The ever helpful (to the terrorists), America hating New York Times published a front page story replete with details on how our team located the Z-Man. They did everything but name the sources inside AQ in Iraq. They would have if they knew it.

Jesus you Bush apologists are puss1es. Bin Laden headed a conspiracy that killed a couple thousand Americans on U.S. soil in history's worst terrorist attack. Stop pretending he shouldn't be dead, like yesterday. It doesn't matter if he's "neutered" or "a figurehead." (Remember how much stock you wingnuts put into the argument that Saddam Hussein was contained before the war?)

Seems to me Bush's failure to execute on his promise to "hunt 'im down" and "smoke 'im out" sets kind of a bad example to aspiring bin Ladens. (To say nothing of A.Q. Khan, who hasn't gotten as much as a parking ticket for selling nuclear technology to rogue regimes.) It also seems to me that, if - as seems likely - bin Laden outlives the Bush presidency, that's a huge, historical failure. But I guess you armchair Pattons know better.

Angryclown cheers the news of the hit on Zarqawi, and read with great interest the details of the operation this morning. Some good news, Mitch: apparently some guys in Zarqawi's hideout engaged U.S. forces before the bomb dropped. So one hopes he had a few moments to contemplate his doom.

Not as much poetic justice as cutting off his head, as you note, but there's a danger in too much literalism. At one time, Angryclown thought it would be good to dispatch bin Laden and Zawahiri by tying them to posts next to one another, then permit members of the 9/11 families to pilot explosive-laden, radio-controlled model airplanes into them. Get it?

That was in the early days after 9/11. Since then, Angryclown's passions have cooled and sweet reason has taken the place of vengeance in Angryclown's tiny heart. Angryclown now believes it would be much more appropropriate for bin Laden to be executed, simply, by Santa Claus during half-time of the Superbowl.

If your guy can catch him, that is. Maybe Bush can try saying "pretty please" to Musharraf again.

Good Lord you're an idiot, Kermit. The Times story tells the official version of what happened. Every important detail is sourced to a U.S. official, much of it on the record:

"This gentlemen was key to our success in finding Zarqawi," said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the spokesman for the American military in Baghdad [referring to the "spiritual advisor, . "Through painstaking intelligence effort, they were able to start tracking him, monitoring his movements and establishing when he was doing his link-ups with Zarqawi."

And all the sources in the U.S., Iraq and Jordan, up to and including Rummy, are putting out the story that we had flipped somebody close to Zarqawi. Sure Kerm, the Times has handed another victory to the terrorists. You know, by sowing distrust among whatever remains of Zarqawi's organization.

This is a story the Pentagon and the White House want told.

Oh my goodness! You're right! How could I have ever misinterpreted the motives of the times? All they've ever done in the last 4+ years is been totally supportive of the Administration and it's policies.

Nice rope-a-dope, Kerm. Now back on the topic: the point you tried to make about the Times story, today, in this post, is wrong. And anyone with the slightest bit of sense reading the story would realize that. So please, try to elevate the level of debate here. Pay attention and think before you post.

No wonder they call you ass clown, Angry, to describe the placement of your head. Suddenly, The New York Times "tells the official version of what happened" because "this is a story the Pentagon and the White House want told?" Well, of course they do. It's the trufe afterall. And the NYT always tells the trufe, as us pussy Bush apologists well know and you angry clowns all believe. This way, y'see, we never have to enter a discussion about what we gave the Iranians for Zarqawi in a body bag. Or do you think 30 years of U.S. foreign policy simply reverses on the notion just another Arab nutjob announces he really, really hates the Jews? Now that you clowns have swallowed down the line, how'd you like the hook and sinker?

I was wondering when we'd again be treated to the ravings of Eracus, crackerbarrel philosopher of the North.

So perfessor, I've read your post a couple times, and the only argument you leave me is: What?

Or maybe it's just Angryclown. Just for fun, instead of explaining your post, lets see if any of your rightwing kook pals have any idea what you're talking about. Wingnuts?

"So please, try to elevate the level of debate here."

Considering the source, quite possibly the funniest post I have ever read.

Oh, was he making some sort of point? I got to the "Jesus you Bush apologists are puss1es." and figured it was the same old stuff. I figure this was about the same thing that was said back in '43 when the US Army shot down Yamamoto. "Jesus you Roosevelt apologists are puss1es. Shooting down Yamamoto means nothing! Why didnt you shoot down Hitler? LOSERS! Withdraw the troops now!"

YES! AC threw down with "Wingnuts!" I thought he'd forgotten how. I can now progress with my Friday with my mind at ease.

No need, Funnyheadinbutt. The U.S. Secretary of State announced via your own angry clown network a week ago last Wednesday that the U.S. will again talk directly with Iran. One week later, Iran's top angry clown is dead. Just dumb luck?

Not a chance.

Uh-hem.
This is Hitchens three days ago in Slate:
"The other difference, one ought not need add, is that in My Lai the United States was fighting the Vietcong. A recent article about the captured diary of a slain female Vietnamese militant (now a best seller in Vietnam) makes it plain that we were vainly attempting to defeat a peoples' army with a high morale and exalted standards."

Hitchens is still a commie. He hates only terrorism that is linked to religion. According to Hitchens, Vietnamese who entered poor villages & slaughtered men, women, and children as an act of war weren't terrorists because . . . well, they did it in the 60's and revolution was in the air! If half of a country's population want to make it a totalitarian, ideological dictatorship how dare the other half resist. They were making Vietnam a better place, man!

Maybe someone should tell Eracus that Zarqawi was blowing up Shiites. And Iran is full of Shiites. Not sure what idiotic conspiracy theory you're spinning, perfesser. But they're playing on different teams.

Kinda like you and reality.

Google's a wonderful tool, dude (I'm assuming here - you do have a chick name, after all), but it can't make up for a low intelligence and substandard education. Here's part of the article you linked but failed to quote:

"But U.S. analysts are skeptical of Jordanian allegations about a significant relationship between al-Zarqawi and Iranian intelligence. A U.S. official says the CIA believes that while in Iran, al-Zarqawi spent a lot of time trying to evade arrest by Iranian authorities, and because of his apparent antagonism toward Shiite Muslims, al-Zarqawi and Iranian officials wouldn't befriend each other."

Of course it's very funny when wingnuts like yourself quote Newsweek - whose credibility you'd otherwise place somewhere between Pravda and a DNC newsletter - in the mistaken belief that it supports some point you're trying to advance.

You're right, Snarky. Let's quote a news source wingnuts hate.

ABC News
March 6, 2006 — U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

Thanks for the irrelevant post, Kerm. Iran wants the U.S. out of a neighboring, majority-Shiite country, leaving a vacuum that Iran or a puppet government could conceivable fill? Not a big surprise - anyone with a passing knowlege of the situation warned of that danger before the war.

What you fail to do is provide any evidence that Iran provided material support to Zarqawi, a Sunni who was killing Shiites in addition to Americans. Or to link the U.S. change in policy toward Iran to the killing of Zarqawi - which was Eracus' original "point."

I'm sorry you can't draw basic connections, Snarky. Let me make this as basic as possible.

Shi'a = Muslim
Sunni = Muslim
US = not Muslim

First get rid of not Muslim, then sort out the internecine squabble. You know, that whole "the enemy of my enemy is my freind" concept?
I'll grant that there was no change in US policy regarding killing the Z-Man. Killing him was our policy ever since Bush took office. Before that Clinton and Halfbright wanted to arrest him, read him his Miranda rights and appoint a public defender.
Of course Iran wants the U.S. out of a neighboring, majority-Shiite country. They want the Saudis out of Arabia. They want a new Persian Empire.
In the words of that great statesman Joe Biden "Maybe you should try reading a little history. boss".

Please provide links to the authority you're basing your points on in the future, Kerm. It would be helpful because you're, you know, stupid. And I feel I'd be wasting my time considering a point with no support other than your own ill-informed opinion. Thanks!

"I'm sorry you can't draw basic connections, Snarky. Let me make this as basic as possible."

I'm also sorry you can't make basic arguments. They're called "observations", Snarky. Kinda like " you're, you know, stupid". Now we all know you draw on your own unquestionable authority for this brilliant "observation", as irrefutable as that authority has always been. Your subtle use of the ad hominem attack is just so gosh darn original.

You're not all that bright, are you, clown? After the Taliban fell Zarqawi went to Iran & organized al-tawhid. Zarqawi also took on iranian kurds at the mullah's request.
No more free lessons in current events, clown.

Terry, seriously. Dude or chick? Dying to know here.

Gee Snarky, I'm surprised you care.

(Sorry, after the brownshirt comment I just couldn't resist.)

Just for the mental picture, Kerm.

In Angryclown's mind's eye, you're Wallace Shawn, fyi.

