DEAD OR UNDEAD? I have myself questioning the general condition of our news media again.
The first mention I heard the death of al-Zarqawi
came to me by radio as a mention during a delayed
talk show. My comment at the time - expressed audiably to the radio voice was: "Well, good!" and I added "...'bout time ,too!
I recognize the name as being a Vice-resident leader of Al Qaida - the one who sees hostage descapiating as a personl enjoyment. I thought "good riddance" and pictured Ben Laden being captured even though he was disguised as Groucho Marx.
With his man out of the way, things will,be better all over the map.
This time, our intelligence was correct. Z. was where he was supposed to be in a "safe" house. The Americans sent two five hundred pound bombs on a guided tour - one to Mr's house and the other at a nearby house where his staff were staying.
At the same time Iraqi forces were occupying a score or other hiding places in the area.
The first TV coverage I saw was a general shot of the debris at the bombed area and a photo of a very dead al-Zarqawi.
His face was unmarked and he was plainly identfiable.He had died in the raid. Late we were told head not died in the raid but had acally lived "a few seconds after the bomb blast hit him. I had trouble imagaining someone hunkered down feeling his wrist for a pulse beat or listening for his last breath while the crunch of rubble continujed over,under and around him.
Then ,imagine my state morning when the "offical" report (whatever that may be!) claims he did not die until "fifty-two minutes" after the raid. This could get better as it goes along! What did he say, in anything?
Truth, obvoiusly cannot be the basis of news gathering and reporting such as this based on hearsay, chance, guesswork possibilities. Something amiss in the time element of this story. Somewhere, some people will be asking if al-Zarqawi is really dead after all.
Andrew McCaskey amccsr@adelphia.net 6-12-06 [c367wds]
