US doubts al-Zarqawi died in gunfight

Australian Associated Press ^ | November 21, 2005

[West Coast Conservative]

US authorities are looking into whether al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a gunfight in Mosul, a US official says.

But a White House spokesman said al-Zarqawi's death was "highly unlikely."

"Efforts are under way to determine whether Zarqawi wasamong those killed," the US official, in Washington said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy, travelling with US President George W Bush in Asia, said the report was "highly unlikely and not credible."

US forces had sealed off the house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaeda members died in a gunfight - some by their own hand to avoid capture.

Insurgents, meanwhile, killed an American soldier and a Marine in separate attacks over the weekend, while a British soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in the south.

In Washington, a US official said the identities of the terror suspects killed was unknown. Asked if they could include al-Zarqawi, the official replied: "There are efforts under way to determine if he was killed."

American soldiers maintained control of the site, imposing extraordinary security measures, a day after a fierce gunbattle that broke out when Iraqi police and US soldiers surrounded a house after reports that al-Qaeda in Iraq members were inside.

Three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, Iraqi officials said. Eleven Americans were wounded, according to the US military.

[JWojack]

I second your point about White House disinformation.

I support the Administration, but can't true up the DoD and White House accounts.

The DoD confirmed this morning that it is highly unlikely to be Zarqawi. But, as of this evening, the identity of the eight terrorists is still unknown, and DNA tests are ongoing. I still think it wasn't just some low-level terrorists, even if it wasn't Zarqawi.

It almost sounds like the WH doesn't want Z gone. Hmmm. Given their attitude about OBL (honestly, between us, is that guy still on the Administration's radar?), that makes sense. I don't support this element of the Administration's strategy.

To be honest, though, OBL isn't very important other than for revenge and political reasons. Although if we could capture him and he gave up locations and contact information for his lieutenants, that would be good. Bin Laden is really just a spokesman. 9/11 wasn't even his idea. The real head of al-Qaeda is Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor (and the one doing all the tapes in the last year).

But I think there's a good chance a lot of al-Qaeda is in Iran, perhaps even Bin Laden himself. His son and other al-Qaeda leaders have been repeatedly sighted in Tehran this year. I think Iran is the country that would be the most friendly to al-Qadea. And, for now at least, their goals have converged.

What it smells like to me is that the Administration feels its policy is more defensible if Z and OBL are out there. Maybe for 2 reasons: (1) boogeymen and (2) the bad guys put out bogus information too and could try to disprove an assertion they are dead by distributing bogus tapes.

Yeah, again, the obsession with OBL isn't realistic. It's like suggesting that Bush is involved in day-to-day operations on the ground in Iraq. People like to have names, even if the target is of little importance.

Bin Laden could be dead, who knows? The intelligence community, at least publicly, does not have a consensus on that. There's been no word from him for 13 months, when he threatened to nuke states that went for Bush in last year's election. But obviously Zarqawi is alive, he keeps releasing audio tapes discussing recent events. They don't have much courage to do videotapes (or they are REALLY running out of money)!

Personally, given the landing of punches (for lack of defense) against this Administration's veracity, it seems a dangerous game to play. I submit we are better off knowing the truth. Delayed a bit is perfectly understandable. I for one will add another notch to the Bush can't be trusted column if it now turns out we DID get Z. That would mean they simply lied about this matter.

I agree, but I wouldn't call it a lie. I'd call it jumping to conclusions. But I still don't see the logical reason why the White House is first to say that's very unlikely to be him. I didn't like that. Duffy should have referred the reporter(s) to the DoD. I want the war to be run by the military, not by politicians.

I'm tired of all of the disinformation put out for political - not operative - purposes. Enough already. Call terrorists incidents what they are. Don't issue Ramadan greetings. Educate the population on the nature of the enemy. Don't play games with our servicemen.

I absolutely agree with you there! I think something our leaders need to take seriously is the nature of Islam itself. It's not a "religion of peace." Ever since its founding circa 630 A.D., it has had a very violent history. As I recall, in 632 (just two years later!), Islam was used to launch a worldwide military conquest, creating the largest empire in world history (the Caliphate that bin Laden desperately is trying to re-create in the 21st century). Were it not for the French (ironically!) and their military allies in the Battle of Tours in 792, many historians believe that the jihadists of more than 12 centuries ago would have exterminated European culture (which, by extension, means the USA, too). Now, the great majority of Muslims are indeed peaceful people. But there is something about Islam that has always driven some of its followers to militantism. What we fight is not an organization, but really an extremist sect of Islam (and their dictatorial allies).

The Administration and conservative punditry CHOSE not to talk about Iraq for the last 9 months.

True, although other things have been going on. Bush tried to jump-start his domestic agenda, but has miserably failed. Since Bush took office on 1-20-01, his administration has done an absolutely horrible job communicating with the American people. I'm still shocked Bush was re-elected.

It's no wonder the mushy middle of Americans have gotten skeptical. Pessimistic WH statements like this make me wonder what the agenda is.

Perhaps Karl Rove is afraid that if the administration ties itself so closely to Iraq, that if Iraq implodes, that the administration will sink. Well, domestically, the administration is sunk, possibly permanently. I hope the Republican Party isn't sunk along with it, but I have growing doubts.

I think that Americans would be more supportive of the war if they knew who the enemy is. They see bombing after bombing and wonder when it will all stop. The enemy isn't terrorists, or even al-Qaeda mainly. It's mainly Iran and Syria in the Middle East. As long as those regimes remain in power, the bombings will continue. If Americans forces leave before those regimes are eliminated, we will lose the war and it all will have been for nothing -- guaranteed.

[Milligan]

They're on the same page.
If we didn't get al-Zaraqawi his well wishers want to know.

Just listen to the chatter.

[photodawg]

I'd prefer if they were lesbian hags.....
////////////////////////////////////////////////

I think they give you that option if you convert and agree to die for Allah in the jihad!

[bert]

....OK which is it....

You have offered meaningless choices. At present it is not either or, but both that are correct.

The Whitehouse said the reports of Z death are not credible...... that is a correct statement. There is no proof.

The Army says that to maintain credibility it is offering no statement except it is running tests on the various gobs of tissue splattered all over. That is also correct and not in conflict with the White House.

Neither is wrong. Both are correct.