Prof. Justice: DingDong!

HAIL, TO GEORGIE, THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!

Having been mired in work, midterms, more work, little league, even more work and final examinations, I finally began writing my next commentary. I was about to document the absurd email I receive from students and my responses thereto when Zarqawi’s death was announced. Upon learning of his untimely demise (it should have happened sooner), I popped a champagne cork, did a little dance and sang a song of praise to God (not his). I admit that I felt immense joy and pride when the President announced that American military forces “delivered justice” to Zarqawi, his “spiritual leader” Sheik Abdul Rahman and several of his henchmen. It is, of course, unfortunate that innocent women and children also perished, but what was Nicholas Berg? Oh, that’s right, an infidel who deserved beheading.

Fortunately, the Bush Administration refrained from announcing that Zarqawi death signaled an end to the war on terror. Predictably though, the media and the left couldn’t resist responding with the usual, “great but . . . .” Tim Russert, National Public radio and others stated that Zarqawi’s death was symbolic and would change little or nothing about the situation on the ground. Perennial Bush critic Richard Clarke said Iraq is not safer, the war would not end sooner and that “Zarqawi only commanded a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency.” The June 12 edition Boston Globe ran a story about Zarqawi not having much support from the Arab world because most Muslims were repulsed by his tactics and atrocities but just didn’t speak out. Well, that’s not true. Remember the massive Muslim demonstrations wishing him to eternal damnation for having bombed the al-Askariyah mosque in Samarra and the hotel in Jordan where he murdered Muslims attending a wedding celebration? They didn’t appear to have any difficulty speaking out. Still, Zarqawi remained an icon of terrorism. Remember, that other cave-dwelling monster dubbed him the “prince of al-Qaeda.” Whew, and I thought he had no redeeming human value. Who knew that normal people sever and store human heads?

And of course, what news cycle that includes one of the most stupendous of events since perhaps the capture of Saddam the Butcher would be complete without the infamous congressional Johns

(Murtha and Kerry) chiming in. Who better than they to carp? After all, they have the moral and political carte blanche to habitually denigrate our troops without an investigation and in the absence of evidence. Why is it that Murtha and Kerry, who incidentally served in Vietnam, appear far more interested in trashing our military than in Zarqawi’s death? Why do the media, and many on the left, seem more disturbed by the prospect that he may have suffered before expiring and whether proper Islamic burial rites will be respected than they were when our troops’ bar-b-qued corpses were hung from a bridge?

Whether or not the left and the “mainstream” media choose to celebrate the momentous occasion that Zarqawi’s well-earned execution is, it would be political suicide to dismiss it entirely. John Murtha, who, after sheepishly admitting that Zarqawi’s death was “significant,” refused to acknowledge that it wouldn’t have occurred had U.S. troops not been on the ground in Iraq. Atta boy, way to support our troops, eh? He went on to complain about the monetary cost of being in Iraq and claimed that Iraq was engaged in a civil war of which al-Qaeda was only a small part stating, “I think they’ll settle this themselves, just like we settled our civil war ourselves. . . . We’ve diverted ourselves from the real war on terrorism to the war in Iraq.” Uh, Johnny, small part? Running around lopping off the heads of “infidels,” blowing up mosques and murdering thousands of people in the name of Allah to establish an al-Qaeda terrorist state is the real war on terrorism, not merely a small part of a civil war? Are you sure you’ve been in the House chamber and not with Marion Barry smoking something?

And on John Kerry’s website was the following statement:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a brutal terrorist and his death strikes a blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq. This ruthless thug who abused the true meaning of Islam was an intruder on Iraqi soil and it’s good news that he’s dead. Our troops did an incredible job hunting him down and destroying him, and all of America is proud of their skill and commitment.

However, in typical Kerry doublespeak, the statement continued as follows:

The outcome of what is now a civil war in Iraq cannot be determined by American military force. It has to be solved by Iraqis brought together to hammer out their differences. Period. It is time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. . . . Our soldiers are fighting and dying in the third war in Iraq –– not . . . the war President Bush said had to be fought against armies of foreign jihadists, but an escalating civil war between Sunni and Shia.

But I thought you told us this war is fueled by the insurgency, not intruders or foreign jihadists? Wait a minute. You can’t believe that because then you wouldn’t be able to justify your “cut and run” policy. Is that perhaps the reason why you now claim Iraq is nothing more than an internal civil war, or is it merely to deprive Bush of any credit for eliminating Zarqawi? Funny, but even the Washington Post recently noted that “the stated aim of Zarqawi . . . was to foment bloody sectarian strife between his fellow Sunni Muslims and members of the Shiite majority.” Unless I’m wrong, Zarqawi was from Jordan. Maybe I’m misguided, but wasn’t it you and your ilk who have repeatedly lambasted the President and the military for not having captured Zarqawi? Haven’t you continually stated that the President’s war on terrorism is an abject failure because we haven’t got bin Laden? Now that we’ve rendered the “prince of al-Qaeda” room temperature, it’s no big deal? Is that what you’ll tell us if and when we give him bin Laden as his roommate? Probably. And until then, I’ll bet you’ll keep reminding us what a failure our government and our military are.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say the media and the left are trying to downplay and diminish the significance of killing Zarqawi along with several of his co-conspirators and uncovering a veritable “treasure trove” of intelligence. But that would presume they have some desire in not seeing good news for the U.S. out of Iraq: like their obsession to prevent Bush from getting credit for any achievement or to use it as a political exploit in furtherance of regaining power.

I recognize that reveling in an enemy’s demise is normally not appropriate, noble, or politically correct. However, this time, I think I can find it in my heart to make an exception. He was not the average, ordinary, garden-variety enemy. In fact, even among terrorists, Zarqawi was a psychopathic homicidal monster. A terrorist’s terrorist, you might say.

Indeed it was a great day for the President, the American military, the new Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, the world and yes, even Islam. Like it or not, it was a monumental accomplishment that couldn’t have come at a more precipitous time. No, it won’t end terrorism or the war on terrorism. But isn’t it grand that he won’t ever behead anyone again? Isn’t it fabulous that we nailed several of his associates? Isn’t it wonderful that after eliminating him and demolishing his “safe house,” twenty-eight stockpiles of weapons were obtained, hundreds of terrorists have been identified and papers documenting details of a plan to intentionally incite a war between us and Iran were discovered? But best of all, his successors, and other terrorists, may not sleep as well. And that should help us sleep better.

Ding-dong Zarqawi’s dead!