« More Saddam Terrorist Ties Discovered | Main | Ben Roethlisberger Injured in Motorcycle Accident »

Hindsight is always 20/20

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is not even a week dead, and already the media is eagerly rewriting history to bolster their own ideological agenda.

This morning's Boston Globe has a story about how Zarqawi didn't really have much support among the Arab world. You see, the rank and file Muslims were repulsed by his tactics and atrocities. They just didn't speak up before now because...

um...

Well, I'm sure they had their reasons.

In all fairness, some Muslims did speak out against Zarqawi. The families of those killed in the Jordanian wedding bombings have been outspoken for some time. What's really new is the prominence their criticisms are being given in the media.

It's almost as if the media is trying to downplay and diminish the significance of killing Zarqawi, about a half-dozen of his top supporters, and uncovering a veritable treasure trove of intelligence. But that would be presuming that the media has some kind of interest in not seeing good news for the US out of Iraq...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hindsight is always 20/20:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Bush Trumpets Iraq Terror Leader's Death

Comments (39)

Anyone else detecting a pat... (Below threshold)

Anyone else detecting a pattern here?

The Democrats and the fMSM wailed about how Saddam was on the loose, Bush couldn't get him - then we got him, and suddenly he wasn't so important blah blah blah.

They said much the same about Zarqawi - until we got him, now he isn't so important blah blah blah.

They've been whining about Osama since Tora Bora. Now, if we do happen to catch or kill him, wanna bet we don't start hearing about how insignificant he's been, just living in a cave somewhere, and how his death will energize the terrorists blah blah blah?

Don't DARE question their patriotism, though! To be fair, we can't really do that, since there isn't a sufficient sample for testing . . .

"It's not going to end the ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"It's not going to end the war. And it's certainly not going to end the violence."

I wonder who said these words, downplaying the significance of Zarqawi's death...

I'll give you a hint! It's the same guy who said "bring 'em on." (He later regretted this statement)

We all saw this coming. Wai... (Below threshold)
Candy:

We all saw this coming. Wait until we catch Bin Laden - they'll say the poor dear was playing tiddly winks up in the mountains and the mean ol' Marines ruined the game.

So jp2 I guess Bus... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

So jp2

I guess Bush did mean it when He said "bring em on." Zarqawi brought it on and now He's gone!!

Charles Osgood spent most o... (Below threshold)

Charles Osgood spent most of his entire "The Osgood File" commentary today explaining to us why killing Zarqawi won't reduce the killing and might actually make things worse.

The trouble is, following this line of logic ... that killing the terrorists only makes the terrorism worse ... then the answer must be what ... reward them?

Transcript here

Zarqawi DID NOT have suppor... (Below threshold)

Zarqawi DID NOT have support. That is true.
The infidel dog wanted to divide Shias and Sunnis.
He killed innocent people of all religions and cultures. How the hell can normal people support him? That unholy infidel was just like the other evil forces.
I feel these people should be killed in public in front of the whole world and shown on TV. So nobody dares to do such things again.

Well, since the moonbats th... (Below threshold)

Well, since the moonbats think America is the source of all the world's evil, many of them feel the solution is to surrender, dismantle the Republic, and submit to Sharia law.

The rest want to switch to an idyllic "socialist republic" like Cuba or North Korea.


Zarqawi represented about 1... (Below threshold)
KEN HOOP:

Zarqawi represented about 10 percent of the Iraqi resistance. Bush for years tried to make out like he and foreign Al Qaida were MOST of the resistance, rather than NATIVE Iraqi nationalists,secular and religious.

Those who bought Bush's lies or didn't care that he was lying are those who are complaining about
"liberal" and "media" revisionism re Zarqawi.

Bush for years tried to ... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

Bush for years tried to make out like he and foreign Al Qaida were MOST of the resistance, rather than NATIVE Iraqi nationalists,secular and religious.

Got a link for that assertion, Ken?

Tob

"Zarqawi represented about ... (Below threshold)

"Zarqawi represented about 10 percent of the Iraqi resistance."

