Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Zarqawi: Like Night and Day
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Noel Sheppard points out that Old Media's treatment of Zarkawi has been...uh...interestingly nuanced.

When he was still causing havoc, he was a dangerous individual indeed. Now that he's dead, well, the general consensus is apparently that he really wasn't all that important after all. A brief quote gives you the flavor:
ABC's Diane Sawyer invited perennial Bush-basher Richard Clarke on "Good Morning America" to solicit his opinion on the subject. As reported by NewsBusters, Sawyer asked,
"[Is] it any safer in Iraq and will the war end any sooner?"


Clarke responded:
"Well, unfortunately the answer is no. This man was a terrible man. He was a symbol of terrorism. He was the face of terrorism, the only real name we knew of an insurgent leader in Iraq. But he commanded only a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency. And so, unfortunately for the loved ones of troops over in Iraq, this is not going to mean a big difference."
Sawyer incredulously concluded the segment:
"So for overall terrorism against the U.S., it's, again, not a major effect."
Yet, on November 21, 2005, Sawyer and the Good Morning America team weren't so blasé about capturing or killing Zarqawi. Quite the contrary, Sawyer began her report that morning:
"Right now intelligence officials are pouring over information trying to decide if it's possible that public enemy number one in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, has, in fact, been killed over the weekend. ABC's chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross tells us what he learned."
Ross answered:
"If it's true it'd be major victory for the US in Iraq."
This raises a rather obvious question: how could what would have been a "major victory" if it had occurred in November 2005 not have "a major effect" when it actually transpires less than seven months later?
A more cynical observer might note that Zarqawi was only dangerous when his existence as a threat was evidence of the Bush Administration's incompetence when it came to finding him. When Zarqawi's death removed that club with which to beat the Bush Administration, he suddenly became a personage of marginal importance.

That's what a cynical observer would say, anyway.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Glad we’re not cynical around here, no sirree.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://catallarchy.net/blog/
It has been proposed by "an anonymous great political mind" that reality has a well known "liberal bias."

Unless, of course, reality makes liberalism look like a bad joke. In the case of the Zarqman, reality had more of a "500 pound explosive ordinance" bias, which doesn’t seem too "liberal" to the "no war" types who were ready to turn tail and surrender years ago.
 
Written By: Good Lt
URL: http://www.aredphishhead.blogspot.com
"That’s what a cynical observer would say, anyway."
That is what any intelligent observer would say, other than deluded or partisan liberals.

 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
There is an excellent discussion by Lorie Byrd on Examiner.com about the flexible truth as told by liberals. Many if not most liberals agree that this statement by President Bush was a lie:
“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.” — Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003.
The following similar statements were made by prominent Democrats:
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct. 2002
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
I don’t understand why you think "major victory" and "no major effect" are contradictory. It is of course a victory to kill an enemy leader. It is also quite possible that the victory will have no major effect on ongoing operations, since leaders can be replaced. It was a major victory when we captured Saddam Hussein, but that had little operational effect.

If the reports that the Sunnis turned in Z-man are correct, then that will be a major victory that could well have a major positive effect on the overall conflict.
 
Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
It has been proposed by "an anonymous great political mind" that reality has a well known "liberal bias."
Given the stagflation of the ’70s, the effects of welfare on black families, the fall of the USSR, the failure of the Canadian healthcare system, etc., I’d say that that "liberal bias" reality has is very negative.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider