Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 21, 2004

Newsflash

Mon Oct 25, 2004 03:12 AM ET

BAGHDAD (RBN) - Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been captured after a firefight at a roadblock north of rebel-held Falluja. The announcement was made early Monday morning at an hastily arranged news conference by Falah Hasan Al Naqib, Iraqs Interior Minister.

"We have heard those reports and we do believe they are true," Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, told RBN. "We are in contact with the marines based around Falluja," he said.

An Iraqi defense ministry spokesman also confirmed the report.

Zarqawi is believed to have been among 5 militants seized at a U.S.-led roadblock operation on their way north from Falluja. One man resembled Zarqawi and DNA tests are being conducted, the sources said. There were no further details.

Another senior U.S. officer also confirmed the report. "There was a short firefight and several of the terrorists are wounded," Lieutenant Colonel Eric Schnaible told RBN. "Zarqawi seems to be unharmed," he added.

Zarqawi, with a $25 million price on his head, is the United States' main enemy at large in Iraq and is blamed for some of the worst insurgent violence against the U.S.-backed interim Iraqi administration.

Zarqawi's Tawhid and Jihad group claimed responsibility for suicide bombings last Thursday that killed up to four Americans in the heart of Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, seat of the government and home to the U.S. and British embassies.

A spokesman of President Bush in Washington would not confirm the report but refered to an exclusive life interview with the President by Charlie Gibson scheduled for today's "Good Morning America".

Posted by b on October 21, 2004 at 09:03 AM | Permalink

Comments

Oh shit, there goes the election. Well Jeb Bush and Diebold would have seen to it anyway, with the introduction of electronic voting machines, I doubt there will be another Democrat president ever again.

Posted by: Mapreader | Oct 21, 2004 9:22:16 AM | 1

So who gets the 25 million? Keep your eye on the money...

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Oct 21, 2004 9:42:40 AM | 2

How come no one else is reporting this? I expected to see the fox news website loudly screaming about it.

Posted by: | Oct 21, 2004 9:48:46 AM | 3

What's RBN? "Real Bernhard-manufactured News"?

Posted by: Jérôme | Oct 21, 2004 9:50:21 AM | 4

b
yr a little devil
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 21, 2004 10:10:05 AM | 5

You mean this is a joke, I was shitting my fucking pants anbd cursing god, but I am relieved.

Posted by: | Oct 21, 2004 10:13:32 AM | 6

We should get ready for something along these lines in the next few days. Zarqawi is probably too obscure (even for those who believe in his existence) to give Bush the
needed pre-electoral boost, so I would be betting on either Osama being "found" )or
"found dead") or a providential terrorist
attack, perhaps "nipped in the bud" thanks to
Bush's resolute (and fictitious) intervention. With luck, even such nonsense won't be enough to stop the post-debate Kerry surge.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Oct 21, 2004 10:44:52 AM | 7

Darn,
I bought it. Can only console me with that I saw through the drunken-bush story. Can´t trust anyone these days, but I guess thats the point.

But if they hand up some "Zarqawi" I think it might be interesting to see who gets those 25 million bucks. And who doesn´t. If it is known as a ploy by the soldiers who "captures" a tied-up "Zarqawi" from the back of a us-military truck. Their colleges might be jealous, as might the grunts who picked up the poor fellow in the first place. And so on. Store this plan in reality-based drawer.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Oct 21, 2004 10:47:44 AM | 8

I do not believe anything.

Posted by: curioso | Oct 21, 2004 10:48:53 AM | 9

similar to the rumour that bushCo will announce that they have the corpse of UBL (via China?) right before the election and then, after king george's coronation, announce that they were mislead and that the bogeyman is still plotting dastardly deads b/c he has an ideology of hate and the king will have to unleash more jackbooted freedom marchers to protect our cities, shopping malls and schoolkids

Posted by: b real | Oct 21, 2004 10:57:47 AM | 10

Bernhard is just predicting the news on Thursday 28 Nov 2004

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 21, 2004 11:26:00 AM | 11

28 October even

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 21, 2004 11:33:52 AM | 12

people, there is a hint right at the beginning of the article: Mon Oct 25 . I assume RBN == Republican Broadcasting Network.

/tin foil mode on
Zarqawi has been the boogeyman for every single shootout or bombing in Iraq. Zarqawi this , Zarqawi that, the news hacks will swallow anything. It's almost as if he was beeing prepared to be captured/killed. Either they allready got him or now exactly where he is. Some "black op squad" will retrieve him at the right time.

/tin foil mode off, yes, off

If you do not believe in conspiracies like this, there was a documentary on BBC about the Watergate break-in.

Here is a short introductory passage from the Wikipedia:

Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy ... had also previously worked in the White House in the Special Investigations Unit, nicknamed the "Plumbers". This group investigated leaks of information the administration did not want publicly known, and ran various operations against the Democrats and anti-war protesters. Most famously, they broke into the office of the psychologist of Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers and was prosecuted for espionage, theft, and conspiracy. Typically for their level of work, Hunt and Liddy found nothing, and so they trashed the office to cover their tracks. The break-in was only linked to the White House much later, but at the time it caused the collapse of Ellsberg's trial.

Attorney General John Mitchell, ... as the head of CREEP, along with campaign manager Jeb Stuart Magruder and Fred LaRue, approved Hunt and Liddy's espionage plans, including the break-in,

In the documentary, either Hunt or Liddy was interviewed. He bragged how they made many scenarios of operations against the Democrats and gave them code-names like "Diamond", "Rubin". They made so many of the plans that they run out of names and had to use names like "Brick", "Coal". The whole project was called "Gemstone". Most of the operations were really dirty tactics, like paying prostitutes to seduce candidates and take pictures.

They went to AG Mitchell to approve them. Mitchell looked through the plans and said that this is not exactly what he expected, too illegal. He approved the Wategate break-in as the most legal of them all.

So here you have it. All that is needed are a few determined men from the "security industry" who do the dirty work. If you "believe" that Bush is the only candidate to fight terrorism, then the ends do justify the means. It happened before. Bush does not even need to know anything about it.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 21, 2004 11:48:09 AM | 13

Since we're having a little fun here with the reporting game, I recommend a brief tour of Juan Cole's site this morning, where he tells us what it's like to read today's long NYTimes piece by Michael Gordon, the one about the disbanding of the Iraqi army in May of 2003. Cole calls Gordon's article "maddening," and that's almost an understatement. Gordon barely mentions the name of Wolfowitz, and rigorously excludes any mention of the "Gestapo" in the Pentagon (Powell's own term) or its bond with Likud, the neo-cons, and Cheney. Given the scope and ambitions of this article, it may qualify as the single worst piece of "journalism" to appear in the Times since the silencing of Judith Miller, and anyone who doubts that the Times is a privileged mouthpiece for AIPAC really ought to scope it out (Bremer's the scapegoat this time around).

Posted by: alabama | Oct 21, 2004 11:59:28 AM | 14

my nerves are now officially shot to pieces!

Posted by: ByteB | Oct 21, 2004 12:58:19 PM | 15

So here's the question. If the NYT is really "The Jerusalem Post West", and I grant you there is plenty of supporting evidence for such a view -- then how is it that the damning Suskind article made it to print? Does this mean that AIPAC is backing Kerry?

Posted by: DeAnander | Oct 21, 2004 1:13:37 PM | 16

Maybe the above press release of Reality Based News (RBN) was wrong.

The AP story says

Bush has visited his Crawford home 40 times since 2001, according to the White House travel office. He will be back in Texas on Saturday for his 41st visit since he was sworn into office in 2001.
Why is Bush going to Texas so shortly before the election? When he delivered the plastic turkey in Iraq on thanksgiving, he was also supposed to be in Crawford.
If he flies out to Iraq Friday night he will be in Iraq around Saturday afternoon local time. Some pictures, some handshakes and back on the plane. He could be back Saturday evening. The stunt would be discussed on the Sunday morning shows and Bush would deliver his points Monday morning in "Good Morning America" (that interview IS scheduled).
He would dominate at least two news cycles, maybe even more. That would be a typical Rove stunt.

