U.S. airstrike kills Al Qaeda leader, al-Zarqawi

[Tahoe]

And why should Pelosi give cred to the admin for getting AZ? Because she ripped the admin fo not getting him. If they are at fault for not getting him, then they must be respsonsible for getting him.

I agree on they are all crooks. But I still laugh my ass off every time I think of sweet nancy. Her message of "culture of corruption" (and laying it ALL ALL on the Republicans) is, lets say, complicated by the Dems own troubles.

And Delay stepped down, so I'm not sure what the ho is talking about wishing the WH would do the same.

[Uncle Mxy]

We could've gotten Zarqawi a long time ago, the administration intervened, and we didn't. Check out:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108880/
(the link I posted when this thread first started that no one reacted to )

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

That's not new news, it's something to be critical of, and I'd thought that left, right, and center criticized the administration on this issue at various points. I did not pay much attention to Pelosi's rhetoric in particular on the matter. It's not just about "not getting him", but the administration vetoing getting him when the troops had him in their sights, and for little gain. So, you blame the administration, but praise the troops, and that's what they've done here.

[Tahoe]

Its early in the morning...I might get nauseous going to slate this early.

Were mistakes made? Yep. Anyone who thinks they could have run this war without mistakes are fooling themselves. I bet even sweet Nancy would have made an error or 2. I laugh just mentioning her. She is a great source of humor for me. Sorry!

In retrospect Bush goofed too, when OBL was in the hills and we were bombing the area, had him surrounded and he started negotiating with some of the tribesman and he got a away. Clinton could have had him years earlier. It happens.

[Uncle Mxy]

The thing with Osama in Tora Bora was that the troops were fresh to the scene, we had no specific sighting of him, no general was near the battle scene, and we made assumptions on local support we shouldn't have (which we learned from in subsequent activity in Afghanistan). With Zarqawi, we knew where he lived, slept, etc. for many months at many times, and didn't kill him because our adminstration specifically said "don't do that". One's a tactical goof (it wasn't like we weren't trying to get him, which was the strategy), while the other seems more strategic (Iraq > "war on terror").

As an aside, while Osama's a hugely important symbolic target, he will be replaced if we don't defuse terrorism and pronounced anti-American sentiment in the region. It's quite possible we could kill Osama in a way that turns him into a martyr for generations of future terrorists if we're not real careful.

[b-diddy]

i think i would be more supportive of the war if it wasnt so politicized. if we were in there, and our only agenda was reconstructing iraq as quickly and efficiently as possible, this war would be fairly well recieved.

why did we bomb this dude? why didnt they just attempt to capture him alive, or atleast leave his house standing on the off chance that valuable info could be gleaned from it.

everyone says we're screwed either way with these terrorists: leave them alive as your enemy or kill them and create a martyr. why not just arrest them and let them rot in jail?