Can't wait to see Blubberman's take on Zarqawi. You can bet the opening will attempt to greatly minimize it's significance and will deteriorate into conspiracy-laden gibberish and left-leaning political slant. Anybody wanna bet?

Can't wait to see Blubberman's take on Zarqawi. I predict the opening will attempt to greatly minimize it's significance, while no mention whatsoever will be paid to how his death may provide a much needed shot in the arm for the U.S. troops and the Iraqi people and it's government . A true American (no matter the political persuasion) would view this moment in history as a good thing. It will then deteriorate into conspiracy-laden gibberish and left-leaning political slant. Hell, maybe he won't even cover it. Remember his up to the minute coverage of the equally significant Canadian terror bust?

You know the take, yeah its ok but the timing is definitely suspect, what with naming the new ministers. The insurgency is the big deal, and Al-Qaeda already has someone else to step in to fill the void. Its good publicity, but really doesn't change anything.

This was written BEFORE Meltdown aired and is speculation.

Look for KO to pull a NY Times and try to turn a positive into a negative. He will be sure to preface the Zarqawi take-out by talking about Haditha and how everything in Iraq has been a disaster. He will follow this by minimizing the effect killing the Zarq man will have. You know, the "others will take his place" speech etc. There is an outside chance that Keith will speculate that Zarqawi was made a martyr by this and it may make things worse by "creating more Zarqawis." As usual, expect the worst spin and anti-Americanism from Keith that you can imagine, and then prepare to be stunned when the real show is worse.

KfK,, that already happened on CNN. It took all the way until about 1 PM today before they ran a very long piece on "What Really Happened" at Hadith with all sorts of video animation and eye witness testimony. Lot's of folks saying it doesn't really matter (Joe Biden was their first guest this morning). Also, CNN is doing all it can to feature the thoughts of Nick Berg's father including sticking him on Larry King.

The one good thing I can say is that MSNBC cancelled Countdown re-runs to cover the breaking news on Zarqawi.

One can only imagine how CNN would have covered World War II.

Keith: Ashleigh Banfield called. She wants her eyeglasses back.

"One can only imagine how CNN would have covered World War II."

I really hope you're not comparing the merits of WWII to this war.

In WWII we were attacked by the Empire of Japan and declared war on the 3 nation Axis powers. Millions of innocent Jews, Pols and whomever else had already been murdered, with a mad-man threatening to take over Europe and the world.

In this war we had a president who had a hard-on to kill a guy because he plotted to assasinate his dad a few years earlier. A guy with no weapons of mass destruction, no means to obtain or build them, had NOT attacked us and had no links to terrorism.

In fact terrorist groups were plotting to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Now, we can consider ourselves a country with the same goals as a group called Ansar al-Islam.

World War Two's merits were for the betterment of the planet. This war is a misguided attempt to root out terrorism. But, instead of finding and killing Osama Bin Laden, we now realize we should have "taken that left at Albequerque", and stayed the hell out of Iraq where we created guys like Zarqaqwi. Glad he's dead... but, he only became a threat once we got to Baghdad.

I saw BO's opening today where he exposed the liberal disgust with zarqawis death. He exposed Jerry Springer, Randi Rhodes, and Michael Berg.
Guarenteed douchebag will spear him tomorrow.

Imus liked Keith Olbermann's comments on Ann Coulter. Hey Why was she fired from MSNBC? Does anyone rember?

Imus liked Olbermann's comments on Ann Coulter. Hey does anybody remember why Ann was fired from MSNBC?

Imus liked Olbermann's comments on Ann Coulter. Hey does anybody remember why Ann was fired from MSNBC?

Coulter was fired from MSNBC in 1997 after an exchange with Bobby Muller, president of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, in which she said, "No wonder you guys lost." (MSNBC's NewsChat, October 11, 1997)

Classy gal.

Just when you thought that Michael Musto couldn't get any more smarmy along comes his theory about Angelina Jolie's incest and that probably her brother is the father of the baby and other equally gross suggestions. If that is meant as satire it sure misses the mark. What in the world did Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt ever due to KO or Musto to deserve this? They seem to be trying to behave like decent citizens of the world under intense media scrutiny and their contributions to help in the third world are definitely more than that of either Olbermann or Musto. I would love to see them bring a slander suite against Musto and also donate that to charity.

We all know that KO has to go but certainly Mr. Musto needs to go first.

The previous post regarding Michael Musto is from Gloria ... not anonymous. Sorry.

"He will be sure to preface the Zarqawi take-out by talking about Haditha and how everything in Iraq has been a disaster."

Well, you're right on a few thing and wrong about others.

Keith did not preface the Zarqawi story with Haditha. It did get proper attention later.

"He will follow this by minimizing the effect killing the Zarq man will have."

Well, for those who deny that Zarqawi isn't the leader he was a year ago (KO was right what he said then), realize he was turned in by one of his own men. That's how we've been getting the intelligence. And, the letter from Ayman al-Zawihiri specifically told him not to target fellow Muslims. Which he continued to do. Zarqawi's star was on the decline.

Still a HUGE WIN for the US. But, I still contend... this guy was a moster created by US occupation.

"You know, the "others will take his place" speech etc."

This was a storyline covered by all of cable news outlets earlier today. They talked about Musi and Muthada al-Sadar. Why would it be unusual for KO to talk about that?

So, all these preconceived ideas about what 'rotten things' Olbermann would do were unfounded.

Haditha did NOT usurp the Zarqawi story.

Zarqawi WAS less of threat yesterday than a year ago... the proof is there.

And, talking about the 'next in line' is a legitimate news item... even covered by your beloved FOX.

Gloria notes:

"Just when you thought that Michael Musto couldn't get any more smarmy along comes his theory about Angelina Jolie's incest and that probably her brother is the father of the baby and other equally gross suggestions. If that is meant as satire it sure misses the mark. What in the world did Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt ever due to KO or Musto to deserve this?"

Saw the MSNBC commercial for Countdown today that declares it "The news program that doesn't feel like a news program!".

Q: Is there now any question as to WHY it doesn't feel like a news program?

A: Because it's not.

The Orange Faced Sports Guy reminds us all why America hates the left. His primary goal tonight was to diminish any importance of the Zarqawi Kill. Not only was it " not that big a deal" , but, alas, the terrorists probably killed him and our forces were simply imbecilic puppets. Moreover, now that he's gone, the horrific vacuum it has created leaves the region and the world in a far more dangerous place. All that aside, according to Edward R. Dufus, Zarqawi was not really much of a terrorist .

Gloria: "What in the world did Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt ever due to KO or Musto to deserve this?"

Ah, lay blame where blame is due. Musto is the one who was pushing that line, KO was doing his best impression of the look Bill O'Reilly uses when Ann Coulter goes off the rails - as in "you have got to be f***in' kidding me".

Keith tried to get Musto away from it, but the Village Voice man would not shake loose.

ObserverDan...

"America hates the left."

This is a blantant lie.

49% of America voted Democratic in the last election. Giving George W. Bush the narrowist margin of victory EVER for an incumbant. Our republican president is still sporting an approval rating hovering around 35%. Poll after poll (including FOX's) show more and more people are losing faith in republican leadership of congress and would prefer democrats. Let's not forget that in 2000 more people voted democratic than republican.

And, this is just a guess... but, I think we'll see more people voting democratic than republican this November. But, that's a 'we'll see.' Regardless, you "American hates the left" is a flat out lie.

I challenge you to prove to your statement is accurate.

Gloria, I didn't see what Musto said about the Brangelina baby, but those two are no paragons of society. Many of us still have traditional values and find it wrong for people to have children out of wedlock. And as far as no one being hurt - let's ask Jennifer Aniston's opinion on that.

Amazing. Even when Keith does the most predictably despicable things, his crazed fans are there to defend him.

Face it, the guy is a monster. He could have gotten on the air and said, "good for you soldiers, you fellow Americans, for killing a mass murderer who beheaded civilians, blew up children, and wantonly murdered hard-working Iraqis." Instead he comes out and tries to demoralize the troops and the audience while providing a boost to the enemy. Leave it to jerks like "James" to declare all of this is swell.

When Kaplan resigned, I felt a loss. The guy was a sort of super villain and served as a focal point for criticism of the angry left. After tonight's show, all of that is gone. I hope Kaplan is home watching Meltdown in his underwear with two days of beard growth, and I can't wait until the Creep of the Countdown joins him.

SCREW YOU KAPPY! WELCOME TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE REST OF YOUR MISERABLE LIFE. YOU ARE NEXT KEITH, SO STOCK UP ON BEER, BUY A COMFY CHAIR FOR YOUR STUDIO APARTMENT IN NEWARK, AND WAIT FOR THE AXE TO FALL YOU MONSTER!

James, wrong.
The Dhimmicrats won 48% of the vote.

Wow, O'Reilly. A whole percentage point off. I suppose that one percent is what prompted that 'mandate' the president didn't win.

KfK. Keep up with the personal attacks. Good to know we have upstanding people like yourself to 'continue reasonable discourse.'

Wow, I honestly think KfK has a problem.

P.S. The "troop hating, anti-American, terrorist-supporter" line got old a couple years ago.

Sorry James. I guess it isn't jerky to diminish the efforts of thousands of your fellow citizens fighting a war thousands of miles away thanklessly. I should have said, "thank God we have patriots like Olby and James who are willing to tell us that Zarqawi was a puppy dog and our military blows."

You and your miserable angry pal Olby are a disgrace to the human race, my friend. If you can't say "job well done" when a monster like Zarqawi is wiped out, you are part of the problem.

I wish you had a chance to meet your defenseless little pal Zarqawi when he was alive. I'm sure your opinion of him would change then.

Anyway, you will soon lose your beloved lefty hero when he a)gets fired b) blows a brain vessel c) confronts a subway door with his head d) runs himself over with his own scooter

Take your pick

Nosense typed:

>P.S. The "troop hating, anti-American, terrorist-supporter" line got old a couple years ago.

Such a stupid statement does not deserve a response, but I can't resist.

#1 I didn't type that dopey

#2. If someone is a "troop hating, anti-American, terrorist-supporter," what do you suggest they be called you idiot. Now, I will tell you that Olby indeed is anti-American, anti-Military and as a result pro-terrorist. How is that a "line?" It is the truth you wretched moron from Hades.

Hi everyone!

You may recognize me as the brains behind MSNBC's prime-time ratings juggernaut. Well, I want to tell you all how happy I am that I accomplished my mission! "Mission accomplished" is my motto.

Since leaving MSNBC I have received many job offers, all for huge sums of money and all for prestigious positions. I am sure you are jealous.

Anyway, I am not above entertaining offers of all types, so if you are looking for an executive with TV knowhow and a stellar record of the highest standards and ratings, jot me an email at:

Lonewolf32_TVman@hotmail.net

I am willing to work hard and long. I am also very tall which is ideal for getting things from shelves. I have experience in fields other than TV if that is helpful. I can dictate fifty words a minute and know how to ski.

