Zarqawi, Zarqawi, Zarqawi, Zarqawi, Zarqawi

[gospelized]

what's the deal with all this talk about him in the news? it seems like for the past 2 weeks there's been a new story about him every other day.

anyone getting the feeling that he is being built up for an amazing "capture" on Nov. 1

[kikiek]

1. With the early voting going on it would seem too late almost..

unless of course FL isn't a problem anyways. Jeb has it secured maybe.

[vickie]

2. Absolutely!!! Hence all the recent ahem attention on Fallujah.

[nostamj]

3. they don't even know if he's alive....

desperate attempt to shore up the phoney 'war on terra'...

The War In Error, or, Chemotherapy v. Surgery

One of my parodies for "The Question W Revue," BUSHSPEAK (based on Cole Porter's "Brush Up Your Shakespeare"), contains this couplet:

HE CAN'T WIN A WAR AGAINST TERRA
'CAUSE CONCEPTUALLY HE'S IN ERRA.

Terror is a tactic. A 'behavior' if you will. To suggest that it can be defeated by killing or capturing those who practice the tactic (or behavior) is ludicrous.

Killing terrorists eliminates individual terrorists but, if anything, promotes more terrorist behavior. Witness the folly of conflating the Iraq Invasion with a 'war on terror.' By any objective measure, we have more terrorist behavior and more terrorists than before the invasion.

Since when is aggressive, and, grimly successful, provocation deemed a success? Only in the 'through the looking glass' world view of the bushies. The increasing incidents of terrorist 'tactics' in a society previously free of such activity is telling. Yes, Saddam was a bad bad man. But, under his regime, daily acts of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism were not a fact of life. Now, it is.

The Bush administration and it's supporters/enablers make no attempt to distinguish the daily carnage between 'terrorists' and 'insurgents.' And, at a certain level–provocation–there is little difference. Both the terrorist insurgency and the anti-occupation insurgency were provoked by the same mis-guided policy.

Viewed from a British perspective, there is little question that the 'insurgency' that was the American Revolution would have been perceived as 'terrorism' through the contemporary filter of a Bush reign from Buckingham palace.

Bush wants to defeat 'terror' by killing 'terrorists.'

But, "Conceptually, he's in ERRA."

He would be as successful in waging a "War On Depression" by killing the depressed. He might claim that three-quarters of the depressed have been caught or KILLED. But, would there really be less depression in the world? Of course not.

He can't win this "war" because it is conceptually false.

To get back to my sub-title, excising individual tumors will not cure the larger threat of cancer to humanity.

Developing strategies to reduce or eliminate tumors, could.

The Bush administration's fundamental dishonesty–or disconnect–about the reality of confronting terrorism dooms it to failure–and exposes all of us to the consequences of that failure. Killing individual terrorists–if indeed they have, as the empty meme of 'two-thirds' and 'three-fourths' have proved–is meaningless and misleading. It has made things worse, not better.

When the WTC was first attacked, those terrorists were caught, tried and convicted. After the second attack (not to mention the anthrax terrorism directed at democrats and the 'liberal' media) there has been no terrorist caught, tried, or convicted. Just a flurry of bombs that have killed a grossly disproportionate number of innocents in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

No one has been brought to justice for 9/11. No terrorists, and certainly no administration officials responsible for our national security that day.

And terrorist activity has been steadily on the rise–even if there has been no new attack on American soil. Claiming that America is 'safer' while the world know they are less safe is typical of the hubris of the Bush team. And, I fear, we cannot expect to remain safe. Eight years separated the WTC attacks. Bush and his team utterly failed in 2001.

Is there any reason to assume they won't fail again?

Kerry's rhetoric on this topic, regrettably, has echoed too much of the 'kill them' agenda of the bushies. But, I believe this to be unfortunate political expediency rather than core believe about addressing the true nature of the threat. He can't (politically) afford to be perceived as weak but, given the chance, can be stronger in addressing the threat.

After 3000 deaths on 9/11, 1100 (and counting) US deaths in Iraq and the uncounted 10s of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani innocents slaughtered in Bush's War without a single documented arrest or killing of anyone associated with those 9/11 deaths...

How any American can believe that we will be 'safer' with four more years of this policy drives me utterly mad.

A Tale Of Two Speeches

[AlCzervik]

4. I've posted this many times

but you would think is this rumored dead one legged bad-ass was the perp behind all the bad things going on Iraq, why isnt he on here?
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm

[necso]

5. This whole Fallujah thing is about the guy.

Wonder if he is actually there.

And I wonder if anything that we have heard about him is true.

Maybe the neo-cons have him confused with El Zorro -- they definitively have a very weak grasp on reality. -- And they are certainly blaming anything on him that they can.

[sonias]

6. Yep, he's the Oct surprise

They want to make sure Americans know his name, and that he's responsible for the be-headings. Plus now that his group has pledged loyalty to Osama, they have the Al-Qaeda connection. It's been discussed on other DU threads this week. The bushies know where he is, if they don't already have him, and they are going to make a big announcement about catching him.

Lookie here America, we're this close to Osama, because Zarqawi is Osama. The bait and switch routine like they pulled with Hussein. Americans listening to Faux News will believe it 100%.

Sonia

[AirAmFan]

7. Just let them try to make headlines about capturing Zarqawi

They'd just open up unlimited media attention to an eight-month old tale of how, BEFORE Zarqawi killed hunreds of people, the White House CANCELED Pentagon battle plans to obliterate Zarqawi's camp, THREE TIMES. The motive? So Colin Powell could say there were some al Qaeda "in Iraq". The trouble was, Saddam did not control the region where the camp was located--the White House did! See the NBC News story at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601 .

Any October surprise involving Zarqawi could backfire on the White House, "big time".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON EDIT: The MSNBC web page with the Zarqawi story has been wiped clean sometime very recently. The URL I just posted still is the first hit in a Google search, say http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Miklaszewski+Zarqawi&btnG=Search .

Snippets of the original story and links to other pages that cite it are archived in a DU thread from the first of this month, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x939354