It seemed to me that the two networks I watch played the Zarqawi story straight-or fairly straight-especially ABC, whose Martha Raddatz broke the story, and whose news editors must have been loath to play down their own scoop.
It did not take long for people like the Nation’s David Corn to find ways to minimize the meaning of Zarqawi’s death, however (of course, he’s glad Zarqawi is dead BUT…). The left needs to ignore the significance of this important event because, as Claudia Rosett notes:
“What matters at least as much as the killing of al-Qaeda top terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq is that we, in America, appreciate it for the important battlefield victory it truly is.”
Christopher Hitchens does appreciate it (and has an interesting take on what the successor government would have been in Iraq if the U.S. had pursued a sanctions-plus policy):
“The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is excellent news in its own right and even more excellent if, as U.S. sources in Iraq are claiming, it resulted from information that derived from people who were or had been close to him. (And, if that claim is black propaganda, then it is clever black propaganda, which is also excellent news.)
“It hasn’t taken long for the rain to start falling on this parade. …”
Meanwhile, Democrats vow to fight on after Zarqawi death. (Hat tip to Powerline for spotting this item.)