While by no means a proponent of the war, I can't see how this in itself is nothing but good news.

It is good news. However, as you probably know, the Iraq war is primarily a source of bad news, and no piece of good news can stand on its own, untainted by the bad that surrounds it. (Barring, of course, a complete redeployment of US forces combined with a kiss-and-make-up among the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis.) And since that bad news is the primary, lasting reality in Iraq -- the part that is not fleeting -- it's good to continue to be aware of it.

For example, killing Zarqawi serves as a reminder how BushCo deliberately let him go (despite their well publicized war on terror) due to his political usefulness in building a case for war against Saddam. It's like if the cops had let some serial killer go due to some mad political objective, and then caught him later after he'd killed scores (or thousands) more. Great they caught him, but you can't forget they let him go in the first place.

As for Zarqawi's death being no big deal, this comes straight from the lips of George W (also quoted above):

"We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue." George W. Bush.

So yes, this is good news. But is it good enough to cancel out any of the bad? Sadly, no.

I appreciate where the LW is coming from. Drug abuse among the immature is a serious problem. However, just as America decided when they repealed alcohol prohibition, it's unfair to criminalize something for everyone due to the harm caused to a minority. And fact is, the harm caused by drugs, real as it is, is experienced by a (admittedly conspicuous) minority. Many other people have very different experiences.

I think the late, great Bill Hicks said it best:

"No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs. I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth: I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day."

And another:

"You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favour. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years ... rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs."

Randy, you missed the point of Salon's investigation. As they state up front (and in the article title), this guy was no saint, and the investigation is not meant as a defense of his character.

However, allowing US forces to simply bump him off is an absolutely terrible way to conduct this war. Rather than pursue vendettas, the US needs to bring these people to justice in a public, transparent way. This will enable the Iraqis to see the past crimes of Saddam's regime, understand what happened, and begin the process of reconciliation which is essential to building any sort of viable system in Iraq.

It worked in Germany with the Nuremberg trials. It would also work in Iraq, if the occupation were being conducted in any sort of competent manner. Investigations like this one by Salon are perhaps the only way to compel the occupation forces to proceed in a functional manner.

the best we can do is point out what bad people the Republicans are and make ourselves out to look like terrorist sympathizers by printing articles like this. We offer nothing better.

Randy, I see a real value, both for the country and for democrats, in pursuing an investigation into the death of Dr. Evil.

See, the occupation is going very badly, and a majority of Americans understand that. The democrats generally fail in their inability to articulate a different approach. However, how's this for a different approach: follow the rule of law and practice what you preach. One can trace this disaster of an occupation back to where the US forces formally departed from the rule of law. From Gitmo, to the thoroughly discredited rationale for invading Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Halliburton's excesses, and so much more, the US has taken every opportunity to show our subjects in Iraq that we are not to be trusted. On the other hand, if we had shown ourselves to be trustworthy from the beginning (as we generally were during the successful occupation and rebuilding of Germany and Japan), we would very likely see increased cooperation in Iraq.

It's too late for BushCo to rehabilitate its image with the Muslim world. They've correctly identified a mortal enemy in Bush. However, electing a democratic majority in November, riding to victory on the platform of "reintroduce the rule of law in US foreign policy" as a strategy for success in Iraq, could well work. Then, if they impeach the bastard and put him in the dock at the Hague, we will have regained a huge amount of credibility on the world stage, and could expect our efforts to encounter far more cooperation.