The Zarqawi Story - Why so many lies?

I know there is a lot of confusion regarding this story, so I would like to try to set some facts straight.

According to the first reports from Reuters and ABC, Zarqawi was killed in a joint attack by U.S. helicopters and Iraqi forces. U.S. helicopters hit a house near Baquba.

"Zarqawi was apparently injured at first... The Americans found him. They handed him over to the Iraqis and he later died of his injuries," ABC said. Reuters - 06/08/06


Then the official announcement came - The US and UK have hailed news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, has died in a US air strike. Zarqawi died when US planes dropped two 500lb (230kg) bombs on a site near the city of Baquba. He was identified by fingerprints, tattoos and scars. BBC - 06/08/06


Rumsfeld gives a briefing from NATO to make the official announcement and immediately the disinformation campaign begins -

SEC. RUMSFELD: I don't recall the time. It was last evening. I received a call from General Casey shortly after -- they had been tracking Zarqawi, and they came to a conclusion that they could not really go in on the ground without running the risk of having him escape. So they used airpower and attacked the dwelling that he was in having a meeting.

They got in there shortly thereafter and had a positive identification as much as you can do with simply looking at a person and checking for known markings. They then took fingerprints and sent them back to -- and had them checked against Zarqawi's fingerprints and confirmed it later that night.

Along with the big news, the DOD also releases a gold framed picture of Zarqawi's head after he died. The next day they admit that this picture has been photoshopped and the image was 'cleaned up'.


So now we have multiple sources in the DOD, including Sec Rumsfeld and Gen Casey, claiming Zarqawi died when the US dropped two 500 lbs bombs on his house, which totally contradicts the first reports that came over the wires. Sites like DU begin to buzz about the two contradictory stories. More sand gets thrown in our collective faces and no one knows who said what.


By the next day, the official story begins to evolve. Now the new headline reads - Zarqawi 'survived initial strike'

Here's the new improved DOD version of events:

Militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still alive when Iraqi police got to the scene of the air strikes that targeted him, the US military says. But the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq died of his wounds shortly afterwords, Major General William Caldwell said. US planes dropped two 500lb (230kg) bombs on Zarqawi's safe house near the city of Baquba on Wednesday. After US troops arrived, Zarqawi tried to move off the stretcher where he had been placed, Gen Caldwell said. BBC - 06/09/06



And again the story evolves a little more - we've gone from Zarqawi was DOA to - medical personal began to administer assistance:


Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, speaking from Baghdad to reporters at the Pentagon, said al-Zarqawi was alive when Iraqi police arrived on the scene and medical personnel began to administer assistance, but he died soon after. "We did in fact see him alive," Caldwell said. "He mumbled a little something but it was indistinguishable. ... He died a short time later from the wounds suffered during the air strike." {link:http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq104776404jun10,0,3349361.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print|Newsday 06/10/06]


So while the DOD is busy spinning their version of events, the story on the ground paints a different picture. Go back to the top of the thread, the original Reuters report seems to be closer to the truth and the evolving DOD version seems to confirm this.


Yesterday, the Zarqawi story got kicked up another notch. Not only was Zarqawi alive when US troops found him but instead of administering medical care, it may turn out that we administered the butt of a gun instead and deliberately killed a prisoner in our custody. No wonder the DOD is dancing around their own spin so much. I wonder how the DOD will try to explain this one away?


Iraqi Claims U.S. GIs Beat Wounded Man

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - An Iraqi man who was one of the first people on the scene of the U.S. airstrike targeting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said he saw American troops beating a man who had a beard like the al-Qaida leader. The witness, who lives near the house where al-Zarqawi spent his last days, said he saw the man lying on the ground near an irrigation canal. He was badly wounded but still alive, the man told Associated Press Television News. U.S. troops arriving on the scene wrapped the man's head in an Arab robe and began beating him, said the local man, who refused to give his name or show his face to the camera. His account could not be independently verified. The U.S. military made no mention of any physical contact between U.S. troops and al-Zarqawi other than an attempt to provide him with medical attention. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5877125,00.html">Guardian 06-10-06


One thing is for sure, it is the official story that can't seem to get it right. It is the official story that keeps changing. This has nothing to do with the fog of war or conflicting versions from eyewitnesses. The only ones putting out conflicting versions of their own story is the DOD.

coming down the street, they will cross the road just to avoid having to deal with it.
They are serial liars, misdirectors and confabulators. And miscreants.

Did I mention that they lie?

in the military, I don't believe a fucking thing they say.

If they say the sky is blue today, I will go out and look.

Wonder who else we have in custody that we can throw on a pyre at any time the polls sink too low?

a month or two ago?

That was to get the mythical al-Zarqawi fresh into the sheeps' minds.

Sheep have short memories so they needed that refreshing before * unveiled the death of their myth.

