I understand the Dixie Chicks will sign at the funeral, if they can hold it together during the period of mourning. And Keith Ellison will hold a candlelight vigil tonight.

Apparently, the kos kids are pi$$ing and moaning that he should have been captured and tried in a court of law.

BWHAHAAHAAHAHAHA!!!!

Happy Days.....scratch one murdering thug.

Guess Nick Berg (he who saw having his son's head sawed off on videotape) is none too happy....seems to have no value for his murdered son and places a value on his murderers....

May the Z man be getting his 72 raisins now in that hot place.

Greg, just imagine his anger when he discovers the 72 virgins are women and not the smooth-bottomed boys he was hoping to have as his catamites.

"You don't suppose he was killed by bombs that saw the target's head off, do you?"

Isn't that a Daisy Cutter?

Bad joke. I was channeling my inner Angryclown.

Please don't tell anyone I have an inner Angryclown.

Anyone see the lame photo the Strib used earlier today? 'Round 10:20 am they changed it from a nice, pleasant, clean-cut photo to one of the dead-shots.

Typical Strib.

Sweet! Nothing the Clown likes better than dead bad guys.

Good thing he didn't have the good sense to hide out in Pakistan. Maybe one day we'll hear the happy news that bin Laden, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar and A.Q. Khan have found themselves on the wrong end of some U.S. of A. ordnance. Just don't count on it as long as Bush feels he must play Mother May I? with this country that shelters more terrorists than 10 Iraqs.

That's AC's way of saying he fully supports an invasion of nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Bingo!

I had "This is all well and good but Wheeeere's Osaaaaamaaaa?" Glad you're still able to see the bright side, AngryClown.

That wasn't your inner Angryclown speaking, Ryan. If it were, you might have said something intelligent.

You're nervous that Pakistan would lob nukes into Minneapolis if we tried to influence their behavior in any way, Ryan? Once again, I lament the pussification of conservatives. The Soviet Union used to have nukes, if you remember. Not to mention the means to deliver them to the U.S., which Pakistan, of course, lacks. If Bush had been president in the '80s, he'd have taken Gorbachev aside and politely asked: "Now Mr. Gorbachev, about that wall... Could you go ahead and, you know, tear it... No? Well it's not that we don't like the wall, don't get me wrong. Forget I said anything."

Good job, "Brian Jones!" Bet your were able to find your a55 with both hands this morning too!

Sadly, they don't give medals to wingnuts who can accurately predict how a smart person would react to some bit of news. But when they start, remind me to endorse your application.

"if we tried to influence their behavior in any way, Ryan?"

So you're saying we've not influence Pakistan in the past five years?

You want to stick with that story?

"Forget I said anything."

Done, done and done.

Sharp eye there, Mitcheroo. Yes, we have influenced Pakistan to support our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which shows we have the ability, when we choose to use it. Unfortunately, because of the administration's incompetence, we are forced to kowtow to the military dictator of a profoundly unfriendly country. Meanwhile we dare not go after - or demand that Pakistan render up - the murderers responsible for 9/11.

Actually, guys, this quote is on the home page over at Kos:

CHEERS to finding a really evil needle in a really big haystack. U.S. forces rocked terrorist Abu Musab "Dick" al-Zarqawi's world last night when they tossed a thousand pounds of explosive whupass down his gullet. They found his body in the bedroom. And the kitchen. And the den. And the garage. And the neighbor's apartment. And I think I found an eyebrow in my Cocoa Puffs this morning. My only regret: he didn't know what hit him.

P.S. Virgins denied, creep.

How do we know it was Really Zarqawi? I thought Karl Rove just made him up.

How do I know that question was really posted by Kermit, for that matter?

Oh right, the telltale abject stupidity of the post.

That coming from AC, the progenitor of all posts dripping with telltale abject stupidity.

Hey, Clown, could you call me a wingnut, please? I haven't had a good wingnut riposte from you in, like, ages.