KfK said. "I guess it isn't jerky to diminish the efforts of thousands of your fellow citizens fighting a war thousands of miles away thanklessly.

Read closer, this is what I said.

"Glad he's dead... but, he only became a threat once we got to Baghdad."

And I said,

"Still a HUGE WIN for the US. But, I still contend... this guy was a moster created by US occupation."

I fail to see where I diminished their efforts. I just told the ENTIRE truth. I simply added that he - while still a monster - did't have as much power in al-Quada as he once did. And, my belief that his stardom rose in the extremist Islamic community due to his terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks prompted by our occupation of Baghdad.

I'm sorry telling the entire truth troubles you. But, the GOOD NEWS of his death is not the ENTIRE story. You should get in the habit of telling the entire truth. It would give you more credibility.

And just to reiterate... your insinuation I diminished the troops efforts is an outright lie. Godbless you, Kfk.

#1 I didn't type that dopey

Not literally word-for-word, no. But it's the same right-wing pablum that's been fed to liberals since 9/11. Dress it however you want, but it's still the same.

#2. If someone is a "troop hating, anti-American, terrorist-supporter," what do you suggest they be called you idiot. Now, I will tell you that Olby indeed is anti-American, anti-Military and as a result pro-terrorist. How is that a "line?" It is the truth you wretched moron from Hades.

First, you set up a false dichotomy (A person can be anti-military and not be pro-terrorist. Quakers could be considered by definition to be anti-military because they are pacifists. Are Quakers therefore pro-terrorist?)

Second, you make it sound like we have to blindly accept everything the White House says and does in order to be "good Americans". Otherwise, we are cowards or traitors. Sorry, but I'm not a little tin soldier that never questions what I'm told.

Third, you claim it is the "truth", yet offer nothing to assert that position.

Fourth, your "reasonable discourse" needs work...

I was actually referring to KfK, but the same could be applied to many conservatives on the internet. How exactly is Olbermann Anti-American? The statement alone should be enough to invalidate all points you make, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

And KfK, what did you think about Keith's segment on Zarqawi?

"Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues... We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue." - President Bush

Gosh... that doesn't sound very optomistic. No, WAY TO GO US TROOPS! WAY TO BLOW UP THE BAD GUY! THIS IS A GREAT DAY!.

It just says, this is good... but, don't think it means all is well.

In fact, it doesn't sound any more or less diminishing of what I've said... or gee, what Olbermann said for that matter.

Easy to trash liberals pointing out facts... but, when the President is on point - with what us liberals are saying - suddenly you go deaf. C'mon... why aren't you criticizing the President, KfK?

James wrote: "Glad he's dead... but, he only became a threat once we got to Baghdad." A threat to who? Coalition soldiers, international media, Iraqi citizens? What about when he tried to overthrow the Government of Jordan? Not a threat then?

Why is it that all these "freedom fighters" and insurgents we keep hearing about, with few exceptions, aren't even from Iraq? Or for that matter, Afghanistan? It's like these guys are running from country to country trying to oppress other nationalities and force their twisted, sadistic beliefs on them.

Also, does anyone really not see the glee KO has when reporting bad news from Iraq? Either he is simply pandering to the most Liberal wing of the Democrat party (his "base"), he for some reason wants to give the impression that he is in eager anticipation of the failure of the US to win the war, or he really wants the US to lose. Don't know him well enough to make a decision on which, but, honestly, any of the three seem to fit his MO.

Jihad James took this quote from the Prez to defend peoples' hero Olby's pessimistic view of the death of the viscious terrorist Zarqawi:

>"Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues... We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue." - President Bush

Of course he chose this quote! It is a favorite of the lib media and the core of the liberal mantra "Zarqawi was nobody, the war goes on, we are doomed." Never mind the COUNTLESS stories savaging Bush for "letting Zarqawi go" in the past, as well as stories about how deadly and important the man was. Now that he is dead, he is no longer useful, and the drive-by media drives on.

Of course, these are the quotes James left out -- you know, the ones that Olby would never give a moments thought to:

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-08T125337Z_01_N08286146_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-ZARQAWI-BUSH.xml

President Bush said on Thursday the killing of al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, offers a chance to "turn the tide" in the war and that he will discuss the U.S. deployment in Iraq with Iraqi leaders next week.

Bush said Wednesday's death of the Jordanian-born Zarqawi "is a severe blow to al Qaeda," a victory in the war on terrorism, and "an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide in this struggle."

Now, I don't think Olby came within a gigamile of uttering anything of the sort. Nice try James. Maybe you'll get lucky and your terrorist buddies will come back strong in Iraq just like you and Olby hope.

Maybe you'll get lucky and your terrorist buddies will come back strong in Iraq just like you and Olby hope.

Get off your high horse, KfK, the lack of oxygen is impairing your brain.

KfK WOW! You are on it tonight. I didn't hear Olbermann (been working on my spelling Observer Dan)bash the troops. I thought maybe he was expressing the concern that Al-Qaeda was using American troops to get rid of Zarqawi. There may have been a letter that showed some of the higher ups in Al-Qaeda were unhappy with Zarqawi. I know this may be hard to believe because Al-Qaeda is one of the more ethical terrorist organizations. This makes me curious about the source of intelligence on Zarqawi location.

Mr. Dollar,
"The ideology of terror has lost its most visible, aggressive leader."... Maybe I missed the memo, I had a couple days off this year. I thought there was a, uh, Bin Laden was somehow involved in all this.
Did Zarqawi plan the attacks on 9/11? Did he create and organize Al-Qaeda? I hope the death of Zarqawi changes or quiets the insurgents so we can get our troops home. (Congrats to Task Force 145 on killing Zarqawi!) Zarqawi was a two-bit Jordanian thug with a gun and bombs. Even the people of Iraq were sick of him. He does not compare to Bin Laden. Bin Laden is the guy I want to see dead not in a cave. By the way here is a few of those military people calling for Rummy's resigination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/washington/14military.html?ex=1302667200&en=945078c184e96b80&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This a little old, from The New York Times. KfK here is your chance to read something beside these postings.

I didn't ignore the presidents comments, KfK. It's my job to know what he says.

But, I'll tell you what... for all the 'turns of the tide' we've had in this war... I'm shocked we haven't had a flood. And Lord knows this administration has already proven it doesn't know what to do when that happens.

The death of Zarqawi is due to the great work of our military technology and the brave men and women who make it work. If they hadn't been hampered by a Chief of Staff with no military experience, a vice-president with no military experience, and a defense secretary who refuses to listen to his generals, we would be a lot further along.

This week's success was dispite the president and his administration... not because of them.

Pathetic James. Even when you try to sound like a real American, you can't.

I am glad to hear you have a job. My guess would be it is some left wing crap job, but you are working nonetheless.

Dannyboy,

I don't read the NY Slimes. It is a left wing piece of shit. See www.timeswatch.org for an "Olbermannwatch" style Fisking of that awful paper. Instead, I read a billion articles on the web from various sources, all of them far better than the Slimes.

Bin Laden is cowering in a cave somewhere with his crazy Doctor pal and you consider him more important than Zarqawi? What a joke. If we asked you who the #1 terrorist was before Zarqawi was wacked, you would have said he was your favorite.

Bin Laden is cowering in a cave somewhere with his crazy Doctor pal and you consider him more important than Zarqawi?

Yes, if only because he is responsible for masterminding the greatest act of mass murder in the history of this nation. We invaded Afghanistan to "get Osama" and yet here we are 4 1/2 years later and no closer to getting him.

Zarqawi was like those cardboard targets that came with the $2 dart gun. Very good at being "visible", but he only became a target because of our actions.

Am I glad he's dead? Absolutely. But in the grand scheme of things he's a very small fish.

HEY KOOKS!

Here is an audio file of someone like you -- Nick Berg's Dad. He seems to feel badly that his son's decapitator is dead. Well, here is a picture and a link for your pleasure, Olbyites:

http://www.video.exposetheleft.net/video/gibby-berg.mp3

Poor Nick was doomed with a wacked-out parent like this. He and Sheehan deserve each other.

Those two idiots look awfully happy for a couple of grieving parents. They must be pals with the despicable Jersey girls.

KFK!

"Pathetic James. Even when you try to sound like a real American, you can't."

Wow you didn't get any smarter since the last time I interacted with you.

lets sit here and review the rules for some "real American" speak here on olbermannwatch

1) Say whatever George Bush says is right and true. Do not - repeat Do not mention his failures. above all you must never disagree with him. That is not your place and shows independent thought.

2) Guys like Murtha and Kerry are pussies. Five Deferments Dick who had better things to do than go to vietnam is a real American, and a tough guy to boot, just ask the guy he shot in the face.

3) Gays are scary, if they get together and marry it will mean your christian children can't.

4) Never beleive the mainstream media. Republicans blogs are the only accurate places to recieve news.

5) Bill O'Reilley is an independent and unbiased newsman, even if he has registered to vote as a Republican.

6) it is ok for Bill to be biased but not Keith. keith is liberal and liberal is bad.

7 )No matter how reasonable a post you see from a liberal do not respond with logic or facts. That only encourages them to think reasonable discourse is possible. Call them names instead. it's easier and requires less thinking.

Follow these simple rules and you not only can survive but thrive here on olbermann watch

"My guess would be it is some left wing crap job."
You won't believe me, but I'll tell you anyway. I work for the FOX News Network. Literally. I am not joking.

And what do you do for a living besides slander and insult people?

KfK your saying "Bin Laden is cowering in a cave somewhere" Then why have we not caught him. Are you honestly saying that Zarqawi was more important in Al-Qaeda than Bin Laden? Seriously cause if you are I just want you to clarify that. I'm giving you a chance to back away from this. you have read no articles in your multiple sources about former military people asking Rummy to resign. If you are reading "billion articles on the web from various sources", then tell me some of them. I'm sure I can find other sources but no matter what source I find you will call it a sophomoric name.
Here is a web-site you might find interesting.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/24/eighth-general/

Here is an article by the leftist leaning publication about Zarqawi. It shows the influence over Al-Qaeda and other Muslims that Zarqawi didn’t have.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051128&s=lake112805

I know you won't check these web-sites out but guess what? The first one is Fox. Yes Fox. Are they wrong too? The second one is The new Republic. Common give me a source KfK.

Dannyboy,

I will wait for Olbermann to do his "top five terrorists" gala show before commenting on Bin Laden. I think it is dumb to rank these terrorists. I think it is dumb to belittle their annihilation. In short, I think you are dumb. I can tell you I am glad that the terrorist who has killed our troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis is now dead, and that makes me smile just as much as seeing the domestic propagandist Rick Kaplan jobless. While Zarqawi has been killing, Bin Laden has been dormant thanks to our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With any luck he will be dead next, and you libs can crow about how he was "only a figurehead" and how Al Qaeda will persevere.