Of course it would be much better if he personally would catch Zarqawi while in Iraq - cameras rolling - but that is some strech. On the other side - if Zarqawi would be "catched" around the time Bush is in Iraq Fox news would declare that it was Bush personally who did it.

Even Hollywood would be impressed.

Posted by: b | Oct 21, 2004 1:51:48 PM | 17

Yep it looks to me like the Big Boyz are dumping the Dub. Of course they can't be too obvious about it. Wouldn't it be fun to see the inner workings a bit more clearly; we know there are some wars going on in there but it is hard to tell whose side who is on and what exactly the various objectives are.

I mean if nobody can answer the -objective?- question for invading Iraq, some of these others must be quite murky too. The trick must be to just believe and pray. No point in trying to think it through.

Posted by: rapt | Oct 21, 2004 1:53:23 PM | 18

Give credit to Pat who first predicted this story would break within 48 hrs. 24 hrs to go.... but it's a good bet it WILL happen prior to the election. Frankly if this is the October surprise, I will be somewhat relieved.

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 21, 2004 2:04:05 PM | 19

Anybody see the weird photo of Carl Rove under Air Force One?
Shortly afterward there was an item about mysterious holes found in the undercarriages of some commercial aircraft. Now there's a fake news story waiting to happen!

Posted by: | Oct 21, 2004 2:08:41 PM | 20

Goodness b, pass the dope around. Danke!

I agree with Hannah, Zarkaoui is not important enough. A ‘dead’ latecomer doesn’t hack it.

Binny, now, the poster boy with kidney problems, that’d be something.

Rumors have Binny sipping tea with the Uighurs.*

It is true, I have heard, that in Uighuristan things have been quiet. One of my cousins married one, so I get news from time to time.

*Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu, Uighuristan or Eastern Turkistan or Chinese Tukerstan. - an Autonomous Region of China. Spelling varies...

El Mundo has the dope, err, the rumors:

http://207.44.245.159/article7077.htm>El Mundo (English) via Info Clearing House

Posted by: Blackie | Oct 21, 2004 2:22:22 PM | 21

DeAnander: have you heard Kerry utter a single word that would give AIPAC any cause for worry? I haven't heard it myself....

Posted by: alabama | Oct 21, 2004 2:28:28 PM | 22

so much disinformation... so little time...

Posted by: b real | Oct 21, 2004 2:33:17 PM | 23

@ Coyote Bernhard

Took that one HLS* but thought good, better now than
Nov1st. Such a farce, like the capture of Pablo Escobar slowed the drug train down -- don't see why they insist on personification as the means to characterize some larger issue, when the bump of success is so quickly followed by the void of inconsequence.


Anybody see the Suskind interview on Charlie Rose?
A very weird interview indeed. Suskind had this disconcerting combination of bubbley effusive blind praise of Bushs Godly intuition while also exuding this sense of dread about the consequences of those actions. Interestingly enough, Suskinds obsession with the Bush personality seemed, implicitly to revolve around this dominionist/fundy notion of sin/evil as it pertains to the actions Bush has taken -- and that would be; Bush cannot be held morally responsible for the evil things he has done because he has been chosen, predetermined by God, to take the actions he has taken -- therefore Bush is doing Gods work and is beyond rebuke. And also herein lies the fundamentalist handshake with the Machiavelli drivin neo-cons. Anyway I could'nt decide whether Suskind was drunk or hungover, or both.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 21, 2004 2:53:19 PM | 24

@anna missed
didn't catch rose, but i got a kick out of suskind's stmt yesterday in the democracy now interview "I’m not pro-Bush or anti-Bush, I’m pro-fact. I'm a reporter."