Ummm. No.

Unless by "native" you mean "foreign" and by "resistance" you mean "terrorists" and by "10%" you mean "the majority."

I thought Zark was jordani... (Below threshold)
virgo:

I thought Zark was jordanian? not Iraqi,thats just where He chose to make His last stand...

Here is a good summary of h... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Here is a good summary of how the left conveniently changed its tune

Media's Conveniently Changing View of Zarqawi

Note how the MSM and the mo... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Note how the MSM and the moonbat posters all of a sudden claim that Zark wasn't that important, yet in all the time that the US was hunting for him, none of these people brought up how insignificant he was.

Plenty of those in the MSM fell over themselves trying to get the latest video from an 'insignificant' al Queda member.

Does that mean that all of ... (Below threshold)
PMain:

Does that mean that all of the Globe's previous articles showing how the US was losing & the Al Qaeda based insurgency was winning were totally false?

Ken, read this carefully, o... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf:

Ken, read this carefully, or have anyone you know who has a bit of sanity left read it to you. You believed and believe the lie that Bush lied. I know that is difficult for a liar to grasp, as you think others are lying just because you do. There is no historical evidence that Bush has lied. None, zilch, zero. The lie is that he lied. Get it? Bush knows what is is.

There is no historical e... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

There is no historical evidence that Bush has lied. Zelsdorf

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." GWB

Now, you're correct, this is not technically a lie. But the logical conclusion one gets from this statement is that Saddam Hussein had nuclear capability or was at least in the process of developing them, which was false. As everyone can see from Iran, hiding a nuclear program is nearly impossible. So if you think that GWB honestly believed Saddam was anywhere even close to nukes, you are lying to yourself.

oh, I also posted some link... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

oh, I also posted some links supporting the claim that the resistance is a significant Iraqi majority. For some reason, it said the post had to wait because there were too many links.

Jay, can you do anything about this? thanks.

"the rank and file Muslims ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"the rank and file Muslims were repulsed by his tactics and atrocities"
The Boston Globe has it right!!!! All the more reason that this was a big kill!!!! The United States, again, is in sync with the majority of Iraqis

Well, then, that means me, ... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Well, then, that means me, MI6 and every intelligence agency in Europe. We all that that nukes were a possibility.

The thing is, Saddam did have 500 tons of yellowcake, 2 tons of enriched and was buying centrifuges.

All Saddam needed was to bribe the French to persuade the US to drop the sanctions and rev up the program.

It almost worked.

And speaking of kidding yourself- those hundreds of drums of "pesticides" that were buried? You're delusional if you think pesticides needed to be buried in the desert. Pesticides are a tiny step away from chemical weapons- the only difference is dosage. Organophosphates are organophosphates. Calling them "agricultural" is the PC version of "we don't want to acknowledge that anyone found real chemical weapons."

When you read the Iraqi blo... (Below threshold)

When you read the Iraqi blogs, like "Iraq the Model," and when you see actual Iraqis talking on the news, they're really friggin' happy that Zarkawi is dead, and talk about how great it is.

But I guess they don't count, with them being there and involved and all of that useless stuff.

It's not just that we go... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

It's not just that we got Zarqawi- it's that we got Zarqawi.

He was given up. We are getting the right intel finally.

That is great news. Let the successor make a video soon!

Well, then, that means m... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Well, then, that means me, MI6 and every intelligence agency in Europe. We all that that nukes were a possibility.

The thing is, Saddam did have 500 tons of yellowcake, 2 tons of enriched and was buying centrifuges. dr john

got links? I am still skeptical if European intel agencies actually believed Saddam had nuke capacity of any kind. They had to prepare for the worst, but, more likely than not, they knew that Saddam was no where near developing anything. The 500 tons of was of depleted uranium, which has a lower concentration of U235 (the isotope necessary for nukes), so that is essentially starting from less than scratch. I would like some proof for your 2 tons of enriched claim, but it should also be noted that this would be enrich to civilian reactor levels, which is less than halfway to reach weapon level. The centrifuges story could be valid, but in the long run pointless. How long would it have taken to build an industrial scale cascade with sanctions still in effect? 10 years? 20 years? Never?

