I was really excited to get the news on my way into work this morning. It reminds me of the delight I had when they captured Saddam, and the sense of well-being I felt when the Ayatollah tumbled out of his coffin.

We should plan something special for the day that Osama checks out. Perhaps I'll buy a fine cigar and hold onto it for that special occasion.
 

One down...about a billion left.
 

Here is how the NY Times reported death of Zarqawi today:

"With the two 500-pound bombs that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on Wednesday evening, American forces eliminated Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq....

But the American officials themselves offered an immediate warning against overstating the impact that the death of Mr. Zarqawi would have... they said they expected Al Qaeda to name a successor to Mr. Zarqawi quickly"-- the whole article a terrible downer, all about how this won't make any difference and there's plenty more where he came from, yada yada.

Classic NY Times genre -- "Good News is Bad News." If the news defies their expectations or their wishes, if the news makes the US look good or makes Bush look good -- find a negative spin. Like if the unemployment rate goes up the headline is "millions jobless" but if the unemployment rate goes down the headline is "labor shortage could harm economy"

There is no possible success that US forces could have in Iraq that the NY Times wouldn't give a negative spin. You would think they WANT the US to lose. Whose side is the NY Times on, anyway?

I wish the army could bomb the NY Times but what's the use, they would just name a successor quickly...