Posted by: b real | Oct 21, 2004 3:06:13 PM | 25

@anna missed -

you wonder "why they insist on personification as the means to characterize some larger issue" - giving escobar as an example

i believe that the the personification of the supposed enemy is useful for its effect on the thinking of the masses - it gives them someone to hate, and a chance to rejoice when they are killed or, less dramatically, captured - it's melodrama, entertainment, that's all

and speaking of larger issues - more and more, as the time when i patronized the informal economy for recreational substances becomes longer and longer ago (i may have inhaled a few times) - i realize that the trade in psychoactive powders is VERY big business - and i wonder how much of what goes on is shaped by the rivers of THAT money flowing underground - who gets a cut, how much of what they do is designed to keep that cash coming

as lily tomlin's character stated, "no matter how cynical i get, i still can't keep up"

Posted by: mistah charley | Oct 21, 2004 3:09:12 PM | 26

@gylangirl

I said I'll be surprised if he's not dead or in custody "very soon" and that it might be 48 hrs between the time of capture/kill and the time of announcement. I'd put "very soon" within a couple of weeks. (Stop talking about it or you'll jinx it. Some guy at USNWR or Newsweek has an article on it today and I had an unhappy Geraldo moment just spying the headline.)

But then I wrongly predicted the outcome of the ALCS. (Anaheim-Long Beach Chompsky Symposium? Alice Longworth Cribbage Smackdown? Angry Liberal Conspiracy Sweepstakes? Acronyms are fun.)

Posted by: Pat | Oct 21, 2004 4:39:46 PM | 27

This is all well and good but how many Americans can find Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on a map?

The small percentage that know about Mr. Z are following the war closely enough to know that the whole Iraqi situation is lost and that capturing one Scarlet Pimpernel won't change things.

Meanwhile Falluja becomes the Mafeking of the Arab world, just waiting for an Iraqi Baden Powell and some Boy Scouts to rescue its citizens from the Boerish Americans.

Posted by: biklett | Oct 21, 2004 4:54:09 PM | 28

airlift[airborne launch] control squadron? a[ir]c[ommand]c[ontrol]s[system] logistical support concept? automated laboratory [or library] control system? american league championship series?

so many acronyms... so little time...

Posted by: b real | Oct 21, 2004 5:21:48 PM | 29

If a bunch of mercs capture Usama, Zarqawi or the dead corpse of one of them, there is still bound to be some low-grade military officers who saw the orders to clear the area (no witnesses) and let in the mercs. And they are bound to feel had if the mercs get the 25 million. I feel the Bushies has trapped themselves when they put up the rewards, the greed makes it harder to keep people in cheque.

But if the corpse turn up within days of the election, they might be able to drown every dissenting voice until after the election. But isn´t the Bushies losing their grip over the media?

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Oct 21, 2004 5:47:28 PM | 30

anna missed i saw the show last night. i admit it was pretty weird but i chalked it up to him trying to seem like he was really exploring the depths of his nature so the viewer could trust his (suskinds)judgement. but i did wonder if he was going to come out with a personal stand against him, i mean that article was not written by a pro bush guy. at the end when charlie ask him for or against and he said as an american his gut feared for another term he came out clearly against him, and that coming from someone who almost defended bushes rational for being the way he was, spoke for itself.

Posted by: annie | Oct 21, 2004 5:59:32 PM | 31

ref. Pat

When I was in a German Army S1 course and franticly trying to find some acronym I didn´t know, a staff sergeant pointed me honestly and seriously to long row of instructions and to a binder that was labeled:

AkvzdBw.
That binder kept the current version of the
"Abkürzungsverzeichnis der Bundeswehr"
translated:
"Acronym Catalog of Armed Forces or
AnCloAFc.

Later I found this to be an interesting boot problem for computing.

"Find the start address of the program you need to execute to find the start address."
or for insiders:
FSAopyntetFSA.

It took a while to find a generic solution for this problem.

Posted by: b | Oct 21, 2004 6:01:31 PM | 32

Ex-CIA Chief Tenet Calls Iraq War 'Wrong'

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 21, 2004 6:22:54 PM | 33

@biklett:

One person's Pimpernell is another's Saladin, or something. More serious, how many Americans could find Iraq on a map?

