Right Wing Nut House

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has announced that Karl Rove will not be indicted for his part in L’Affaire de Plame:

The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove’s lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer’s identity.

(HT: STACLU)

Unfortunately, that “pall” which was lifted from Mr. Rove has descended like the cone of silence over internet fabricator and noted liar Jason Leopold who as recently as last night wrote this for Truthout.org still trying to justify his article last month that stated flatly Mr. Rove would be “indicted within 24 hours.” And what is truly unbelievable is the contrast with how Leopold presents his evidence. Here is Leopold’s article from last night:

Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.

As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal - more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.

The case number is “06 cr 128.” On the federal court’s electronic database, “06 cr 128″ is listed along with a succinct summary: “No further information is available.”

We have not seen the contents of the indictment “06 cr 128″. But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.

Now contrast the above caveat-laden article with this piece from last month that had Rove doing the perp walk from his office in the White House straight into the slammer:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

Note how the story has morphed from Fitzgerald actually serving Rove with an indictment to some unknown indictment in an unknown case being handed down by an unknown prosecutor for an unknown crime.

Great reporting, Jason.

It will do no good to point out Leopold’s foibles to our friends on the left who seem to have a curious soft spot for this misanthropic serial fabricator. Maybe it is the fact that he is an admitted drug addict (a state that lasts a lifetime whether one uses drugs or not) or perhaps it is, as Jeff Goldstein points out, that he speaks truth to power and therefore is forgiven his many sins of omission and commission.

Whatever reason the left will not abandon him, I am happy to report that we will indeed have Jason Leopold to kick around some more thus curing conservative bloggers of writers block whenever an article of his makes an appearance. Since Truthout.Org is probably the bottom of the barrel as far as internet publications go, one would expect Leopold to continue trolling the depths of stupidity and loutishness in his quest to see how many prevarications he can get away with before the decent left gives him the permanent heave-ho.

As for the story of Rove’s non-indictment, this development makes one wonder about Fitzgerald’s case against Libby. Will Rove testify against his former aide? And could that have been the price for his reprieve?

I have my own ghosts to expunge here because for the last year I have been predicting that Rove would be indicted. Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker tried knocking some sense into me several times by telling me that Fitzy didn’t have a thing on Rove and that I was making way too much of press coverage of the story.

Clarice was right. I was dead wrong.

I will be following this story today by reading Tom McGuire and Clarice Feldman who I’m sure are busy at the moment gathering their thoughts so that they can tell us “what it all means.” Check back here for updates on this breaking story.

UPDATE: NO ENGLISH LANGUAGE ADJECTIVES TO DESCRIBE THIS KIND OF IRONY

Mark Ash, Executive Director of Truthout.Org penned an article last night that is one of the saddest examples I can remember of an editor standing behind a writer and then being betrayed by the march of events.

Now for what we believe: We believe that federal criminal indictment “06 cr 128″ (Sealed vs. Sealed) is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That’s based on a single credible source and the information discussed above. We believe that Karl Rove is cooperating with federal investigators, and for that reason Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not willing to comment on his status. That is based, again, on a single credible source, and background information provided by experts in federal criminal law. We believe that the indictment was returned and filed “on May 10 2006.” Same single credible source, and details from the filing records. We believe that if any of the key facts that we have reported were materially false or inaccurate some statement to that effect would be forthcoming from Fitzgerald’s staff. That is based on the same single credible source.

No mention of the person being indicted was Karl Rove which at least relieves Mr. Ash of the ignominy of being proved wrong less than 24 hours of assuring his readers that the “key facts” of the article written last month by Leopold was accurate.

One has to admire Mr. Ash’s loyalty but at the same time, question his judgment in supporting someone who has made him look like a fool.

UPDATE II: McGUIRE WEIGHS IN

Tom McGuire tells us what it all means and acknowleges his erroneous prognistication regarding Rove’s indictment:

Two quick guesses as to why there was no indictment:

(b) The Armitage angle made a Rove indictment problematic except as a package deal…

And Clarice Feldman emails me with her immediate thoughts:

You might want to simply quote Tom Maguire who’s getting punched around on his own site because he always thought Rove would be indicted. (I bet Fitz wishes he could take back the Libby indictment, tt.) C

He may yet.

And what update would be complete without an update from the man who invented the update…or maybe he just popularized it. Or not:

Did someone here order the crap sandwich?

Actually, I’ll refine my request. Leave your predictions below about which members of the administration they’ll inevitably accuse of being involved in the conspiracy to “silence Fitzgerald.”

Michelle Malkin calls it “Rove Derangement Syndrome” Day. She has some good links as usual with Mark Coffey’s “Top Ten” lefty reactions absolutely priceless.

Check out Pat Curley’s “Twas the Night before Fitzmas.”

Note: The following satire is politically incorrect. If you don’t approve, bite me.

Following accusations by terrorist prisoners of abuse and torture in American, British, Iraqi, Afghan, and Canadian prisons, lawyers for three tourists arrested on Friday and charged with trying to blow up St. Peters Basilica are alleging abuse at the hands of officials of the Roman Catholic Church. They also maintain that their clients are totally innocent.

“Doesn’t every Vatican tourist carry 40 kilos of C-4 around with them?” asked one perplexed barrister.

Another lawyer for the bearded, Southwest Asian looking men whose religion and region of birth have nothing whatsoever to do with their alleged crime said that the conditions of his client’s imprisonment were “unbearable.”

“It’s a disgrace,” said James “Slick” Burblehead, an attorney with the group Human Rights Travesty Monitoring Executive (HURTME). “Since there are no prisons in Vatican City, our clients have been incarcerated in furnished apartments in the Vatican with comfy chairs and soft beds. What self respecting alleged terrorist would be caught dead in such conditions of imprisonment?”

Burblehead alleges that the Vatican has failed to supply suitably gruesome conditions of incarceration which could lead to unbearable psychological stress on his client as he contemplates how his friends will laugh at him when he returns home. “His self-esteem will suffer unless he is placed in a dark cell with bars that he can rattle a tin cup across,” said Burblehead.