James,

Goes to show ya -- Fox hires all comers, even the mentally handicapped. I just hope your job doesn't require any honest intellectual activity. I have a job at Air America radio -- perhaps we should switch places?

James, this isn't a personal attack, just an observation if you’re going to claim a place of some authority ("It's my job to know what he says.") within a major network. Just a couple days ago you responded to one of my comments with "at my station." Most people who work for the top ranked (by a lot) cable news network in the US wouldn't call it a station.

Also, please tell me you aren't the guy who types things into the teleprompter, as your spelling needs some serious work. If you're going to continue to use the word "snipit," please learn how it's spelled.

Now to address the substance of your comments:
Was or was not Zarqawi the leader of Al- Qaeda in Iraq? Regardless of his position in Al-Qaeda, he was the leader of their Iraqi faction. This is acknowledged by the fact that Bin Laden’s henchmen wrote the letter to him. Not to anyone else. He was a murdering thug, who is directly responsible for the death of Nick Berg, which alone makes it a major development to have found and terminated him. He is also responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of US and Coalition soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and international media. In addition, and in my opinion vastly underplayed, is the fact that 6 other high ranking individuals (including his “spiritual leader”) in the group were eliminated with him. That is a major feat in one operation.
That Zarqawi is no longer a threat is indeed a turning point in the war in Iraq. If nothing else, it will cause a major reshuffling of the group, and a huge slow down in their activities while they try to find a new head.
Of course the violence won’t stop as a result of this win. There are still others out there like Zarqawi (al-Sadr for one). But it is a victory for the US and Iraq.

Rick Kaplan didn't quit, he was fired
Krazy Keith is the moonbat he hired
Rick's ideas were failing
So NBC sent him sailing
And his shows will soon be retired

The Bushiad
Chapter 2: Rattling of Sabres

As February’s feverish talk of war spreads,
Nations send delegates to the great council,
Where each has his say about the looming storm
And proposes a response. The assembled
Choose sides: one calls for peace,
The other war.

They fill the vast chamber of the United Nations,
On the banks of the East River in the Big Apple,
Where the legs of the twin towers stood,
Colossus standing watch over the harbor,
Now fallen, turned to rubble, only memories
Of silhouettes and gaping holes remain.

Each delegate gives his speech,
Arguments on one side or the other.
Promised U.S. foreign aid or
Loan guarantees on purchases of
Hardware and weapons of destruction
Secure some allegiance to the holy war.

Villepin from France draws firm applause.
He draws upon the loyalty of others who enjoy
The economic benefits of working with both sides.
Colonialism having given way to neo-liberal capital,
The French pursue a policy of “no size fits all”
And apply post-modernist financial theory.

“Iraq is not a foie-gras goose,” says he,
"To be slaughtered for its fatted liver.”
“This Iraqi pot-au-feu is not yet done,
Politics gets richer while it thickens.” They
Lick their lips, salivating at the savory philosophy
And think about reservations for lunch at 21.

“The inspectors, led by Blix, need time,” he says.
“Besides, it’s almost truffle season and war
Is inconvenient; please be patient.” The
Delegates stir in their seats, after all
No one wants to wait in line for lunch. A
Recess is called for the balance of the day.

Proud Powell, sitting at his table,
Bites his tongue and tastes metallic blood,
Sips some water from his glass and swallows.
“Now’s not the time to blow my top,” he sighs.
“That French Fop and his continental buddies
Have ruined my appetite; I hate old Europe.”
Proud Powell, heroic bronze warrior
Of the Gulf war of ‘91, holds back
His bubbling fury not letting on at all
That other, grander plans were made months ago,
Long before debate in these august halls
In vain hope of finding lasting peace.

Foul Rumsfeld conceived a vile plot, to turn
The rising tide of fear and public apprehension
That flowed from 9-11 to a sour wound of hate. His plan:
Turn 9-11 lemons into lemonade, sell it to the world
To slake thirst for revenge while building
Corporate profits with the grand machine of war.

From all across the U.S. armies gather,
Men and women, battle gear, armor shining,
Organized and prepared with great tools of war,
Sent from from every city, every county, every state,
Grouped in the wine dark Mediterranean and Arabian Sea
Restless and ready for battle in long gray ships.

The Bushiad
Chapter 2: Rattling of Sabres

As February?s feverish talk of war spreads,
Nations send delegates to the great council,
Where each has his say about the looming storm
And proposes a response. The assembled
Choose sides: one calls for peace,
The other war.

They fill the vast chamber of the United Nations,
On the banks of the East River in the Big Apple,
Where the legs of the twin towers stood,
Colossus standing watch over the harbor,
Now fallen, turned to rubble, only memories
Of silhouettes and gaping holes remain.

Each delegate gives his speech,
Arguments on one side or the other.
Promised U.S. foreign aid or
Loan guarantees on purchases of
Hardware and weapons of destruction
Secure some allegiance to the holy war.

Villepin from France draws firm applause.
He draws upon the loyalty of others who enjoy
The economic benefits of working with both sides.
Colonialism having given way to neo-liberal capital,
The French pursue a policy of ?no size fits all?
And apply post-modernist financial theory.

?Iraq is not a foie-gras goose,? says he,
"To be slaughtered for its fatted liver.?
?This Iraqi pot-au-feu is not yet done,
Politics gets richer while it thickens.? They
Lick their lips, salivating at the savory philosophy
And think about reservations for lunch at 21.

?The inspectors, led by Blix, need time,? he says.
?Besides, it?s almost truffle season and war
Is inconvenient; please be patient.? The
Delegates stir in their seats, after all
No one wants to wait in line for lunch. A
Recess is called for the balance of the day.

Proud Powell, sitting at his table,
Bites his tongue and tastes metallic blood,
Sips some water from his glass and swallows.
?Now?s not the time to blow my top,? he sighs.
?That French Fop and his continental buddies
Have ruined my appetite; I hate old Europe.?
Proud Powell, heroic bronze warrior
Of the Gulf war of ?91, holds back
His bubbling fury not letting on at all
That other, grander plans were made months ago,
Long before debate in these august halls
In vain hope of finding lasting peace.

Foul Rumsfeld conceived a vile plot, to turn
The rising tide of fear and public apprehension
That flowed from 9-11 to a sour wound of hate. His plan:
Turn 9-11 lemons into lemonade, sell it to the world
To slake thirst for revenge while building
Corporate profits with the grand machine of war.

From all across the U.S. armies gather,
Men and women, battle gear, armor shining,
Organized and prepared with great tools of war,
Sent from from every city, every county, every state,
Grouped in the wine dark Mediterranean and Arabian Sea
Restless and ready for battle in long gray ships.

Here's a quote you could use anonymous... "Brevity is the soul of wit"...

Rumor has it there are some embarrassing emails out there written by Olby that will be surfacing soon.

How could they any more embarrasing than the show he puts on every night?

James,
I hope we catch Bin Laden too. If we do I will
petition to get Bush's face on Mt. Rushmore. I agree with you that Zarqawi was the face of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now that he is dead does that mean Al-Qaeda is gone from Iraq? Is all insurgent activity Al-Qaeda based? I'm glad Zarqawi is dead(as I have stated this on other postings). I just think Bin Laden is the big target. Does anybody want to catch Bin Laden? By the way, I didn't think U.S. troops were allowed in Pakistan? Thought that was the trouble with catching Bin Laden?

John wrote:
"Rumor has it there are some embarrassing emails out there written by Olby that will be surfacing soon"

Is it possible that a colleague of Oafermann's is dropping the dime? Oh, the irony.

" please tell me you aren't the guy who types things into the teleprompter, as your spelling needs some serious work."

No, I promise I'm not that guy. I'd be fired immediately because - let's just be blunt... my spelling is atrocious.

As far as what I do and where I do it... I don't want to say too much for fear a higher up may see this. But, I will say I work on air at an O&O station with semi-frequent work for the mother ship.

On to what you said... I agree with ALL OF IT. Everything you said about Zarqawi. In fact, I don't think you could have said it more perfectly. "Murdering thug, head of al-Quada in Iraq, great victory" you're totally on point.

The only thing I was trying to say is that when all this started five years ago... he wasn't the one we were after. And, by what the military told us (one of his own people turning informant), he was clearly losing support. Including from Bin Landen, evidenced by the Zwahiri letter.

Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more on nearly everything you wrote. I'm just saying his death (along with the great score of everyone else who was hit) needs to be tempered by the fact that 1-someone is going to take his place... and 2-this isn't going to stop insurgency.

But again... this was probably the best news to come out of Iraq in a long-long time.

I promise to eat my words and apologize ON THIS BOARD for a lot of things I've said about the administration and Bush if Iraq works out. I hope I'll have to do that. But, for now... I'm enjoying this victory by our troops and I'm still waiting and watching.

Thank you, too, Scott. That was a great post without attacking anyone. CAN WE ALL DO THAT MORE OFTEN PLEASE.

James,
I hope we catch Bin Laden too. If we do I will
petition to get Bush's face on Mt. Rushmore. I agree with you that Zarqawi was the face of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now that he is dead does that mean Al-Qaeda is gone from Iraq? Is all insurgent activity Al-Qaeda based? I'm glad Zarqawi is dead(as I have stated this on other postings). I just think Bin Laden is the big target. Does anybody want to catch Bin Laden? By the way, I didn't think U.S. troops were allowed in Pakistan? Thought that was the trouble with catching Bin Laden?

I agree Brandon.

Unless Keith writes about fantasies of having a menage trois with O'Reilly and Anne Coulter, this guy isn't capable of being embarrassed.

Enraged...and taking it out on any underling in the vicinity, maybe....but surely not embarrassed...

Thanks Cecilia. I know my shakespeare pretty well. here is a quote you could use.

"The dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits"

I hope nobody forgets that we are scheduled to catch Osama this October---After all, there are votes to be cast this November.......Don't forget, we will catch Bin Laden this October....Yes we will, I promise!!!!!!!!!

KfK,
I don't think your dumb just uninformed on some issues. Sorry, James my last posting wasn't directed at you. Scott that was a nice posting without name calling and you addressed the specific posting you were talking about. I make a pledge to refrain from name calling. Does anyone want to join me?

Anonymous,

Don't you think you're being a bit hard on yourself...

CNN is covering live a press conference with Bush and the Danish Prime Minister. Every other word out of his mouth is `Al Qaeda.` The Bush team is going back to their old strategy of scaring Americans, (since the gay marriage scare didn`t seem to take.) Plus, he`s having a BIG meeting at Camp David on Monday and Tuesday to come up with an Iraq strategy. Yes, they`ve finally figured out they need a strategy.