@AkvzdBw:

Bernhard Minderbinder strikes again.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Oct 21, 2004 6:46:03 PM | 34

@b

Fun with German acronyms/abbreviations! We used to make up our own. I was a German linguist in the Army (back when all interrogators had to have a foreign language). The majority of foreign acronyms running around in my head were Soviet/East German.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 21, 2004 7:03:22 PM | 35

Remember that acronyms are words formed by abbreviations. If you can't pronounce it easily it is probably a TLA (three letter abbreviation; if more than three, just an abbreviation).

WTF? is the most useful TLA I know. Especially lately.

Posted by: biklett | Oct 21, 2004 8:12:02 PM | 36

Ahh people, the home stretch is here and I can see everyone is holding their breath for that October suprise that will make them fall off their seat and claim its all over except for Bushie to win the WH again. Bullshit. I was watching a show, either hardball or capital report that had Larry Sabito, the best predictor of presidential elections I've seen through the years. He believes the polls are not reflecting new voter registration that usually go's at least 67% to the democrat.

In other words Sabito believes the polls are full of shit and kerry is leading in all of the swing states. Lets hope he's right. Cheers, I know tomorrow I will be at the cabin on Lake Huron ribbing my brother in law about how Bushie is toast.

I love Irish Creme.

Posted by: jdp | Oct 21, 2004 9:27:51 PM | 37

biklett said --

"...This is all well and good but how many Americans can find Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on a map?..."

Point taken.

But then again, may not be the point.

Instead Real point may be that the Rovians have used the Ozzian Wizardry set up their new straw man behind the curtain, and if/when they take it down the SCLM will eat it up, hard evidence or no.

Hell, Bernhard may wanna move that date up to Saturday.....The Twig's next day off.

Posted by: RossK | Oct 22, 2004 2:10:52 AM | 38

@ DeAnander, Alabana and Blackie

The AIPAC penetration of Kerry's inner circle is not secret, and no surprise. The lobby always hedges its bets and leave no useful palm ungreased. It wouldn't be "serious" if it acted in any other way.
A bit of Googling produces the following indicative snippets:


The 50 members of the board of directors [of AIPAC] are a cross section of influential figures in Republican and Democratic politics and in civic affairs across the country ... Norman Brownstein, a prominent Denver lawyer, was an early financial backer of the Kerry campaign.

Since 2000, the board members have contributed an average of $72,000 each to campaigns and political committees. One in every five AIPAC board members is a top fundraiser for Kerry or Bush.
************************
From the Iowa Kerry Campaign Website:
*********************
Caucus/Field Director Jonathan Epstein
Worked ... at Kerry national headquarters as the campaign desk for Iowa, New Hampshire and California. National political director for the Citizen Soldier Fund, Kerry's leadership PAC. Campaign director at the DSCC in the beginning of the 2002 cycle. Deputy political director at the DSCC in 2000. Political outreach director for AIPAC from 1997-99.

Roger C. Altman, while not, to my knowledge directly, employed by or affiliated to AIPAC has been characterized as an "uncompromising pro-Israel spokesman" and has an

interesting past
and

interesting business associates.


There's nothing surprising here, although one might wonder
about what sort of influence is wielded by other figures not in the public domain.

Even those of us who know we don't know anything
can anticipate a smooth transition from the Bush
to the Kerry Administrations, as one Skull and Bonesman passes the crown to another.

The Gordon Thomas link was interesting. It would make an interesting book to read about journalists who have made a career out of being more or less open and more or less credible spokesmen for various intelligence agences, e.g. Gordon Thomas ,
Bob Woodward, Vernon Loeb, Sy Hersh, Victor Ostrowsky, and my
personal favorite the unforgettable KGB flack Victor Louis.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Oct 22, 2004 4:20:36 AM | 39

Kudos to Pat. I awoke this morning to the announcement on NPR that Zarqawi has been captured.

Keep us posted, Pat!

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 23, 2004 6:37:04 PM | 40

Holly shit! I thought that the Ghostbusters not exist!!

Finally, the USA cought a ghost!!!

Posted by: Kintanar | Jun 7, 2005 2:01:30 PM | 41

The comments to this entry are closed.