Are these guys managing to screw up what should have been an unmitigated PR triumph?

…U.S. authorities altered their initial account of the al-Qaida leader’s death, first saying he died outright in a U.S. airstrike, then saying he survived but died soon after.

Since Friday, many people have pointed out the extreme improbability of anyone in a house surviving a direct hit by two 500-lb bombs on the house. That coupled with the sudden change in the official account of Zarqawi’s death has some people now openly wondering what the truth about Zarqawi’s death really is. Addressing the controversy,

(the) U.S. military flew in two forensic specialists Saturday to examine the remains of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi “to see how he actually died” and to reconstruct the last minutes of his life, a spokesman said.

No one seems to be asking yet why it was necessary to fly out forensic specialists from the U.S. Surely part of the $288 billion we have spent to date on the Iraq war went towards stationing doctors in Iraq who are fully competent to conduct autopsies? In view of the controversy already created, it is to be hoped that the forensic specialists we beamed in not only have unimpeachable professional credentials but can also be credibly regarded as independent.

Meanwhile Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Baghdad, is there to explain why we’ve already had two versions of events, neither of them the definitive version:

“It’s not going to be 100 percent accurate all the time, but the first reports are going to be a little confused. There are going to be some conflicting stories,” Caldwell said, adding that the military should have an accurate chronology ready by Monday.

It always takes us a while to get it right, huh? No doubt, it is also helpful to have the results of the autopsy first, before you manufacture the true version of events. After all, it’s best all round if this next version is the last and final version.

Here’s the current version, as per Gen. Caldwell:

He said Iraqi police reached the scene first and found the 39-year-old al-Zarqawi alive.

“The coalition forces arrived on the scene. The Iraqi police were there. They in fact saw a person on a stretcher. They moved to that person immediately. A medical person started immediately applying first aid to that person. Another person was trying to talk to that person, to try to identify who this was. They were trying to talk to him and ask him who he was,” Caldwell said.

The Forbes/AP report also says:

Lt. Col. Thomas Fisher of the 1st Battalion, 68th Armored Cavalry said his men showed up at the site about five minutes after the blast and cordoned it off. He said they had a patrol in the area already.

So what does Gen. Caldwell mean exactly when he says that there are some conflicting stories? That our version doesn’t agree with the Iraqi police version? Or that Lt. Col. Fisher’s men have some conflicting versions between them?

And the people who put out Version 1.0 on Thursday and Version 2.0 on Friday, they knew that there were conflicting stories, that wouldn’t get resolved till Monday, but they chose to go ahead and put out those versions anyway? Or they didn’t know? Is that better or worse?

But why engage in fruitless speculation? Let’s wait and see what they put out on Monday, whether it‘s Version 3.0, or just Version 1.1 or 2.1.

Complicating matters,

… an Iraqi man raised fresh questions, telling Associated Press Television News that he saw U.S. soldiers beating an injured man resembling al-Zarqawi until blood flowed from his nose.
[…]
The Iraqi, identified only as Mohammed, said he lives near the house where al-Zarqawi was killed. He said residents put a bearded man in an ambulance before U.S. forces arrived.

“When the Americans arrived they took him out of the ambulance, they beat him on his stomach and wrapped his head with his dishdasha, then they stomped on his stomach and his chest until he died and blood came out of his nose,” Mohammed said, without saying how he knew the man was dead.
[…]
No other witnesses have come forward to corroborate the account. U.S. officials have only said al-Zarqawi mumbled and tried to roll off a stretcher before dying.

No doubt there will be further developments on this front, but let’s go back to Lt. Col. Fisher’s men for a minute. I could have sworn U.S. authorities said earlier that Zarqawi had to be bombed, that capturing him wasn’t an option because we had no forces in the area. Yes, sure enough:

By the time two American jet fighters were called in to drop their 500 pound bombs, General George Casey was certain Zarqawi was in the house, and there was no thought of trying to capture him alive.

“Because the only means that could be applied in a timely fashion was the attack by air power and that was decided by General Casey as the right thing to do,” U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told ABC News.

How come everything they say runs to multiple versions? But no doubt, Lt. Col. Fisher is telling the truth as he knows it, and Ambassador Khalilzad is telling the truth as he knows it. And it ain’t a lie unless the falsehood was deliberate. Of course, we don’t know who’s falsehooding here. Could well be Lt. Col. Fisher.