I'm sorry... I forget... Is this the 19th or the 20th time he was killed?

Doug,

Please provide cites of previous claims of confirmed killings.

Ah, the humor that escapes a mighty intellect like Snarkyclown. I post the moonbat theory with tongue firmly planted in my cheek And then Moveon.Doug follows up with his firm belief in said theory.
Classic.

Ryan! I thought you were dead!

Seriously Mitch...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#Claims_of_death

Also, the picture of al-Zarqawi looks suspiciously like a sleeping Dom Deluise.

Maybe we bombed the set of Smokey and the Bandit IV.

Doug -- From your own link, at no time did the US military claim he was dead. The closest they came was to say they were trying to identify the DNA of remains at an air strike site (an operation which probably involved bulldozers, tweezers and petri dishes).
Plus, everyone knows that Dom Deluise was a leading al Qaeda member. It explains so much...

Kermit, I'm the Zarqawi of the blog world.

Doug,

Chriss made exactly the point I was looking for: at no point has anyone *officially* declared Zarquawi dead until today.

Oh, and Wikipedia is hardly an unbiased source.

chriss, show me where I said ANYTHING about the military claiming he was killed before.

Hey, cool vid of the Zarqawi hit at cnn.com.

Couldn't find any footage of that Haditha operation for some reason.

Maybe you can tell us about the one running through your head, Angryclown. I promise not to label it a "prefabricated narrative."

That's OK Snarky, you can always go back and gaze lovingly at your collection of Abu Grahib photos.

It's only you right-wing kooks who do the one-handed web surf to pictures of Lynndie England, not to mention Condoleeza and Maggie Thatcher.

Ah, more Shakespearian imagery evoked by the literary genius of Angryclown. A master of the written word he is.

If you weren't claiming that the military or US government had made previous statements about killing Z-man, then what was your point?
The only people who appear to have spread greatly exaggerated rumors about Z's demise are Iraqi insurgents and CNN.
From the tone of your comments it seemed that you thought this to be just one more of 20 past reports. How can the Administration and military be responsible for other idiots past false claims?

Doug wrote: "Also, the picture of al-Zarqawi looks suspiciously like a sleeping Dom Deluise."

How do you know what Dom Delouise looks like whan he's sleeping? Yuk!!

Sorry, I was posessed by the wandering spirit of He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken. You know, the Bitter Buffoon, the Piqued Punchinello, the Galled Gagman, The Huffy Harlequin, the Mordant Madcap, the Choleric Comic, etc. etc.

Ooh, good leads Drab. Think I'll also try looking in the Oval Office, under the rug.

"in the Oval Office, under the rug."

Marc Rich's underwear?

"Meanwhile we dare not go after - or demand that Pakistan render up - the murderers responsible for 9/11."

Rubbish, Clown. Musharraf has to deal with the fact that Pakistan has a province full of rabid, ideological enemies; the tribal lands of northwest Pakistan are only nominally part of Pakistan, peopled by zealots awash who find more kinship with the throat-slitting, child-murdering, bomb-throwing enemy than with their own nation.

Sort of like New York City is to the United States.

"in the Oval Office, under the rug."

Tony Snow DOES NOT wear a toupee.

Mitch pointed out: "Musharraf has to deal with the fact that Pakistan has a province full of rabid, ideological enemies; the tribal lands of northwest Pakistan are only nominally part of Pakistan, peopled by zealots awash who find more kinship with the throat-slitting, child-murdering, bomb-throwing enemy than with their own nation."

You're exactly right, Mitch. That's Musharraf's problem - it shouldn't be ours. By choosing to invade Iraq rather than pursuing the people responsible for 9/11, however, Bush turned Pakistan into an indispensible - though highly compromised and unreliable - ally.

As a result, we were forced to quietly permit Pakistani intelligence - which had helped install and support the Taliban - to escape Afghanistan. He's had to countenance A.Q. Khan going scot-free after selling nuclear technology to rogue states. And he's had to tiptoe around the people who are sheltering bin Laden and his pals.

