|
 |
March 15, 2004 WHY THE SOCIALISTS WON....I haven't been following the news or reading blogs much for the past couple of days, and I now realize that my Spain post on Sunday night attracted so much attention because I was wading into one of those issues that had already become a blogosphere free-for-all. Since I still haven't caught up with the minutiae of the appeasement charges and the warmonger countercharges, I guess I should just keep quiet. But I don't feel like it. Into the breach! Randy Paul at Beautiful Horizons has an email today from a Spanish friend that fairly convincingly makes the case that the vote turned against Aznar and the PP not because of any sense of appeasement — decidedly not, in fact — but because it had become so transparently clear that Aznar was playing an unusually cynical game of politics with the bombings:
Yesterday I wrote that I thought this explanation probably accounted for most of the change in sentiment among the Spanish electorate. Today I'm getting steadily more willing to discard the "probably" and the "most" from that sentence. As Randy's correspondent puts it, "we will only put up with so much lying and manipulation." This is a salutary lesson for certain other world leaders, I think: if (if!)the Spanish vote really did represent any kind of victory for al-Qaeda, the fault lies with those leaders who lost the trust of their electorate through sustained and cynical deceit. It is a warning they should not ignore. Posted by Kevin Drum at March 15, 2004 06:53 PM | TrackBackComments
Factor #2 has still got to be big, the sense of being dragged into a war against overwhelming popular opposition. Posted by: Gumnaam at March 15, 2004 06:57 PM | PERMALINKI hope that's the reason, because it casts the electorate in the best possible light. Can't help but note that their election was neither delayed by events nor "stolen" by the party in power. Maybe Spain can send some observers to monitor our election this November. Posted by: hueyplong at March 15, 2004 06:59 PM | PERMALINKAs Randy's correspondent puts it, "we will only put up with so much lying and manipulation." Its very difficult to tease out the nitty gritty of politics from 3000 miles away -- If all politics are local, we really do not have a bird's eye view of what happened in Spain. Sometimes, you have to have feet on the ground to really KNOW what took place. Posted by: Barry Ritholtz at March 15, 2004 07:19 PM | PERMALINKtake a look at this CNN also has obtained a document posted on an Internet message board analysts believe is used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers that spells out the terrorist group's plan to separate Spain from the U.S.-led coalition on Iraq. The strategy spelled out in the document, posted last December on the Internet, calls for using terrorist attacks to drive Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Partido Popular from power and replace it with the Socialists. That was expected to drive a wedge between Washington and Madrid and result in the withdrawal of Spanish military forces from Iraq. "We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says. "If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto." Posted by: cleek at March 15, 2004 07:20 PM | PERMALINKSee, the thing is... even IF the Spaniards kicked out the PP for being, well, crooked liars, the right wing warbloggers will STILL argue that it doesn't MATTER whether the Spanish had a good reason. All that will matter, they argue, is that it gives the APPEARANCE of doing "What Al Qaeda wants" and that alone is enough to be a bad thing, regardless of whether or not there were good reasons to explain the way the vote went. This is because it empowers Al Qaeda and doesn't cow them. By voting for a government that the right-wing warbloggers don't like, the morale of Al Qaeda will be somehow raised. (Translation: Voting for anything but a right wing recklessly militaristic government makes it look like the terrorists are winning. So don't do it.) Posted by: emjaycue at March 15, 2004 07:23 PM | PERMALINK
Well, that's one person's view. Here's an alternative. Go through and see the commentss lifted from the Vanguardis. === ===== I would still point out this is going to be a perceived victory for
Al Qaeda regardless. In addition it makes interferance in other
elections more likely. It just means Al Qaeda will be more 'nuanced' on
the propaganda. They could simply echo the left's line "Bush lied, you
aren't safer". I am reminded of the 2000 elections, where the Democrats in Minnesota turned a tragedy (planecrash of a popular Senator) and funeral into a political event. It left a bad taste in voter's mouths, probably cost Mondale a Senate seat, and may have angered enough Republicans to affect a swing state like Florida. Sometimes, politics must sit back and better instincts must prevail. At least, that's the politically wise way to go about things. Posted by: jon at March 15, 2004 07:26 PM | PERMALINKI am reminded of the 2000 elections, where the Democrats in
