Imus and McGuirk: Zarqawi's death "bad news" for the "liberal elite news media"?
On MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus and co-host Bernard McGuirk speculated that the "liberal elite news media" would consider the death of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "bad news."
On the June 8 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus and co-host Bernard McGuirk speculated that the "liberal elite news media" would consider the death of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "bad news." McGuirk asserted that Zarqawi's death could not possibly be bad except to "people like [filmmaker] Michael Moore." McGuirk added: "And notice, probably, the long faces over at CNN this morning."
Then, during a discussion with pundit and Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford, Imus speculated that "[t]here has got to be some people, though, like some of my liberal friends," who "probably look at" Zarqawi's death "on some level as bad news" because "they hate President Bush so much." Crawford responded:
Yeah, I mean, this has, I think, been a problem of how we've been looking at this war. It's become a domestic political prism, that, you know, it's all about George Bush's popularity. But we've also got to think about -- I mean, hey, you know, our Congress went along with this, the American public went along with it when we decided to invade Iraq. Right or wrong, we had a -- we didn't have much of a debate about it, which I think was terrible. But nevertheless, you know, we let this president start this war and maintain this occupation.
Imus engaged in similar speculation with NBC chief White House correspondent David Gregory, asking, "I just wonder how long it'll take for you and the other members of the liberal elite news media to describe" Zarqawi's death as "a Karl Rove stunt because the president's poll numbers are so low."
Gregory responded simply, "That hadn't occurred to me."
From the June 8 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: We'll continue to cover this al-Zarqawi thing all morning, obviously. Although I don't know how much of the same videotape I want to see over and over and over again, like it's on a tape loop. He's dead, we'll find out what it means. It's got to be good, doesn't it, Charles?
CHARLES McCORD [co-host]: It cannot possibly be bad, obviously.
McGUIRK: Except to people like Michael Moore. And notice, probably, the long faces over at CNN this morning, but otherwise.
IMUS: Oh, at CNN. Everybody at CNN -- by the way, I hate them. I mean, it's unfortunate I have friends there, but. Oh, God, I hate them. You can't watch that network. I mean, they are just -- have you ever tried to watch them?
McCORD: Yeah, sure. I've tried.
IMUS: I mean, we're doing a radio show on MSNBC, and we beat them. They're horrible. Oh, God, they suck.
[...]
CRAWFORD: I don't guess we'll get the video of his dead body. We got that on the brother -- on the sons, Hussein's sons. That would be good.
IMUS: Usually, I don't like that kind of stuff, but I would like to see this one, this bastard.
CRAWFORD: I'd like to see this guy chopped up. Just run him through a wood chipper.
IMUS: There has got to be people, though, like some of my liberal friends -- which, I have far too many, by the way. I've got to try to rethink that whole thing. But gotta be some of them that actually, just because they hate President Bush so much, probably look at this as on some level as bad news, don't they?
CRAWFORD: Yeah, I mean, this has, I think, been a problem of how we've been looking at this war. It's become a domestic political prism, that, you know, it's all about George Bush's popularity. But we've also got to think about -- I mean, hey, you know, our Congress went along with this, the American public went along with it when we decided to invade Iraq. Right or wrong, we had a -- we didn't have much of a debate about it, which I think was terrible. But nevertheless, you know, we let this president start this war and maintain this occupation.
[...]
GREGORY: Look, this is certainly significant. And the problem at this stage is with the violence at the point that it's at, can Zarqawi be sort of easily replaced? There are other actors on that stage, and the administration knows that. But you cannot detract from the fact that symbolically and operationally this is a major figure that's been taken out.
IMUS: Of course, I just wonder how long it'll take for you and the other members of the liberal elite news media to describe this, and accuse the administration of this being a Karl Rove stunt because the president's poll numbers are so low.
GREGORY: That hadn't occurred to me.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
saw this this morning, what can you say they're do do birds. I am certainly glad that this guy is out of the picture. I feel NO sorrow, but I am really sick at looking at the dead guy's face splattered all over the media. This is the 21st century's version of putting a decapitated head on a stick at the entry to the village. It's goulish.
I agree Lynn, really NO need to keep showing us that.
As far as the speculation about the "liberal elite news media" considering the death of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "bad news", I'd be more inclined to think a FEW Democratic/Liberal Strategists rather than the media MIGHT find it to be unsettling/distressing. ONLY because they MIGHT figure it could mean a bump in the Polls for Bush (a slight climb up from his gutter numbers) Especially IF gas PRICES plummet (which I've heard a few pundits suggest) and even a more favorable opinion towards the war in Iraq by the public.