Among other outrages, Burblehead lists:

1. A private bathroom. “No reason to splash urine on the Koran unless someone can see it,” says the barrister.

2. Nuns serving meals. Burblehead points out that since the nuns wear habits that are about as revealing as the burqa clad women from home, there are no opportunities to allege immodesty on the part of female jailers, thus taking away a crucial defense talking point.

3. Internet access. Mr. Burblehead alleges that WiFi access is “spotty” and wonders if the Italians have ever even heard of broadband. “This is the Italian state telephone company we’re talking about here for God’s sake,” said Burblehead.

4. Food. The lawyer says that the food is just too good, preventing his client from going on a hunger strike. “He has become especially partial to certain Italian pasta dishes like Shrimp Papardelle,” said Burblehead. “How in God’s name can one expect to go on a hunger strike in Italy? In Rome, no less?”

Attorneys for the two other men charged in the same case are also alleging intolerable conditions for the clients with one barrister threatening to take their case to the United Nations.

“There is only one organization that can understand what our clients are experiencing,” said Tupak Sixpak, an attorney representing an alleged terrorist who was found with 16 sticks of dynamite and structural plans for St. Peters but who maintains he had nothing whatsoever to do with the plot. “Only the UN will appreciate our clients innocence and the unnecessarily abusive conditions of their incarceration.”

Mr. Sixpak likens the imprisonment of his client to the persecution of early Christian martyrs who endured unspeakable atrocities at the hands of Roman authorities nearly 2000 years ago.

“Not much has changed in 2000 years,” said Sixpak. “I can see the similarities between the way my client has been abused with the suffering of the early Christians. In fact, my client is a modern day martyr and should be released so that he can fulfill his lifelong dream of sacrificing his life for his cause.”

It was 16 years ago that the Americans faced a Czech team in the World Cup finals. Coach Bruce Arena was sitting in the stands watching as the US team of eager college kids and international knock-abouts were thrashed 5-1. Arena says he saw at that point just how far the US was behind the rest of the world.

Four years later, many of those same kids shocked the world when they advanced past the preliminary round by beating a powerful Columbian team thanks to an own goal by Columbia’s stellar defender Andrés Escobar (who was gunned down a few days later outside a bar in a suburb of Medillion) and then giving eventual Cup champions Brazil all they could handle for 90 minutes, losing 1-0.

Entering the 1998 competition with high hopes, the US team was embarrassed, losing to not only powerhouse Germany but also a solid team from Yugoslavia and suffering a humiliating shutout by the Iranians.

Enter Coach Arena and a brand new philosophy that emphasized speed and defense, a recipe for success in 2002 as Team USA moved on to the quarterfinals losing to a fine Germany team 1-0. But Arena’s primary contribution to America’s success was in creating an attitude; it was no longer good enough simply to be “competitive.” From here on out, American soccer players expected to win against any team anywhere. Gone were the days when a 1-0 loss to Brazil would be seen as a “moral victory.” In Arena’s vocabulary, there was no such term. A win was a win and a loss was a loss and by God, if you want to play for the United States of America, you damn well better expect to be victorious.

This philosophy will be tested as never before during the 2006 Cup run. Drawing two of the best European teams in the preliminary rounds - Italy and the Czech Republic - Team USA has forced the world to judge them by international standards of excellence by announcing to one and all that they expect to beat the best that the world has to offer each and every time they take the pitch.

Most observers believe that they cannot accomplish this task, that both the Azzurri and the Czechs will make hash of the American’s bold statements. One suspects that most of the world wishes this devoutly as the Americans cockiness has rubbed some of the stuffed shirts at FIFA and in Europe the wrong way. So be it, say the Americans. If this be the price for gaining full and final respect for American soccer, they are willing to pay it.

And the bill starts coming due today. The USA-Czech matchup features several intriguing elements that will make this game perhaps the most important in the history of American soccer. While the Czechs are not considered a frontrunner for Cup glory, they are certainly in the mix of those teams who are capable of making a run for the gold. In that respect, the US will try to derail the Czech hopes by pressuring a slightly aging but still formidable defense with their tremendous speed while keeping the world class Czech offense from getting organized by putting constant pressure on the ball.

In order to accomplish this feat, Coach Arena must decide on a starting lineup that will allow the Americans to accomplish these goals.

A NUMBERS GAME

Arena will not name his starting lineup nor his formation until he absolutely has to - probably about an hour before game time. But since he is blessed with a myriad of options thanks to the tremendous talent he has assembled, we can make some intelligent speculation based on past experience.

The back line appears set with Eddie Pope and potential breakout star Oguchi Onyewu anchoring a defense that must stop one of the most intimidating forwards in the world, 6′8″ Jan Koller. Another probable is Steve Cherundolo at right half, a sold if unspectacular performer.

Left half is open to question but it appears that Arena will give the nod to veteran Eddie Lewis. Possessed with speed and toughness, Lewis lacks size which may spell trouble as the fleet footed Czech winger Karel Poborsky is known for being able to muscle his way into the box against smaller defenders.

The center midfield also appears to be set with team Captain Claudio Reyna and John O’Brien spearheading the attack. And one forward will definitely be Brian McBride who will need to play well with his back to the goal as well as demonstrating his usual spectacular aerial ability.

But the other three positions (Kasey Keller will be a fixture at keeper) are up in the air and will probably depend on what kind of formation Arena will employ.

Will he want to maximize his strengths on offense by starting speedy wingers Steve Convey and DeMarcus Beasley? Or will he go for toughness and start a veteran Clint Dempsey while playing versatile swingman Pablo Mastroeni on the shoulder of the defense in order to slow down the dazzling Czech midfield duo of Nedved and Rosicky? Perhaps he will even go so far as start a third man on the back line in which case expect Carlos Bocanegra to perhaps get the nod. And where to put his most versatile offensive player Landon Donovan. Common sense would have Donovan playing alongside McBride but Arena has used the young man everywhere at midfield including the wings in order to free his talented goal scorer and utilize his speed and skills.