[btw, there were 2 centrifuge stories I remember. one about some scientist having parts and plans buried in his backyard and the other about aluminum tubes which were more likely for conventional weapons and would have required coming up with unique plans since they had never been used for nuke development.]

Saddam was a threat, but a caged one. I don't know exactly how the sanctions worked, but I'm sure if we wanted to the US could have bribed France even more than Iraq could have to keep them on. It would have been a lot cheaper than this war, that's for sure. But hell, it wouldn't have even come to that. We had the world on our side after 9/11, and if we demanded the sanctions stay, France would have had no choice.

But back to the point. Bush purposely blurred the lines to deceive the public. Now, again, I will concede that is not lying per se. But it that how you expect our president to act when it comes to matters of war and peace?

"Saddam was a threat, but a... (Below threshold)

"Saddam was a threat, but a caged one."

...who kept fiddling with the bars, firing weapons at the people who were keeping him in that cage, and was, with a moderate degree of success, bribing the people who held the keys.

Meanwhile, he kept up a running dialogue with the uncaged threats who were also attacking his enemies, and was funding people who were killing quite a few citizens of our allied countries.

Oh, yeah, and he was also responsible for the deaths of more people per year than have been killed by the entire current war.

The only threat he wasn't was a "next week" sort, and he was still trying to set up for whenever he got those zookeepers to let him out of the cage.

sean opines: <blockq... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

sean opines:

I don't know exactly how the sanctions worked, but I'm sure if we wanted to the US could have bribed France even more than Iraq could have to keep them on.

So much for principle. So much for nations acting on what's right. So much for idealism.

Tell me, sean, how does this differ from "no blood for oil?" What sets this apart from Saddam's own "oil for food"/crude pro quo bribery shenanigans? Is everything for sale in your world? The "right" side is whichever is the highest bidder?

So sean's argument boils down to that Bush, for all his other flaws, was just too damned cheap to buy the French.

His other argument, that the US had a lock on world sympathy after 9/11 and could have used that to sway nations like France, is utterly devoid of any resemblance to reality. I recall that even our invasion of Afghanistan was met with some resistance, and we were accused of "exploiting" 9/11 within months of the attacks.

No wonder sean and his colleagues are so confused about the present. They've so rewritten the past, they can't keep their stories straight any more.

J.

Every prominent Democrat sa... (Below threshold)
SmartGuy:

Every prominent Democrat said that it was clear that Saddam had WMDs and that he must be taken out. Clinton, Kerry, Dean, etc. How can they all say the same thing, but it is only Bush that lied?

It's the bottom line agenda of the left. If something good happens for America, it is bad for the democrats. If something bad happens, it is good for the Democrats. So, whatever happens, make sure it is spun the correct way. Why do you think Murtha was so gleeful in recounting the story of the Marines that murdered innocent people? When the investigation is complete and the marines are found innocent, I wonder if he will report that just as excitedly. He's a typical scum politician only cares about his own political agenda, regardless of what is good for America.

Smart, Don't need t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Smart,
Don't need to wait. Just look at their reactions to the death of Zaquawi for the answer.

What's fun is to go back to... (Below threshold)

What's fun is to go back to 2000 and before and and find articles (mostly in the print media, for some reason - they seem to have disappeared from the original online sources) telling us that the big threats from terror didn't come from the Middle East, and that people like this bin Laden guy weren't any sort of threat at all, and they were just being faked up to make us run around in fear and do what the evil Republicans wanted us to do.

Look up a guy named Ali Abunimah some time. He gets all sorts of pundit gigs, they ask him a lot of questions about how the USS should act in the Middle East, and his biggest prediction, pre-9/11, was 180 degrees outside of reality.

