What's next for Zarqawi, sodomy and marijuana?

10 Jun
Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version

Welcome to the MSM's tabloid war:

The essence of information/media warfare is to seize the advantage, frame the story, and capture the audience's imagination. Its been a key part of modern warfare from the set-up flags of Iwo Jima in World War II to that not-so-safe house in Baquba in Iraq.

And now we have the bloodied head of the feared Zarqawi displayed on TV by the very military that will not allow us to see the American dead coming home. He was brought down by not one but two 500 pound bombs, in an operation that CNN tells us cost $500,000 and has been under way for months.

What a coup! What a show! And what an event for Iraqi "leaders" to show off, using terms like he has been "eliminated." Within hours, the more polished US military spinmeisters were showing the airstrikes at a press conference, declaring a "major victory" and pronouncing another "turning point."

So it just wasn’t enough that we killed this maniac of our own creation, but now the right-wing MSM is fawning over themselves to come up with ever-sexier depictions of his last moments. Yesterday we had the gleeful report that Zarqawi, in true superhuman, Pat Robertson Juice fashion managed to survive for a few moments after being hit with two 500-pound bombs.

Today we have the lovely headline that he resisted, defiant to the end. Or he was beaten to death by American GIs trying to finish the job. Which of course is a much sexier headline than saying he mumbled something incoherent and almost rolled off the cot before dying. And as though that weren’t enough, this morning we have the ever-so-irrelevant report that a search of Zarqawi’s house revealed “a woman's leopard skin nightgown and other skimpy women's clothes.” As though this kind of revelation will make terrorists the world over suddenly realize the hypocrisy of their fundamentalism and surrender in shame. Oh, and clears the way for building permanant U.S. military bases in Iraq.

Also, Michael Ledeen of the National Review disagrees with me. And with this guy. I guess time will tell.

Share this