My personal feeling is that Arena will go with a modified 3-5-2, playing Josh Wolff up front with McBride and starting both Dempsey and Mastroeni at midfield.

If all of this has your head spinning think of what it’s doing to veteran coach Karel Bruckner. The canny old tactician, a veteran of the European Cup wars, will have some aces up his own sleeve I’m sure. Look for the wandering Czechs Nedved and Rosicky to end up on the flanks more than usual due to US pressuring the middle of the field effectively. And look for Bruckner to employ a 4-5-1, depending on his backs to start their deadly counter-attacking offense and constantly overlapping to pressure the American backline.

PREDICTION

With both teams depending on the counterattack to create chances, look for a tough, physical defensive game that will be won or lost at midfield. This is entirely to the Czechs advantage. Nedved and Rosicky are too good, too capable of offensive explosion for our small but talented midfield to effectively counter.

That said, the longer that Team USA can keep the score nil-nil, the more pressure devolves to the Czech side. One of the biggest intangibles in this tournament for the Americans is that no one expects them to get a result against the Czechs or Italians. The longer the game goes on without a score, the more the Czechs will feel the weight of expectations clamp down on their shoulders. In such cases, teams have been known to make mistakes.

I think the best the US can hope for against this talented Czech team is a tie. That will keep them alive going into their match against the Azzurri on June 17th.

UPDATE: HALFTIME

Out of their league.

Despite the best team we’ve been able to field in American history, the Czechs are proving too much so far.

The Czech’s midfield play is dazzling, moving through effortlessly and placing a lot of pressure on Lewis and Cherundolo.

In contrast, our midfield play is tentative, sloppy, and leading to turnovers that have given the Czechs some quick counters.

Starting Mastroeni was the right move but Pablo hasn’t contributed jack. And Donovan may have touched the ball three times in the entire half.

In short, the Americans look flat, uninspired, and slow as molasses. Their one decent chance was a shot from the top of the box by Reyna that hit the post flush. But Beasley is playing a horrible game. His first touches are getting away from him (something that could be said for our entire midfield with the exception of Reyna). McBride hasn’t seen the ball either.

Hard to see how they can come back. Maybe subbing O’Brien for Mastroeni and Dempsey for Convey will light a fire under our guys and at least make the second half competitive. As it is, they looked like our “98 squad out there.

There are many who dismiss the suicides of the three detainees at Guantanamo with a kind of “good riddance” wave of the hand, a casual shrug of the shoulders denoting indifference to the fate of those who, if given half a chance, would kill us all.

But it is by no means clear that those detainees and the others being held there pose that kind of threat. And the reason we aren’t sure - sure enough to have a clear conscience as we lock them away for the rest of their lives - is because of the unconscionable foot dragging by the Administration on determining exactly what rights the prisoners will be granted before US courts.

The Justice Department last year passed the buck to Congress, giving them the opportunity to determine how to go about judging the detainees on a case by case basis The Congress demurred, believing the matter to properly belong to the courts. And while lower courts have granted the prisoners some rights like habeas corpus and the right to an attorney, the legal limbo of the detainees won’t be cleared up until the Supreme Court rules on the matter.

On Friday, the President acknowledged that Gitmo has got to be closed and offered his explanation as to why it still functions:

“We would like to end the Guantanamo — we’d like it to be empty,” Bush said. But he added: “There are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I believe they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States.”

Bush said his administration was waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on whether he overstepped his authority in ordering the detainees to be tried by U.S. military tribunals.

Even the President is now convinced Guantanamo needs to be closed and that the prisoners have their cases tried in American courts. The amazing thing about the President’s statement is that if indeed the Supreme Court rules that the President “overstepped his authority” in using military tribunals to detain the prisoners illegally, there’s a chance that there may not be any trials in US courts at all; that most if not all the prisoners will be released outright.

To forestall that possibility, the Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to be hazy enough so that the prisoners will not be released due to any technical violation of their “constitutional rights” - an incendiary term when applied to accused terrorists - but will grant the detainees a habeas corpus hearing that will force the government to reveal in open court some of the evidence compiled against them.

This is also problematic as apparently much of the evidence is of a sensitive nature and revealing it in open court would compromise intelligence methods and assets. This puts the United States government squarely behind the 8-ball; in order to keep the accused terrorists in jail, we may be forced to reveal sources, allowing the detainee to “face their accuser.” And since one study of detainee records shows that a sizable number of them were not captured on any battlefield in Afghanistan but rather handed over by warlords and tribal leaders, having the detainee “face their accuser” may indeed be a monumental problem resulting in the release of people who may very well pose a threat to the United States. As it stands now, only 10 detainees stand accused of any crime at all. The rest are being held as enemy combatants with evidence of a classified nature used to keep them in prison.

This has been the beef against military tribunals all along; evidentiary standards are much more lax than they are in any court in the United States. There have also been questions about the availability of defense counsel to the detainees during their hearings as well as other roadblocks which have made the tribunals seem more like drumhead court martials than legal proceedings in keeping with the honorable traditions of American jurisprudence.

Much as we loathe the men who have sworn to kill us all, we simply must come to grips with the idea that if we aren’t able to kill them on the battlefield, they must be granted some of the rights guaranteed by international law and our own constitution. To do any less cheapens our entire justice system. It isn’t a question of loving the terrorist. It is a question of loving liberty and the blessings granted by a constitution that recognizes value in every individual and equality before the law.

I don’t know if the suicides at Gitmo were the result of despair, as the New York Times says or whether it was a public relations ploy as Colleen Graffy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy says. I do know that as long as the detention center remains open, it represents, in my opinion, a black stain on American justice and a sad chapter in the history of American jurisprudence that should be closed for good.

This much is clear more than two weeks after the story broke that Marines in Haditha allegedly massacred 24 civilians “in cold blood,” a descriptive used by Representative John Murtha who supposedly has seen excerpts of the military report on the incident.

One side or the other is lying in spectacular fashion.

And not just little inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony that one would expect in a war zone either. There are extremely disturbing indications that press reports detailing eyewitness accounts have failed to reconcile what Iraqis in Haditha were telling them with other known facts that were either conveniently left out or ignored altogether. There are also clear and unambiguous cases where Iraqi eyewitnesses have changed their stories 2, 3, and even more times.

While it is not unusual for small details to be lost or found in different translations, these discrepancies are huge, up to and including one 12 year old girl (or 13 or 15 depending on which report you are reading) being in different houses, being shielded from the wrath of the Americans by 3 different family members, and telling completely different and ever more bloodcurdling details of how the Marines killed her family.

Then there is the weird case of Aws Fahmi. In an AP report, he is reported to have been a victim of the massacre, left to bleed in the street after being shot by the Americans. But the Washington Post story in which several eyewitnesses are interviewed, features Mr. Fahmi’s testimony prominently and in which the “victim” has morphed into an eyewitness, viewing the events from his house with no mention of his being shot and left to bleed to death in the street.

I want to be extremely careful here because there may be other, more mundane explanations for the discrepancies in eyewitness accounts than what appears on the surface to be a coordinated disinformation campaign by the insurgents that has taken in reporters for AP, Reuters, and Time Magazine to name a few.

Nor do the conflicting stories by Iraqis and the press mitigate the facts found by the military investigation into this matter. But the inconsistencies raise troubling questions about this probe. I found it strange that Members of Congress had been briefed on the investigation prior to its conclusion, with massive leaking of some preliminary conclusions by both lawmakers and top brass at the Pentagon. In their haste to “get out in front” of the story, did the Pentagon rush to judgement?

The Washington Post has the Marine’s side of the story this morning some of which seems to confirm parts of the initial reporting on scene by Reuters in the immediate aftermath of what happened in Haditha last November 20.. This is from my friend Clarice Feldman’s meticulously researched piece that appeared in The American Thinker on Friday:

On November 20, 2005, Reuters reported that on the previous day an IED killed a US Marine and 15 civilians in Haditha, a town known to be a center of the insurgency, a town as hostile to our forces as the better known Fallujah was. Reuters reported that “immediately after the blast, gunmen opened fire on the convoy” and US and Iraqi forces returned fire, killing 8 insurgents and wounding another in the fight. The paper further reported that “A cameraman working for Reuters in Haditha says bodies had been left lying in the street for hours after the attack.”

The Marine interviewed in the Post this morning confirms this story in a very general way and also says that they never reported that the civilians had been killed by an IED:

Wuterich’s version contradicts that of the Iraqis, who described a massacre of men, women and children after a bomb killed a Marine. Haditha residents have said that innocent civilians were executed, that some begged for their lives before being shot and that children were killed indiscriminately.

Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich’s account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients.

Kevin B. McDermott, who is representing Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the Kilo Company commander, said Wuterich and other Marines informed McConnell on the day of the incident that at least 15 civilians were killed by “a mixture of small-arms fire and shrapnel as a result of grenades” after the Marines responded to an attack from a house.

The discrepancy in the number of civilians killed - the Marines say 15 while the Iraqis claim 24 bodies were brought to the morgue - indicates to me that this could very well be at least part of a disinformation campaign by the insurgency in Haditha. I base this conclusion on the facts that were uncovered during the investigation of a similar claim of massacre at Ishaqi.

Is it beyond imagining that at both Ishaqi and Haditha, insurgents “bumped up” the number of civilians killed by dumping additional bodies at the site? Is it also impossible to believe that some of these “eyewitnesses” are in fact deliberately spreading lies as a result of them being in league with or sympathetic to the insurgent’s cause?

In fact, the similarities are eerie. Both Ishaqi and Haditha had eyewitnesses changing their accounts several times. Both incidents had discrepancies in the number of civilians killed as well as how the operation was carried out. Both incidents had a videotape of of the bodies lying at the morgue offered as proof that the civilians were butchered by American soldiers.

At Ishaqi, the military determined that the troops had acted properly and within the rules of engagement. I’m not so sure that a similar finding will emerge from their investigation into what happened at Haditha. By the Marine’s own account, Americans burst into several houses, only one of which they were receiving small arms fire and used indiscriminate tactics that resulted in the deaths of 15 innocents. Of course, once the decision was made to enter the houses, the die was cast - anyone found in those houses were almost sure to die. I’m sure that decision will be examined carefully and a determination made as to whether or not the Marines followed proper procedure.

What is most disturbing to me is that it appears the reporting on this story has been just plain lazy. While every newspaper, magazine, and TV reporter covering this story likes to believe that their own investigation should stand alone as definitive (or at least a representation of what happened reflecting an effort to find out what happened to the best of their ability), it is clear that absolutely no effort has been made by reporters to reconcile the various versions of eyewitness accounts coming from supposedly victimized Iraqis. And their failure to report on the political leanings of some of the Iraqis who have emerged as key witnesses to the massacre is unconscionable.

In addition to Clarice’s piece in The American Thinker, I would also urge you to read Dan Reihl’s excellent work on this issue here as well as his take on the Marine’s story here.

We still don’t know what happened at Haditha. And it is very clear that the truth of the matter is proving more elusive than the anti-war left will admit. To do so would ruin their campaign to delegitimize our troop’s efforts in Iraq as well as build support for withdrawing our military before the job is done.

But for those of us who do want to get to the bottom of what happened there and let the chips fall where they may, much more work is needed by both the military and the press in discovering the facts in such a manner that is fair to both the Iraqis and the Marines.

UPDATE

Check out Allah at Hot Air this morning for more on the Marine’s side of the story. I’m sure he will be linking throughout the day to other reactions.

Bruce Kesler has further thoughts on the media coverage of this story.

The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi occurred early Thursday morning, almost 3 days ago as I write this. Do you notice anything missing in press reporting of this huge story?

