All Hank, all the time.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
See Bob, this is why you just post here but they gave Ty the keys. Not Bob, Super Mod sez: Actually, Hank, I have keys here, too.

You cannot say "killing Zarqawi probably won't help." Because, you still have to be able to say "invading Iraq moved the troops we would have had in Afghanistan, and we otherwise would have killed Osama."

Your way the shell game falls down. If killing a leader doesn't mean much, you can't get on W for the Osama is still alive thing.

Better to go with Ty's "Zarqawi should have been killed 4 years ago." If someone points out that Osama was offered up to us by Sudan 10 years ago, but Clinton had a boner that day, so he couldn't act on THAT offer, well sit back and let Ty get some blogs-answers going.

edited by Not Bob because he can.

Let me clarify: I don't think that killing/capturing Osama would eliminate all terrorism, either. But he planned 9-11, and (unless I am missing something), Zarqawi wasn't involved in it.

Is the death of Zarqawi going to disrupt terrorist and insurgent activity in Iraq? Sure. I mean, I'm not an expert, but I'd agree that it probably will. Will it eliminate it? No. Is it a good thing (in the sense of retribution, justice, etc.)? Sure.