Just for the mental picture, Snark.

In Kermit's eye, you're Helen Thomas, for what it's worth.

Ok, I take it back.
Wally's a good Character actor. I loved him in The Princess Bride. Too bad about Meathead. I look nothing like him, (except for the hairline). I have those Nordic features common to those of us who live up here in Not New York.
Let's put it this way, Berg and I are most likely distant relatives. Mine settled in SoDak, his in NoDak.

Eracus, you are an idiot and you've once again grown very tiresome. You started all this with an unsupported and poorly expressed theory that the Iranians pulled the plug on Zarqawi as a quid pro quo for the administration softening its stance on talks with Iran. So either pony up some support or shut up, 'kay?

You're one of those guys whose posts become ever more bloated as you come to realize you've got your head up your ass.

I searched your post in vain for some suppport for your point - doesn't have to be the Times or CNN - one of your wingnut conspiracy blogs will do if that's your evidence.

But please, either offer something beyond your personal ruminations or stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

Considering that my attempts to post here are routinely denied and the post to which you are responding was quickly deleted, why should I waste any more of my time?

Well you've got a point there, Eracus. I wonder if it was a technical problem. Your post certainly wasn't any more abusive than the average Angryclown offering.

Perhaps Mitch thought your argument was so persuasive that Angryclown's sole remaining alterenative would be one of those warlike Guantanamo suicides.

Child's play, clown.

A top al Qaeda associate in Iraq has fled to neighboring Iran, where he and several senior al Qaeda leaders apparently remain under the protection of the Iranian government, U.S. intelligence officials say. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi fled Iraq within the past several weeks and is in Iran, the officials told The Washington Times. Iran's government have denied Bush administration assertions that Tehran was harboring al Qaeda terrorists. But the Iranian government has recently stated that it had detained several al Qaeda members, although it has not identified any. American intelligence officials said Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and the Qods Division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a unit of hard-line Islamist shock troops, are deeply involved in supporting terrorists, including al Qaeda. A U.S. official said the Bush administration wants Iran to turn over al-Zarqawi to the United States because of his connection to the Foley killing, although it could not be learned whether the State Department has made a formal request. The U.S. official said any approach is likely to be carried out through a friendly third party, such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030610-125659-6237r.htm
------------------
The final breakthrough in the long pursuit of the most blood-stained terrorist of them all, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, came from Jordan.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1173
------------------

Sources close to Jordanian intelligence say al-Zarqawi has gone back and forth across the Iran-Iraq border since Saddam's regime fell. According to a Jordanian intelligence briefing made available to NEWSWEEK, al-Zarqawi crossed the Iranian border after being wounded in Afghanistan in late 2001, was treated, then stayed in an Iranian safe house in the same town as fugitive Qaeda leaders. Later al-Zarqawi traveled to northern Iraq, Syria and Turkey. But he supposedly returned to Iran around March 2002, at which point he was "arrested" by Iranian authorities. Some Jordanian investigators believe that a high-ranking Iranian intel official then established a relationship with him to provide aid.....But according to the Jordanian briefing, after the invasion of Iraq al-Zarqawi recrossed the border into Iran and was again "captured" by Iranian authorities. Some Jordanian officials believe that during this sojourn in "custody," al-Zarqawi's high-level Iranian contact got in touch again, and this time encouraged him to organize violent resistance to the American occupation of Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6262451/site/newsweek/
--------------------

in the German newspaper Die Zeit. That article cited court documents drawn from the depositions of a Palestinian terrorist who was cooperating with German authorities. The terrorist revealed that Zarqawi wore several hats: He was a top officer of al Qaeda, and the leader of a terrorist group known as al Tawhid, and he lived and worked in Tehran. He noted that Zarqawi was a key figure in the "reorganized al Qaeda" (reorganized after the debacle in Afghanistan) and was "one of the major coordinators of Iranian-sponsored terrorism in Europe."............documents surfaced in Italian court cases that showed Zarqawi's involvement in terrorist networks in Milan and other northern Italian cities. And just last week, the Corriere della Sera reported that Zarqawi's name had surfaced in recent investigations into al Qaeda's efforts to recruit radical Muslims in Italy for guerrilla and suicide attacks in Iraq. And, like the German documents, the Italian evidence led straight back to Tehran, whence Zarqawi had issued orders to his agents in Italy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200403290858.asp

Thank you for your kind allowance, AC.

No! Not a warlike Guantanamo suicide. Europe will call for the closing of Shot in the Dark.