assume, arguendo, the following to be true:
on four occasions before the invasion of Iraq bombing raids on zarqawi’s compoud were vetoed.
zarquawi, who “trained with Al-Q in afghanistan” opererated an independent group, al-tawid, for the first year or so of his most flamboyant carryings-on.
These same carryings-on most prominently included suipyrotechnicides of groups of shiite civilians
Z runs a web site, (sorry, I can’t link because I wouldn’t even point the public library browser at ths site unless I swabbed my dna off the keyboard, or better yet,. blew it up, let alone use a computer already identified with me…ya feel me?) where he supposedly brownnoses Osama repeatedly.
A computerdisk is alleged as the provenance for a rambling letter wherein Z is alleged to write thusly to Sama:
We are losing; the insurgency is failing The americans will succeed unless you help me foment shia-sunni civil war
(this is around the first siege of Falluja-remember the heartwarming lines of shia women convoying food and medecine…it was the berlin fuckin’ airlift on camels starring ingrid bergman…people were making snide jokes about George Bush, the Uniter…of Shia and Sunni against America))
In point of fact, of course, the insurgency at the time was waxing, not waning.
In point of fact, Z needed neither permission nor aid from Sama for his operation, because he was not yet a “made man”
We know this because Sama is on TV doing a remote control burning of blood oath acceptance speech, and Al-Tawid officially becomes The Operation of Al Q in Iraq
(these guys show a laudable sensitivity to Trademark Protection…)
Z never disavows the letter which is absurd on its face, (so much so that many thought at the time that it was simple pentagon disinformation–but the foil was just beginning to fly…)
So why would he write this letter? If he were for real, and didn’t write it, he would disavow it because it is so patently good for the americans and bad for the insurgecncy.
If he were for real, and he DID write it, he would disavow it once it became known, for the same reasons. Moreover, there was nothing to tie him to the letter, it was just a t
yped file in a computer–he had total deniabilty if he wanted–why not use it, especialy since the sentiments expressed were not only based on an inaccurate and counter productive if broadcast assessment of the insurgency, but also ran counter to Sama’s position on Shia.
Before Sama accepts Zarqawi’s fealty, he makes a tv appearance, the first in a while. Does not mention Z.
Of all people, those Snively Sturdivants at Fox (it’s worst around 3:30 AM) make cracks about "Well, “Sama didn’t say shit about Z. Is this unrequited love??”
God help us, two weeks later Sama (who should be smarter) is back on tv to sign Z. on.
Z. releases a statement before the election, straight out of the bruce williis villian playbook:
I DEEEECLare war on this unholy deeeem0cracy. I will drown the streets in blood…
Following which, shia turn out (their ticket to heaven is on the line, after all), no rivers of blood, the insurgents are described on Fox as omelette faced losers.
("Was that a cheese omelette Shep?" " Probably french cheese, Biff" "Good one, Shep,-over to you, Chip...")
The election is declared a triumph, in the face of these expectations, the white house press office starts comparing Bush to Churchill, and George Washington’s head on Rushmore suddenly sprouts a pair of goofy ears…
Four of Z’s top lieutenants get rolled up in two weeks–without the usual warning in any well-celled organization that arises when a foot soldier gets taken, and you figure he’ll crack in so and so much time. But four cells falling at once, and no one sees it coming soon enough to go to ground?? Makes ya think…
But the TIN FOIL CROWNER:
We are to believe that in the last month or so, Z was “picked up and let go in a few hours because the cops didn’t “know who they had””
NO ONE GETS LET GO IN A FEW HOURS. THAT'S HOW ABU GHRAIB FILLED UP.
When totally incredible stories, that are in themselves an insult to our inteligence are offered, it usually means that they are a misdirection.
When furthermore, the stories as told reflect badly on the source of the story ("we didn’t bomb Z because we didn’t want to underimine our dastardly plot to crank up war fever by eliminating a dangerous guy…) one is not overly adventurous to wonder how much worse must be the story not wished to be known.
Surely, no policeman has come in to his seargent to say:
Boss, we had that Zarqawi fellow but he said his name was Kareeem Abdul Jabbar, so we let him go…
If some cop did so seriously prejudice his professional future, why would an information system that clamps down harder than than John Ashcroft stifling a fart let such an embarassment be known…
I would submit, as a necessary explanation for the fact that five top “Al Q iin Iraq” guys get picked up, and the top top guy is back on the streets.
In other words Z is picked up through the operation of mistaken zeal by some underling in the course of getting the four top lieutenants
( who are the operational arm, if we are to believe the press…ie, those who would be setting up the coming bombing campaign during the election)
(usually when your average street criminal is turned loose soon after the cops pull him in for turnstile jumping, his partners- in-crime consider it best to assume that the get out of jail free card came in exchange for their addresses–in this case I think the sequence was temporally reversed)
To set the story abroad implies an intentionality that raises suspicion; so little info gets out of iraq these days that is not approved…
As for Z’s victims, I think the only american was Nick Berg. Nicholas Berg’s father already visible as an anti administration voice–Nick himself made strange noises about bringing people together , and had that totally wierd bus contact with an al-q guy that sounded like a put up story itself–how much of a coincidence that one would-be spy is “executed” (on tv yet) by an adversary who has so many question marks around him (remember “the man with two legs” problem? Perhaps it was not Z himself, but he didn’t disavow it because it was supposed to be him. Kind of like a stunt double…
Perhaps Z. was helping the admin out with a problem , at the same time he was actiing out agit prop to demomize the insurgents. I’m just sayin’…
Certainly, if Karl Rove were to script a villian, he’d look and act a lot like Z.
And Karl, as we know, plans his game well.
Put another way, it would be an enormous embarassment if by now, these turkeys STILL have been unable to come up with one miserable spy, let alone a few, perhaps one with some talent.
If they did have a spy penetrating the insurgency, would he not be successful in proportion to his ability to act the wild man? If so, why restrain from action a talented provacateur where his excesses redound to the discredit of * La Resistance
Taking together all of the close calls that Z. has eluded, and his over the top behavior, what, other than our disinclination to imagine such perfidy on the part of our “elected leaders”, argues against the proposition?
*(parenthetically,my nomination for "what shall we call the people who are shooting at our soldiers)