"That's Musharraf's problem - it shouldn't be ours."

Not a binary solution. It is Musharraf's problem - and, since it's a key front in the war on terror (see below), ours as well. And we are assisting Musharraf, within the boundaries one would place on assistance to an (unreliable) ally rather than an enemy. We'd rather not fight more open, hot, shooting wars - right?

" By choosing to invade Iraq rather than pursuing the people responsible for 9/11, however, Bush turned Pakistan into an indispensible - though highly compromised and unreliable - ally."

Right. But since Bush (and Congress) opted to pursue a "war on terror" rather than a "prosecution of those responsible for one incident" (AKA "pursuing the people responsible for 9/11"), he had to think a step or two bigger. Y'know - some of that "nuance" that John Kerry was yapping about.

There's another post in this...

There are also around 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan who would take issue with the notion that we are not pursuing those responsible for 9/11. Let's see, does Mullah Omar rule there anymore? Nope.

"Not a binary solution. It is Musharraf's problem - and, since it's a key front in the war on terror (see below), ours as well. And we are assisting Musharraf, within the boundaries one would place on assistance to an (unreliable) ally rather than an enemy. We'd rather not fight more open, hot, shooting wars - right?"

We can't fight another hot war. We lack the will and the resources. No, the solution is to pick the right ones to fight - your guy's record in that realm is 1-1. Afghanistan was a no-brainer. Iraq? The product of an administration with no brain. The point is, if Musharraf weren't indispensible to the wheel-spinning exercise in Iraq, we could use more stick in Pakistan and less carrot.

" By choosing to invade Iraq rather than pursuing the people responsible for 9/11, however, Bush turned Pakistan into an indispensible - though highly compromised and unreliable - ally."

"Right. But since Bush (and Congress) opted to pursue a "war on terror" rather than a "prosecution of those responsible for one incident" (AKA "pursuing the people responsible for 9/11"), he had to think a step or two bigger. Y'know - some of that "nuance" that John Kerry was yapping about."

Yeah, a big thinker that one. A war on terror would seem to me to involve, you know, killing terrorists. And preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Neither of which can we pursue in Pakistan, cause we needed Musharraf to depose a dictator who sheltered no terrorists and had no WMDs.

Kermit babbled: "There are also around 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan who would take issue with the notion that we are not pursuing those responsible for 9/11. Let's see, does Mullah Omar rule there anymore? Nope."

Yeah, good point Kerm. Mullah Omar lost his job. (Bin Laden seems to still have his, of course.) Though I kind of think maybe he should also be dead. Grow a pair, 'kay Kerm?

Grow a pair? this from an asshat who feels safe anonymously insulting people 2000 miles away.
I smile when I think of the people who read your simpering rebuttals and draw conclusions of their own...

"We can't fight another hot war. We lack the will and the resources."

And, for now, the need.

"The point is, if Musharraf weren't indispensible to the wheel-spinning exercise in Iraq, we could use more stick in Pakistan and less carrot."

Pakistan is irrelevant to Iraq (leaving out the odd Pakistani terrorist who is in Iraq now, in the process of being hunted down and killed); Pakistan shares no border with Iraq. Pakistan was vital to Afganistan (which even you acknowledge was necessary) and will be for Iran (which you SHOULD acknowledge may be necessary, since by your own admission NYC is the ONLY nuke target of any value in the US or anywhere else).

"A war on terror would seem to me to involve, you know, killing terrorists."

Which we're doing. We got a big one yesterday, in case you hadn't heard; in the year before laser-guided justice found him, he sent quite a few plaintive letters to his associates saying that his casualties were getting pretty steep, and operating conditions getting progressively harder.

" And preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction."

Which we did.