What pisses me off is why can't the liberals at least allow rigormortis to set in on Zarqawi before moving on to their pessimistic views of the war effort? The left showed it's tue colors once again by revealing it's short-sighted and selfish agenda. If you show a little class and exhibit a little partisanship once in a while (especially in terms of grave national importance) you may possibly be taken seriously. Give credit where credit is due. Let's share in the success. We're all Americans damn it!! (I think).

" I make a pledge to refrain from name calling. Does anyone want to join me?"

That's how I've been working since I started posting here... so I'm in. KfK?

`What pisses me off is why can`t the liberals at least allow rigormortis to set in on Zarqawi before moving on to their pessimistic views of the war effort?`

because it is a reflection of the truth, rather than right-wing faith-not-reality-based bullshit. not only is the iraq `war` deserving of pessimism, it warrants contempt ... for being a bad idea to begin with, lied about throughout, and ineptly, corruptly, and criminally bungled in its implementation.

.............

WASHINGTON -- ... Another part of the Specter bill would grant blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized warrantless surveillance under presidential authority, a provision that seems to ensure that no one would be held criminally liable if the current program is found illegal under present law.

..............

AMNESTY for Bush, because he committed the high crime of treason. and don`t try to feed us any of your bullshit about the wartime necessities of violating the constitution. the constitution is what you protect at all costs, not executive power.

"Don't you think you're being a bit hard on yourself..."

No I think I am Accurately describing you.

Hey Rich:

You wrote..."because it is a reflection of the truth, rather than right-wing faith-not-reality-based bullshit. not only is the iraq `war` deserving of pessimism, it warrants contempt ... for being a bad idea to begin with, lied about throughout, and ineptly, corruptly, and criminally bungled in its implementation"...

Same old, rehashed liberal talking points. Neither you nor I know the absolute truth about the circumstances surrounding the implementation and reasons for such, but they way I look at it, even if our Government's reasoning for action is suspect, I'm damn glad we did it. The Bush Administration came up with as much as they could to justify the war effort and I would have been supportive of the decision with a helluva lot less. We were visciously attacked by elements of that region and Hussein was inarguabley a mass murderer and that violated 17 UN Resolutions (thus justifying military action). The WMDs? You and I know they existed and I'm glad the president played that one conservatively (no pun intended). We killed two birds with one stone by going over there; by taking the fight to our attackers and legally removing a cancer. And I thank God everyday that George Bush is our president and not Al Gore or John Kerry. Thinking of that scares the hell out of me. What say you Rich?

"The Bush Administration came up with as much as they could to justify the war effort"

Don't you mean 'made up?'

Just some of the presidents lies...

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
- President Bush, United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
President Bush, Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
- President Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- President Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- President Bush, Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

Every single one of these statements has been proven false. Yes, as you said... the Bush administration certainly did "COME UP WITH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE to justify the war in Iraq."

The other bit of your post I'd like to take issue with...

" Neither you nor I know the absolute truth about the circumstances surrounding the implementation and reasons for such"

So... no one knows for sure. UNTIL we start talking about the WMD's that were NEVER FOUND.

" The WMDs? You and I know they existed"

So, which is it? Either we don't know the absolute truth... or we know they existed?

You're picking and choosing with facts you choose to believe. The facts are... WMD'S were NEVER FOUND. The sooner you admit that, the sooner you can see truly this adminstration and the witch hunt its on.

`Same old, rehashed liberal talking points.`

valid then. valid now.

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

`even if our Government`s reasoning for action is suspect`

highly suspect. highly flawed. bad reasoning, bad idea, bad results.

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

`The Bush Administration came up with as much as they could to justify the war effort `

you got that right. they `came up with` as much as they could to SELL it ... like a fradulent bill of goods.

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

`We were visciously attacked by elements of that region`

wrong. Iraq was not behind 9/11. you`re just one of the poor suckers that bought into the false, lying bill of goods this administration conned the american public into believing.

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

`The WMDs? You and I know they existed`

apparently not. it seems the sanctions were working pretty well. we had the guy contained. and now we`ve screwed the middle east pooch but good, damaged our military, and will end up spending a trillion bucks (after all the veterans benefits come due).

all to make matters much, much worse -- NOT better.

What I'm simply saying James, is that there was plenty of justification in going to war based on facts alone (i.e. WMDs were used therefore they existed, Hussein was in violation of 17 UN Resolutions, and we took the fight to our attackers.

Put yourself in the President's shoes for a moment. What would you have done to ensure the security of your nation in light of the aformentioned circumstances? Appease? Negotiate? Sustain a few more attacks to make sure we're really threatened? Wait til Hussein gases more people? What would it take James for you to take action to protect us? President Bush has been courageous and steadfast in his commitment to the security of his nation and again I thank God that he is our president.

Dannyboy wrote:

>KfK, I don't think your dumb just uninformed on some issues.

Well I am glad to hear that!

As far as the embarassing emails, I can see a million ways Keith could be embarassed by his email. The kook probably cries and wails about everyone and every thing including liberals he would never dare attack on his show. I am sure he also wears his inferiority complex on his sleeve.

That loopy wackjob is precious. I look forward to seeing his ramblings.

John Paul, you`re the prototypical ditto-headed fool ... and have bought into all the bullshit you were criminally spoon fed.

Anon --

Way to put John Paul in his place! I like the way you called him a "ditto head" and ignored his stupid questions! Why answer him! Yeah!

Some people say that Saddam's uranium stockpile and desire to refuse weapons inspections was concerning. Well, I say it wasn't. Just like the Iranians, Saddam was a-OK! I mean, why would they want a nuke? I think we should have let Saddam do whatever he wanted.

Again, good job dude!

And DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE -- IT WILL JUST MAKE YOU HAVE TO REFUTE IT:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/8/112447.shtml

James invokes;
" The only thing I was trying to say is that when all this started five years ago... he wasn't the one we were after. "

Thankfully James, you are not my surgeon. You are unwilling to accept the fact that the fast growing tumorous growth is gonna kill me because I've had diabetes for 20 years. Why cut out the tumor? It wasn't there 5 years ago. The diagnosis is diabetes and you are damn well gonna stick to it.

The anonymous comment above is mine, sorry.

ObservarDan...

I see the analogy you're trying to make. The difference here is that diabetes doesn't cause tumors.

If we had stuck to our guns, gone after Bin Laden, and not bothered with Iraq... no one would even know who Zarqawi was.

By going into Iraq we ignored Bin Laden and helped create Zarqawi.

"Put yourself in the President's shoes for a moment. What would you have done to ensure the security of your nation...?"

John Paul... I can admire what you believe the president's doing. You're totally intitled to that and what you're saying makes sense. The only difference here (from what you've said) is difference of opinion.

What would I have done... I would have waited unitl there was more support from other nations. There was no imminent threat, so we could have waited. By doing so we would not have ruined the worldwide support we had after 9/11 (which is long gone). And, we would have avoided the hatred we're seeing from extremists groups around the world.

We DID go into Afghanistan with worldwide support. We COULD HAVE gone after Bin Laden with worldwide support. Instead, we've pissed off nearly everyone in the world by going into the wrong country... and are now mired in a civil war we helped create with no clear idea of how or when we're going to be able to leave.

Unfortunately, I fear our children and their children will be the victims of terrorist and extremist attacks on our soil as retrobution for us sticking our nose where it doesnt belong. I hope I'm wrong.

So, to answer your question... I would have waited longer, built more support. I know many of you say that support wasn't going to happan... but, I think time has proven the rest of the world who wasn't supporting us at the time knew what they were talking about.

But again, ObsDan... I admire the beliefs you have. In the end I hope you're more right about this president than I am.

Sorry John Paul... that entire last post was directed at you. I didn't meant to write in 'ObsDan ' at the end. That's what I get for posting twice in a row.

`there was plenty of justification in going to war based on facts alone`

hardly; as the facts ever since have revealed.

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

`What would you have done to ensure the security of your nation in light of the aformentioned circumstances? Appease? Negotiate?`

focus on bin laden/afghanistan.
contain sadaam/iraq, which was working.
spend the trillion here on homeland security.

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

`Sustain a few more attacks to make sure we`re really threatened?`

we were not attacked by Iraq on 9/11.

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

`Some people say that Saddam`s uranium stockpile and desire to refuse weapons inspections was concerning.`

he was sufficiently contained.

Maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to understand this, but if Iraq is so unrelated to the war on terror (not 9/11, the overall war on terrorists) why are there terrorists/insurgents/"freedom fighters" (pick your favorite) from numerous Mid-Eastern countries there. Why is Al-Qaeda there at all?
Are they just so anxious for a fight that they think they have the resources to fight a sustained battle on two fronts? It seems that in the rush to soundbite the war, by both parties, we aren't getting the whole picture.

`Maybe I`m just not intelligent enough to understand this, but if Iraq is so unrelated to the war on terror (not 9/11, the overall war on terrorists) why are there terrorists/insurgents/`freedom fighters` (pick your favorite) from numerous Mid-Eastern countries there. Why is Al-Qaeda there at all?`

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

because the U.S. invaded the fertile crescent.

a southern rebel/fighter from the war between the states was captured in Georgia and a Union soldier asked him why he was fighting for the Confederacy and the southerner said, `cause y`all are down here.`

"if Iraq is so unrelated to the war on terror (not 9/11, the overall war on terrorists) why are there terrorists/insurgents/"freedom fighters" (pick your favorite) from numerous Mid-Eastern countries there. Why is Al-Qaeda there at all?"
----------------------------

anon already made the point Scott, but I'll reiterrate... They weren't there until we were.

Remember, directly after 9/11 we were concerned with al-Qaeda. They were in Afghanistan.

Eventually, we decided to invade Iraq because 'there were WMD's.' Then, 'because Saddam was a killer.' Then it was 'because we want to spread freedom.' I'm not sure what the current reasoning is.

Anyway, Saddam was in no way whatsoever involved with al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission determined that, and it was confirmed by numerous military leaders, including Collin Powell.

Insurgents and al-Qaeda showed up later, after our occupation took hold. To put it simply, Iraq is a Muslim brother to these extremists. They knew the rest of the world was against the US... and this was a venue where they could kill people and make the US look bad.

We created this entire mess by invading Iraq.

`not only is the iraq `war` deserving of pessimism, it warrants contempt ... for being a bad idea to begin with, lied about throughout, and ineptly, corruptly, and criminally bungled in its implementation`

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

1. $21 Billion for Iraqi reconstruction goes missing.
2. Congress gets wind of it and writes a bill authorizing investigation.
3. Bush signs the bill, but adds a signing statement preventing any investigation.

THE CASE OF THE MISSING $21 BILLION
When the Boston Globe, this past April, broke the story that President Bush has been quietly setting aside over 750 acts passed by Congress, claiming he has the authority as `unitary executive` and as commander in chief to ignore such laws, it turned out that one of the laws the president chose to ignore was the one establishing the special inspector general post for Iraq. What the president did was write a so-called `signing statement` on the side (unpublicized of course), saying that the new inspector general would have no authority to investigate any contracts or corruption issues involving the Pentagon.

