Abu Musab al - Zarqawi

[southsider2k5]

Killing Zarqawi "a stunt"

 

I guess it was only a matter of time before this started to come out...

[NorthSideSox72]

Killing Zarqawi "a stunt"

 

I guess it was only a matter of time before this started to come out...

So... Pete Stark is an idiot. And?

 

I only see one Dem saying something dumb. The others quoted are simply putting this in the proper perspective - that this is a tiny step in a long battle - and they are right.

 

Let's now apply Mr. Stark's quote to the whole party.

[YASNY]

So... Pete Stark is an idiot. And?

 

I only see one Dem saying something dumb. The others quoted are simply putting this in the proper perspective - that this is a tiny step in a long battle - and they are right.

 

Let's now apply Mr. Stark's quote to the whole party.

 

Oh ... you mean the Coulter rules.

[southsider2k5]

Oh ... you mean the Coulter rules.

 

^^^

 

Exactly where I was going. Thanks.

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh ... you mean the Coulter rules.

Pretty much, yeah. And in truth, this was an actual Congressman, so it SHOULD be taken more seriously than some wacko talking head like Coulter. But, this guy is clearly just as idiotic as Coulter. Which creates a bit of a black eye for the Dems. But I am still pretty sure most of the Dems are not that dumb.

[whitesoxfan101]

That is ABSOLUTELY NOT why the Republicans will lose seats in November, if they do.

 

They will lose seats because they are becoming Democrat pussies. I'll just leave it at that.

 

Both parties are becoming extremist, and I agree that the fact republicans are starting to pussy out is a big reason why seats will be lost. However, the Bush administration isn't helping either.

[Balta1701]

Killing Zarqawi "a stunt"

 

I guess it was only a matter of time before this started to come out...

Linky

 

Wingers online, already high off their I-told-you-so buzz permeating from the killing of Abu Musab Zarqawi (a pro-war buzz we haven't sensed since Saddam was captured, his sons were killed, or his statute was toppled--take your pick) were cackling over a Washington Times article posted late Thursday afternoon.

 

Headline: "Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt."

 

First sentence: "Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war."

 

Matt Drudge immediately posted the article up high on his site, while Power Line, Michelle Malkin and legions from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders touted the piece as proof Democrats can't even back Bush, let alone the U.S. military, when a ruthless terrorist is finally knocked out. That's how crazy conspiratorial Democrats are, they think the killing of Zarqawi was a stunt.

 

Slight problem. The Washington Times completely manufactured the story. Meaning the Washington Times article does not quote a single Democrat who thinks the Zarqawi killing was a "stunt."

 

...

Don't believe me that the Times made up the "stunt" story? Go read it. The article as posted online quotes exactly five Democrats in the story. Three of them, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Kent Conrad, and Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, all label the killing "good news." The other two Democrats quoted are well-known war critics, Rep. Pete Stark and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Neither one of them though, suggested the killing was a stunt.

 

Kucinich was quoting as saying Zarqawi was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency" and that it's time to get out. He added, "We're there for all the wrong reasons," something Kucinich has been saying publicly for going on 40 months. Meanwhile, Stark was quoted as saying Iraq is still a mess and that the United States still needs to get out. Again, nothing new from Stark.

 

Here's the single convoluted sentence that the Times seems to build its entire article around:

 

""This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat."

 

Note more than half that sentence is not a direct quote from Stark, rather it's the Times telling readers that Stark was supposedly making a connection between Zarqawi and Iraqi civilians. Readers also have to take the Times at its word that the "This" mentioned by Stark is in reference to the Zarqawi killing. But even if you're inclined to believe the newspaper on both points, where's the stunt quote that's the basis of the headline and the lede? Stark's "cover Bush's [rear]" quote in no way suggests he thinks the killing was a stunt, some sort of orchestrated event designed solely to divert attention. And where are the Democrats plural who think the killing was a stunt. The Times' headline and opening sentence clearly report that "Democrats" think the killing was a stunt, and it's the stunt angle that made the story so hot. Yet the best the Times can do is print a cut-up quote from a single Democrat who doesn't even say the killing was a stunt? Pathetic.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Balta1701

[southsider2k5]

I get it. So now headlines can't include anything but direct quotes from the people involved? Should I start hitting the lib blogs and start proving the point that this gets done everyday in the media, or should I just not bother?

[Balta1701]

I get it. So now headlines can't include anything but direct quotes from the people involved? Should I start hitting the lib blogs and start proving the point that this gets done everyday in the media, or should I just not bother?

You placed the words "A stunt" in quotes. That says bluntly that it is a direct quote, which it was not. Yes, this gets done everyday by the media, and everyday, people are taken to task for paying attention to those sorts of articles. As should happen here. You want to take issue with what that Congressman said? Fine. At least take the time to read his words and see if he actually said what they're saying he said.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Balta1701

[Cknolls]

IMO, you missed the key group...the big-business folks, who don't give a rats ass about social conservative causes or about smaller government, but only want to line their pockets and don't care who pays for it.

 

 

Didn't you mean union bosses?

[Balta1701]

Didn't you mean union bosses?

They work too. I'd be happy for my party to give up all union support if the other party would give up all corporate support.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Balta1701

[CanOfCorn]

Thanks for getting Al-Zarqawi...*looks at watch*...almost 5 years later.

 

I'm really sick of the Dem-Rep fight. On this board and in the media. They are all smarmy. They all are lining their pockets. They are all just trying to get re-elected. If you want to portray yourself as a Democrat or a Republican with your belief systems, that's great, do it, but leave the government out.

 

Forget about the Senators and Congresspeople. Forget about the President. All politicians have lost their way (just look at the "amendment" that's supported by the GOP banning gay marriage. Great, you are against it, but if I remember my US History correctly, I believe the GOP was based on letting the states have greater power in deciding such things.).

 

I don't even know what Democrat and Republican truly mean anymore...they are just labels. And they are worthless.

 

Sorry for the rant, but it's just not even worth arguing with people anymore because the arguments have no substance behind them. Quote this, insult that, blame, flip-flop, filibuster...ENOUGH!!!

 

Instead of power, how about doing your jobs and trying to come up with a GOOD PLAN? To do what? To do ANYTHING!

 

/end rant.

[southsider2k5]

You placed the words "A stunt" in quotes. That says bluntly that it is a direct quote, which it was not. Yes, this gets done everyday by the media, and everyday, people are taken to task for paying attention to those sorts of articles. As should happen here. You want to take issue with what that Congressman said? Fine. At least take the time to read his words and see if he actually said what they're saying he said.

 

It is taken directly from the title of the article. Why wouldn't you quote it? I read the whole thing, plus read the lib rant, and of course missing in the rant, is that the guy quoted said it was a stunt, without actually saying it was a stunt.

 

What part of

 

"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer"

 

doesn't infer this was a stunt?

 

I mean I guess we could break out the dictionaries and thesauruses and pick a million different words, but the congressman was pretty damned clear in what he was saying IMO. I guess it all depends on what your definition of "stunt" is...

[Balta1701]

It is taken directly from the title of the article. Why wouldn't you quote it? I read the whole thing, plus read the lib rant, and of course missing in the rant, is that the guy quoted said it was a stunt, without actually saying it was a stunt.

 

What part of doesn't infer this was a stunt?

 

I mean I guess we could break out the dictionaries and thesauruses and pick a million different words, but the congressman was pretty damned clear in what he was saying IMO. I guess it all depends on what your definition of "stunt" is...

First of all, the headline of the article said "Democrats" not "Democrat". But I guess you'll just accuse me of playing semantics games there when they only have one.

 

Secondly, you're quoting the article, not actually quoting any representative. Yes, that is important.

 

Thirdly, I'd still like to see exactly what Rep. Stark said. There's 1/2 of 1 sentence there, with the interpretation of the rest supplied by the Washington Times. I'm not a big fan of Rep. Stark, but first of all the word "Stunt" in the headline is the whole reason why people noticed that article, and since I don't have the full line that he said, I don't doubt he crossed some sort of line, but I really can't prove it. That seems like an awfully stupid thing to say, and it'd be nice if there was just a little bit of context with it just to prove that he is in fact that stupid.

 

Edit: I should probably add that I have as low of an opinion of the Washington Times as you probably have of the NYT, maybe even lower. Why? Because I've seen them running with completely made-up quotes before, like back in 2004 when they ran with a purported quote from Kerry on Crossfire (on CNN), and when people denied Kerry ever said the quote, the Times responded by saying that transcripts weren't available, when a simple Lexis search turned it up, and yeah, the quote was completely fabricated.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Balta1701

[Cknolls]

First of all, the headline of the article said "Democrats" not "Democrat". But I guess you'll just accuse me of playing semantics games there when they only have one.

 

Secondly, you're quoting the article, not actually quoting any representative. Yes, that is important.

 

Thirdly, I'd still like to see exactly what Rep. Stark said. There's 1/2 of 1 sentence there, with the interpretation of the rest supplied by the Washington Times. I'm not a big fan of Rep. Stark, but first of all the word "Stunt" in the headline is the whole reason why people noticed that article, and since I don't have the full line that he said, I don't doubt he crossed some sort of line, but I really can't prove it. That seems like an awfully stupid thing to say, and it'd be nice if there was just a little bit of context with it just to prove that he is in fact that stupid.

 

Edit: I should probably add that I have as low of an opinion of the Washington Times as you probably have of the NYT, maybe even lower. Why? Because I've seen them running with completely made-up quotes before, like back in 2004 when they ran with a purported quote from Kerry on Crossfire (on CNN), and when people denied Kerry ever said the quote, the Times responded by saying that transcripts weren't available, when a simple Lexis search turned it up, and yeah, the quote was completely fabricated.

 

 

Jason Blair?????????

[Balta1701]

Jason Blair?????????

No one was fired at the Washington Times for making that stuff up. And I wouldn't trust an NYT article with a 1/2 sentence quote from a Republican as the entire basis for the story either.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

/eats from bowl of popcorn

 

First of all, Amen Brother, CanofCorn!

 

Second of all, it never fails to amaze me the kind of bull s*** people on this board defend and/or decry the simple semantics of things.

 

/carry on

[samclemens]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198850,00.html

 

apparently zarqawi was still alive and somewhat coherent when US troops arrived on the scene. the army is claiming that he tried to roll off of the stretcher he was on "to get away from the US troops". usually i would call something like that propaganda, but in zarqawis case, i'd believe it.

 

im just glad that guy is dead. i also hope that someone stupider than him takes his spot in the command chain for al qaeda (sp?); zarqawi may have been an evil bastard but he was a smart evel bastard.

[Balta1701]

im just glad that guy is dead. i also hope that someone stupider than him takes his spot in the command chain for al qaeda (sp?); zarqawi may have been an evil bastard but he was a smart evel bastard.

Actually, I don't think he was all that smart of an evil bastard, in fact I think he was too evil to be smart. Bin Laden's group has always tried to hold to a policy of not attacking Muslims, and especialy Muslim civilians, while Zarqawi threw that policy out the window in Iraq, and because Zarqawi ignored that old Al Qaeda rule, his group began to be spurned by the population and in fact by the core of the insurgency itself. In fact, according to some reports, its that sort of rivaly which may have spurned an opponent to turn him in to the U.S. Beheadding muslims, it turned out, didn't catch on with most Muslims.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

ITS ABOUT TIME THEY GOT THAT MOTHERf***ER!!!!!!

 

 

 

ROT IN HELL YOU SCUMBAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kyyle23]

somebody quick, get Iggy and his tinfoil hat!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

This is a quote from Nick Berg's father.

 

WHAT A PUSSY!

 

 

Michael Berg, father of American businessman Nicholas Berg, whom it is believed al-Zarqawi beheaded in May 2004

 

"I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed and I feel badly for that.

 

"I feel doubly badly, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do not ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. It's an endless cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence we will always have violence." (Full story)

 

 

So let me get this straight.........this guy beheads your son on television, and then brags about doing it........and you come across with this pussy ass madness!?

 

SPARE ME!

[minors]

This is a quote from Nick Berg's father.

 

WHAT A PUSSY!

So let me get this straight.........this guy beheads your son on television, and then brags about doing it........and you come across with this pussy ass madness!?

 

SPARE ME!

 

 

He thinks Al- Zarqawi is a human being he was nothing more than a murdering thug. He would have murdered people until he was taken down. This was a solid kill for the US!!! I hope you are enjoying hell

[YASNY]

Al-Zarqawi to Satan. "What do mean I'M one the virgins?"

[FlaSoxxJim]

Al-Zarqawi to Satan. "What do mean I'M one the virgins?"