Before September the 11th, 2001, he ran a camp in Afghanistan that trained terrorists -- until Coalition forces destroyed that camp. He fled to Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with terrorist associates.Okay, I lied. I've got more than one small question. Many more in fact; that crop up for me even only after two sentences from W because, as usual, here's where the presidential propaganda catapult manipulates the American public with a very fuzzy timeline. Ah, you remember "fuzzy math" introduced by Bush Sr, way back when he was running for president. Now we have "fuzzy logic" designed by the W, Rove and Co. to play "political parlor tricks" (which the W, Rove and Co. publicly ironically claim to have disdain for) with the minds of American people. Don't you have a few questions? Here are mine:
When was Zarqawi's Afghanistan camp destroyed? Was it before or after we invaded Iraq under the false rouse of the WMD intelligence bait and switch? When did Zarqawi enter Iraq for medical treatment? Why does the president always spank the Nine Eleven monkey for political gain? Does any one ever listen to the presidential radio address, and if so, why?
I have more questions, but for now let's have another dose of W's purposefully fuzzy logic. In the ensuing paragraph W and his team of propagandists lump together all the dastardly deeds theoretically perpetrated by Zarqawi to make us, the "good guys," seem less stained by the whole Iraq Attack.
After the fall of Saddam, Zarqawi went underground and declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, who called him the "Prince of al Qaida in Iraq" and instructed terrorists around the world to "listen to him and obey him." Zarqawi personally beheaded American hostages and other civilians in Iraq; he masterminded the destruction of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad; and he was responsible for the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan and the bombing of hotels in Amman. His goals in Iraq were clear: He wanted to stop the rise of democracy, drive coalition forces out, incite a civil war, and turn that country into a safe haven from which al Qaida could launch new attacks on America and other free nations. Instead, Zarqawi died in the free and democratic Iraq that he fought so hard to prevent, and the world is better off because this violent man will never kill again.Sure, there is no doubt about it Zarqawi was a nasty man and is probably not presently getting stroked by several heavenly virgins any more than Hitler is, but no one can predict that we will better off for his killing, no matter how concretely dualistic your thinking is. Thus, more questions:
How long after the fall of Saddam did Zarqawi "go underground" and what/when do you constitute the "fall of Saddam?" Saddam is still alive and kicking, now isn't he? Declaring allegiance to OBL is meaningful in what way? When OBL talks to "terrorists around the world," how many people are we talking about? And if we can count them, why can't we round them up? What about OBL in the first place? Where is he and why has he not been "brought to justice?" It looks like Zarqawi had a broad reach but again the timelines are fuzzy. When these things happened is important, no?
What W claims were Zarqawi's goals for Iraq are pretty much a tall order. Shouldn't we look in the mirror? How much are we responsible for and what have we done to incite civil war in Iraq? Who is responsible for the bulk of terrorists being in Iraq in the first place? Sure, Zarqawi won't kill again, but how many more people will be motivated to kill because of his death? Did we really win that small skirmish or did we ignite another conflagration?
As history has proven, martyrdom is a very powerful driver to push people into action. We all know and remember Pearl Harbor, don't we? We fought hard and long to snuff the Japanese for doing that - Just ask the good folk of Nagasaki and Hiroshima what they learned. Fuck, the real reason the W, Rove and Co. spends so much time spanking the Nine Eleven Monkey is because they are trying to push the martyrdom of those unfortunate victims as far as they can to gain support for their industrial and imperialistic "war" on terror. And that "war" really only benefits those war-time profiteers in related businesses (read, friends of the W, Rove Co such as those in Halliburton, etc...).
Forgive me for not being in a terribly salubrious mood about the killing of Zarqawi, and not jumping on the "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead" ship of the republican faithful and faith-based followers of a faith-rather-than-fact driven leadership. Really it all comes down to this: Do you feel more or less safe because of, or completely unaffected by the killing of Zarqawi? Do you feel more or less safe than you did five years ago?
In the final analysis, what does the perpetration of war get us? More war, me thinks. In the end, the killing of Zarqawi may hurt us more than help us and it's the unknown unknowns that may be our undoing.
Blog on all, blog on. I have to get to work.