Zarq death politically timed? MSNBC piece.

Just a little ditty from 2004.

By Jim Miklaszewski
Pentagon Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004




That's right.

Passed up a chance to take him out THREE TIMES (that the media even admits to knowing about). PASSED on these timings and the moral choice to stem the rivers of blood they blame him for. Three times. And that was as of two full years ago. Think of the blood since.


But many of you being agressively labeled "disappointed" and "idiots' for your anger and cynicism-- which I fully share--and for your failure to come up with the "politically appropriate", suitably self-censoring DU reactions to today's news have already intuitively understood this for a long time, and especially today.


see Russell Shaw's blog at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/was-zarqawis-takeout-po_b_22526.html

I didn't like being accused of "denial". This was my response to a post earlier.



Just my 2 cents...

From: http://www.medialens.org/board

Burying embarrassing news, the Zarqawi way?

There should be mass celebration today in Iraq, and in the press, and by mongers everywhere, for today was the day that Iraq's new Prime Minister Nouri Maliki finally filled the three vacant ministerial posts in his new, and now complete, government. By sheer coincidence this heartening story has been blasted off the front page by the announcement, on the same day, of the killing of the terrorist Zarqawi, which took place yesterday.

Then again, looking at the newly appointed ministers, perhaps it wasn't so unfortunate:

Defense Minister
Abdul Qadir Obeidi - one of Saddam Hussein's generals

Interior Minister
Jawad al-Bulani, an aide to the Governing Council from the Iraqi Hizbollah party

National Security Minister
Shirwan Waili - a former military officer under Saddam Hussein

*****

Here's how the prospects of appointing these guys looked two days ago: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/14756538.htm

The delay in forming this government has sparked the worst chaos in Baghdad since Saddam Hussein fell. So delegates were eager for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep his pledge to name the ministers of interior and defense. Those ministers are essential to restoring some security to Iraq. Suddenly a buzz rippled through the hall. The session had been canceled. Squabbles among fellow Shiites over who should get the ministries had prevented Maliki from keeping his promise. That day painted a stark picture of the challenges confronting this national unity government, on which Iraqi and U.S. hopes hang. Rather than bring Iraqis together, this government has reflected Iraq's fragmentation. The situation may be salvaged, but it will take determined leadership from a handful of key Iraqi politicians, as well as from the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad.

Maliki tried from the start to act like a leader. He promised a new plan to secure Baghdad and flew to the key oil city of Basra to try to halt wars between Shiite militias and gangs. He made the pledge to name the ministers. But Iraq's new constitution keeps the prime minister impossibly weak - a reaction to the Hussein dictatorship. And the Iraqi political culture ties him in knots.

...

This system has made many Iraqis sour on democracy quickly. They are hungry for strong leadership. Over and over, I've heard Iraqis say Hussein could have restored order in two weeks. This is why it is so crucial for Maliki to be able to act as a national leader who stands above the interests of sectarian parties. ... It is unclear how or if that can be done. But the prospects for Iraq and for U.S. troop withdrawals depend on whether Maliki can lead.

I don't know who is behind this or why, but it's always wise to keep a healthy skepticism about these things.

I cannot sit back and accept what is spoon-fed to me by this Administration through the collusive media.

We've been duped too many times.

original link here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/was-zarqawis-takeout-po_b_22526.html

This part especially turns my stomach:

"Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

God forbid that something like a prime opportunity to stop actual terrorists get in the way of the precious "war against Saddam." :sarcasm:

Bush needed a "terrorist" in Iraq to justify invasion.

And please keep kicking.

Yeah I got your amusing "tinfoil" right here from NBC.

And just one word for you DLC PC's and it's not valor--
though that's clearly the fresh meme being desperately sought by the junta's architects.

It's Haditha. The massacre the media hasn't wanted to let go.

It is ALWAYS about the timing. ALWAYS.

"And just one word for you DLC PC's"

They give Tombstones for that kind of talk here lately I shit you not.
This place has changed a lot in the past 4 years.

That said this is the best thread on DU today!

Recommend!!

I won't be a party to putting lipstick on a pig.

And this story, in the context of everything we've known and learned
over the digusting history of this madmen's war, is just that.

I don't know about "best" thread today or any other day, but thanks for that all the same. I am truly spell-bound at the pure preoccupation being expressed all day here with "how we might look" to irredeemably stupid and hopelessly brainwashed freepers and state-sponsored/corporate ho media trolls looking for selective negative expressions to exploit. Which they will and would anyway, even if they have to invent, distort or misconstrue the intents. You can take that to the bank anyday and every day. So it goes.


I fully get it that we are a vast aquarium here, subject to much scrutiny and monitoring by our detractors. I just wish I thought we have all this media impact- either way-that we'd often love to think we have.

Too bad we couldn't deter the war in Iraq with the political purity of our message, for great starters. We certainly had the forceful rhetoric of reason and opposition, buttressed with a strong sense of history and fact on our side.