Minnesota turned a tragedy (planecrash of a popular Senator) and funeral
into a political event. It left a bad taste in voter's mouths, probably
cost Mondale a Senate seat, and may have angered enough Republicans to
affect a swing state like Florida. cleek, Any who has spend more than half a day online knows that "documents" obtained from mysterious Internet message boards should be taken with a huge grain of salt. That CNN neither provides the "document" (which could very well be just some random post, like mine right now), nor when the "document" was collected (and there's no way of telling whether the "document" was posted AFTER the Madrid attacks, or even after the election, and backdated) nor where the "document" was found (so we can verify the site), nor who the unknown "analysts" were that vouched for this "document" means that we have to take CNN's "document" with a serious grain of salt. I can find American "documents" that show all sorts of Bush Administration conspiracies exist on the Internet. Does that mean they all came from Bush or there actually are such conspiracies? No. It just means there is a lot of weird stuff on the Internet, and if you look hard enough, thanks to Google, you'll find a "document" to support almost any theory. That's why Internet sources need to be clearly identified. That CNN doesn't do so means the document must be given the presumption of being the usual internet dreck. And no, I don't trust the fact-checking skills of CNN enough anymore to take them, and their completely anonymous "analysts" at their word. Posted by: emjaycue at March 15, 2004 07:30 PM | PERMALINKthis "document" means that we have to take CNN's "document" with a serious grain of salt of course. i didn't mean to imply otherwise. but, some people are going to take that CNN story as gospel. Posted by: cleek at March 15, 2004 07:33 PM | PERMALINKI find it rather funny that almost immediately after I posted this: See, the thing is... even IF the Spaniards kicked out the PP for being, well, crooked liars, the right wing warbloggers will STILL argue that it doesn't MATTER whether the Spanish had a good reason. All that will matter, they argue, is that it gives the APPEARANCE of doing "What Al Qaeda wants" and that alone is enough to be a bad thing, regardless of whether or not there were good reasons to explain the way the vote went. Researcher posted his counterargument to Kevin's post: I would still point out this is going to be a perceived victory for Al Qaeda regardless. In addition it makes interferance in other elections more likely. It just means Al Qaeda will be more 'nuanced' on the propaganda. Talk about being predictable and intellectually bankrupt. Posted by: emjaycue at March 15, 2004 07:34 PM | PERMALINKOne of Osama's conditions to the US was to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia. We did that didn't we? Posted by: IXLNXS at March 15, 2004 07:35 PM | PERMALINKThe way that the Right, and unfortunately most of the media, is spinning this is that the people of Spain, by voting out their "tough-on-terror" government, decided to throw a "welcome to our country rally" for Al Qaeda. And yet, this is exactly the opposite of what some of us pessimists were predicting--that if it turned out to be AQ-related, then the current pro-Bush government would surely win in a landslide. The fact that this turned out not to be the case is totally freaking out the Repubs over here. The prior CW was that people would be willing to re-elect Bush because of his "strong leadership" after 9/11, and if there was another terrorist attack between now and the election, Bush would be crowned emperor. Now that line of reasoning appears to be flawed. And so the Repubs are falling back on "You're either with us or against us", leading to charges that Spain has now "declared war" on America. Even though the Spanish population was 90% against the invasion of Iraq, they still were supporting the re-election of their government. The fact that they changed their minds in the face of the attack indicates to me that theie eyes were open to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the anti-terror tactics of their current government (perhaps blaming them for the security breach) and decided to try another approach. Tonight David Gergen said that he could only see a similar effect on
American elections here if an attack were to occur, and the
administration was shown to be partly to blame due to homeland security
weakness. HELLO! It may just be important to hear from that 9/11