I think any POSITIVE Poll numbers [for Bush and the Iraq War] will be short lived, BUT I can see where it MIGHT concern a few in the Democratic Party.
It is probably unfair at all to speculate who might be disappointed in Zarqawi's demise. A simple reminder of Zarqawi's beheadings should be enough to remind people that the best outcome has now happened. The ONLY real pity is that it didn't happen sooner.
As for the reprisals, it will probably happen, but not on the level some people are predicting. I think most people around the world figured it was only a matter of time and that Zarqawi had it coming one way or another.
I don't really see a huge impact on the stock market or oil markets for that matter the way a bin forgotten capture/kill would likely impact it.
"Unless someone goes on record..It is probably unfair at all to speculate who might be disappointed in Zarqawi's demise."...by open_mind
=====
I disagree. It's no MORE unfair than ANY of the speculating that goes on here [or in the media] about OTHER topics.
WHY did Bush invade Iraq? Oil? Avenging his Daddy? At Israel's urging? Step one in the Neocons plan for world domination?
I've read ALL of those "speculations" here. And in the press.
Open_mind, those INVOLVED in politics sometimes VIEW "situations" in a way the general public does not.
Does THIS hurt or help us politically?--- is a VERY common thought process on HOW they view national or international events.
Notice that Imus only mentioned the "liberal elite media". He wasn't specific at all and outside of his mention of CNN (which employs thousands of people last I knew), I am not sure entirely even what he means by it. He is using a broad brush to paint people with opinions they may not even hold, apparently based solely on his prejudices.
Maybe George Bush is a bad choice for comparisson here on your part. The reason for much of the speculation about George Bush's true motives for Iraq is that all of his ostensible reasons are (at best) not well founded by facts or have shifted from time to time when other reasons fell apart. In short, George Bush's actions have led to the speculation. Conversely, what has the "liberal elite media" done to deserve Imus' remarks? Can anyone difinitively define even what the "liberal elite media" is? I would think the definition is completely subjective and varies from person to person.
At times I have made unfair sweeping statements in my posts and have been gently (and not so gently) reminded by my conservative brothers that it is not fair to lump them in. Since then I have tried to remember that there are many fine conservatives out there who do not deserve that (including you).
If Imus was pointing to a specific person or group of people and gave evidence to what he was saying, then I would absolutely agree with you. He simply hasn't done that and it is entirely unfair.
Furthermore, I believe that much of the speculation about George Bush (especially in regards to his love of country) are entirely unfair and I have said so in the past. Both sides need to avoid this kind of supposed mind-reading.
Liberal Elite Media – Media outlets who intentionally report events in such a way as to cause an uninformed observer to form an opinion contrary to the facts in order to benefit a liberal cause. Daily examples – CNN, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, ETC.
MMFA has chronicled hundreds of examples of conservative misinformation and outragious conservative statements from the news organizations you mentioned.
Can you provide an example that supports Imus's mindreading? Please be specific this time.
As I said above, any definition will be subjective. Thank you for the apt demonstration of that point.
It is funny to me that conservatives use the "Elite Liberal Media" as a catchall. It is a premise, supporting data and conclusion at any given moment. It is a cause and a reason for anything that does not support the conservative worldview. I am awed that people can be apparently so easily fooled by the whole thing.
The answer is yes. Bad news for all of us. But he won't even attempt to report on it. link to story
IMUS IS A JOKE HE IS NOTHING BUT A LAP DOG TO MCGUIRIK AND THAT OTHER GUY, THEY TELL HIM HOW TO THANK ANYWAY. AND WHAT LIBERAL ELITE MEDIA, THE MEDIA IS SO RIGHT-WING NOW.
but anyone that thinks this is going to make a big difference in iraq is fooling themselves. we are still looking at chaos. it is a symbolic victory, and it has a value in that those who wage terrorist campaigns against us cannot be seen as going unpunished. but the real huge victory would have been one that the bush administration blew, the capture of bin ladin at tora bora.
Imus and everyone else who seems to think that those of us on the political left are somehow upset that Zarqawi is a crispy-critter prove the extent to which they are disconnected from reality.
