One of the spins the Left put on the raid that resulted in the death of Al-Zarqawi was that it didn’t really mean anything; that it wasn’t that important; that Al-Zarqawi was “just one man”, and his death doesn’t change anything in the War on Terror.
Well, that’s proving to be not quite the case:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – Iraq’s national security adviser said Thursday a “huge treasure” of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq…
Al-Rubaie said a laptop, flashdrive and other documents were found in the debris after the airstrike that killed the al-Qaida in Iraq leader last week outside Baqouba, and more information has been uncovered in raids of other insurgent hideouts since then.
Amongst the items reportedly found on the flashdrive recovered directly from Al-Zarqawi’s pocket was a document that lists the desperate state of al-Qaeda in Iraq — specifically how the US Military’s prolonged occupation of Iraq was working to defeat them.
Of course, the Left is already trying to spin this too by questioning the authenticity of the documents.
When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al-Rubaie said “there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket.”
____________________________
OTHERS:
- Ace of Spades: “There’s nothing wrong with that [questioning the authenticity of the documents]… except that our press is ravenously hungry to disprove anything that seems to hurt Al Qaeda, and if they were successful in debunking the documents, it would harm the new Iraqi Government.”
- Kim at Wizbang points out that “Zarqawi recommends manipulating the media in order to get out positive stories about the “the resistance” as he calls it:”
- Blue Crab Boulevard also noticed that al Qaeda had a strategy “to use the media to increase their standing. In other words, make sure the media paints them as a powerful foe.”
The sad thing is that most of our media was is completely complicit in helping al Qaeda with this part of their mission. Even sadder is that they don’t see it and refuse to believe it no matter how many examples we throw back in their collective faces.
The Associated Press has the full text of the letter found on Big Dead Al.
I don’t mean this in a conspiracy theory way but really- how do you drop 2 five hundred pound bombs on a guy and get the privilege to rifle through his pockets and take home his computer?
Yeah, it’s great that any asshole that will kill civilians is dead. But do I honestly believe that this marks the beginning of the end for AQ in Iraq? No.
Maybe you and Malkin want to spin my attitude as ‘hating America’ but to me it simply looks like the realism that all of us should have by now given the past three years of witnessing the US military repeatedly cutting the heads off of this beast only to watch them grow another.
Well, let’s just hope I’m being pessimistic.
The letter is really incredible. So they want us to engage Iran in war and will do anything they can to promote it. I have to hand it to Rice and Bush on this one. They haven’t “bit” so to speak but have let the EU take more of the lead. I’m going to have to check out Al Jazeera to see if they published the letter but I won’t be holding my breath.
Is that really the way you see the US stance against Iran?
It seems more like the type of unconscionable diplomatic negligence of the type we’ve already witnessed in North Korea and Iraq.
Preston..Your question puzzles me. I don’t understand how you can be so anti-Iraq intervention, yet want force (I guess?) instead of diplomacy (and I use the term lightly) with Iran and N. Korea. Iraq actually had and used WMD. Granted, we thought they had them AGAIN at the time of the invasion but that was not the case (however I still think they did and they were spirited over the border to another country). To put it another way, if Bush had known that Iraq didn’t have WMD, I don’t think he would have invaded them either.
I have a question for you. What if the U.S. was a more passive country, unwilling to use military force except in the most dire situation (imminent attack). How do you think the rest of the world and/or the worthless UN would handle N. Korea/Iran?
I believe we have very different perspectives on the use of diplomacy by this Administration.
In North Korea, the Bush Administration was determined to break with what they called the ‘failures’ of the Clinton Administration. This meant walking away from talks. In the interim North Korea proceeded to develop plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
Link
In Iraq, the US invaded a country that was militarily and diplomaticly isolated. Yes, Saddam was a dictator. But by refusing to use diplomatic means to keep him isolated we have pinned down the US military for an unspecified period of time.
In Iran, the US- which used to use its moral authority to compell countries to do the right thing- stepped away from negotiations allowing European nations to handle the talks. (If we didn’t trust Europe to deal with Iraq, why do we trust them to negotiate with Iran?)
In all, three cases the US has walked away from diplomatic solutions only to have the alternative turn out worse. I’d just like the adults to come back to the White House and direct American diplomacy on a plane somewhat more elevated than what can be found in the average middle school.
Here’s how I’d “like”to handle diplomacy:
Another attack on this country, and I’d immediately wipe whoever off the friggin face of the earth. Diplomacy doesn’t work with lunatics.
I think I learned that in 3rd grade.
Another attack on this country, and I’d immediately wipe whoever off the friggin face of the earth. Diplomacy doesn’t work with lunatics.
I think it’s been policy for about 200 years to attack countries that attack the US. Of course, that hadn’t happened in any of my three examples. The tough guy pose of the Adminstration evidently isn’t keeping these countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. Maybe a different tact is order.