James wrote:

>We created this entire mess by invading Iraq.

How true! If we hadn't invaded Iraq, the USS Cole and our embassies would not have been bombed. The world trade center would not have been bombed in '93 and '01, and Somalia would not have happened. Our invading Iraq has retrospectively caused all of this to occur. We were beloved in the Middle East before the invasion, which sent ripples back in time to create the hostility we see today.

Whether you believe that the Iraq was is right or wrong, Zarqawi was an important leader in the global jihadist movement and was so LONG BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR. My pals over at the CFR (hardly a conservative think tank) sent me a link to this backgrounder on Zarqawi which they published yesterday.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9866/

I'd encourage those who are commenting on Zarqawi (on both sides) to read it first then comment from an informed perspective. Here are a few highlights:

- In early 1989, Zarqawi moved to Afghanistan, hoping to join the fight against Soviet occupation, which by that time was already dwindling significantly. He spent time working in Peshawar, a Pakistani border town known for its illicit black market, and for its bristling Islamic radicalism.

- It was in Peshawar that Zarqawi adopted the fundamentalist Salafist faith, which experts say fuels his animosity toward Shiite Muslims and moderate Muslim governments. It may also have been in Peshawar that Zarqawi first crossed paths with Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi then working to organize support for what he perceived as the beginnings of a global holy war.

- Zarqawi and bin Laden most likely met in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, in 2000, though it is possible the two met in Peshawar in the early 1990s. Despite their mutual interests, Zarqawi repeatedly refused to join bin Laden's al-Qaeda group, according to widespread accounts.

- At some point in the mid-1990s, after another stint in prison, Zarqawi formed a group called Tawhid, or "Unity." Tawhid was initially funded by the Afghan Taliban government, and its efforts focused on training suicide bombers in a number of camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

- Though there is no financial paper trail linking Zarqawi to al-Qaeda, bin Laden at least nominally welcomed "union" with Zarqawi in videotapes broadcast by al-Jazeera—going so far as to call Zarqawi "the emir of the al-Qaeda organization in the land of the Tigris and the Euphrates."

- At the time of his death, Zarqwai was Iraq's leading coordinator of terror.

I'd say the facts do not support those arguing that Zarqwai was a genuine al Qaeda leader in the sense that he was ever part of bin Laden's organization. He certainly was NOT under bin Laden's control. In fact, if we accept that the Zawahiri letter to be authentic, Zarqwai was viewed by al Qaeda as out of control and working against the goals of al Qaeda (by killing Muslims). To that extent the, not only is Zarqawi's death not a victory over al Qaeda but something that may well have been welcomed (or even brought about by) al Qaeda.

That said, there is no doubt that Zarqawi was the most active, most vicious and most "successful" jihadi in the world. Beyond that, the "myth of Zarqawi" gave him a near super-human prescence in the Middle East. He was a hero to many and an inspiration to the current generation of jihadis, especially those operating in Iraq.

His death then is clearly a major victory in the war on terror, an unalloyed good for the United States, and a welcome boost for the new Iraqi government.

For those on this site to profess to be concerned about getting the troops home, killing Zarqawi was something that had to happen before drawing down coalition forces could be seriously considered. I'd hope we can all agree that anything that brings that day closer is a good thing.

Well, James, since they can't refute you with common sense, sarcastic non-sequitors will have to do.

Your whole post was well put Robert.

Whether you believe that the Iraq was is right or wrong, Zarqawi was an important leader in the global jihadist movement and was so LONG BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR. My pals over at the CFR (hardly a conservative think tank) sent me a link to this backgrounder on Zarqawi which they published yesterday.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9866/

I'd encourage those who are commenting on Zarqawi (on both sides) to read it first then comment from an informed perspective. Here are a few highlights:

- In early 1989, Zarqawi moved to Afghanistan, hoping to join the fight against Soviet occupation, which by that time was already dwindling significantly. He spent time working in Peshawar, a Pakistani border town known for its illicit black market, and for its bristling Islamic radicalism.

- It was in Peshawar that Zarqawi adopted the fundamentalist Salafist faith, which experts say fuels his animosity toward Shiite Muslims and moderate Muslim governments. It may also have been in Peshawar that Zarqawi first crossed paths with Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi then working to organize support for what he perceived as the beginnings of a global holy war.

- Zarqawi and bin Laden most likely met in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, in 2000, though it is possible the two met in Peshawar in the early 1990s. Despite their mutual interests, Zarqawi repeatedly refused to join bin Laden's al-Qaeda group, according to widespread accounts.

- At some point in the mid-1990s, after another stint in prison, Zarqawi formed a group called Tawhid, or "Unity." Tawhid was initially funded by the Afghan Taliban government, and its efforts focused on training suicide bombers in a number of camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

- Though there is no financial paper trail linking Zarqawi to al-Qaeda, bin Laden at least nominally welcomed "union" with Zarqawi in videotapes broadcast by al-Jazeera—going so far as to call Zarqawi "the emir of the al-Qaeda organization in the land of the Tigris and the Euphrates."

- At the time of his death, Zarqwai was Iraq's leading coordinator of terror.

I'd say the facts do not support those arguing that Zarqwai was a genuine al Qaeda leader in the sense that he was ever part of bin Laden's organization. He certainly was NOT under bin Laden's control. In fact, if we accept that the Zawahiri letter to be authentic, Zarqwai was viewed by al Qaeda as out of control and working against the goals of al Qaeda (by killing Muslims). To that extent the, not only is Zarqawi's death not a victory over al Qaeda but something that may well have been welcomed (or even brought about by) al Qaeda.

That said, there is no doubt that Zarqawi was the most active, most vicious and most "successful" jihadi in the world. Beyond that, the "myth of Zarqawi" gave him a near super-human prescence in the Middle East. He was a hero to many and an inspiration to the current generation of jihadis, especially those operating in Iraq.

His death then is clearly a major victory in the war on terror, an unalloyed good for the United States, and a welcome boost for the new Iraqi government.

For those on this site to profess to be concerned about getting the troops home, killing Zarqawi was something that had to happen before drawing down coalition forces could be seriously considered. I'd hope we can all agree that anything that brings that day closer is a good thing.

The impact of this war on our safety is very clear. That has not been another major attack on the US since 9/11. Anyone who claims that it has not helped the war on terrorism doesn't understand the big picture. Go ahead, be apologists for Al Quaeda and terrorists everywhere if you'd like but those of us who are real Americans, who love this country and want to keep her strong and safe and free, cheer his death.

And I just love how all of you defend Olbermann no matter what he does. I suppose if he took out a gun and shot someone on the air you'd claim they had it coming. Maybe we'll get lucky one day and he will do a full-on Howard Beale on air, his great journalistic hero. What does that tell you-his hero is a fictional character just as he plays a fictional character on tv. Believe what you'd like but the truth is that Olbermann does whatever will be the most expediate to advance his flagging career. Look at his ratings: he's 4th out of 5 cable news shows in his time slot. He's pathetic and so are the rest of you for defending him. One day you'll see the light and realize Robert was right all along about him. He's biased. He twists, distorts, lies, there is nothing honest about him in the least, not from his fake orange tan to his pretended empathy with the lefties. If the left was in power, he'd be just to the right of Ann Coulter.

Go ahead, be apologists for Al Quaeda and terrorists everywhere if you'd like but those of us who are real Americans, who love this country and want to keep her strong and safe and free, cheer his death.

I am SICK of people saying I'm not a "real American" because I won't be a cheerleader for a war that wasn't necessary and has been a mass of tactical blunders with occassional bright spots.

Patriotism is not measured by how loud you cheer or how many flags you fly, sir.

James,

If you want to talk facts, how about citing some yourself.

"In this war we had a president who had a hard-on to kill a guy because he plotted to assasinate his dad a few years earlier. A guy with no weapons of mass destruction, no means to obtain or build them, had NOT attacked us and had no links to terrorism."

No links to terrorism? How about that whole $25k to the family of suicide bombers who attack Israel? It may have not been targeted at the US, but Israel is a sovereign country isn't it? Or are you not recognizing Israel's right to exist either? (see that is me alluding you are anti-semitic, an all too common tactic used by the left)

No means to obtain or build wmd? I guess old Saddam kicking out those pesky weapons inspectors was really just a sign that he had grown up. I mean it wasn't like he had invaded a neighboring country before or used wmd previously. I am sure those frequent surface to air missles to our jets in the "no fly zone" was Saddam's way of just saying wassup homies. It wasn't like Saddam's actions were reminding us of someone else in history; namely a country that had been defeated in one war and was then left to its own devices to start an even bigger more destructive war, a war that would engulf the whole world, but you are the WWII expert.

The absence of facts can be even more devastating to the "truth" than just picking out those facts that support your own biases. The regurgitation of other people's opinions does not constitute a fact or the "truth" either. Who was the source that Zarqawi was no longer a heavyweight for Al Qaeda? Was it Secretary General Jane Fonda or her undersecretary Barbara Streisand? Olby forgot to give us the minutes he took from the last commie elitist islamo-facist sympathizer meeting.

"For those on this site to profess to be concerned about getting the troops home, killing Zarqawi was something that had to happen before drawing down coalition forces could be seriously considered. I'd hope we can all agree that anything that brings that day closer is a good thing."

I agree RCox, bring the troops home!!!! Job is done. If it is not please define it for me or at least a close estimate of when it will be.

>I am SICK of people saying I'm not a "real American"

If so many people are saying it, maybe you should look into whether it is true or not.

"If so many people are saying it, maybe you should look into whether it is true or not."

Word to my brother,man!

I wonder if that morally outraged Anonymous is the same morally outraged Anonymous who gave us the speech on human worth when the point was about television audience demographics?...

I think Bob should just pre-empt his/her speeches before they are posted and just run them up a flag pole so we can all salute them...

Anon writes (in reponse to a question posed concerning the invasion of Iraq):

`What would you have done to ensure the security of your nation in light of the aformentioned circumstances? Appease? Negotiate?`

focus on bin laden/afghanistan.
contain sadaam/iraq, which was working.

Ah, yes, the "continue to 'contain' Sadaam" strategy. Yes, that was a strategy that was getting great results anon-- not!

Time for a reality check, anon. Containment was NOT working. Check out this link (if you dare) to find out the true story about how well 'containment' was working:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmVmYjU1NGJkNzMxYTVjZGFiMGY4NzUzMDk5ZjgzMTk

The upshot of the article is that the President had three options to deal with Sadaam: 1) ask the UN to lift sanctions and reward his noncompliance with the 1991 cease fire agreement; 2) demand that Sadaam leave voluntarily; 3) invade Iraq and oust Sadaam. Option Number 2 was tried and when it did not work Option Number 3 was employed.

The key to understanding the TOTAL picture of why we invaded is that, unlike other bad actors throughout the world, Sadaam was in flagrant violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement he signed following the end of the Gulf War. That agreement permitted Sadaam to remain in power ONLY if he met certain conditions (provide full disclosure of long range missles and WMDs, allowing UN weapons inspectors unobstructed access to weapons facilities, not commit OR SUPPORT any act of international terrorism or allow any terrorist organization to operate in Iraq). The basis for the 17 U.N. resolutiuons was Sadaam's undisputed and flagrant disregard for the terms of the cease fire agreement. Here are some salient passages from the article:

"When the U.N. wouldn't authorize the use of force, the United States invoked its right, as the leader of the 1991 coalition- and thus the principal aggrieved contracting party to the cease fire-- to resume hostilities with Sadaam's regime and remove him from power. This is a critical point-- and again, a perpetual blind spot for critics of the war. The U.S. did not oust Sadaam only because we thought he had, or was developing, WMD. Rather, the U.S. ousted Sadaam because we thought he had, or was developing, WMD, which, along with other violations, put him in breach of the 1991 cease fire agreement."

Read the whole article (should take you 5 minutes)

Two other points:

1) Many of you libs have stated over and over: "Well, Bush didn't listen to his generals." This is partially true. He didn't listen to generals like Zinni who were spouting this nonsense that Sadaam was "contained"

2) No matter how many times justifiable grounds are presented for invading Iraq, the cut and run crowd keeps spewing the same talking points that have been rebutted again and again as if they were freshly minted. Orange Boy does this on a nightly basis, which is why the moonbats flock to him.

Anon writes (in reponse to a question posed concerning the invasion of Iraq):

`What would you have done to ensure the security of your nation in light of the aformentioned circumstances? Appease? Negotiate?`

focus on bin laden/afghanistan.
contain sadaam/iraq, which was working.

Ah, yes, the "continue to 'contain' Sadaam" strategy. Yes, that was a strategy that was getting great results anon-- not!

Time for a reality check, anon. Containment was NOT working. Check out this link (if you dare) to find out the true story about how well 'containment' was working:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmVmYjU1NGJkNzMxYTVjZGFiMGY4NzUzMDk5ZjgzMTk

The upshot of the article is that the President had three options to deal with Sadaam: 1) ask the UN to lift sanctions and reward his noncompliance with the 1991 cease fire agreement; 2) demand that Sadaam leave voluntarily; 3) invade Iraq and oust Sadaam. Option Number 2 was tried and when it did not work Option Number 3 was employed.

The key to understanding the TOTAL picture of why we invaded is that, unlike other bad actors throughout the world, Sadaam was in flagrant violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement he signed following the end of the Gulf War. That agreement permitted Sadaam to remain in power ONLY if he met certain conditions (provide full disclosure of long range missles and WMDs, allowing UN weapons inspectors unobstructed access to weapons facilities, not commit OR SUPPORT any act of international terrorism or allow any terrorist organization to operate in Iraq). The basis for the 17 U.N. resolutiuons was Sadaam's undisputed and flagrant disregard for the terms of the cease fire agreement. Here are some salient passages from the article:

"When the U.N. wouldn't authorize the use of force, the United States invoked its right, as the leader of the 1991 coalition- and thus the principal aggrieved contracting party to the cease fire-- to resume hostilities with Sadaam's regime and remove him from power. This is a critical point-- and again, a perpetual blind spot for critics of the war. The U.S. did not oust Sadaam only because we thought he had, or was developing, WMD. Rather, the U.S. ousted Sadaam because we thought he had, or was developing, WMD, which, along with other violations, put him in breach of the 1991 cease fire agreement."

Read the whole article (should take you 5 minutes)

Two other points:

1) Many of you libs have stated over and over: "Well, Bush didn't listen to his generals." This is partially true. He didn't listen to generals like Zinni who were spouting this nonsense that Sadaam was "contained"

2) No matter how many times justifiable grounds are presented for invading Iraq, the cut and run crowd keeps spewing the same talking points that have been rebutted again and again as if they were freshly minted. Orange Boy does this on a nightly basis, which is why the moonbats flock to him.

"Check out this link (if you dare) to find out the true story about how well 'containment' was working:"

The following linke goes to an article of the National Review.

This is the National Review's monacher on it's own website...

"The National Review. Up-to-the-minute CONSERVATIVE commentary on politics, news, and culture."

This is so fun. Conservatives always pull this card and CLAIM outlets like NBC News, ABC, CNN, and a whole list of reputable news organizations are liberally biased.

But, here is a publication that ADMITS PROUDLY it's conservative bias... and you expect us to buy what it says about Saddam's pre-war containment. Try again.

(and by the way, if you expect us to believe a conservative publication... why don't you believe anything that comes from alleged liberal publications? Double standard? I believe so)

James you ignorant slut,

just because a site is "conservative" does not mean it makes shit up. Most "conservative" sites are conservative in opinion but fact based in their research and articles (a la Wall Street Journal). I wish I could say the same about lefty sites.

"James you ignorant slut,"

I like the SNL reference.

"just because a site is "conservative" does not mean it makes shit up."

Well, that's an opinion. What's more relevant, however, is that the National Review doesn't qualify as an objective news outlet. By definition, journalism should be objective. The National Review clearly is not objective by it's own admittance. I don't put any more credibility in it's 'news' than I do the Huffington Post. They are both editorial pages as far as I'm concerned.

What you say about "lefty sites"... I don't neccessarily agree with you... but, as I've already said, I don't go to them for 'news.'

I go to NBC, CNN, The WSJ, NYT, WashPost... credible outlets that have been around for decades.

But, for you to blindly believe everything the Review puts out (despite their admitted political bias), but then disregard liberal outlets because of similar bias' is just a double standard - plain and simple.

You're saying "If you have my political view, I'm sure you don't let it affect your journalism... but if you're liberal you obviously let it affect your journalism."

That's just hypocritical.

Lastly...

I REALLY liked the SNL reference. That was damn funny.

James dismisses my argument regarding the reasons for the Iraq invasion with the following:

"I don't put any more credibility in it's [the National Review] 'news' than I do the Huffington Post. They are both editorial pages as far as I'm concerned."

James, I agree with you that there are some sites that aren't much interested in fact based opinion. I think your citing of the Huffington Post is spot on. That folks who inhabit that site are frothing over to see Bush impeached and won't let facts get in the way of their analysis.

Having said that, I think it is a mistake to dismiss a site without at least looking at the content to determine whether the opinions have some fact based validity. If I refer to a site as loony (such as Huffington), it is because I have seen some of the content and realize that the posters on that site have become disconnected from reality because of their agenda.

It appears to me James that you not scanned National Review to make such an assessment. You simply saw the word "conservative" in its self description and immediately assumed that it had nothing to offer. If you will take a few moments to go back to the site and look at its content and THEN decide that it is a "fringe" site, fine. However, the NR has been around for 50+, James (bet you didn't know that) so it is hardly a Johnny Come Lately. It is well respected and has highly qualified writers.

So, how about addressing the actual arguments I set forth in my previous post? Don't let debating another point of view make you "queasy" as it does your hero the Orange Boy.

Sorry, forgot to identify myself in the previous post

Hank,

OK. I've read the entire article you've recommendend. Here are my observations.

"The U.S. did not oust Saddam only because we thought he had, or was developing, WMD. "

Then WHY was this line force-fed down our throats in the lead-up to the war as the sole-reason for the invasion. And, as soon as it became evident there were no WMD's... the reasoning shifted.

"Saddam stood in defiance of 17 subsequent U.N. Security Council resolutions insisting that he come into compliance with the terms of the 1991 agreement or face serious consequences—thus making a mockery of the Security Council and the entire U.N."

I don't disagree with any of this. My contention is it's still not worthy of declaring war. ESPECIALLY after 9/11. Our focus should have been on the Taliban and Bin Laden. After all, THEY are the ones that attacked us. NOT Iraq. The imminent threat was from the one's who attacked us. Not a dictator with no WMD's - which he did not have.

" Saddam sought to recruit suicide bombers to attack American interests and Israeli civilians (as revealed by newly translated documents captured during the first stages of the invasion of Iraq). "

Notice what it says at the end... "DURING THE FIRST STAGES OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ." This didn't happan until the invasion began. Not BEFORE... ergo, it can't be used as a justification for the war. It was a product of the war.

"A pan-Islamic civil war in 2010, if it comes, will be less horrific than a pan-Islamic civil war in 2050."

This part really amazes me. For those who haven't read the article, it basically says that even IF the entire region disolves into a civil war... well, "better now than later and it's a good thing Bush prompted it." Seriously, it's saying that if there's a civil war, congratulations to our president for provoking it, because we'd rather have it now than 50 years from now. Never mind the fact that another, more competent president may negotiate peace accords. Like, oh say, Clinton did.

All this latest peice does is attempt to cover Bush's ass if the worst case scenario plays out. Followed by this next post which predicts Bush's screw up will still not ruin his image in history.

"if Iraq degenerates into chaos, and the chaos precipitates a pan-Islamic civil war—the worst-case scenario—the judgment of history will still likely be favorable for Bush’s presidency"

That just doesn't make sense. It's nonsense.

Finally, Hank... I've stated I don't go to the Huffington Post for my news because it's admittedly liberal. You told me I was right on point with that. Why, then, do you go to The National Review for your news when it is admittedly conservative. These following excerpts highlight it's bias.

"including Democratic-party hacks and Hollywood mouth-breathers"

"Their irrational hatred for him resembles not so much the Right’s substantial hatred of Bill Clinton"

Hank, you're a smart guy and I completely respect your views. But, honestly... if you're going to condemn liberal websites that claim their news organizations simply because they're liberal... how can you not condemn conservative websites on the same principal?

>WHY was this line (WMD) force-fed down our throats in the lead-up to the war as the sole-reason for the invasion.

You mean by the media? After the invasion, the media started asking where all the weapons were and highlighted WMD's. Look at what Congress OVERWHELMINGLY voted for and you will see WMD is listed as only one reason for the invasion. Saddam had uranium by the way, yet you never hear about that. See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

>Another, more competent president may negotiate peace accords. Like, oh say, Clinton did.

Tell me one treaty that he negotiated that made any difference. Israel/Palestinians? Massive Failure. Carter / North Korea / Clinton? Massive failure and now they have nukes. Bin Laden / Embassies / USS Cole / WTC #1 all on his watch with no intervention. Somalia? Disaster. Exactly what did he do diplomatically to give you such a hard on for him? He buried his head in the sand (and in Monica's bush) and we paid for it on 9/11. Now that the terrorists know we mean business, NO DOMESTIC ATTACKS. Get a grip.

Somalia? Disaster.

Somalia was not President Clinton's fault. President George H.W. Bush was the one who sent the troops in with just a month left in office. Clinton then inherited the mission as it was turning into a disaster.

">WHY was this line (WMD) force-fed down our throats in the lead-up to the war as the sole-reason for the invasion.

You mean by the media?"

Go back and read some of what Bush and Cheney said leading up to the war...

Aug. 26, 2002Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Sep. 12, 2002George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Oct. 5, 2002George W. Bush, Radio Address
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Oct. 7, 2002 George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

Jan. 28, 2003George W. Bush
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... "

These are the words of our administration... used in a clear attempt to persuade the american public and other political bodies to get behind the war in Iraq. The media tried to persuade people of nothing. They simply reported what the adminstration said. Their own words.

If you have a problem with these words, I suggest you take it up with the White House.

James, once again you are leaving out that other rationales existed to justify the invasion. It is certainly the case that we believed that Sadaam had or was developing WMDs (in violation of the cease fire agreement), but several other grounds existed as I pointed in my post citing the NR article. When the President asked for authority from Congress for a resolution to invade, it WAS NOT based solely upon the belief that WMDs existed, but on these other factors as well. This is well established but liberals are always trying to re-argue their talking points that have been repeatedly shot down in hopes that the gullible public is not paying attention. This is the whole modus operandi of Meltdown.

Hank wrote:

"James, once again you are leaving out that other rationales existed to justify the invasion."

Other rationales may have existed, but the one that was used to drum up support for this war was WMDs. Very little was being said about freeing the iraqi people. A whole lot was being said about the imminent danger posed by Iraq.

Basically no matter how you spin it, this administration wanted a war ( The neocons before 9/11) and they cherry picked intelligence to present the case most likely to get the american people behind it.

Hank wrote:

"James, once again you are leaving out that other rationales existed to justify the invasion."

Other rationales may have existed, but the one that was used to drum up support for this war was WMDs. Very little was being said about freeing the iraqi people. A whole lot was being said about the imminent danger posed by Iraq.

Basically no matter how you spin it, this administration wanted a war ( The neocons before 9/11) and they cherry picked intelligence to present the case most likely to get the american people behind it.

"If so many people are saying it, maybe you should look into whether it is true or not."

The bandwagon fallacy at it's best. Seriously people, can't you see how bad some of the logic here is?

Pathetic.

The MULTIPLE REFUSALS FOR WEAPONS INSPECTIONS were being brought up most often. The natural belief was that only an idiot would refuse weapons inspections if he had no weapons. And only an idiot or a Democrat would second guess sound logic like that.

>Somalia? Disaster. Somalia was not President Clinton's fault.

OKEY DOKEY! You believe what you want. Bush sent troops to help with food deliveries. Clinton turned the effort into a quasi-military fiasco. Go back and look at what happened.

Clinton turned the effort into a quasi-military fiasco. Go back and look at what happened.

I did, and maybe you should take a refresher course in history - in December 1992 as President George H. W. Bush was preparing to leave office, he proposed to help under the restriction that U.S. troops would lead the operation. After the UN accepted this offer 25,000 US troops (mostly U.S. Marines from the First Marine Expediationary Force) were deployed to Somalia and the mission was renamed to Operation Restore Hope.

After President Clinton was inagurated, he initated the drawdown of U.S. troops while simultaneously handing control over to the United Nations. At the time of the famous "Black Hawk Down" incident less than 2,000 American troops were on the ground.

The military aspect was started by Bush 41, then reduced by Clinton within his First Hundred Days.

Unbelievable. OK, her is a timeline from a horrendously liberal source on Somalia:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html

I am sure you will have trouble comprehemding it, but I give it to you nonetheless. Pay particular attention to this:

>December 4 -- Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis

BUSH THEN LEAVES AND CLINTON TAKES OVER

May 4 -- In March, the UN authorizes UNOSOM II, a UN operation with expanded enforcement power, whose mandate stressed "the crucial importance of disarmament" of the Somali people. This UN-led mission was to take over from the US-led UNITAF. The expanded operation's new mission goes beyond simply providing humanitarian relief, calling for the UN to facilitate "nation building," to get Somalia back on its feet by restoring law and order, shoring up the infrastructure, and helping to set up processes for establishing a representative government. By the end of March, 28 different nations send contingents to Somalia in support of the new militarized operation. The US officially hands over the command to the UN on May 4.

YOU SEE THAT IDIOT? THE US HANDS OVER CONTROL OF OUR TROOPS TO THE CORRUPT, DESPICABLE UN . . . NATION BUILDING . . . RESTORING LAW AND ORDER -- Clinton changed the mission. Get it? CLINTON, NOT BUSH. If he wants to fight, fine -- keep our men in control and develop a battle plan. What he did was downright irresponsible and a betrayal of his own troops. Pakistanis get killed in an ambush and then this fiasco occurs:

June 8 -- In the aftermath of the June 5 massacre, Admiral Howe first requests a counterterrorist hostage rescue force from Washington because they he they needed more extensive military capability to deal with the escalating violence. No such troops are forthcoming until Task Force Ranger is deployed in August.

Get it? Clinton gives control to the UN, allows the mission to change, and the shit hits the fan. Think and read dope.

July 12 -- In a major escalation, American Cobra helicopters attack a house in south Mogadishu where a group of clan leaders are meeting, destroying the building with TOW missiles and cannon fire and killing a number of Somalis. Four western journalists who had gone to investigate are beaten to death by an angry mob.

You know where it goes from there. MISSION CREEP was Clinton's fault. GIVING UP CONTROL TO THE PATHETIC UN WAS CLINTON'S FAULT.

The earlier post left you staggering by the way. You could not list one "negotiation" from BJ Bill that made any difference at all. Pathetic.

Best thing in that timeline is the presence of the master negotiator! That's right, JIMMY CARTER TO THE RESCUE!

SEPTEMBER -- Carter negotiating with Aidid
In the midst of the manhunt, the Clinton administration opens a secret initiative to negotiate with Aidid. Former president Jimmy Carter, who had a previous relationship with Aidid, volunteers to act as intermediary. The US military commanders in Mogadishu are not informed about this new initiative.

Well, well, well! Jimmy Carter, the "negotiator" who helped with North Korea (who now have nukes), certified the election for Chavez (even though he cheated, and he now threatens us every day), hangs out with Castro and the like! Is it any wonder that his "negotiations" result in American casualties? Carter is a menace from Hell, and when he dies I will have a HUGE PARTY.

Carter negotiates behind his own troops back! From the post above:

>Carter, who had a previous relationship with Aidid, volunteers to act as intermediary. The US military commanders in Mogadishu are not informed about this new initiative.

How is that for BULLSHIT? Carter "secretly" negotiates and a week or two later, "Black Hawk Down" occurs! Good job JC. I wonder if the senile old fart gave out coordinates.

Just like the Clintonistas to hand control of the military over to the UN allowing our guys to be controlled by idiots who escalate the conflict with an insufficient pmlan, while deploying a failed crazed leftist to "negotiate" with a murderer!

No wonder leftists are not in charge! Blech.

wow

Funny, there is a profound lack of activity on this thread now! Seems to happen quite frequently after a facts avalanche crushes an Olbyite. Or perhaps all the lefties are busy listening to Barb Boxer at the Krazy Kook Konvention in Kalifornia.

Nice work clear-thinkers.

I am sure it will shock OlbyWatch readers but I came from a family of ardent Democrats and when I was old enough to vote I registered as a Democrat. I voted for Mondale, Dukakis and Clinton (and even Al Gore in the 1988 NY Primary).

As I got older (and wiser) I became disenchanted with the Democrats. Today, I am a registered independent but have voted Republican in the last three presidential elections. While I agree with Democrats on some issues, the most important issue for all of us is national security which requires a clear, strong foreign policy.

For me, Clinton's conduct with regard to Somalia was the final straw. He demonstrated that Democrats have a naive view of global politics (turns out being President is not just about "the economy, stupid"), do not understand the interpendencies implicit in individual foreign policy decisions and can not be counted on to provide for a strong national defense.

For those old enough to recall, Bush 41 sent troops into Somalia primarily as a result of an active campaign by CNN to broadcast images of starving Somalis (something also done in Ethopia). The so-called "CNN Effect" created a groundswell of support for "doing something" in Somalia and Bush responded by sending U.S. troops ashore (recall how the idiots from CNN and others actually broadcast the night landing live...shining bright lights on the troops making them easy targets).

After he took office, Bill Clinton announced a new U.S. policy called "assertive multilateralism" predicated on the notion that the U.S. would no longer unilaterally project force in the world but rather do so through the UN and other NGOs like NATO.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica notes:

Clinton's foreign policy team, led by Secretary of State Warren Christopher and National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, included veterans of the Carter administration, which had emphasized human rights. They, in turn, were influenced by academic theories holding that military power was now less important than economic power and that the end of the Cold War would finally permit the United Nations to provide a workable system of global collective security. Clinton symbolized this neo-Wilsonian bent when he elevated UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright to cabinet rank. She defined American policy as �assertive multilateralism� and supported Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's call for a more ambitious UN agenda.

Clinton decided that Somalia would be the first implementation of �assertive multilateralism". Clinton announced the new policy calling it "nation building". He backed a large U.N. presence, providing highly visible support from the American military and senior-level political participation.

When 18 soldiers were killed in the "black hawk down" incident, Clinton immediately withdrew U.S. troops from Somalia and his support for the U.N., effectively abandoning �assertive multilateralism" and leaving Boutros Boutros-Ghali twisting in the wind. Under fierce Congressional criticism Clinton announced that the U.S. wouldno longer put U.S. forces under U.N. control.

Now clear-thinkers who can add one plus one will understand the implications of this early Clinton flip-flop.

#1) March 1993 - Clinton announces the U.S. will no longer project force unilaterally.

#2) October 1993 - Clinton announces the U.S. will no longer project force multilaterally.

In other words, Clinton announced to the world that the U.S. would no longer seek to project force around the world on its own and would no longer support the U.N. in doing so.

In a post-Cold War world, the effect of Clinton's twin pronouncements led led to a scramble for regional hegemony around the world resulting in heightened tensions between China and Taiwan, power grabs by the Serbians looking to take back control of the former Yugoslavia, detonation of a nuclear weapon by Pakistan, the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea and, of course, the rise of al Qaeda which can be traced directly from this period. The message around the world was clear - the U.S. is not going to interfer and, if they do, they will run if we give them a "bloody nose". Among Clinton's greatest hit was to abandon Rwanda to genocide, Bosnia to civil war and Kosovo to ethnic cleansing as a result of his feckless foreign policy. When Clinton went to war with Serbia he pre-emptorily announced that the U.S. would not deploy U.S. ground forces ceding a tremendous tactical advantage to the enemy and emboldening dictators like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il who now knew the U.S. would not invade their countries. Not surpisingly, Iraq became more defiant of the U.N., ultimately kicking out U.N. weapons inspectors (with Clinton responding with air strikes) and North Korea ramped up its nuclear program despite a negotiated settlement to the contrary.

