Celebrating the Demise of Zarqawi by Smearing Murtha
The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was welcome news for almost all Americans – liberal or conservative – even if it provided the opportunity for certain wingnuts to suggest we Democrats were not elated. In the same vein, Jonah Goldberg is either displaying his inability to read or defending his own dishonesty.
We noted some time ago that Mr. Goldberg loves to lecture Andrew Sullivan for not reading things as Mr. Goldberg displays his own inability to read. Or was the following his penchant for dishonesty. John Murtha states in an interview:
This is significant, one, the fact that Zarqawi is killed but also the fact they appointed a defense minister and interior minister. There’s no question we can’t win this militarily. It’s a matter of time. The Iraqis are getting better. I think the intelligence came from the Iraqis, as I understand it.
Goldberg writes:
In an interview with CNN he stays on message. There’s no reason necessarily to think we needed troops in Iraq to get Zarqawi and “we cannot win this.”
Yes, Goldberg later acknowledged that a reader called him on this honesty – excusing himself by noting he provided a link. Pathetic? Dishonest? Stupid? All of the above? Yet – it is par for the course for those over at the Corner of the National Review. To them – al Qaeda is not the enemy as their war is with Democrats.
Update: Rich Lowry takes bashing Democrats to a new – and very low – level:
But sometimes the ledger is indeed quite simple—with Zarqawi’s demise, the sum total of evil in the world is now a little less. Everyone professes to know this. But some know it more than others. Otherwise a major Democrat like John Kerry wouldn’t be advocating a full U.S. pullout from Iraq … Within hours of the news breaking of Zarqawi’s death, Rep. John Murtha was on CNN saying we should leave Iraq and let the Iraqis work out their civil war just the way we worked out ours … From beyond the grave, Zarqawi can only wish that the Democrats for a pullout had been able to affect their preferred policy already. Then this loathsome man who so needed killing would instead still be working his evil will.
We were staying in Iraq only so we could kill Zarqawi? Never mind how utterly stupid such statements are – doesn’t it follow that Zarqawi’s demise means we can leave NOW – assuming one is crazy enough to accept Lowry’s logic. Speaking of which, what on earth does this mean?
Killing Zarqawi is the equivalent of averting a Haditha every other day in Iraq, indefinitely.
The fact that we finally decided to pull the trigger on Zarqawi – something that Bush said no to on three occasions in 2002 – in no way excuses Haditha.
Update II: Eric Boehlert notes that the Washington Times headline was nothing more than a lie.