First, I must correct mysel... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

First, I must correct myself. dr john was correct about his numbers. Here are the numbers from Duefler's report about Iraq's uranium supplies:

"During the 1970s and early 1980s, Iraq bought uranium in various forms from the international market. These materials included about 486 tons of yellowcake, 33,470 kg of "natural" uranium dioxide, 1,767 kg of "low-enriched" uranium dioxide (2.6 percent 235U), and 6,005 kg of "depleted" uranium dioxide from Portugal, Italy, Niger, and Brazil."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

Yellowcake is U3O8 and this uranium is the same concentration of the U235 isotope as natural uranium, so it still requires extensive processing to be used for weapons. Weapons-grade uranium must be ~90% U235, while natural is 0.7%, enriched is 3-20% depending on the type of nuclear reactor you're using, and depleted is 0.2%. And some reports indicate the US has dropped as much as 2000 tons of depleted uranium in bombs on Iraqi targets.

...who kept fiddling with the bars, firing weapons at the people who were keeping him in that cage, and was, with a moderate degree of success, bribing the people who held the keys.

Meanwhile, he kept up a running dialogue with the uncaged threats who were also attacking his enemies, and was funding people who were killing quite a few citizens of our allied countries. cirby

All of this is true, and no one denies that Saddam was evil. But Bush escalated the threat to nuclear. That is above and beyond all of this and should have been clearly seen as false before the war. He might have made his case on these facts alone, but certainly adding the nuclear threat made the case "a slam dunk".

Tell me, sean, how does this differ from "no blood for oil?" What sets this apart from Saddam's own "oil for food"/crude pro quo bribery shenanigans? Is everything for sale in your world? The "right" side is whichever is the highest bidder? Jay

No, just pointing out that war was not the only option. Would I have wanted to bribe France? Absolutely not and shouldn't have had to. We could have used diplomacy to keep them on our side and I guess "exploit" 9/11 as you put it to show how real the threat was. I still believe to this day that not all options were expended prior to the war. If removal of the sanctions was the rationale that would have allowed Saddam to resume his capacity, then threaten war if they are removed. That would have had a profound effect on France's decision to keep/remove sanctions.

This is something I tried t... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

This is something I tried to post before, but couldn't because of a spam blocker or something.

Got a link for that assertion, Ken? Toby

US Army admits Iraqis outnumber foreign fighters as its main enemy

and

this wiki article has more links. look under "foreign insurgents"

and finally

Note how the MSM and the moonbat posters all of a sudden claim that Zark wasn't that important, yet in all the time that the US was hunting for him, none of these people brought up how insignificant he was. hermie

Hmm, now why would that be?

Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi

sean, what is your fixation... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

sean, what is your fixation with getting France on board? Historically, having France on your side is pretty much a guarantee of a disaster. As Jed Babin, former Defense Department official, once said, "going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordian. All you leave behind is a lot of noisy baggage."

Also, when was the last time France has willingly joined the US on a major issue? For the past few decades (the 60's, at least), France's foreign policy has seemed to revolve around "stick it to the Americans."

Finally, sean, "threaten war if the sanctions are lifted?" HELLO?!?!?!? The sanctions were one of the major casus belli here! The sanctions were part and parcel of the entire surrender agreement of Gulf War I. With the lifting of the sanctions, we suddenly have certified that Saddam had fulfilled his obligations from that agreement and ended it -- something that most certainly had NOT occurred.

One final note: in international relations, one should NEVER make a threat that one is not ready and willing to carry out. "Threatening war" without the resolve to fight the war is one of the stupidest, most suicidal things one can do. It shreds any credibility whatsoever one might have in the future.

And any allies who depend on that pledge will be wary of us in the future. Witness the uprisings against Saddam after the first Gulf War -- it took years and years for those who we encouraged to rise up, then left high and dry, to have any faith in us at all.

J.

Jay tea wrote:"Abu... (Below threshold)
Oh Dear:

Jay tea wrote:

"Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is not even a week dead, and already the media is eagerly rewriting history to bolster their own ideological agenda.

This morning's Boston Globe has a story about how Zarqawi didn't really have much support among the Arab world. You see, the rank and file Muslims were repulsed by his tactics and atrocities. They just didn't speak up before now because...

um...