Usually, within 24 hours of a major event, we have at least a half dozen “flash polls” that gives us a snapshot of the American people’s attitudes toward that particular story. And, if the story is bad news for the President, we usually get the headline “Bush Approval Drops to Lowest Level in the History of Human Civilization” or some other eye catching drivel.

Have the pollsters taken the weekend off? Maybe they’re watching the World Cup. Or maybe the possibility of a significant bump upwards in the President’s approval ratings would spoil the appetites of network news executives prior to their weekend barbecues.

Whatever the reason, the lack of polls on Zarqawi’s death is eerie, almost like The Cone of Silence has descended over the news media, and a temporary blackout on gauging public opinion has been called for. In fact, I was only able to find one poll (part of a poll, actually) and it was done by Investors Business Daily:

The president’s lagging poll numbers got a swift boost from Thursday’s news that U.S. warplanes had killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted-terrorist in Iraq.

Polling done on Thursday for the IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index gave Bush a 44.2 rating, up from 39.1 in the prior days of June and 38.9 in May. The last time the Index reached this level was in December, when it hit 44.3.

Readings below 50 are negative. The complete June index will be released on Tuesday.

Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, said the sudden rise in sentiment on a range of issues, including America’s standing in the world, suggests Bush’s bounce is “totally attributable” to Zarqawi.

(Via Drudge)

Is it possible that news executives believe this story isn’t important enough for one of their instant polls? Well, within 24 hours of the NSA phone records story breaking last month, ABC was on the job using their polling resources to get the public’s reaction. And within 24 hours of Saddam’s capture, every major news outlet had polls out that included the significant jump in the President’s approval ratings. There was even a quickie poll overnight about public reaction to the President’s immigration speech last month.

This is the most significant war story since at least the bombing of the Samarra Shrine in February after which, within 48 hours, pollsters were asking the American people about the likelihood of a civil war in Iraq. It begs the question:

Where are the polls?

Not positing a conspiracy theory here, just asking a legitimate question.

Someone close to the top tier of al Qaeda in Iraq leadership has started to blab.

This much is clear after US and Iraqi forces carried out raids against 56 al Qaeda targets in the 48 hours after the death of the organization’s putative leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:

U.S. forces conducted at least 56 raids on targets connected with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaida in Iraq organization in the 48 hours after his death.

Citing military officials, The Los Angeles Times reported the raids were intended to capitalize on the killing of al-Zarqawi by disrupting his network of fighters.

After bombing a dwelling where al-Zarqawi and five others were killed Wednesday, U.S. forces carried out 17 raids across Baghdad. Forces hit 39 more sites on Friday, said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.

Military officials displayed pictures of items seized in the raids — including weapons, uniforms and ammunition — and said at least 25 people were captured and one killed, the newspaper said. Hover, officials did not provide an assessment of the extent of damage from the raids on insurgent operations.

Given that our intel regarding AQI has been spotty in the past, this many raids in a time span of 48 hours indicates that one or more prisoners have given us priceless information that we have obviously put to good use.

And we can expect more of the same:

A U.S. military search of the destroyed safehouse where the al-Qaida in Iraq leader was killed Wednesday yielded documents and information storage devices that are being assessed for potential use against his followers, a military officer said.

An M-16 rifle, grenades and AK-47 rifles also were found, according to the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because results from the search have not been announced. The U.S.-made M-16 was fitted with special optics.

They also found documents and unspecified “media,” which the officer indicated normally means information storage devices such as computer hard drives and digital cameras or other data storage devices.

U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said 39 raids were conducted across Iraq late Thursday and early Friday, including some directly related to the information they obtained from the strike against al-Zarqawi. Those were in addition to 17 raids carried out immediately after the terror leader was killed.

Can all of this mean that we have AQI on the run?

One has to conclude that while the terrorist group remains very dangerous and capable of mounting devastating attacks against Iraqi civilians, a shift in momentum may be in the offing for coalition forces and this one, bloody element of the insurgency may have been dealt a truly lethal blow.

It will be interesting to see how we exploit this wealth of information gleaned from the al-Zarqawi raid. The more cells we can roll up or, just as important, keep so busy running for their lives that they are unable to mount any attacks, the fewer Iraqi civilians will suffer from AQI’s relentless campaign to foment sectarian conflict.

Meanwhile, in one of the most grotesque displays of nauseating bias I have seen in a while, the press is trying to portray Zarqawi’s last moments in the most “heroic” way possible. They have picked up on the theme that even though he was dying, the terrorist mastermind was trying to get away and, in a dramatic account of his final moments, struggled against capture:

Iraqi police reached the scene first, and found the 39-year-old al-Zarqawi alive.

“He mumbled something, but it was indistinguishable and it was very short,” Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, spokesman for U.S.-led forces in Iraq, said Friday of the Jordanian-born terrorist’s last words.

Iraqi police pulled him from the flattened home and placed him on a makeshift stretcher. U.S. troops arrived, saw that al-Zarqawi was conscious, and tried to provide medical treatment, the spokesman said.

“He obviously had some kind of visual recognition of who they were because he attempted to roll off the stretcher, as I am told, and get away, realizing it was the U.S. military,” Caldwell told Pentagon reporters via videoconference from Baghdad.

Al-Zarqawi “attempted to, sort of, turn away off the stretcher,” he said. “Everybody re-secured him back onto the stretcher, but he died almost immediately thereafter from the wounds he’d received from this airstrike.”

I like John Hinderaker’s take on this:

But the journalists who participated in the press conference, apparently by satellite, seemed to think they were on the trail of a Cover-Up. I saw most of the press conference early this morning. News of Zarqawi’s brief survival immediately led to questions about whether he had been finished off by the troops, and whether our soldiers had tried to render first aid. At one point, a reporter asked whether the published photos of Zarqawi’s face had been Photoshopped to make them look more like Zarqawi. I don’t think Caldwell had any idea what the guy was talking about; he said Yes, we decided to clean up Zarqawi’s face before photographing him. This led to a follow-up question about whether the photos had been digitally enhanced.

At this and other points in the press conference, Gen. Caldwell had the look, I thought, of a normal person who wonders whether he has been transported into a world of lunatics. It seemed that some of the reporters, at least, thought they were on to another “scandal”–Zarqawi murdered by U.S. troops! In cold blood, as Jack Murtha likes to say.

I am almost beside myself with disgust over this display. Words fail me when I contemplate the concern shown over this piece of human excrement compared to our own troops or even the Iraqi people who were butchered at his hands.

It is no longer a question of asking “Whose side are they on?” We know. We know.

UPDATE

Allah has some interesting updates over at Hot Air. Apparently, Zarqawi’s wife and infant son were also killed in the attack (via Times of London). And there is a question about whether or not Zarqawi’s long time spiritual advisor was also killed in the attack.

I’m sure we’ll hear more about both stories in the hours ahead as the press is still trying furiously to find an angle that will deligitimize the killing of Zarqawi and once again, make the Iraq storyline about the heartless American occupiers.

UPDATE II

Leave it to the two funniest people in the blogosphere to take the Zarqawi killing and make it into pure, comic gold.

Jeff Goldstein has an interview with the now dead terrorist that had me laughing so hard I almost emptied my bladder.

And the inimitable Scott Ott has the best political satire I’ve seen in a while: “Democrats Vow to Fight On After Zarqawi Loss.”

(HT: Doc Sanity)

Can anyone beat Brazil?

For the half dozen or so teams that have a chance to make it to the finals of this year’s World Cup Soccer tournament, the answer to that question will be found in how fit their players can stay during their run for gold as well as how some of their key stars perform under the enormous pressure of playing the game at the highest levels of competition in the world.

But most of all, the answer to the question can anyone beat Brazil rests, as it usually does, with the Brazilians themselves and whether their phenomenally talented team of international superstars can play together as a team while the minor controversies and stratospheric media hype swirls around them. They carry the hopes of 175 million of their fellow countrymen who eat, breathe, live, and die Brazilian football. And anything and everything that impacts the games, even tangentially, is blown up, analyzed, discussed, fretted over, and becomes part of the weight placed upon the team as they struggle to perform up to expectations.

For the nation of Brazil, those expectations include nothing less than a World Cup championship. The people feel they own the Cup, that it is Brazilian state property. An enormously proud people, the Cup is a part of their national identity. And while they can be fiercely loyal to the “Seleção Canarinha” , they are unremitting task masters, demanding perfection at all times.

Alas, the players are but human beings and therefore incapable of perfection. But given the level of talent belonging to this year’s group of Brazilian immortals, they may get closer to it than anyone imagines.

There are legends like Cafu who anchors a stifling defense. And Ronaldo who Americans may remember from the 1994 World Cup played here. Just a teenager then, Ronaldo went on to become FIFA Player of the Year 3 times (1996, 97, 2002).

And then there is simply Ronaldinho. English language adjectives fail to do justice to the speed, skills, and instincts of a man considered by many to be the greatest player in the history of the game. Do yourself a favor, even if you are not a soccer fan; watch every game Ronaldinho plays in during this Cup run. At 26 years old, he is at the peak of his powers. And the chances of you seeing his likes again in your lifetime are pretty close to nil.

For the next month, the Brazilian gross domestic product will suffer enormously as the nation stops everything it’s doing and holds its breath every time their beloveds take to the pitch in Germany. No matter what time of day, it won’t matter to the Brazilian people. Who, despite poverty, violence, and the growing pains associated with a third world nation struggling to rise above its past, will unite for one glorious month and revel in the knowledge that the eyes of the world are upon them.

If Brazil stumbles, it will probably be in the finals match set for July 9th in Berlin. Chasing the opportunity to play the Brazilians will be a small group of nations whose own World Cup aspirations are just as high and whose fans will also be living the dream for the next month.

ENGLAND

Many feel that the English are the strongest side in the world next to Brazil. But that is with a healthy Wayne Rooney, the dynamic striker from Manchester United who, at 21, is the future of world soccer. Strong, speedy, and possessed of enormous talent and courage, Rooney is as tough as they come and will prove it in Germany coming off a broken metatarsal bone in his foot barely 6 weeks ago. He will probably be held out of the preliminary round games unless England finds itself facing elimination in game 3, an unlikely event given their relatively weak draw of Sweden, Paraguay, and T & T.

In addition to Rooney, the English midfield will also shine with international heartthrob David Beckham trying to shake the ghosts of past disappointing Cup performances and the all-world talent of Frank Lampard set to take up some of the scoring burden caused by Rooney’s absence.

A potential roadblock may occur on the road to the finals because England is expected to win Group B. This would place them on a collision course with Brazil in the semi finals.

Much will depend on Rooney’s match fitness. But it appears that coach Goran Eriksson’s huge gamble in naming Rooney to the team 3 weeks ago will pay off handsomely.

ITALY

Next to the Brazilians, the Italians might take home the second place honors for most rabid and demanding fans. The Azzuri will be sorely tested in the preliminary round, having to play a slightly aging but still formidable Czech squad and the young, speedy, up and coming Americans.

But in some ways, what is going on off the pitch could be more distracting than anything that takes place while the team is playing. An ever widening match fixing scandal has roiled the Italian’s number one soccer league perhaps involving dozens of players around the world and at least 2 of its top club teams. The scandal almost cost coach Marcello Lippi his job - along with the usual complaints about some stars left off the final roster which had some players calling for Lippi’s head - but through it all, the Azzurri endure.

The name of the game in Italy is defense and if there is a side capable of shutting down the Brazilians, it’s the men in blue. However, in order to avoid Brazil until the finals, the Italians will have to win Group E outright as the second place finisher in that Group will face Ronaldinho & Co. in the second round. The Italians will rely on defensive stalwart Gianluca Zambrotta and his mates to keep the high powered offense of the Czechs and speedy Americans from upsetting their hopes while superstar Fracesco Totti sets up a potent group of strikers led by Luca Toni.

Italy will try its best to win Group E in order to avoid a second round match up with the Brazilians. Their match against the Czechs set for June 22 will probably decide their fate in that regard.

Deep, experienced, and relentless on defense. If the Azzurri can ignore the swirling controversy, they very well may win through to challenge for Cup gold.

FRANCE

The French are flying under the radar so far this tournament which is just how they like it. Few observers are giving them a chance of advancing past the second round because they appear to be limping a bit coming into the Cup, having lost their stellar striker Djibril Cisse just prior to the competition to a broken leg.

But the 1998 World Champions were stung to the quick in 2002, failing to score a goal or win a game in the preliminary round. To say that their poor showing in Korea has motivated them this time around is an understatement. The players and the nation are salivating at the chance for redemption.

Any team that features Arsenal’s Thierry Henry, who many consider one of the top three strikers in the world, has to be in the mix for championship consideration. Add 1998 hero Zinedine Zidane as well as an elegant and perfectly positioned defense and you may have a recipe for Les Bleus to make a legitimate run

There are few other teams given much of a chance. The Germans and Dutch appear to have fielded inferior teams this time around compared to previous squads. And the Spanish, whose Primera Liga is perennially considered one of the top leagues in Europe never seem to be able to make a run despite excellent talent. Argentina, long a rival to Brazil, are in the so-called “Group of Death” and will be hard-pressed in the preliminary rounds against the Netherlands and Serbia. While most expect the Albiceleste to emerge victorious in Group C, history has shown that a tough prelim schedule is not conducive to success in the later rounds.

And the Americans? I think that the United States is one or two Cups away from making a run for glory. It would be a huge upset if Team USA makes it to the second round, probably needing a result against both the Czechs and Italians in order to advance. That’s a lot to ask of this group of talented Americans who, I think, will give the two European soccer powers all they can handle and then some.

When John Bolton was first proposed as Ambassador to the UN, many of us on the right cheered lustily. Bolton’s reputation for directness and a no-nonsense attitude toward diplomacy made him the perfect candidate to take the UN by the scruff of the neck and shake some common sense and necessary reforms into that corrupt and useless organization.

In this, the mustachioed Bolton has not disappointed. He is a lion among sheep, pushing relentlessly to clean up the worst of the abuses that have rocked the international community while drawing howls of rage from the left here and in Europe for not being a typical American UN flunkie, tiptoeing around Turtle Bay and trying not to step on anyone’s toes.

Bolton is not only doing a little toe-stepping, he has put the UN on the rack and is turning the screws. Following the insulting remarks of a British UN official about how “the role of the UN is a mystery to Middle America,” Bolton let him have it with both barrels and then threatened to yank funding for the UN unless someone apologized:

“Maybe it is fashionable in some circles to look down on Middle America, to say they don’t get the complexities of the world and they don’t have the benefit of continental education and they are deficient in so many ways,” Mr Bolton added. “It is illegitimate for an international civil servant to criticise what he thinks are the inadequacies of citizens of a member government.”

The tough-talking US envoy reiterated that the dispute could harm important reforms to the international body. He also hinted that the US Congress, which controls American government spending, might reconsider US funding to the UN, which accounts for 22 per cent of the organisation’s annual budget. “Congress has the power of the purse and they feel quite strongly on a bipartisan basis that America has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent, even people from Middle America,” he said, with a note of sarcasm. “I don’t think we have seen the end of it.”

Indeed, Bolton has decided to make the gentleman’s remarks something of a causus belli. The official, Kofi Annan’s chief deputy Mark Malloch Brown, said in the same speech that that there was “too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping” from conservatives and Middle Americans. Bolton’s response on Tuesday in New York was a classic:

“We are in the process of an enormous effort to achieve substantial reform at the United Nations,” he said. “To have the deputy secretary general criticize the United States in such a manner can only do great harm to the United nations.

“Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations,” he added. “Even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. This was a criticism of the American people not the American government by an international civil servant.”

Taken aback by the virulence of Bolton’s broadside, Kofi Anna began to backtrack furiously:

Before Mr Bolton arrived in London, Kofi Annan, the UN chief, tried to play down the controversy. “I think the message that was intended is that the US needs the UN, and the UN needs the US, and we need to support each other,” Mr Annan said. “I think the speech by my deputy should be read in the right spirit and let’s put it behind us and move on.”

No such luck my greedy and corrupt friend. The fact that the speech was delivered by your second in command is a pretty sure sign you signed off on it, Mr. Secretary-General. What you didn’t count on was an American diplomat calling you out for your insulting and egregiously ill considered remarks.

Annan figured that he’d get some kind of mumbled apology and a promise to try and stifle the cries of outrage coming from the right. This is especially true of Fox News who have been lambasting the UN and Annan’s leadership for years over any one of a number of horrific scandals, least of which is the Oil for Food bribery scheme that has implicated Annan’s son Kojo and which may have played a large role in the decision of some of the UN’s Security Council members not to support the US invasion of Iraq.

As a genuine Middle American, I’m grateful to Ambassador Bolton for standing up to this kind of casually obscene anti-Americanism and elitist hooey. Those stuffed shirts had finally better get used to the idea that Bolton won’t stop until the UN is changed from the personal fiefdom of a few corrupt bureaucrats into a useful international organization that can truly contribute to the peace and security of the world.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Welcome Rush Limbaugh listeners! Always an honor to have Rush give me a mention on his show. How about a little well deserved UN bashing? John Bolton is on the job and giving Kofi and his crew what for! See the latest here.

The first reaction that most Americans had to news that the Jordanian born terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed in a precision bombing raid by the United States Air Force yesterday was one of elation mixed with a grim satisfaction that a huge obstacle to bringing peace and security to Iraq was permanently removed. It was one of those moments that has occurred so rarely in this war; a triumph of good over evil and a clear cut victory for the United States that all Americans should be thankful for.