Commission... No one is saying that you have to vote for a right wing, militaristic
government to snub Al- Qaeda. Just consider voting for Nader unless
Kerry clarifies his position. Kerry hasn't made it a point to criticise
the appearance of appeasement or reiterate his willingless to act
unilaterally in self-defense. Let him slip in the polls until he does
so. Once he does so, Al Qaeda is less likely to '3/11' the US during the
election. To be perfectly honest, isn't Bush is going to "appease" the terrorist by withdrawning many of our troops from Iraq by June 30th - right? Americans can call it appeasement or whatever but I doubt Spain cares what we think, Iraq is our problem! Bush as well as most of congress didn't seem to think we needed any help from the UN (and that included Sen. John Kerry at the time we started this war in Iraq). Good summary Kevin (now if you would just bring back the kitties). Posted by: Cheryl at March 15, 2004 07:43 PM | PERMALINKOh, please. You are WRONG Kevin. Not all lefties are as blind. Consider: If it was al-Qaida, Spain will have become the first country "to have
a prime minister owing his position to Bin Laden," said Jonathan Eyal,
the director of studies at the London-based Royal United Services
Institute." And that well-known crazy leftie DANIEL SHORE on the voice of the right wing NPR: "It may not be too much of an exaggeration to say that Al Qaida won the Spanish election and George Bush lost it." 1) this is a victory although probably a minor victiory for "radical"
muslims. this true whether or not it was muslims who did the bombing. I am reminded of the 2000 elections, where the Democrats in Minnesota turned a tragedy (planecrash of a popular Senator) and funeral into a political event. It left a bad taste in voter's mouths, probably cost Mondale a Senate seat, and may have angered enough Republicans to affect a swing state like Florida. Um, Wellstone died in 2002, so it didn't have ANYTHING to do with Florida, and the "politicization" was entirely the creation of the right's media mouthpieces. Posted by: Andrew Bayer at March 15, 2004 07:50 PM | PERMALINKAnd one more thing... It is morally reprehensible to suggest that the bombing of Madrid would lead to a "salutary lesson." Posted by: Blue at March 15, 2004 07:51 PM | PERMALINKAnother thought: Could Al Qaeda have miscalculated? Did they think that the attack would insure the status quo, another term of fanatical conflict between their fanaticism and the fanaticism of the PP? Or perhaps they did want to bring in the "lefty appeasers," thinking that they would have an easy time of furthering their nefarious goals? I'm hoping that they miscalculated, and that they have underestimated the resolve and tactical sophistication of more liberal governments... Posted by: Paul at March 15, 2004 07:52 PM | PERMALINKIt's been suggested elsewhere that the Spanish are particularly sensitive to governmental mendacity because their memories of fascism are still fresh. Americans, unfortunately, may be more willing to be spoonfed bullshit. In fact, some of our citizens seem to demand it. Given your post about the Spanish government knowing "I appreciate so very much your government's strong -Bush, 3/12/04 Posted by: praktike at March 15, 2004 07:54 PM | PERMALINKFrom a terrorist perspective, the strike on Spain was perfectly timed. 3 days before their elections, Al Qaeda knew that striking on such a large scale would blind an already torn Spanish people over the war. Instead of having time to calm, regroup, and settle themselves, the Spanish took a rash action that will have long term political consequences and will cost many Europeans their lives. The problem here is that some anti-war people here are forgetting the past and are ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda cannot be reasoned with. This is not a dispute that can be settled with a compromise. If you think that the vast right-wing Christian conservative conspiracy wants to impose their values on everyone, Al Qaeda is 10000 times as bad. How can you not oppose a group that is that fanatical and is that bent on killing those that won't submit? Europeans again are also forgetting the lessons of World War 2. If they don't go to war and don't back up their threats, what will happen again? Hitler was appeased for years and look what happened. Every time a leader of such a fanatical group is appeased, it only strengthens their resolve and makes them stronger. If you think that any democratic country LIKES to go to war, you are dead wrong, but realize that sadly enough there are some groups such as Al Qaeda that will not back down and will not compromise. It is a definitive fact in what some believe is a relative world. You may think that the Spanish were looking out for themselves by appeasing their pacifist wishes and appeasing Al Qaeda. Maybe the Spanish were thinking "if we don't attack Al Qaeda then they won't attack us." Did Al Qaeda wait for others to attack before Al Qaeda attacked the US? Really what has happened is that terror has won. Spain was caught in a moment of emotional overload and could not think through the consequences, and now the Socialist leaders will have to follow through on their pacifist promises whether they are rational or not. All I know is that now that Spain has submitted, Al Qaeda will begin striking other countries near election times and holidays that support the US and the War on Terror. I know that Europeans will die because Spain did not stand up to the terrorists, but cowered to save themselves. When Britian, Poland, Bulgaria, or the Czech Republic is bombed next and hundreds are dead, will Spain rethink their stance? Or will another European nation give in and lick its wounds instead of standing up to terrorism? And what will happen when all of the world has holed up and become pacifist and Al Qaeda and other newly embolden terror cells have run rampant? Will the US stand alone still, or will we too attempt to negotiate only to find that there is no reasoning with them? Posted by: Darch at March 15, 2004 07:56 PM | PERMALINKThe recent Spanish election reveals the logic of the Iraq invasion as it relates to the "war against terrorism". Clearly, in bushism logic, the only way to win this war is to invade every arab nation, kill nearly all of their inhabitants, and cow the pitiful remainder into meek submission. A corollary to this is the extent of national "sacrifice" required to make this a reality. Failing to state this premise forthrightly reveals the extent of conservative "thought's" moral cowardice. Adocating half measures to achieve this goal reveals only the full extent of their hypocricy. Posted by: bobbyp at March 15, 2004 07:57 PM | PERMALINKHow is it a victory for Al-Qaeda to have the citizens of a nation repudiate them by turning out in the millions the day after they perpetuated their mass murder and, when those citizens' government ignored A-Q in favor of the drumbeat of "ETA, ETA, ETA" and had the nerve on top of that to call said demonstrators "anti-democratic," threw that government out on their arrogant asses? Sounds like a victory to the Spanish people and a loss to both A-Q and the Bush hegemony plan, kinda two sides of the same warlike coin anyway. Posted by: Elayne Riggs at March 15, 2004 07:58 PM | PERMALINKi am actually warming up to the theory that the bombing was done by ETA and that ETA tried to frame al-Qaida. this is not to say that i believe it: i still believe that muslims were behind the bombing. i have heard that a van was found near some of the bombins with tapes that were made to help beginners win. why would muslim terrorists have such tapes? most of these people know the quran by heart. the tapes would be better explained if they were an ETA attempt to frame al-Qaida. Posted by: hra at March 15, 2004 08:00 PM | PERMALINKHow about the UN resolution condemning ETA on 3/11 itself? What a shame... Posted by: JR at March 15, 2004 08:00 PM | PERMALINKA list and then a comment: 1) Then they backed off that. 2) Now we know there never were any nuclear weapons. 3) Then the person involved (Foster) came clean on it. 4) Later he said he didn't know where bin Laden was and didn't really care. 5) Then he underfunded the program to show he didn't really mean it. 6) It officially began 3/01, on Bush's watch. 7) Bush embraced the Homeland Security Agency. 8) It's been flat since March 2001 when the recession began. 9) Then he and Congress passed laws with pretty names, but which relax rules and enforcement of environmental protections. 10) He won election by using raw political power in the usually apolitical U.S. Supreme Court; a decision which will remain a scar forever. 11) Soon after another administration official said that wasn't. 12) IAEA physicists said those tubes couldn't be used for anything more than a standard rocket. 13) It's now known that was a fraud and besides Saddam had that stuff in Iraq and didn't have to buy it elsewhere. 