Reaction from the fringe

After something very good happens for or to the US, I like to check out reactions from some of those who have a visceral, irrational hatred of America. You know the type, those who find elaborate US government and/or corporate conspiracies to be the causes of any and all ills in the world. You always get the feeling you’re being put on when you read this kind of thing, but I’m going to give these the benefit of the doubt (or is it the other way around?) and assume that these are serious opinions. To that end, here are some of the more hilarious takes on the death of the prolific mass-murderer and terrorist icon Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:

Zarqawi's not really dead.

Zarqawi has been dead for years, this was just a photo op.

On the one hand, Zarqawi never existed. On the other, the same guy later says that Zarqawi was a CIA operative. And this guy says he is always happy when CIA operatives are killed.

Here is a guy who claims that Zarqawi never existed, and that he was a CIA agent, in back to back sentences.

It is claimed that even Iraqis say that Zarqawi did not exist. But why would they, when Zarqawi was just a Pentagon creation.

It is always popular in the conspiracy-based community to ascribe sinister motives to every US action. Here is another incoherent dichotomoy, that although Zarqawi did not exist he was killed because people were getting antsy about Haditha and the failure to pass a marriage amendment. Or perhaps he was killed as part of a plan to attack Iran, or becasue the economy is in trouble (!). Or maybe he was killed to combat Bush's sagging poll numbers or to hide that "they" were trying to cut the estate tax. No, it had to be because Karl Rove was going to be indicted on Friday (woops!).

Here it is claimed that Zarqawi was already dead, just "thawed out" in time for the elections. This is an odd claim in that his death came a week after the notable special election to fill Duke Cunningham's congressional seat, and four months before the elections that will decide who controls Congress leading into 2008. But hey, who said any of this was supposed to be logical?

Here it is claimed that everything ever written in the press about him has all been a huge PsyOps operation. No word on whether blogs count as press, but if so I'm happy to be doing my part.

Here is an odd idea - Zarqawi is dead, so bring the troops home! I guess the idea here is that Zarqawi was not killing Iraqi civilians fast enough, and with him out of the picture the carnage might slow even more, but if we could just pull out now the bad guys can get on with the business of slaughtering a million or three of them in short order. Those millions of Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese corpses that directly resulted from our troop and financial pullout of Saigon by 1975 are, after all, the legacy of the Vietnam antiwar movement. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and the antiwar folks have clearly not only failed to acknowledge the holocaust they precipitated, but are determined to recreate it.

The father of decapitated journalist Nicholas Berg chose moral equivalence: "I have no sense of relief, just sadness that another human being had to die.” He also made the odd claim that "George Bush destabilized the country to let Zarqawi in," obviously unaware that Zarqawi came to Iraq well before the coalition did.

But then this one claims that Berg was already dead when he was decapitated, but does not explain how it was that an already dead guy was still screaming for seven minutes. It may also claim that Berg was a CIA guy, but the incoherent rambling style is hard to decipher.

Finally, some related points:

Al Qaedais really the CIA. Of course it follows that Al Qaeda in Iraq/Mesopotamia is unrelated to Al Qaeda itself. And, for good measure, Osama bin Laden is a CIA guy.

Now I know most people will find it amazing that there are people out there who really think like this, but this kind of lunacy is more prevalent than you think. And, sadly, gaining increasing influence in the Democrat party. I think we need (at least) two responsible major political parties in this country, to give voters choices and to keep each other at least somewhat in line. If this kind of wackiness ever becomes associated with the Dems in the minds of the masses of regular voters, we would start to see Republicans with 70-80% majorities in elections and ultimately government, and that would not be good for anybody. So while I use this for comedic relief, don't lose sight of the underlying threat this stuff presents should it move from the fringe out into the open.