Coworker says "well, they got al-Zarqawi". I said "Hmph, interesting how two months ago he suddenly starts releasing videos. Also interesting that there are all these other "insurgents" around and he is the only one with his face uncovered. Also, he's fat, nothing like the original. His features are very different. I think its somebody else." Coworker says "he decided to start doing videos....he wanted his face seen....he gained a bunch of weight..." I just looked at him and rolled my eyes.

The first thing I thought when the videos started showing up was they were getting ready to go after him...whoever "he" is. Sorry...I don't know who this guy is but they were pushing his incompetence with the weapon he was trying to fire. I knew it was so much propoganda to prepare us for the end. They are so full of shit.

13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.

a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

events. No one had all the facts in, they were in a rush to get the story out, and they misunderstood some of the details.

I'd boil the lie down to what happened to Al-Zarqawi after the bombs. WHy didn't they tell us he was alive when they found him? Did they beat him? What did he die from--the bombs, the beating, or something else?

Although, I'd like to know more about the bombs, the tips, the other victims, etc, and wouldn't be surprised to find a few lies there, either. It's not that I believe what they are saying. It's just that contradictory news stories when a story first breaks aren't proof of lies to me. I wait for a couple of days to see what they finally settle on, and then work from there. There could be some evidence in the early stories, but it's hard to know for sure until they settle on one story and all the others, and their sources, are then studied for contradictions.

There are some contradictory elements in the stories of Iraqi witnesses as well, as those several accounts are juxtiposed. Variations like this are common to all eye-witness testimonies, just as they are common to all intitial military reports.

What is solid in all accounts from all sources is that the man died at scene, and that he was badly injured by explosions. Past this, the accounts begin to vary, and the various points of vantage, and axes the various speakers may have to grind, become a factor. Certainly U.S. officials would wish to sweep under the rug any mis-behavior by its soldiers at the scene. Certainly anyone ill-disposed to the U.S. occupation, and this probably includes just about any resident of that town, including its police force, would wish to paint the actions of U.S. soldiers in a bad light. As they usually do, matters begin to become obscured in a swirl ofmverbal mist, in which one must pick and choose without much in the way of certain guidance.

but when the Secretary of Defense and his top Generals put out stories that turn out to be blatantly wrong, then they need to be held accountable. Especially, if there is evidence that they are covering up crimes committed by their own troops.

Though it is extremely unusual for military officials to speak truthfully concerning details of an incident in a conflict their forces are participating in. History discloses damned few instances of it, in any time or place.

with US Troops possibly murdering an unidentified prisoner of war and the DOD lying about it? Not just lying to cover up mistakes, but lying to create a propaganda coup because they needed a distraction.

At the time of Zarqawi's death, it was not possible for the US to have positively identified him. It was not until they examined his body and compared his fingerprints did they even try to claim a positive ID. Then top DOD brass trot out framed photoshopped pics and a story that is mostly lies and that doesn't bother you?

I don't care if they had Satan, we are as bad as the enemy when we no longer live by our own rule of law. I always thought we were supposed to be better then the bad guys.

It would not trouble me at all if some action eventuates against officials who tell lies and cover up crimes.

But it is also my expectation that officials will do those things, and that such mis-deeds are hardly peculiar to the present moment.

This is standard behavior these days. But that doesn't make it any more acceptable. And it doesn't mean that decent people shouldn't try to do something to stop them.

but i've come to believe the first story that's told is usually closer to the truth. Then as the spin doctors for whatever reason, seem to start adding to the story.

I just watched a video of the JFK Jr. airplane crash back in 1999, and the video pointed out very successfully how the first story that's told is usually factual. Everything that follows is usually BS, and we all know by now how the DoD can spew BS.

Peace!

It was lied about because we have become the new israeli's.

We too reserve the right to bomb peoples houses and kill women and children
from helicopters, meting out summary justice on the lower races.

Whereas an instant death on a smartbomb was so much cleaner and american sounding.

Right down to the several times this man was said to have died or limped around on one leg. The story of this paricular person's death this particular time is probably a blend of loose facts, hearsay, and heated rumour. It's an established pattern: the first "facts" of a particular case change and shift with time, as Winston sits at his desk and makes sure we understand we were always at war with Eastasia.

Most people would accept that the BBC's phrase "Zarqawi died when US planes dropped two 500lb (230kg) bombs" does not tell a significantly different story from "... died from wounds received when US planes ...". If you think that's vital, then it's the BBC you need to follow up with, if Reuters were already saying he remained alive for a bit. And perhaps I'm going blind, but I can't see where Rumsfeld claimed he died immediately.

Is this really a matter of concern? "Died of gunshot wounds" might make a difference, but whether he stayed alive for an hour doesn't. The only real contradiction is the anonymous Iraqi saying American troops were beating him. But with him statying resolutely anonymous, I can't see that story going far.

They would not know the truth if it bit them in their ass and they certainly would never tell us the truth...