Not so fast, say many on the left. Former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was one of the first to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of “a growing anti-American insurgency” and that it’s time to get out.

“We’re there for all the wrong reasons,” Mr. Kucinich said.

Although the initial reaction to the news by the Democratic party leadership was suitably positive- Senate Minority Leader Reid was particularly fulsome in his praise of the military - as the day went on, a curious thing happened; al Zarqawi shrank in size and importance until by about mid-afternoon, many on the left were asking the question “So where’s Osama?” This Reuters headline was echoed a thousand times on liberal websites and left wing talk radio shows: “Zarqawi found, but bin Laden still eludes US.”

That the media began to spin the story every which way from Sunday was no surprise. In any other context, their desperate attempts to deflect attention from the death of Zarqawi and put the emphasis on the unsuccessful hunt for bin Landen could be seen as a pitiful attempt at comedy, so riotously off kilter their killjoy attitude became by day’s end. It makes one wonder what kind of headlines they would have generated during World War II following the death of Hitler: “German Chancellor dead: No Effect on Quagmire in the Pacific Seen.”

In truth, it became de riguer on the left as the day went on to not only try and downplay the death of al Qaeda in Iraq’s most visible and violent terrorist but to actually posit the notion that the bloodthirsty jihadist was an invention of the US government, that he really wasn’t all that important a cog in the insurgency’s machine of death, and that the Bush Administration used him to try and connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. The Huffington Post gave this theme a nice boost:

Well, for one thing, Zarqawi was an invented menace. Before the great “Iraq experiment” in democracy delivered not by necessity but by bullets and bombs (as well as WMD pretexts), Zarqawi was about as popular as Carrot Top. No one knew who he was, kind of like no one knows who else besides Kobe Bryant is on the Los Angeles Lakers. As terrorists go, he was what sportswriters might call a scrub. But once he got in the way of the Bush administration’s crusade on the banks of the Tigris, he quickly became public enemy number one. Or as Iraq’s prime minister Nuri al-Maliki explained, a “godfather” of terrorism.

Also particularly helpful in this effort was The Atlantic Online which published a curiously sympathetic profile of Zarqawi that had been in the works for weeks entitled “The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” , a typically earnest liberal effort to “humanize” the enemy while downplaying his significance in the insurgency. The 5,000 word article reminded one of similar efforts to “humanize” death row inmates in the United States by touring their hometown, talking to people who knew them when they were growing up, and trying to get at the “root causes” of their violent actions. The problem, of course, as with death row inmates, is that there are no “root causes” to the actions of people like Zarqawi. They are dead inside; empty husks of humanity without a glimmer of conscience or a flicker of compassion. They are sociopathic monsters who deserve the worst that we can do to them.

Generating sympathy for such a bloodthirsty killer was an admittedly daunting task which is why the press and the left then turned their attention to the notion of Zarqawi’s insignificance and the idea that he was a creation of the Bush Administration’s efforts to make al Qaeda seem more dangerous than it really is. In this, they were aided by the father of one of Zarqawi’s victims, Michael Berg whose son Nick was beheaded by the terrorist in 2004.

Mr. Berg, a genuine pacifist and liberal activist didn’t disappoint. He was widely quoted as comparing George Bush to Zarqawi saying “”His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge.” Berg is running for Congress on the Green Party ticket in Delaware and one could rightly question not his motives, but the motives of the press in seeking out his sure-fire anti-Bush response. I suppose this is what the press refers to as “balanced reporting.”

But in order to have balance, there have to be two sides presented. By the end of the day, there were two sides alright - the side that said that Bush was a monster and the side that presented the President as incompetent liar. The latter theme was helped along by a story circulated by NBC News that prior to the war, the Bush Administration “failed” to attack and kill the terrorist mastermind:

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

The story points out that the military had drawn up strike plans 3 different times to take out Zarqawi’s lab but was blocked each time by a White House who believed that any military action would undercut their efforts to build a coalition to take out Saddam’s whole rotten regime.

Still spinning furiously, the left advanced the theory that Bush’s “rush to war” prevented us from killing Zarqawi in 2002. Leaving aside the notion that killing the terrorist at his lab would have been any more successful than President Clinton’s efforts to kill Osama Bin Laden by bombing his training camp in Afghanistan, one notices the flip-flop by the left immediately; if Saddam had no ties to terrorists, how is it possible that we “missed” anyone? And if he did indeed have ties to terrorist groups, doesn’t that justify the invasion and subsequent liberation of Iraq?

If I were you, I wouldn’t say any of that too loudly in the presence of a liberal. His head is likely to explode.

The clear message by day’s end was that the death of Zarqawi didn’t mean a tinker’s damn. Representative Pete Stark led the charge, calling the killing of the jihadist, in effect, a political ploy:

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.

“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. “Iraq is still a mess — get out.”

Stark and Kucinich evidently didn’t get the memo on how to react to the good news of al Zarqawi’s death. For in the end, the Democrat’s downplaying this victory could cost them dearly at the polls.

Just yesterday, an AP-Ipsos poll was released showing support for the war at an all time low. One wonders what that same poll might be saying now that the news of Zarqawis death has spread far and wide as well as the equally good news that the Iraqis have finally gotten their act together and finished forming a government by naming the Defense, and Interior Ministers as well as the chief National Security adviser. I daresay that the American people are a little more upbeat about our prospects for total victory in Iraq now that these two very important pieces are in place.

It won’t be a large bump in the President’s numbers, but it will probably be significant. And this, of course, what all the spinning and backtracking was about in the first place. Any rise in the President’s poll numbers will give the lie to the left’s talking points that Bush is finished. And with the Iraqis now ready to finally try and get a handle on the admittedly grim internal security situation, there is a very real chance that by November, significant improvements will be visible thus undercutting the Democratic critique of the war substantially.

What will the American people make of this effort to downplay such a significant victory? One would think that they would reward the Democrats for their loyalty by refusing to give them the responsibility for winning a war whose prospects for victory took such a large step forward yesterday.