We have a potential explanation regarding one aspect of the Al Zarqawi mystery. But I'm not sure if I buy it.
The problem is this: How could the killer of Nick Berg be the infamous Al Zarqawi if, as previous news stories had alleged, the terrorist had an amputated leg?
Previously, Al Zarqawi's amputation was mentioned by no less august a figure than Colin Powell. The terrorist was allegedly fitted with a prosthetic leg in a Baghdad hospital. This medical treatment was -- we were told -- the key piece of evidence proving a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Previous to April 6, 2004, no news report (that I know of) treated this amputation story as conjectural or "iffy." However, on that day -- the day of Berg's release from American custody -- a new story was floated. CNN saw fit to tell the world that Al Zarqawi had not lost his leg after all. This announcement came by way of a "U.S. official" who "would not discuss the reason for the change in assessment."
The timing is suspicious. Why on earth would an official choose that day to make sure CNN reported that there was no leg amputation? It's not as though the teeming masses in America cared much either way.
But if the execution video had been created on or before April 6, 2004, someone might have noticed that the on-camera "Al Zarqawi" had a problem. A problem that could be cleared up with a little "official" announcement.
I know, I know. I'm being paranoid. Can't help it. The President lied about weapons of mass destruction. Compared to that, is a lie about a leg all that unbelievable?
No comments:
Post a Comment