" Neither of which can we pursue in Pakistan, cause we needed Musharraf to depose a dictator who sheltered no terrorists and had no WMDs."

a) Again, not really relevant to Iraq
b) Actually, you're wrong, Vobo. Bush did something Clinton couldn't; got India and Pakistan to pull back, put their nukes back in the closet, and play (relatively and objectively) nice together. Y'know - diplomacy. That stuff you guys allegedly favor.

So: Bush got Pakistan to fight /their own/ war against /their own/ terrorists (the way it /should/ be, if we're not acting like "cowboys", right?) AND got them to step back from actually USING nukes, AND despite all that made them AND their enemy, India, allies in the war on terror.

No mean feat - Slick Willie and Madeline Braindead certainly couldn't pull it off.

You really need to do some reading about counterinsurgency warfare. Lesson One: it is not won by setting arbitrary deadlines.

Kermit said: "this from an asshat who feels safe anonymously insulting people 2000 miles away."

Come visit, Kerm. I bet you'd get along great in the big city.

Plus I already called dibs on your shoes.

Mitch observed: "You really need to do some reading about counterinsurgency warfare. Lesson One: it is not won by setting arbitrary deadlines."

As you often do, you attribute to me an argument I did not make. In fact I agree with you.

That's actually Lesson Two. Lesson One is to take care to make sure you've got a worthy objective and an achievable plan to defeat the counterinsurgency.

A worthy objective? Like unseating a dictator and installing a democracy? Ok, then.

One thing Clinton and Bush have in common?

Screwing up Somali.

"Lesson One is to take care to make sure you've got a worthy objective"

Defeating islamofascist terror: Check.

" and an achievable plan"

Achieveable plan - well, it's complex and will require patience (something the left doesn't have, and is plenty scarce on the right).

Or does "Achieveable" mean "guaranteed achievable?" Because there were no guarantees at D-Day, the Battle of the Atlantic, the Battle of Britain, Guadalcanal...

Reality is what happens when you're making plans; when you're fighting against an enemy who's trying to kill you (and may or may not care if he lives), plans need to adapt over time.

"...to defeat the counterinsurgency."

I'll assume you meant "insurgency", right?

Oh, and just so we're clear; "Defeating the insurgency" (in Iraq) and "winning the war on terror" are related, but still differnet battles, requiring different strategies and means.

MB: I'll assume you meant "insurgency", right?

DP: He's a liberal. You should assume nothing.

"Screwing up Somali."

Which Somali? Bush has interns?

Good catch, Mitch. We've done too much defeating the counterinsurgency. We want to do the opposite. The battles you contrast with come from a war of survival. Iraq is a war of choice. Different planets. Like Eracus and comprehensibility.

I love being a soldier that fights the evil Islamic extremeist terrorist over in Iraq when I know they are filtering into my own country, along with anyone else who wants to filter into my own country. By the millions.

GEESH THE INSANITY!

Iraq is a battle in a larger war. I know that's an "inconvenient truth", but so is the effect of prolonged exposure of greasepaint on brain cells.

"The battles you contrast with come from a war of survival."

Yes and no. We could have settled with Hitler AND the Japanese (in fact, both were banking that we would).

But for purposes of this discussion, sure. WWII was a war for survival. So when you say...

"Iraq is a war of choice."

...again, yes and no. Every war involves choices. WWII was a war of survival - but invading North Africa and Italy before going into France was (arguably) not necessary; they diverted from the main task of killing Hitler.

Iraq was a matter of "choice" only if you think the war on terror is a campaign to capture Bin Laden, or you think that we're going to have a chance at some point to get all the terrorists into one convenient place to kill them all.

Bush's "choice" to fight the war, though, is to insinuate Democracy into the region. Since it'd hardly do to invade "friends" (even crappy ones like the Saudis or deeply flawed ones like Pakistan) or potential friends (the majority of Iranians want to be rid of the Mullahs), Iraq was a good place to start. And he was right. Iraq will eventually clean up the insurgents. Counterinsurgency wars take time and patience, but the Iraqis (and we) have all the advantages (except that whole "large class of people at home who want us to lose" thing).

Thanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.