California Conservative

9 Responses to “The Left and the Death of Zarqawi”

1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator Says:
   June 9th, 2006 at 8:33 am

   Berg: No Good in Al-Zarqawi’s Death

   Father of man believed to be beheaded by al-Zarqawi sees no good in terrorist leader’s death

2. PartisanTimes.com Says:
   June 9th, 2006 at 11:03 am

   Zarqawi’s Death from the Illiberals’ Perspective

   For the vast majority of Americans — and Westerners in general — news of Zarqawi’s death is cause for celebration. But in the darkest corners of the blogosphere, where the illiberals lurk, the death of Zarqawi takes on a different

3. PartisanTimes.com Says:
   June 9th, 2006 at 11:04 am

   PART 2: Zarqawi’s Death from the Illiberals’ Perspective

   From Part 1: For the vast majority of Americans — and Westerners in general — news of Zarqawi’s death is cause for celebration. But in the darkest corners of the blogosphere, where the illiberals lurk, the death of Zarqawi takes

4. PartisanTimes.com Says:
   June 9th, 2006 at 11:04 am

   It’s a Good Day for Killing Terrorists

   Waking up this morning, I never would have thought that the number 1 2 most wanted terrorists would be dead by the afternoon. The heroic men and women of the US armed forces get credit for the top hit, Abu

5. PartisanTimes.com Says:
   June 9th, 2006 at 11:06 am

   Al-Quaida’s al-Zawahri Overlooks Zarqawi’s Death in New Tape

   Apparently, the sophistication of the al-Qaida terrorist network ends where information flows begin. While the better half of the free world was celebrating the death al-Zarqawi yesterday, al-Qaida’s No.2 henchman, Ayman al-Zawahri, was busy producin…

6. Carlos Says:
   June 9th, 2006 at 6:32 pm

   As a noted national radio host pointed out today, now the moonbats are playing full-tilt on both ends of the playing field.

   On the one hand, they still claim al Qaida was nowhere to be found in Iraq before the war, and never were. It was Bush who caused the influx of (foreign) terrorists into that country, and we had to pay the price for that.

   Now, they are also claiming that GW screwed up big time by not taking al Zarqawi out when he had the chance in 2002, when has was in Iraq helping Hussein with his riesen (sp?) and nuclear programs. GW apparently knew exactly where he was, yet paased up the chance to take him out.

   So, which one is it? Was he not there before the war, and came running to help lead against the evil invaders from the West, or was he there and we didn’t take him out when we had the chance? Can’t have it both ways, ya know.

7. Stop Bush! Says:
   June 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pm

   Carlos, gnat-brain here. Your question:

   al Qaida was nowhere to be found in Iraq before the war…GW screwed up big time by not taking al Zarqawi out when he had the chance in 2002, when has was in Iraq helping Hussein with his riesen (sp?) and nuclear programs…Was he not there before the war…or was he there and we didn’t take him out when we had the chance?

   is, as usual, illogical and disingenuous.

   Zarqawi was there. Working with Saddam on ricen or nuclear programs is… doubtful. The key point is that al Queda was not in Iraq before we invaded. However, Zarqawi was, and it was well known that he was heading a terrorist organization that eventually, seeing an opportunity to harm the West, hooked up with al Queda after we invaded.

   So, the real question is, why didn’t we take Zarqawi out when we had the chance? Of course, this question points to the inept administration and their failures, so let’s just point-fingers, engage in semantic debate, and change the subject.

   Now Carlos, I know its hard for you to see past your bias and ignorance, but even you should be able to understand that change happens, and Zarqawi changed his tactics once Saddam was deposed. The stumbling block must be that you’d have to admit the incredible blunders this administration has made, and the unimagineable costs that we’re going to have to pay for the foreseeable future.

   Funny how conservatives like to make a mess, spend billions to clean it up, and then take credit for cleaning up the mess ignoring it was they who made the mess in the first place.

   What ever happened to traditional conservative values?

8. Carlos Says:
   June 11th, 2006 at 1:41 pm

   SB!: As usual, you left out what may be a pertinent point: Mr. Zarqawi was, in fact, hooked up with al Qaida well before we went to Iraq (the second time, to enforce the U.N. resolution Hussein had been violating for years while there was a jackass, I mean a donkey, as Prez.), and that has been recorded even in that bastion of conservatism, the NYT. And he was even in contact with his masters to the north while in Iraq! Isn’t that amazing.

   I’m sure this point simply slipped your mind (or attention), but it does seem to me that it is relevant to the discussion here.

   Final point: If Zarqawi wasn’t working on ricen (sp?) or nuclear or cyanide or whatever, what was he doing in Iraq? Having tea and crumpets with Saddham each day? I didn’t think so.

   So, it is established he was in Iraq. It is established that he was already part of the al Qaida network (he and Masri trained together in 2000, I believe, in Afghanistan). He was not working alone in Iraq. Why was he there, at that time?

9. Stop Bush! Says:
   June 11th, 2006 at 6:48 pm

   Could it be he was there working against Saddam? I know CONservatives don’t like to look at the fact that Saddam was a secular tyrant. Zarqawi was a Muslim/religious fanatiscist, as is bin Laden, but it was established here and elsewhere before that bin Laden and Zarqawi were not in cahoots… until they were united by our presence. Not our fault, but more an unintended consequence.

   Of course, we might have forseen this, had there been any real analysis of what would happen post-invasion Iraq; but that was sorely lacking.

   Do you really believe that the terrorist training camps in Afganistan, Pakistan and elsewhere only turn out al Queda?

   And finally, I suppose the numerous air strikes Clinton executed against Saddam, including the one he ordered while being impeached and which RepubliCONs said “We support our troops but we don’t support this!” slipped your mind.

Leave a Reply