In other words, Clinton set back U.S. foreign policy to the pre-Roosevelt era (Teddy not Franklin). He was directly responsible for the failure to stop mass murders in Rwanda, Kosovo and Bosnia, the proliferation of nuclear weapons to North Korea and Pakistan, and the rise of al Qaeda and the events that led up to the Iraq War. It is no stretch to say that not only was Clinton was bad president but arguarbly one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States.

Bob,

Great points. I think Carter was worse than Clinton, though. His pathetic pandering and assurance that he would never use military force resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan, the end of the Shah and the rise of the Ayatollah, the hostage crisis, the gas crisis -- in other words, Carter was involved in setting the Islamist movement in motion, destabilizing Afghanistan, and creating our current problems. If he had made it clear that we would respond to Russian shenanigans, Afghanistan would not have been invaded. If he had supported the Shah, the Islamists would not have taken over. If he had responded to the hostage crisis, we would have been taken seriously rather than mocked as a paper tiger.

Not satisfied at being an awful Prez, Carter decided to continue his work and appease Castro, certify corrupt elections in Venezuela, "negotiate" with North Korea leaving them room to get nukes, "negotiate" with terrorists like Aidid, and second guess our capable politicians whenever they did something smart. Wherever Carter goes, disaster follows.

He was directly responsible for the failure to stop mass murders in Rwanda, Kosovo and Bosnia, the proliferation of nuclear weapons to North Korea and Pakistan, and the rise of al Qaeda and the events that led up to the Iraq War.

Why don't you blame him for the Lindbergh kidnapping and the Black Dhalia murder while you're at it?

When Clinton did do something, Republicans yelled at him. When he did nothing, Republicans yelled at him.

Riddle me this - if Clinton was such a fuck-up how did he get elected again?

Ross Perot

Ross Perot

Bullshit.

That's what it is - utter bullshit.

Even if you gave every vote that Ross Perot got in 1996 to Bob Dole, he still would have not matched Bill Clinton's popular vote total (though the difference would have been roughly the same as the 2004 election).

But Clinton got 220 more electoral votes than Dole. Of the 11 states where the margin of victory for one candidate was less than 5% (where Perot votes would have likely made a difference), Clinton carried just 4 of them. Even if you took those 4 states (Nevada, Arizona, Kentucky and Tennessee) and gave them to Dole he'd still lose the Electoral College by nearly 200 votes.

In other words - the math doesn't back the claim.

Anonymous wrote:

>Riddle me this - if Clinton was such a fuck-up how did he get elected again?

You are RIGHT for once! Any President who is re-elected is an absolutely wonderful President. Any President who serves two terms is infallible. That goes for George W. Bush too, right? Hello Anonymous, are you still there? Anonymous . . . {crickets} . . . Anonymous {more crickets}

Actually, the definitive proof of your re-election theory is Mayor Barry, the crack smoking, hard toking Mayor of wackytown.

Anon,

I was really explaining why I gave up on the Democrats in 1993 and left the party. That Clinton got elected in 1996 is irrelevent to my personal motivations for abandoning Clinton and the Dems. As to why he won, I recall Clinton benefited from a strong economy and robust stock market (which collapsed during his second term). I also don't think Americans, in general, really understood the full implications of Clinton's foreign policy - certainly the full extent of the damage he did did not manifest itself fully prior to the 1996 election.

I believe the Democrats are not trustworthy on foreign policy or national defense. Since 1993 things have gotten WORSE not better. In fact, the party has moved to such a weak, leftist position that Hillary Clinton of all people is now a foreign policy HAWK and shunned at Democrat events (Take Back America, YearlyKos, etc.)

I believe that Clinton is one of the worst president's in history and that as time goes by and historians are looking at what happened under his watch not his poll numbers or his charisma.

You are welcome to disagree but "how did he get elected again" is a meaningless retort. In fact, worse than meaningless as KfK has demonstrated by hoisting you on your own petard with regard to Bush winning re-election, something I am sure you did not support.

I don't even know what to respond to. This is the biggest culmination of: It's Clintons fault--1. That the U.S. is failing in foreign policy, 2. That the 20th century has turned out so badly, 3. He didn't find a cure for my rash, etc.

I'll make it quick and try and respond to the bulk of these accusations. Yes, the conflict in Somalia got worse while Clinton was in office, but the Somalia conflict itself was doomed to failure from it's rushed start under the first President Bush. Yelling "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT, IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT," won't solve anything and it isn't backed up by facts. Correlation does not equal causation, simply because Clinton didn't want Somalia to be a U.S. lead objective and handed control over to the U.N. does not mean that Clinton caused the problem. Giving control the U.N. was "Clinton's fault," but that did not lead to the failure that Somalia was; if Clinton was in control as George Bush is now, however, I think it would be okay to blame the sole leader of the troops on the ground for failures in policy and military actions.

Nonfactor,

At least TRY to read the earlier posts. I know it is hard. I know that nobody is there to help you. However, you have missed the substance of the posts entirely. It is downright tragic.

There is a difference between "your job is to help food deliveries" and "your job is to Nation build, attack terrorists, and obey the UN." The answer to the question "how did Clinton get Reelected" is answered by your inability to see what is in front of your face.

Any President who serves two terms is infallible. That goes for George W. Bush too, right?

Nice distortion. I didn't say that - I asked why Clinton got re-elected if he was such a bad President.

Clinton not only won, he won in a walk (379-159). Bush won by a very thin electoral margin (286-251) and had he lost Ohio (which he won by 120,000 votes) he would have lost the election 271-266. (1 elector cast his vote for President for John Edwards)

No one is infallible - arguing that would be like arguing the sky is maroon. Clinton had his woes, Bush has his. But Clinton somehow managed to stay popular (his approval ratings were still in the 60s when he left office) while Bush has hovered near Nixon levels.

There is a difference between "your job is to help food deliveries" and "your job is to Nation build, attack terrorists, and obey the UN."

KfK, the mission changed in December 1992, one month BEFORE President Clinton was sworn in. You don't need to send 25,000 battle-ready soldiers to deliver food. Get a clue.

Nonfactor,

You wrote "Yelling "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT, IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT," won't solve anything and it isn't backed up by facts."

That's hardly a counter-argument. Clinton's culpability in undermining U.S. credibility around the world is backed up facts - loads of them. I have already listed them and could add more.

I'd say your yelling IT'S NOT CLINTON'S FAULT, IT'S NOT CLINTON'S FAULT is what's meaningless. You cry foul but fail to address any of the many excellent points I made in what is a quintessentially fact-based argument. It would be more satisfying to debate someone with the wit to formulate an intelligent reply . I guess I'll have to settle for OlbyLoons.

As I said, I was a registered Democrat and voted for Clinton. I was not (nor am I now) some wingnut Clinton-hater. What I laid out for you above is not just blind "blame Clinton" bile. Clinton did a number of good things like pushing through NAFTA, his work in Ireland, his work in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Clinton was the first to PROVE to the world that Arafat would never make peace with israel). He was basically "hands-off" in regulating markets in the U.S. economy and made all the right moves in creating a positive investment climate in the U.S. On the domestic front, Clinton did many good things.

I don't "blame Clinton" for every problem in the world but the points I've made are beyond dispute. Clinton himself has spoken about his own guilt in not preventing the genocide in Rwanda - something he has acknowledged it was in his power to stop. It's a fact that Clinton publicly announced that the U.S. would not put troops on the ground in Serbia, the rise of al Qaeda did begin under Clinton's watch - the first WTC bombing came shortly after he took office and he left office having never responded to the U.S.S. Cole bombing, North Korea ramped up its nuclear weapons program under Clinton's watch and continued to do so even after signing a deal with Clinton to stop. Having not added a new member since 1974, the "nuclear club" grew by more than 30% under his watch, Saddam defied weapons inspectors under Clinton's watch as Iraq routinely committed acts of war against the United States ("locking on" or firing on U.S. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone).

I could go on but I think the point is made that the Clinton presidency was, overall, an unmitigated disaster. We are reaping the whirlwind still today.

"Yelling "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT, IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT," won't solve anything and it isn't backed up by facts."

I believe the Muslim world was awash with placards charging that Clinton had bombed the aspirin factory in Sudan because he was trying to get Monica Lewinsky off the headlines. That sure was an international coup. And, how about blowing up the Chinese Embassy in Sarajevo? Bush gets slammed for collateral damage, but Clinton had the same problem. Or, the Serb students that gathered on the bridges to protest the bombings during the attack? That certainly showed a lot of international goodwill.

To see conservatives who support George W. Bush talk about credibility around the world really cracks me up.

This whole talk about Clinton not only has nothing to do with the topic, but it's one of the far rights weakest arguments when they want to make a point about foreign policy. Get a right-winger into a corner and sooner or later they'll start talking about Clinton. “George Bush would be a better president if it weren’t for the horrible mistakes Clinton made.” Give me a break. All presidents make mistakes, and until you can accept that is true for Bush as well as it was for Clinton you’ll never have a grip on reality. The difference I see is that Clinton’s mistakes didn’t lead us into a war that will last decades and cost the United States thousands of lives and perhaps trillions of dollars.

---

I'm just going to stop right there. I'm not going to have a civil discussion with someone who traffics in useless ad hominems and thinks they're infallible. Humble yourself.

"To see conservatives who support George W. Bush talk about credibility around the world really cracks me up."

You're not talking to me are you? Me a trafficker 'in useless ad hominems'? I can't help it that Anonymous is a popular name. I am a victim of circumstance. Also, if your post refers to mine, you have a severe issue with respect to non sequiturs.

I wasn't referring to you. And by ad hominem I meant name-calling that adds nothing to the debate.

Oh okay. Is that what a useless ad hominem is? Are we allowed to use purposeful ad hominems?

All ad hominems are useless; so, yes, I was being repetitive.

Just a quick note to correct something here on Olbermann Watch. As a long time poster at StrategyPage.com, I can tell you that it runs the gamut. We have everyone from far left nutjobs who would frighten DailyKos, to far right nutjobs who would frighten Ann Coulter. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle, though I would say that the site is definitely more conservative than liberal. That's the problem with a public forum.

The reason why the "Is George Bush a War Criminal" thread is probably rated so high is because conservatives like myself are busy frying whoever posted it in the first place. (Before you folks over there on the left get upset, I imagine I would get a similar welcome over at DailyKos. Each to his/her own.)

Zarqawi probably was turned in by his own people, and that's a good thing. When your enemies are busy fighting each other, they can't put on a united front. And that's how you lose wars. I imagine Olbermann saw something posted at StrategyPage and cherrypicked it because it suited his own, pre-decided opinion. Given that SP has been predicting an American victory since summer 2004 (when things looked pretty damn gloomy), I would be surprised if Olbermann uses SP again.

If I misunderstood the point of the story, I apologize. You have a good site here, keep up the good work--and that's from a former fan of Keith who used to, at least, be counted on for a good laugh.

This comment thread is now closed.