They've probably had him zipped up in a body bag in a deep freezer for eight months awaiting the best politically opportune moment to "kill him" -- like when news of Haditha finally came out. An "air raid" hides the torture marks too. Too cynical and paranoid? Blame it on the Bush administration.

As NBC News reported back in 2004, U.S. military planners drew up plans to take out Zarqawi three times in 2002 and 2003, but the Bush administration killed the plans each time. Why? Because, military officials told NBC, the Bush administration feared that destroying Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Iraq "could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

It's not unlikely that Osama got away for the same reason. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush are war criminals and should be handed over to an international court. They are really cynical men. Sad that our republic has to endure this administration.

Because, military officials told NBC, the Bush administration feared that destroying Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Iraq "could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

Assuming I'm accurately remembering this point, we should be sure to underscore the fact that the camp in question was in northern Iraq, outside of Saddam's control.

Which helps to further show just how much disdain Bush et al. have for the intelligence of the American People.

It's good to see others remembering the NBC report and that Zarqawi was operating in Northern Iraq out of Saddam's control. But it goes a bit deeper. Not only was Zarqawi out of Saddam's control, he was running the camp in the no-fly zone that was controlled by U.S. forces. Furthermore, in 2002 Senators Biden and Hagel went to Iraq on a fact-finding mission before the war, and found this out. They asked Colin Powell about the camp in a Feb. 6, 2003 Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting (Senate Hearing 108-119). They asked about Zarqawi, his operating out of U.S. controlled territor, and all Powell would say is he couldn't answer those questions in an open hearing, that such information was classified.

So whether Zarqawi's death is for real or not, or whether he was on ice for some time, the secrecy of the administration has earned itself a healthy dose of scepticism and doubt.

And how was Zarqawi responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US?

It won't change a goddamn thing. We do not live in a James Bond movie. Zarqawi isn't the leader of the insurgency. There isn't one. The insurgency is made of up a lot of different groups, and the vast majority are Iraqis.

The administration has exaggerated Zarqawi's importance as a propaganda campaign to prop up the shaky War on Terror excuse for being in Iraq, and because it's embarassing that, three years into the occupation, many Iraqis are obstinately not greeting us as liberators. The downside of exaggerating his importance and bragging about killing him is that they'll have to come up with a new boogeyman when Zarqawi's death doesn't change anything.

Besides, the last we heard, Zarqawi was a screw-up who couldn't shoot straight, so what's the big deal in killing him?

In Their Own Words: Reading the Iraqi Insurgency

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3953&l=1"

The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

U.S.: Outtakes show al-Zarqawi as poor gunman

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/04/iraq.al.zarqawi/index.html

Whenever the Joker gets hauled back to Arkham Asylum in a straightjacket the Penguin or Mr. Clayface or some other arch criminal starts causing trouble.

Good riddence to a monster, but he was a bit player in an enormous multi-faceted mess.

I'm curious: has there ever been a follow-up to that NBC report in 2004? By NBC or any other news organization? I saw the original piece, on NBC's Nightly News, and the web report on MSNBC.com and I've seen it mentioned often on various blogs but never any serious digging into it. It seems like there's a very big (and terrible) story there that should be thoroughly investigated and reported. Can a story like that just evaporate? Or be ignored out of existence?

I'm curious: has there ever been a follow-up to that NBC report in 2004? By NBC or any other news organization? I saw the original piece, on NBC's Nightly News, and the web report on MSNBC.com and I've seen it mentioned often on various blogs but never any serious digging into it. It seems like there's a very big (and terrible) story there that should be thoroughly investigated and reported. Can a story like that just evaporate? Or be ignored out of existence?

I thought the most important issue today was stopping gay people from getting married.

Gay marriage was yesterday. Today it's repealing the estate tax.

The U.S. and the Sunni militants both, allowed Zarqawi to operate unabated on purpose. For our purposes, he was living proof that Al Qaeda operated in Iraq. For the longest time the administration positioned the war in Iraq as the U.S. vs. the terrorists. As long as Zarqawi was showing up on televisions every now and then this line of bullshit was fine with the American people. The administration wants to sell the idea that Iraq is overrun with terrorists, or that Iraq is being challenged by an outside insurgency, or that Iraq is being challenged by a homegrown insurgency. The truth is, since day two of the invasion, Iraq has been in a civil war.

Zaqawi never held any power in Iraq. The local guys allowed him to operate his small and insignificant units because he served their purpose. It would just be a matter of time before they either gave him up to us, or killed him themselves. They are fighting a civil war for local control of resources, not Zarqawi's fundamentalist ideology. They use fundamentalism the same way our administration uses fundamentalism. To rally the base to a cause.

Now that our/their straw man is dead, they will need to create another.