14) The IAEA said that report didn't exist, never had. --------------------------- This list goes on and on. Why on earth should we believe anything the Bush team has to say about whether Al Qaeda benefits from a changed admin. in Spain or America? Posted by: MarkH at March 15, 2004 08:06 PM | PERMALINKI still think it is perfectly ok for the Spanish people to think, you know what, this mofo Aznar and his party went off the rails and into Iraq, don't know how to protect us from terrorism, except for the less nihilistic homegrown type, and, in light of what just happened in Madrid, we can't afford them anymore; time for a change. Oh, and hey, let's bring those Iraq troops back because we could use them here. That said, much better post. At the risk of sounding condescending, Brava! Posted by: Dawn at March 15, 2004 08:08 PM | PERMALINKNo one is saying that you have to vote for a right wing, militaristic government to snub Al- Qaeda. Just consider voting for Nader unless Kerry clarifies his position. Kerry hasn't made it a point to criticise the appearance of appeasement or reiterate his willingless to act unilaterally in self-defense. Let him slip in the polls until he does so. Once he does so, Al Qaeda is less likely to '3/11' the US during the election. The date I vote for Ralph Nader is the day pigs fly. I hate Nader and everything he stands for. And, who says that acting unilaterally in self-defense is in our best interests? Shouldn't the "self-defense" come before the "unilateralism"? Since when did having other people on your side become a bad thing? Or, is it now our goal to piss off the entire world so we can always act unilaterraly? Frankly, if acting unilaterally makes us less safe, then I prefer multilateralism. As Kerry put it in a recent major speech, that you've probably missed (see below): But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds. Besides, Kerry HAS made it a point to criticize the "appearance" of appeasement. You just haven't been paying attention. Unlike you, I have. I take homeland security very seriously, and I KNOW Kerry has a policy that is 1000% better than Bush's "Bomb an Irrelevant Country" recklessness strategery. From a major Kerry speech on February 27th: More (collected snippets): We need a comprehensive approach for prevailing against terror – an approach that recognizes the many facets of this mortal challenge and relies on all the tools at our disposal to do it.Posted by: emjaycue at March 15, 2004 08:08 PM | PERMALINK Um, Wellstone died in 2002, so it didn't have ANYTHING to do with Florida, and the "politicization" was entirely the creation of the right's media mouthpieces. Posted by Andrew Bayer You're right, it was 2002. But I was a Democrat (from Minnesota, too) who found the whole episode tasteless. So the Right's mouths weren't the only ones who felt that way. Did they whine too much? Probably. But they didn't "entirely...create" the event. Posted by: jon at March 15, 2004 08:08 PM | PERMALINKdarch, you are full of shit. the psoe is not pacifist. "hitler was appeased for years and look what happened." al-Qaeda attacked the West. Instead of protecting it's citizens from the threat, Bush, the PP & Co. went on the unrelated Iraq misadventure (planned long before 9/11). Which let up the pressure on al-Qaeda, boosted it's recruiting and bolstered its hate-the-West message. Posted by: EssJay at March 15, 2004 08:12 PM | PERMALINKLots of considerations. First of all, the two parties were not all that far apart in the polls prior to the 11-M attacks. Perhaps 3-4 points. Second: The perception of many Spanish voters was that they were being manipulated by the PP -- lied to, particularly in the constant emphasis that ETA might be responsible, when in fact the evidence pointed at Moroccans associated with Al-Qaeda. Third: this perception drove up voter participation. Perhaps as much as 10 points. Prior to 11-M the estimate was about 60% would vote, but Sunday more than 70% voted. I suspect many of the people who decided to vote after 11-M did so because they opposed the lies and manipulation, and wanted to punish the manipulator. The fact that the perceived manipulators were associated with Bush enhanced the effect. Bush is extremely unpopular in Spain, and has been since before 911. These background opinions came together in the wake of 11-M both bringing out more voters, and enhancing existing differences with PP. I don't see it in any way a vote for appeasement, rather a different understanding of Spanish National Interests, which have more to do with the fact that Spain has nearly a million illegal North African migrants in country, and it is within this population that Al-Qaeda floats and has found supporters and recruits. Posted by: Sara at March 15, 2004 08:13 PM | PERMALINKIsn't it weird how Howard Dean was the one on "Meet the Press" this last Sunday to debate Rice's talking points instead of John Kerry? Kerry still has not done a whole hour with Russert has he? Kerry might be afraid he'll jinx himself if he goes on MTP for an whole hour the way Howard Dean did. (I've noticed that George Will is still bitching about Howard Dean in some of his latest columns because really it was Dean that caused Bush to look so stupid on MTP - Howard did an hour so Bushie just had to try it too - do an whole hour by himself - Bush is SO stupid.) On the other hand, I think Kerry would most likely decline into windbag mode again if Russert gave Kerry a whole hour too? Anyways the ratings would pan for sure - and the Dem's can't be having none of that, right? If Kerry becames President what would Kevin Drum do with his blog after that old windbag Kerry clinches the vote in November? I know, I know...Kevin could go full time into cat blogging mode. Jeebus, can you imagine Kerry doing a SOTU speech -zzzzz - After