DU, but most visibly, the Democratic Party itself was fully established and thriving here in the USA well before some Junior goof from Mayberry v Gore 2000. If that shouldn't have happened, and it shouldn't have, (yet we all know how it did)--it shouldn't have even been effing close in 2004. Americans learned NOTHING from Florida thanks to the silent media that regularly availed itself here all the while.

The 'possum media learned NOTHING from here in the 4 subsequent years, least not anything that it was willing to demonstrate even as Nov 04 inevitably bore down on us.

And I'm convinced the party elite has learned just as little to nothing as well.

Bush is still presiding in the WH after all, and the sceered, self-preserving party elite continue to trip all over themselves to scuttle away and cloak and distance themselves from the undeniable voices of guys like Murtha and Feingold, Conyers and a precious other few.

I think and respect that while it's completely true that words here do have meaning, future actions will have the most. That's my strongest hope. The letters, the petitions, the up-coming votes-- the MONEY. I'm not talking about Hillary's hefty war-chest, which I can't begin to influence.

I'm talking about a message to the rest of the politically tone-deaf incumbants-- the self-preserving rubberstamping enablers and sheer betrayors who to this day keep funding and won't come clean on the mistake of Iraq. Who couldn't be bothered to read the Patriot Act the first time around...or the second or the third...who have handed Bush every confirmation he's demanded on a spit-polished silver platter--

I hope I have lots of company when I say not another thin dime to your ill-deserved re-election campaigns. You and your mentors need to replaced.
Be gone!!

In the meantime, if the trolls and hacks want some DU fodder to feed upon, fine by me: Let them read and report on the link above.

Sourced quotes.

Put some more lipstick on THAT pig.

Cheers to you chill_wind for such an intelligent and coherent post.
Are you a Writer?
This place needs more like you.

A very belated Welcome.

"So be it" Good!

was just an FYI....

And I knew and appreciate what you meant re: FYI

Nobody chooses the sober notion or name "Liberty or death" that hasn't reflected about its deeply cherished worth to us all.

I thank you that and for your feedback.

WaPo - Zarqawi is a US Military PSYOP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

The NY Times Played Along: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002314713

Zarqawi - Bush's Man For All Seasons: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ15Ak02.html

UPI (Moonie Times) - How the US Created the Zarqawi Myth: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2QuiYcfLZV0J:www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php%3FStoryID%3D20051110-014753-2561r+Claim:+U.S.+Created+al-Zarqawi+Myth&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

CIA Agent Says US Allowed Zarqawi to Escape: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-allowed-zarqawi-to-escape/2006/04/30/1146335608444.html

How the US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml

Reputed Terrorist Al-Zarqawi Still Shrouded in U.S.-Fed Myth, Mystery: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1546

Zarqawi - Everywhere & Nowhere: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GG07Ak02.html

A collection of pix of our happily finally actually dead parrot: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2327738&mesg_id=2328504

A collection of previous links saying Zarqawi was dead, seriously injured or captured: http://www.conjur.com/blog/2005/11/20/zarqawis-dead-again-3rd-times-a-charm-eh

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/10/GR2006041000097.html



Just saying ...

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

Yeah, I know..tinfoil. But the pics that they showed of his body look nothing worse than a car accident victim. Hell, he was less destroyed than a guy I saw a few weeks ago who died in our hospital from several bulletholes to his face/body. Did he die a while back in another way and chimp/rove kept the body on ice til chimp's/war's poll numbers hit rock bottom?? What's next, Osama being this year's October surprise??

Although there could be a logical explanation, i.e. it was a "concussive" bomb..it seems like there were a couple of different stories thrown out there as to how he died, i.e. helicopter fire or 2 500lb bombs? Which is it? The media seemed to agree by late afternoon that it was the bombs that did it, but who knows.

I have a friend who is in the medical profession who said it looked to her like he'd been beaten up. She's also an Air Force brat, so she's not ignorant to what bombs can do to people either.

As usual, they throw the story out there, the public accepts it and moves on, then we'll get drib drabs of conflicting information in the Friday news dumps that the public will pay absolutely no attention to.

Per a General Caldwell on CNN... all that they had to do was clean his face up for the picture because it was " very bloodied" after the bombing. I wish/hope someone *besides* the military got pics of ALL the bodies in the house. Just so we could see if "dirty faces" were the case for all of them or if the rest were blown to pieces while this guy just got a dirty face. Might provide answers on whether he really died in the house bombing or before that night and was placed in the house rubble.

There must be a way.

There is this constant presumption from the patriarchy, that behind every
political movement must be a leader. Skinner leads DU, or Bush leads america,
as if everyone lines up behind the big anus to take a sniff. (no offense intended
to skinner, rather to show how incorrect the fallacy is).

It does not take a leader to oppose tyranny... and a billion people are praying
for the demise of bush and his army... it is a popular movement to overthrow
evil empires, one that will only get stronger and stronger until it actually does.