Just in case you missed it:
When Liberal Media Bias Takes Over
We’ve killed al-Qaeda’s number two in Iraq. Predictably, this set off complaints that it wasn’t being covered enough…within minutes of the news’ release. Vodkapundit gets pissed at 12:50 in the morning because there are only 30 results for “Abu Azzam…
what are you talking about? this was the lengthy top story when i turned on the BBC this morning. it’s the top google news story. what is your problem?
Yeah, you’d think that sometime in the last few years, a lot of news stories would have mentioned the name of “Al Qaeda’s No. 2 terror mastermind in Iraq”. Shouldn’t he have been on a playing card or something?
I would assume that there’s been some, er, turnover, in the AQ leadership. You know, like when we kill ‘em.
So I am not surprised he’s relatively unknown.
Seems to me like most of our recent AQ leadership kills have been at the #3 rank, not the #2, so I question how unknown the #2 should be at this point.
All of which is to ignore Osama bin Elephant-in-the-room Laden.
Only 30 results? He couldn’t have been that important then.
Somebody wrote at “The Corner”, yesterday, that being Al Qaeda’s #2 in Iraq was a bit like being the drummer in “Spinal Tap”, not healthy.
Hmm, the Liberal Media is questioning whether the guy was really that important. Why does Newsweek hate America?
Out of 29 wanted terrorists listed in the warrant, no one has a smaller reward offered for his capture than Abu Azzam. In fairness, he’s tied for last place with nine others. However, the $50,000 offered for Abu Azzam pales in comparison to the $25 million, $10 million, $1 million, and $200,000 offered for others. If he was “the second most wanted al Qaeda leader in Iraq,” as Bush referred to him, why such a small reward?