I'm glad that nutbag is dead, quite frankly, but i'm also practical enough not to lapse into some spontaneous orgasm of believing that killing him is going to the the panacaea to stem all of the sectarian violence in Iraq.
How many alleged "turning points" must we reach before these idiots realize or admit that they're running in a circle
(and we all know that running isn't the only thing that goes on in the rhetorical circles which folks like Imus occupy)
... if Imus always wears that Stetson because he's got an alien life form attached to the top of his head that is slowly destroying his mind?
he was that cowboy from the Village People.
I have no more idea what this guy has to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001, or with anything to do with the National Security of the United States...
No more than Sadaam...
It's an awful lot of lives lost (2,489 U.S. Troops so far) and dollars spent (over $300 billion so far) to kill or capture bogey-men in Iraq...
A place that has nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001, or with the National Security interests of the United States.
Zarqawi's death not a severe blow to al-Qaida
And one of these experts is Dennis Pluchinsky, whose credentials are impressive in the terrorism front. He received a State Dept. award during the Reagain administration. He said:
"It will probably have a minimal impact on the insurgency in Iraq and minimal impact on the global jihad movement, which is now self-sustaining."
[link to www.mercurynews.com]
I think the most rational viewpoint is middle of the road. It will be beneficial but not the kickoff of a cessation of violence. Similarly, I do not think you can kill such a high profile leader and it have NO impact.
I have heard both sides, but its just too early to see/feel the impact of this great victory, for victory it is, although perhaps a small one!
I don't revel in the deaths of others, but I'll admit to no love lost on this one. Biden said it simply..."it's a good thing." I agree.
Of course, it would be foolish, even dangerous, to make too much over it. Even the administration seems to understand that now, as evidenced from their cautious response. Considering that, per military estimates, al Qaida accounted for ~ 10-12% of violence in Iraq, that would seem the wise position. Even so, it's not clear - and we may never be told - who was ultimately responsible for the intelligence and what impact this will have on al Qaida.
As for potential positives, several come to mind:
(1) Short-term morale booster
(2) Demonstrates a method for penetrating terrorist groups
(3) Secured additional intelligence
Based on the publicly available information, any broader implications are highly speculative and quite numerous.
Good one Imus, i love listening to him. He calls it like he sees it. He is no fan of Bush, but I think that he dislikes the crazed liberals just as much.
You are cheering on mind-reading?
Why don't you wait until someone in the "Elite Media" actually says something to that effect, before you condemn them? This is all the right has?
Weak.
This is a deliberate strategy from that toad, Karl Rove. This is just the latest incarnation of the "gleeful liberal" smear when they were talking about Haditha. Rove hatched this out of his pudgy little head and has passed it along to all of his paid stooges in the media. Expect it to get even worse as we near the election.
are a TROLL - go away.
Am I just not looking in the right place, or are these "terrorist rankings" not posted. We seem to be killing a #2 or #3 man in Al Qaeda every few months.
at least this one we'd heard of, but I'm amazed that a lotta my fellow Americans actually believe the Gov't announcements of these "victories".
But I guess they couldn't put the "Islamo-fascist top 20" in the paper next to the box office rankings, cuz then they'd be tipped off.
Also amazed how many regular real humans I've met who eat this stuff up. The importance of killing one connected terrorist, and the prediction that the "liberal media" is sad when it happens.
and they want us to lose the war. America-haters!
Mike Luckovich has graciously constructed an Al-Qaida Iraq Command Chart for us.
Here is the Command Chart for your reference.
It might help explain a few things.
All the jibes about how many times we've killed "the #2 man in Al Qaida"
If the VP were to be assasinated and the next man in line moved up, and he was assasinated, and the next man moved up, and HE was assasinated...then the "#2" man in the US political heirarchy would have been killed 3 times.
And yes, that would apply to even the #1 man...killing (or removing) them leaves a vaccum to be filled...and it will be. We can only kill Bin Laden once...we could kill the #1 man in Al Qaida a dozen times.
Or the military could just be overstating who they have captured or killed.
It is also possible that Al Qaida in Iraq actually has a very flat hierarchy (which would obviously lower the significance of killing/capturing #2 all of the time).
While most American's are thinking this was a great victory for America and a long time coming some peopel in the media are trying to spin it. Some in the media are questioning the legality of America showing this corpse on tv, while others refer to the tragic death of a woman and child rather than the awesome job our military did. I think that is a good example of an "elite media" disappointed with the news of the day.
dissapointed in Zarqawis death? Wait, its Shannon, queen of its true because I said so, she dont need no stinking example. Her fantasies fresh from Planet Wingnut will suffice
You know I read John Burns and Dexter Filkins of NYT( the grey lady is the queen of liberal elite media right?), plus listened to some audio from NYT, skimmed over some wash post articles. I read some blogs- Kos, Informed comment, Eschaton etc., I didnt see one example of what you posted. The woman and child were mentioned in NYT on the second page in one sentence, Burns seemed to want to know if they were related to Zarqawi. First paragragh of Burns is about boost in confidence for US and Iraqi govt. I saw nothing about legality of pictures being posted. In fact NYT had several prominent pictures as well as interactive feature. I did see on left blogs that Bush had a chance to kill Zarqawi right before the war but passed on chance to chagrin of many antiterrorists in administration which was from an NBC report.
One small step towards our objective can never be seen as "a great victory". We have a history of premature celebration in this country. al-Zarqawi is dead. Good riddance to him. But as we type, his successor is planning.
I agree we should not question the legality of displaying the dead in our media. Let's have more photographers at DAFB taking pictures of coffins as our troops return to American soil. Americans who support this war should be in favor of honoring the dead as they return. Americans who have no connections to this war and take no position on it, should see what their indifference can set into motion. Those opposed to the war should also look on and try that much harder to end the hostilities while honoring those who've given their lives to this cause. We should all face what this war is doing to us, our country and to our service personnel.
--"I think that is a good example of an "elite media" disappointed with the news of the day."--
That opinion is held because the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the word said it was so, not because of any serious thought on the matter. See, I think I can post unsubstantiated remarks just as easily.
If anyone deserved to die it was this animal. Unfortunately it was 2 years too late. This man seeded the insurgency, proving you could attack the US and UN. Later he adapted, stopped sawing off heads when backlash followed. Then he changed tactics and seeded the sectarian war or as he thought against shiite dominance. At least he doesnt have anything to do with the shiite on shiite violence in Basra. He was enemy of Al Qaeda for years bc he beleived in killing the near enemy (shiites/non-salafists) first, rather than the far enemy (the West) first as Osama Bin Laden preached. Apparently his value has decreased dramatically since there are many other more powerful groups in this civil war/insurgency. However after his death Maliki was able to spend the political capital on naming ministers to the Interior Ministry and Defense Ministry. Lastly I liked the picture of Zarqawi on a table with the American flag next to it. Great job by our military in ridding the world off this scum.
How a gas-bag like Imus is still alive is a wonder to begin with. What happened to the respirator, he did look goofy hooked up to an O2 tank mumbling the latest talking points. And that seems to be what Imus is doing here. This whole liberals hate America talking point has merged with the liberal media line of bull. The whole line-up of media misinformers are getting so incoherent it is getting entertaining to watch and listen, if one can stomach more than a few minutes.. "Drive by Media" is another fine example from Rush, the goon-squad of drooling heads are stepping up the attack on the Media that can no longer hide some of the atrocities that our adventure in Iraq is producing. It took a few years.
The death of Zarqawi will do nothing to stop the madness, it will continue no matter what these gas-bags say about what gets anyone excited or sad. The pent-up anger demonstrated by by many of these Bush defenders makes it obvious they are almost out of rope. The messenger is the problem for these pundits. When the MSM they loath so much reports the awful truth of war as they should they get really slimy and call reporters traitors but they rejoice when they describe the "culture of death" that they label abortion rights supporters.
I think the death of Zarqawi is bad news only because the media doesn't question the statement from Bush today regarding the culture of death with the American label attached. Bush was so proud that we killed Zarqawi and how "justice" was administered. Justice?? A word used in more civilized terms in modern times bastardized by Genghis Gump. I sure hope we have impressed millions around the world with this great justice, it goes along with spreading democracy via violent preemptive invasions in counties with no threat except they control the oil we want.
The death of Zarqawi is just another phony victory that will fade in short time because the madness in Iraq will continue and the majority will continue to see the light. Mission Continues,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Dee, that was the finest analysis I've read on this subject -- my hat's off to you (Or as this so-called "Zowakowi" guy would say, "My heads off to you").
The flag and photo combo was a real photographic success, sad as it was.
How come this gum-chomping nitwit is even on radio and TV?
Who started the War and should go to jail. He also made fun of Mary Cheney as being a lesbian this morning . Why no Media Matters story about that one?
Actually it's worse news for the administration. Now that Zarqawi's dead it will only magnify the continuing insurgency and the inability of the US and the Iraqi government to deal with it. Let's see the spin as the casualties mount...
ANTI-WAR... ANTI-GLOBALIZATION... AMERICA FIRST
Imus ... speculated that the "liberal elite news media" would consider the death of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "bad news."
One or both of two things are possible:
1. Imus can't correctly predict anything more difficult than tomorrow's sunrise;
2. There is no such thing as the "liberal elite news media."
My goodness, there hasn't even been any notable glumness on Air America, much less in the rest of the media. Quite the reverse. In fact, I've been hearing the same "glee" that the right-wingers accused us of having over Haditha.
So, totting up the score, they said we'd be gleeful over Haditha, and that we'd be glum over Zarqawi. Now, some of the neocons here are bright enough to correctly point out that Imus and others of his ilk are 0 for 2 (I'm not so sure about Naylor). For Imus, I would advise a return to remedial mindreading. For his fans, I would advise they view him as entertainment only (and what a knee-slapper he is, huh?), and stop investing him with any credibility at all.
but then said the "main stream media" (translation: not Fox but everybody else) want us to "lose" in Iraq. Well I've got news for you Billy boy. Just like no one in the MSM is "drooling" over Haditha, no one wants to see us "lose" in Iraq. Instead, many people (I heard on NPR this morning a poll said 59%) of the American people feel it was a mistake for us to go to war in Iraq.
Getting back to Zarqawi's demise, he was a "representative" of Al Queda in Iraq. But again, O'Reilly elevated him to the same level of importance as Zawahiri and Bin Laden. Not the same level. He was an evil person, and it is not "bad news" he was killed. He's another monster created by the U.S. The "bad news" is the war is still going on and the administration is gearing up for the next chapter in the war on a tactic, Iran.
One overriding fact that the Conjobs can't acknowledge; just because we got Zarqawi, it doesn't prove in any way that invading Iraq was a smart thing to do. This is just a symbolic victory with little real consequence. Iraq is still a Cluster Foxtrot, and we shouldn't be there.
The bread and butter of the right wing. They are incapable of pionting out to anyone why the death of Zarqawi is GOOD, so they have to demonize the media and left by accusing them of calling it bad news.
Zarqawi's death does nothing to lessen the violence and fighting and quagmire that is Iraq. But the right still wants Bush and the Republicans and the faithful %30 to praise Big Brother for everything.
the death of Zarqawi as a major victory. This man was one of the heads (LOL) of AQ in Iraq and a propagator of war. His death shows that no one in the Iraq insurgency is invinceble. Another important point is that he was betrayed (at least, that is what the military is saying), which can creat chaos and mistrust among AQ followers in Iraq. Also a good thing!
1) Zarqawi was already on the outs and almost a year ago the military was reporting that he is no longer the "head" they believed him to be. They also reported that the insurgency has grown far beyond Zarqaw. So killing Zarqawi is only good in so far as a terrorist is dead. Great. But I define "good" by the results and not some predisposed views of the "morality fo killing during wartime". Since the death of Zarqawi, even by the militaries own statements, does nothing to help the war or to hidner the violence, then I fail to see what is good for our troops or the innocent Iraqis caught in the cross fire or how much closer we are to some sort of finality to the whole thing.
2) If the military says that Zarqawi was betrayed and that was how they caught them....then are we to believe the military is now siding with terrorists against other terrorists? It's okay to side with one militant fundamentalist group as long as the "face of terrorism" is caught? Do they think that the public is that stupid? OH wait...this thread tells me that yes, many people are that stupid.
I will consider it "good" when out troops are no longer used to push the right-wing political agenda at home. the troops are not G.I. Joe's that Bush and crew can play with as if in a sandbox. They are people with lives and families. I will consider it "good" when there is an actual plan in place that defines what a victory is and when the war will be over. Without any sort of plan other than "kill anyone that shoots at us" then getting Zarqawi out of the picture is meaningless.
Oh...and I thought that not long ago the military and media was painting Zarqawi as an imbecile who couldn't even hold a gun. Suddenly now we're all supposed to praise Bush and his holy crusade because the leader of the Insurgency, the great evil genius Zarqawi, is dead? Please. With the amount this admin has bumbled, lied, misinformed, smeared, suppressed, misled, manipulated, etc....i see no reason to trust this story as anything other than a dead Al Qeada member, no different than any other faceless AL Qeada. It makes no difference or changes to what is going on in Iraq, Afghanastan, the world and certainly not the US.
So let me ask you. Right now your government is probably spying on you, bankrupting the country, manipulating intelligence, destroying the UN, selling out to special interests, promoting mass pollution of our air, propping up the oil companies, torturing foreigners (many innocent), allowing a media monopoly, trying to kill SS, etc, etc, etc...how does killing Zarqawi justify any of this? Does killing Zarqawi restore the reputation of the US that Bush has destroyed? Does killing Zarqawi make the Haditha massacre or the torture at Abu Graihb less terrible? Does killing Zarqawi restore the standard of living of the Iraqis with less power, employment, water than before we invaded?
So killing Zarqawi is only good in so far as a hate filled terrorist is dead. BUt look at the price we paid and yet we see no signs that anything in Iraq will change either. I hope you will excuse me if I don't take part in the endless circle of vilence and revenge that others have fallen victim too.
I would make it a point not to take anything that Imus says as startling, much less intelligent. His entire facade with the cowboy hat and the the sunglasses show a penchant for one who is completely out of touch with reality. Besides I don't think this guy has actually finished a complete sentence in about 20 years! An never-ending embarrassment to himself and his so-called legacy.
Overall, the Imus show simply revelas how creatively bankrupt MSNBC has become and how it doesn't take much to have your own talk show these days. Just say something outlandish ( calling Ann Coulter!! ) and you're guaranteed to get some press.
The dumbing down of America continues.
...that the obvious is being overlooked. You never heard about Zarqawi before the Iraq invasion. Why is that? Because before we invaded Iraq he was a two-bit Jordanean rapist nobody in the Islamic world. However, thanks to a generous combination of the shrubs cowboyism and our propaganda in the region, he became the new Bin Laden.
It's great that he's dead, but this is becomming typical of the warmongering media. This is some kind of "turning point." My only question is, after the fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, the transfer of power, the death of Zarqawi's confidants, the victory in Fallujah, the first election, the second election, and now Zarqawi's death, how many more "turning points" are we going to need before we get out.
In all liklihood, nothing will change. Now some other historic something or other will happen, the warmongers will celebrate, and nothing will change. Rinse, spit, repeat.
Our media parading around the footage of a corpse and cheering after whining that Al-Jazeera showed the victims of the US invasion. Hypocrisy is DC's top export. It's second top export is death.
With the first Oil War and the sanctions and now Operation Iraqi Subjugation, the US has directly and indirectly killed about a million Iraqi civilians over the span of 15 years. That's roughly 65,000 victims of US imperialism annually, many of them women and children. We have terrorised that nation for over a decade, constantly threatening, constantly killing if we didn't get our way. And there is no end in sight. The massive US embassy is under construction, proving we intend to stay for a long, long time, while our "allies" in the Iraqi government are conducting covert ethnic cleansing along sectarian lines.
Compared to the United States, Zarqawi was a wanna-be, Saddam a third-stringer. How can anyone compete with the US in scale of mass murder of civilians for political ends....which is the definition of terrorism.
Let the orcs in our "press" revel in this non-"victory". It means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. The real terrorist masterminds aren't in Iraq....they're in offices in Washington, DC and Arlington, VA.
I am so sick and tired of these conservative idiots thinking they can speak for me and know how I feel and what I think. I am a Liberal. That does not mean I feel bad about some murderous jerk getting bombed. I am glad. Just because I think bush is the worst president and totally lacking as a person doesn't mean I want innocent people to be murdered by a psycho terrorist just to so called "get back" at Bush. That is really disgusting and disturbing. I want to yell at these conservative idiots :Do not speak for me or presume to know how I feel!!!!
I heard extensive coverage of this on NPR Thursday morning, and their coverage did not indicate in any way that this was bad news or a stunt to improve Bush's dismal poll ratings.
Crawford said that the debate about the war was short, but neglected to mention it was cut off by the administration making the war a "fait accompli," and threatening to call anyone who then opposed it a traitor who was hurting the troops. Did anyone else watch the drug-store cowboy sit by while Mary Matalin said, (obout the Libby case) "There is one certified, documented liar in this case, Joe Wilson." This is beyond spin. It is a damn lie (unless I totally missed something.)
Imus survives on the igrorance of his audience!