Bush, boring is good huh? To bad Al Gore didn't get the opportunity to
bore US citizens in 2000. But they didn't "entirely...create" the event. Yes, they did. "I don't see it in any way a vote for appeasement, rather a different understanding of Spanish National Interests, which have more to do with the fact that Spain has nearly a million illegal North African migrants in country, and it is within this population that Al-Qaeda floats and has found supporters and recruits. " Honey, pandering to your Islamic population in the hopes of them not setting off a bomb is...wait for it...APPEASEMENT. Posted by: Blue at March 15, 2004 08:17 PM | PERMALINKExactly EssJay, Even *Andrew Sullivan* of all people has said it... he just doesn't realize what the hell he's actually saying. From Sullivan's comments on the Spain election (emphasis mine): It's hard for modern Europeans and Americans to credit this kind of kooky, historical vengeance. But it's precisely this vision that sustains and nourishes the Islamist terror network and their state sponsors in Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And that is why the current lull in the terror war is not good news. While we wait and work patiently for democratic progress in Iraq, the enemy is retooling and rethinking. Yeah, you're right Andrew... you're just to blind to put 2+2 together. While we're wasting our time on an Iraqi misadventure the real enemy is getting stronger preparing new strategies. Too bad this admission was wholly accidental and Andrew is too ideologically blind to think through the logic. Posted by: emjaycue at March 15, 2004 08:18 PM | PERMALINKIn fact there was a turnout of 77.21%. Mass voting, you see. Another fact: Zapatero is the PM backed with most votes ever. Posted by: JR at March 15, 2004 08:18 PM | PERMALINKLots of proof there Olaf. Thanks. Actually, Hitler came to power in 1933 and immediately began rebuilding German infrastructure and military. This lead to a growing threat from Germany as they continually broke rules set down in the Treaty of Versailles after WW1 and Europe continually said "one more time and we'll do something" and ignored... But enough of that, lets go towards terrorism and the PSOE. What are they doing to defend Spain from another attack by acting weak and pulling out of Iraq? They have less than 2000 troops in Iraq, so its not like they need those troops to defend their borders. The pulling out is symbolic, and its symbolizes their abandonment of the US (the country I live in and probably most of you) and Poland and the UK and Bulgaria and all other nations that have done so much in the war on Terror. Because of one blind moment of emotional overload suddenly the Spanish have decided that they should abandon their alliances and do nothing to stop terrorism. Posted by: Darch at March 15, 2004 08:18 PM | PERMALINKOh, and here's what Espanistans lovely new leader thinks of me and my fellow Americans: "In contrast, Socialist party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero stressed his independence and willingness to criticize Washington. Many approvingly cited an incident during last October's Columbus Day military parade when Zapatero sat down as the American flag passed by. "It's not my flag," he reportedly said later." Posted by: Blue at March 15, 2004 08:20 PM | PERMALINKThe statement that the security forces were 99% certain it was AQ was broadcast on a radio station favoring or aligned with the socialists. The news that I was able to obtain did not indicate a definitive AQ involvement. Recent history indicates that ETA was planning something big, so assuming it was ETA wasn't that farfetched. Of course, I only know what I read as it was made available. Hopefully there will be an investigation and the socialists will be discredited. I also appreciate Kevin's "nuanced" analysis of this matter. Unfortunately, Muslim extremists will probably not be so nuanced. They'll see that the PP was expected to win, and they lost after the attacks. That will be read as appeasement. And, without Kevin's nuanced analysis, I might think that AQ and the left were on the same side in some ways. Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at March 15, 2004 08:28 PM | PERMALINKdarch, the majority of spain has never supporting the US-led war against "radical" muslims. it is not surprising that they would not hesitate give the "radical" muslims a victory. this has little to do with emotional overload. Posted by: hra at March 15, 2004 08:28 PM | PERMALINKhra- I won't waste my time with many of these inane comments. Instead, my fire is trained where it's been trained for 24 hours now - on Kevin. Maybe Kevin hasn't read far enough into the comments to see my point, or maybe he's systematically avoiding it - but he has yet to tackle the broader implications of the notion he advanced, and has not yet renounced, that a terrorist attack in and of itself can create conditions that do not allow for democratic choice. Kevin still wants this discussion to be about different explanations for electoral outcomes, and is happy to pick up on whatever evidence he can find that does not force him to defend the unpalatable assertion he made last night about how democratic choices by a democratic people (who have a much shorter democratic history than we do, who can remember dictatorship and coups within their lifetimes) means the terrorists have won. He can avoid it all he likes, but this is the fundamental point of the discussion, and it is what has generated all this discussion about his post. Not because he waded into the blogosphere, but because he insinuated that terrorist acts can deny freedom of democratic choice. Kevin is right to point to the question of deceit, but he needs to not evade the central question: if another terror attack happens in the US, can we vote to throw out Bush and not have it be considered as appeasing terror? This question is utterly fundamental, and why I keep castigating Kevin over his post last night, which revealed that he has bought into a discourse that could be used to silence his voice at the ballot box. Until Kevin addresses this issue squarely, I don't think we should accept his attempts to shift the ground of debate to his liking. Posted by: eugene at March 15, 2004 08:34 PM | PERMALINKI heard the woman who heads the Middle East group of the CFR site an interesting statistic. There are 350 millions arabs in the Middle East. The Middle East has an extremely low murder rate. For example, Egypt has about 5 murders a year. Contrast that with any decent sized American city. A lot more people are killed by murders and other causes such as traffic accidents every year in the U.S. than have ever been killed by terrorism. We need to put terrorism in perspective. We need to stop all this insane fear. We need to raise the discourse so that we just deal with terrorism. The terrorists have won because we seem to believe that this is one of the major problems in the world today. It simply isn't. Posted by: tstreet at March 15, 2004 08:37 PM | PERMALINK"We need to put terrorism in perspective. We need to stop all this insane fear. We need to raise the discourse so that we just deal with terrorism. The terrorists have won because we seem to believe that this is one of the major problems in the world today. It simply isn't. " Un-freaking-believable Posted by: Blue at March 15, 2004 08:44 PM | PERMALINKEgypt has only 5 murders a year? I guess honor killings, infanticide, terrorist attacks, and religious conflict must get put in a different category. Five a year? Palestinians probably lynch five of their own each week, though I'm sure Israel must oppress them into it. Posted by: jon at March 15, 2004 08:47 PM | PERMALINKThe spanish people turned on Aznar for the same reason that the american people are turning on Bush. Because both of these politicians have attempted to cynically use the deaths of their fellow countrymen to advance their personal political agendas. This is not acceptable behavior and must be punished. Even if it creats the false impression that the terrorists have achieved a tactical victory. Posted by: SW at March 15, 2004 08:48 PM | PERMALINKThoughts in the Wake of Right-Thinkers Proclaiming Victory for bin Laden in Spain... Bush withdraws troops from Saudi Arabia precisely as bin Laden demands...and of course the terrorists win ! Was the war against the infidel Saddam just a sneaky way for Bush to capitulate to al Qaeda on the Saudi question ? It seems likely, especially since Rumsfeld and his troop-lite approach to intervention let bin Laden slip away from Tora Bora. Christ, the Bushies make the Spanish Socialists seem like intransigent enemies of terrorism when you compare threatening to withdraw 1000 Spaniards from Iraq to withdrawing tens of thousands of armed Americans from the Royal Oil Kingdom. Rational, right-thinking people clearly understand that the only
correct way to operate in the current world situation is to try to
figure out what bin Laden wants and proceed to do the exact opposite.
