Progressive Musings on politics and current events.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

al-Zarqawi

So Abu Musab is dead. Yay.... Does that really matter? And how about the circumstances surrounding Zarqawi's death? That's interesting. Except to the MSM. What really bugs me about the al-Zarqawi death coverage is the absolute willingness of the MSM to go along with the "real" story from the U.S. military about him being killed in the airstrike in Iraq. They are still believing everything that comes from the military, this despite their extensive
cover-up of the facts surrounding AMAZ's death. First he was completely obliterated in a gargantuan and triumphant airstrike by fighter jets. After the Iraqi police blew that story, the U.S. went with the one where he died immediately - but wasn't obliterated. Then they conceded that he was still alive when U.S. troops arrived on the scene. Instead, he died "on a stretcher" at the bombing site. What's next, that he's not really dead? You bet.

Come on here, let's face the truth. The latest story, and the one that seems to be the closest to reality, is that Zarqawi was not killed in the immediate explosion of two 500-pound bombs that landed directly on his safe-house. Instead,


"Al-Zarqawi was lying on a stretcher at the scene of the bombing, near the village of Hibhib, about 35 miles north of Baghdad, when U.S. forces arrived and tentatively identified him as the wanted insurgent leader Wednesday evening. He mumbled something unintelligible and tried to move but was restrained, according to Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. "

"Everybody re-secured him back onto the stretcher, but he died almost immediately thereafter from the wounds he'd received from this air strike," Caldwell said.


Okay, how could Zarqawi be alive, very much alive apparently, alive enough to speak, roll around on the stretcher, and then attempt to get off the stretcher and stand up - and then die instantly, just like that. Poof. This guy, Zarqawi or not, was obviously murdered by the U.S. soldiers who arrived on the scene after the Iraqi police. The soldiers got there, coincidentally, just as Zarqawi died. The fact that "Zarqawi" was not killed by the bomb blast but by murderous U.S. troops is solidified by new allegations and eyewitness accounts coming from Iraq.

U.S. officials have altered their account of the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, saying he was alive and partly conscious after bombs destroyed his hideout, and an Iraqi witness has raised the possibility that the wounded "al-Qaida in Iraq" leader was beaten by American troops before he died.
The witness, who lived near the scene of the bombing, claimed in an interview with AP Television News to have seen U.S. soldiers beating an injured man resembling al-Zarqawi until blood flowed from the man's nose.


Yeah, that's it. Whoever this guy was, he was beaten and murdered. A quick glance at the photo of the dead "Zarqawi" will prove that.





Come on. Does that look like the face and neck of a guy that was just obliterated by 2 (2!!) 500-pound laser-guided bombs? I don't think so. The bombs were so powerful that news reports were mentioning how buildings were leveled nearby for two blocks. That a whole forest of date palms were turned into charred pulp. And look at this guy. That looks like the swollen face of someone who was just given a severe beating - enough to make "blood come out of his nose".

As to the question of this actually being al-Zarqawi; that's tough to say. My first reaction is to say yeah, but who cares? But the secrecy with which the U.S. military is going about the circumstances of his death is bizarre. Why didn't they do everything possible to keep him alive after the bombing to glean much needed intel from him? The Iraqi prime minister ordered that he be taken alive.

The speculation about beatings and cover-ups is addictive, but second to the big-picture surrounding Zarqawi. That is, is his death, and Zarqawi himself, important or not? W seems to be as confused as the rest of the country, at one moment bordering on sheer jubilation and a Dean-scream, but the next saying that "the fight will go on". So which is it, W? Just months ago the Bush administration was touting the eventual capture or killing of Zarqawi as a Saddam-capture turning point in Iraq. That the troops could start going home after Zarqawi was disposed of. And now they're talking about leaving only after we "win", and keeping 100,000+ U.S. soldiers in Iraq for at least 17 more months. What!!?? Not surprised at this though. After all, Zarqawi was a BA creation.