Ever since we first learned of the termination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s breathing priviliges, the cynical left have been saying, at first slowly, and now with more vigor and coordination, how much better it would have been if Zarqawi was captured alive. Just wait until they find out that there was a kitty in that bombed house.

For a moment, suspend any urge you may have to react to the many who believe that “getting rid of him was useless because there will be 50 more to take his place,” or “all we’ve done is create a martyr,” and focus on a main liberal talking point: it would have been much better to capture Zarqawi alive.

Look for this point to be hammered consistently, especially now that we’ve learned that Zarqawi was alive after the bombing and tried to escape after being placed on a gurney.

Liberal talking heads were making this “it would have been better to take him alive” point quite a bit last night, in addition to responding to proclamations that were never made, such as “Zarqawi’s death doesn’t mean the war is over or the violence will end!” Since nobody that I’m aware of ever said such a thing, I’ll assume that this reply to nothing simply fills a liberal need to be negative all of the time.

So, what if Zarqawi was captured alive? What if “moderate liberals” got their wish?

Well, had that happened, these same people would be in front of the cameras in a few days displaying a fierce and unsightly hive outbreak over concern for the treatment of Zarqawi.

Accusations of torture would be made, since Zarqawi would almost certainly possess some information on bin Laden and the U.S. would have to find a way to get it. After all, this information is why some liberals wanted him caught alive, right? But saying “pleeeaase” loudly and consistently probably wouldn’t work (and would no doubt constitute “torture” in the leftist rulebook), so that’s out. And dogs? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Zarqawi being roughed up at Gitmo would renew calls for the closing of the prison in Cuba. Murtha’s head would explode. ”We have become the enemy!” would bellow the left, decrying the very idea of indefinite imprisonment without due process and access to an attorney.

Yes, this is the American left. These are the people who constantly slam this “war on terror,” and those at the top, not to mention the bottom, who are carrying it out. They point out how Gitmo is a living hell. These are the people who are now saying they’d have rather seen Zarqawi captured alive, when they know he may well have been sent to Gitmo.

So, if not for the sense of justice for all the horrors committed by Zarqawi, the left should at least be acknowledging that he’s better off dead because he’s been spared the hell of being held in the evil hands of the U.S. military.

“Zarqawi: better off dead.” I thought that this was one issue on which left and right could at last agree, but it’s not coming to fruition.

This just in: From the “timing is everything” department, Al Jazeera has just broadcast a message from the #2 Al Qaeda guy, Ayman al-Zawahri, on which he praises the fine job that his boss Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is doing. The “fine job” he’s doing at what? Smoldering?

Sure, al-Zawahri is now #1, but we will always remember him and his ex boss as #2.


Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by going to DougPowers.com



Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.