Well, I'm sure they had their reasons."

Darn that fMSM re-righting history again! No one wrote anything about how Zarqawi wasn't that big a deal until after he was killed.
Apart from that front page Atlantic Monthly article. The one that came out, rather inconviently, before Zaqarwi was killed.

Way to do your research, pal.

Counting sucess isn't found... (Below threshold)
serfer62:

Counting sucess isn't found in Big Media. The intell unit that found the Zark reported that last year they got 400 tips and this year 4,000. That sucess.

The figures that I saw indicate about 30% forgien terrorsts all along, so no surprise there. Course the rest are mostly Saddamns boys. NowSunnis are turning in Sunnis. Thats success...

Oh, the horror. That shoul... (Below threshold)
Oh dear:

Oh, the horror. That should have been "re-writing" not "re-righting". Apologies.

well, I only started talkin... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

well, I only started talking about bribing France cause dr john raised that point in the first place. But to explain why France should have been more involved is because France seemed to be the major player in Iraq before the war, so to resolve the issue while avoiding war (not going to war with them), they had to be involved. But this does not strictly apply to France. This could certainly apply to Russia as well. And might as well throw Germany in there too.

With the lifting of the sanctions, we suddenly [would] have certified that Saddam had fulfilled his obligations from that agreement and ended it -- something that most certainly had NOT occurred.

Yes, so clearly the sanctions would not have been lifted and war could have been avoided at least a little longer. Now, this of course leads us back to the essential question of was war necessary as things stood back in 2003. I did not think so and we will just have to agree to disagree.

And as far as losing credibility, it is very true that we must live up to what we say. And once we decide to go to war, we must also demonstrate that we have a plan to maintain law and order, win/keep the peace, and invest our money wisely to avoid the appearance of corruption and provide for the growth of Iraq. Unfortunately, we have a lot of credibility to earn back because of failures on these latter issues.

Oh Dear:From the art... (Below threshold)

Oh Dear:
From the article on how he wasn't that big of a deal:

"Once one of the most wanted men in the world"

"Powell identified al-Zarqawi--mistakenly, as it turned out--as the crucial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime."

Not mistakenly, as it really turned out. He was certainly one of the main contacts between Iraq and AQ, despite the comments by the one anonymous Jordanian "official" in the story.

What it really looks like is that the guy who wrote that article got suckered in by a counterintel operation from some Jordanian "official." We keep finding documents with Zarqawi's name on them, we keep having people tell us about his links, and on the other hand, there's one unnamed source.

Jay Tea,My HS Senior... (Below threshold)
Yogurt:

Jay Tea,
My HS Senior-to-be leaves tomorrow morning for a 3 day "history" school trip to Mass., so I'd like your advise: His 17 years of liberalism innoculations are up to date. Aside from the "Don't accept a ride from a Kennedy", are there any other precautions I need to take?
Yogs

First, even WERE it "ONly t... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

First, even WERE it "ONly ten percent of the 'resistance' as you like to call it, a ten percent reduction would be a significant reduction for two bombs. . .

SO were all of the prominant Democratic leaders just stupid and gullible, or mendacious and dishonest when they said that yes, definitely, Saddam had or was trying to get WMD's?

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

Japanese top official maintains Iraq has WMD
A top Japanese government official said Thursday Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a claim challenging what a former US top weapons inspector said a day before.

http://english.people.com.cn/200401/29/eng20040129_133462.shtml

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "

Just after a very brief search.

Yogurt,LOL! You tell... (Below threshold)
Candy:

Yogurt,
LOL! You tell that boy that if Gerry Studds asks him to pick up a penny on the sidewalk, he is to KEEP WALKING!

I do hope that more Muslims... (Below threshold)
BigCatGirl:

I do hope that more Muslims will begin to see that folks like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and the terror organizations like Al-Qaida do not take their best interests to heart and as a matter of fact have killed a lot more Muslims then non-Muslims. With the end of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi should also be viewed as a brand new day for Iraq.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy