Zarqawi's End: The Man Who Wasn't There

The Outfoxed gals finally have something to say about the termination of Zarqawi. A pretty neat trick, since they claim he never existed!

The termination of the obscenely racist terror leader, Zarqawi, stunned the denizens of Fox-hater Land. For a while, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate) fell strangely silent, perhaps regrouping to settle on an appropriate set of talking points. But that didn't stop Oliver Willis:

Of course, leave it to Fox to take it one step too far. According to the anchor on Fox, the apparent death of Zarqawi will unite all the Iraqi factions, bring peace to the land, etc. Come on.

Hey Ollie, do you think you could vague that up a bit? "An anchor"? Who would that be? What exactly was said? We weren't the only ones wondering:

Is this an exact quote, or are you making [stuff] up again? My vote is for the latter. I have not seen one conservative person say that zarqawi’s death will end the violence in Iraq.

Mr Willis had no response to the question. Not a big surprise there. But we were talking about the newspoodles. The gang at Sick of Spin caught the kennel-dwellers proposing kool-aid theories (there were really multiple Zarqawis), while our friends at The Cable Game analyzed the airdales as they furiously spun the truth about this incredible interview, summing it up thusly:

Yeah, the NewsHounds kind of bring new meaning to the expression "beneath contempt," don't they? If the NewsHounds aren't the stateside contingent of the martyr-Zarqawi element, I don't know what is.

Good news for America often has the effect of sending the bowsers into paroxysms of derangement, and sure enough, they didn't disappoint:

Foot in Mouth Disease Take 1: Steve Doocy Gets It Wrong
At 6:01 AM EDT, June 8, 2006 (Thursday), FOX & Friends host Steve Doocy said the following: "How is the world reacting (to the death of al-Zarqawi} [sic]? Well the world markets, when it comes to oil, likes this news and, in fact, for the first time in a while oil has dropped below $70..." Apparently Doocy was monitoring a different market than the one I was. For most of yesterday the Dow was in the tank...

Guess what, Marie-Therese? He was monitoring a different market than you. He was monitoring the price of oil. You "proved" he was "wrong" by citing the Dow. Quite a rebuttal to Doocy comments that were made three hours before the stock market even opened! Looks like the foot is in the other mouth, now: yours.

But hey, we understand why the newsyorkies are all flummoxed over this Zarqawi business. It came as quite a shock to them, upsetting their entire world view. Why do we say that? Because the newspooches are on record about Zarqawi:

And, if you don't have a real, live villain to kick around, why, just make one up! Give him an appropriately villainous name then scatter his possessions here, there and everywhere, suggesting a presence but never actually "catching" the guy. As for a name, how about "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," Elusive Master of Disguise and Islamofascist Superman Extraordinaire?

The curs, quick to jump on Fox for imaginary faults, continue to amass an impressive record of buffoonery: Karl Rove was indicted months ago. George Bush is sleeping with Condi Rice. And Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi never existed. Even Jon Stewart can't deliver fake news like the newshounds can.

posted: Fri - June 9, 2006 at 04:27 PM j$p send

Mike
The really funny thread was the one about the innocent child killed in the bombing. Never mind that there was no child killed, the hounds kept to their story in the best Dan Rather tradition: it didn't matter that no child was killed, it was the FOX reaction to the incorrect report that was important!

Figure that one out...
June 10, 2006, 8:25:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Jose Chung
I wonder if Jimmy Carter has requested permission to attend Zarqawi's funeral in order to pay his respects?
June 12, 2006, 3:17:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Myself
I see you like to vague things up as well. Why don't you name a prominent liberal, or one with name ID, stating that Zarqawi was invented by the US? Why do you link to a piece written by an anonymouse source?

Or you just want to show-up a rival propaganda website?
June 12, 2006, 6:27:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
The piece I linked to was not written by an anonymous source. It was signed by the author Marie Therese and stands today at the newshounds site.

I never claimed any prominent liberals who have an ounce of sanity would claim Zarqawi was made up. I quoted from a signed article by the newshounds. I don't attest for their sanity, and certainly don't vouch for their honesty, but there's no question that they wrote what they wrote.
June 12, 2006, 7:44:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply

zildjian
The Newshound piece was written and signed by Marie Theres. She has never maintained that there were multiple Zarqawis.

That was written by an anonymous commenter naming himself "Wisdo."

So, you are either utterly confused, or lying in an effort to falsely buttress your claim. I can guess which it is.

I just discovered your site. I'm sure there will be many more lies and distortions for me to call to light.

Pathetic.
June 12, 2006, 8:06:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I never said any of the newshounds claimed that. You started off complaining about how nobody claimed Z was made up. As soon as I point out someone who did, then you move the goal posts and say you're now talking about the "multiple Zs" comment.

If you read something more than one entry you'd know that there are the newshounds, who write the blog, and there are the kennel-dwellers, who post the comments. I merely linked to another blog who quoted some of the theories of the commenters. Is there some rule that posted comments can never be cited or quoted? Let me know which Internet Statute that is.

It's obvious you just discovered the site, since you seem unaware even of the definitions of terms. Keep reading and maybe you'll find that lie you want to call to light.
June 12, 2006, 8:24:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Oliver Willis
The anchor in question was whoever the female Fox anchor who was on-air when the story broke. Her line of questioning was that the killing of Zaraqwi would clearly be a major turning point, one that justified it all.
June 12, 2006, 10:43:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Now it's a "line of questioning"? we started with a claim that an anchor said killing Z would bring peace. Now we're shifting to saying that the anchor was asking someone a question! Whoever this anchor was, since we don't know, and whoever she was talking to, which is also not specified, and exactly what she said, which too is unreported.
June 12, 2006, 10:49:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply