not end violence in Iraq. How is that “celebrating” when Armando writes it but not when the others write it?
But YOU lie here:
Armando said, “Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq†which is a blatant lie, as his organisation (as opposed to native Iraqi insurgents) has been the primary cause of suicide attacks versus civilian targets.
To say Zarqawi “has been the primary cause of suicide attacks versus civilian targets” does NOT refute Armando’s statement “Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq.†Zarqawi and his suicide attackers did not cause the insurgency; they are just taking advantage of it. Rightie #1 said something along those same lines, as I recall.
I can smell spin a mile off; don’t try it here.
And let’s call you “Factless” Checker in the future, shall we?
Another benefit that would result from the death of Zarqawi: irrefutable proof that people like Fact Checker (sic) don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. I wonder if Fact Checker (sic) remembers that the insurgency was supposed to die down when Saddam’s sons were killed, when Saddam was captured, when we transferred “sovereignty,” when we pacified Fallujah for the 4th or 5th time (note to Fact Checker (sic): In reference to the number of times we’ve pacified Fallujah, I am employing a device known as “hyperbole”), when the Iraqi elections took place, when the constitution was approved, etc. etc.
And yeah, I know the subject of discussion is more narrowly focused here: not on whether Zarqawi’s death would end the insurgency overall, but whether the attacks on civilians would be reduced. The point is that the claim that the death of a single man would have this magic pacifying effect is yet another example of the kind of rosy-colored fantasies that have been the basis of the right-wing thinking on Iraq since before the war even started. Zarqawi is not the bogeyman. He’s just one actor in an incredibly chaotic situation, and if he was killed there are plenty of others to take his place. Don’t these people ever get tired of being wrong?
A rethuglican will never let a little thing like facts get in the way. At jawa the article goes on to say that “withdrawl equals failure”
So I take it at jawa they favor staying in Iraq forever.Too bad jawa writers and readers don’t add up to the 100,000 plus troops it will take to stay there or we could bring the troops home and send the jawa crowd in their place..
The righties like to use the troops.I have heard them say a million times that our troops volunteered to serve, but upon talking to them further, it becomes clear they do not even know the oath that our troops took.That oath defines their mission, and it clearly states what they volunteer to do.They volunteer for only one mission:To protect our constitution PERIOD.Troops did not and do not volunteer to do the bidding of big oil in iraq, nor did they volunteer to free other nations or bring democracy.Bringing freedom and democracy may be a nobel cause, but it is still not the job of our troops.
I would like to get a clear answer from a rightie as to how saddam was a threat to our constitution.If bush cannot protect the constitution against a two bit thug like saddam the BUSH is the problem.next time a rightie tells you the troops volunteered ask them what the troops volunteer to do.Their reply will shock you.One would think a group so eager to use the troops would at least know what troops sign up to do.
Lets be honest here.The righties are done with iraq.They want to keep the troops right where they are however , so they can be in place for the next conflict…If a bunch of whining liberals were to win the fight to bring our troops home , bush would have to start all over and sell the American people on his next conflict plan, but if we stay , bush can accuse, say syria for example, of starting trouble with our troops in iraq and poof gw has an instant in to start the next conflict. A majority of the American people will not get behind Bush’s next war any other way.Bush has used up all his trust and all his capital.If our troops came home, and then bush suggested invading syria , the American people would never go for it, but if the troops are left there in Iraq bush will morph Iraq with the next country the same way he did with osama/saddam.
So lets get real here, we know bush and pals have planned a war without end,, and the righties are screaming their heads off because they see the desire for their endless war slipping away.They will just keep slinging their crap , hoping something sticks with the American people
The jawa crowd worries that “withdrawl equals failure” what they don’t seem to notice is that we already failed, leaving would just mean, to righties, they would have to admit it.You know how righties HATE reality.
After spending a few minutes at the JAWA blog, one wonders what in the hell the right is thinking.With a MAJORITY of Americans now against the war, why why why is the right attacking so hard? Everytime they attack someone against the war,, they attack the views of a majority of Americans. Who in in rightie world decided this was a good idea? Are these people TRYING to help the dems???
A government isn’t a government without domestic tranquillity. The mutiple faction insurgency is fighting a classical guerilla war where attacks on civilian populations has become a necessary option to combat the overwhelming superiority of American fire power. Attacks against civilian targets won’t cease if Zarqawi it taken out of the picture. Zarqwai’s only real value is to provide a focal point of evil personified to mislead from the true nature of the insurgency..Zarqwais will spring eternal, as does the need for a demon.
With a MAJORITY of Americans now against the war, why why why is the right attacking so hard?
It’s important to understand that righties are always on defense. Even when they attack, attack, attack, it’s defense. Even when they are in the majority (not their current status), it’s defense. Righties are fueled by a subconscious inferiority complex and a deep-seated resentment of everyone and everything they subconsciously feel inferior to. People who disagree with them and their worldview are not just a threat to their ideology but to their fragile self-identity. They must attack.
But #2 didn’t claim Armando was “celebrating” anything, did he? You make that charge, but it is a false charge on your part, Barbara.
He stated Armando was incorrect in stating, “Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq.”
That is a fact. 1,000 dead bodies of civilians attributed to him thus far are the indisputable evidence.
He also states that Armando was clearly wrong about the situation being “intractable.”
Increasing Sunni involvement in the political process has proven this point by Armando false as well.
Perhaps I stated it wrong earlier (way different from lying, Barbara), but Armando is clearly incorrect on both counts, unless you honestly believe that Zarqawi, as the #1 terrorist in Iraq, “has not and is not the source of our troubles.”
Zarqawi is not the only source, to be sure, but he is indeed one of several primary sources and is also , and his organisation is the greatest single threat to non-military targets in Iraq.
Neither Confederate Yankee nor Armando ever claimed that Zarqawi started the insurgency. Nice strawman.
While I make have misstated something, it seems you are more than willing to simply make charges without any truth behind them at all.
“But #2 didn’t claim Armando was “celebrating” anything, did he? You make that charge, but it is a false charge on your part, Barbara.”
I didn’t say #2 claimed Armando was “celebrating.” #1 and #3 made that claim, and the primary source of the claim was #2. In fact, #1 and #3 were misrepresenting what #2 wrote, weren’t they?
But #2 was also misrepresenting Armando, although in a different way. He titled his post “Armando: Zarqawi Wasn’t a Problem.” This is not what Armando wrote. Armando wrote “Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq.”
Now, what does that mean? Let’s look at the word “source.” From the American Heritage Dictionary:
I believe we are dealing with definition #2 here.
The source, fountanhead, mother, rootstock, point of origination, etc. of the violence in Iraq is the INSURGENCY. If you remove Zarqawi, the INSURGENCY will still be there. It might slow down a tad, but it will still be there. However, if you remove the INSURGENCY, Zarqawi would probably have to take his business out of Iraq. That seems to be what Armando is saying, and it is what I believe also.
This is not to say that Zarqawi hasn’t done a lot of bad things and is not very dangerous. Of course he has done bad things and is dangerous. But Zarqawi was operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan for some tme before the invasion, and wasn’t able to do nearly the same amount of mischief he is doing now becaue of the INSURGENCY.
Get it?
You accuse me of a staw man argument based mostly on your low reading comprehension skills and denial of the plain meaning of the word “source.”. In fact, yours is the staw man argument. You and Confederate Yankee misrepresent what Armando wrote. In fact, Armando and most of the rest of us lefties realize full well that Zarqawi is a real bad guy who needs to be taken out, which is why it was a damn shame the Bush Administration didn’t do that the several times it had a chance before the invasion.
Ken Melvin has already alluded to some of Juan Cole’s comments on what he calls “the Zarqawi myth,” such as here and here. I don’t expect someone like Fact Checker (sic) to buy these arguments, since Juan Cole clearly hates America, but it wouldn’t hurt to at least show some awareness that knowledgeable people have serious doubts about Zarqawi’s importance.
(And yes, Zarqawi is a monster who needs to be eliminated. It’s just that he’s far from the only monster we’re dealing with. As Cole points out, serious historians don’t buy into the “great man” theory of history. Especially with reference to the mayhem in Iraq, the idea that a single man is going to come along and cause all these problems, such that the problems would suddenly go away if this one man was eliminated, is, frankly, childish.)
Aw, so Barb falls back on the “it depends on what your definition of is, is” defense.
You clearly said rightie blogs 1 and 2 said the exact same thing as Kos in your original post, and now you try to split enough hairs to escape.
Not working, I’m afraid.
Aw, so Barb falls back on the “it depends on what your definition of is, is†defense.
No, I fall back on the I meant exactly and precisely what I wrote defense. No more, no less.
I’ve said it once; I’ll say it again — Righties cannot read.
WOW! Great catfight!!!