BUT

Great that we got Zarqawi, BUT

Spencer Ackerman at TNR online, finds The downside of Zarqawi's death

But it's also why, in a rather perverse sense, Zarqawi's death may in fact be a bad thing--carrying with it a potential downside for the United States and for Iraqis, and representing a windfall for Al Qaeda.

Ackerman's concern is that we've lost this larger-than-life figure on which we could blame everything. There are others cropping up everywhere.

AlexC, in a comment, links to a sort of scavenger hunt for specific memes

* Zarqawi wasn't that important.
* What took so long.
* Women, children, and/or endangered species were also killed. Good color commentary
* There will be lots more like him.
* The insurgency will be stronger now.
* Yeah, but what about Haditha?
* Yeah, but where is Osama?
* Zarqawi's death is a tragedy and Bush is to blame (I can't make this stuff up, folks)
* Zarqawi killing violated Executive Order forbidding assassinations, or Geneva Conventions.
* Zarqawi was alive but troops let him die or killed him a la Che
* They should have captured him
* Bush made Zarqawi a terrorist.

But my favorite reaction so far is on a TNR's "The Plank" blog. Michael Crowley writes that Senator Biden will come to regret sharing this as a happy moment with the President.

I guess I understand what he's saying, but I question its wisdom--and not just because it's bound to haunt him in the 2008 Democratic primaries if he runs for president. Rather, I think Biden has the equation backwards: In fact, political weakness is likely the only thing that can convince Bush to abandon his stubborn principles and consider different strategies in Iraq. And just what is the bold stroke Biden thinks Bush has hidden up his sleeve and is saving for a moment of strength?

Count on these guys to find the dark side.

Media and Blogging Posted by jk at June 8, 2006 4:10 PM