Which is why Bush would support gay marriage if he really had any guts. Before declaring we "know" what motivated most voters in Spain to oust the ruling party, it might be good if a bit of real empirical evidence were used, instead of anecdotatal evidence. Where are the exit polls when you really need them? I haven't found any yet that seem to address the underlying motivation of voters, and I'm hardly going to accept someone's email, even if he's a Spanish voter, as definitive. Posted by: frankly0 at March 15, 2004 08:51 PM | PERMALINKIt's too bad those 2900+ people died on 9/11, isn't it? By doing so, each and every one of them gave Al-Qaeda exactly what they wanted: American deaths. Don't you think people should have tried just a little bit harder and shown some good old-fashioned American resolve and stay alive? Stupid? Of course, as are the arguments that a Spanish vote for the socialists is a vote for Al Qaeda. It's quite easy to place a couple of events side by side and create, ex nihilo, some nefariously tinted relationship that suits your own political agenda. As some of the comments above have indicated, it's actually unclear what Al Qaeda wants (heck, we're still not even 100% sure they did this). We've got a pretty good idea of what their -ultimate- goals are (Americans out, Fundamentalist Islamic SuperState, yada yada yada), but the fact that they're going about trying to achieve it in such complex, cryptic, stupid ways (we'll "take back" the Middle East by rigging the Spanish election? WTF?) shows that their thinking is obviously less black and white than we portray it to be, and perhaps less black and white than out own. And you know why we don't know how they think or what they think? Because our intelligence aparatus is stretched thin, ill-equipped to deal with the biggest threat in the world, politicized to an unrecognizable degree, and generally not in a good state. The Spanish voted out a party they felt they couldn't trust. Some muddle-headed thinkers assert that, well, since the end result of doing so is exactly what Al Qaeda wanted, then the motivations and reasons must be the same. These muddle-headed thinkers are wrong. Posted by: badaeneas at March 15, 2004 08:52 PM | PERMALINKdarch-- This silly debate is what the cabal is hoping for.You have to admit that this bombing is exactly what the neo-cons needed and could not have gotten any better results if they themselves had paid for it.Why on earth are we so divided on an issue that will not become evident for many years and has become a major tool for the (re)election campaign. Yes it was a tragedy,Yes the Spaniards spoke and yes it looks like anything you want it to but the point is that the wingers get a lift from this episode more than enyone else,OBL included. We should rejoice that democracy reigns and that the ruling party did not invoke a powergrab in the chaos.Unlike what this administration is capable of doing in a New York minute. Posted by: smalfish at March 15, 2004 08:57 PM | PERMALINKOne of the problems with this whole thing is the assumption that it's ok if people keep on believing that Iraq had anything to do with stopping terrorism. It didn't, and it's not. Democracy isn't just about going along with what the majority thinks. It's about convincing an always growing majority (hopefully!) that you're right. Aznar took a huge risk supporting Bush. Blair as well. To be honest, I can understand why they did, but at the same time, I know why they didn't. I think they were left hanging in the wind due to the Bush admin's deceit. And deceit goes a long way. If you feel like you can't trust the government.. Well. You can't possibly vote for them..right? As well, I see absolutly no proof that the incoming party is "weak on terrorism". As far as I see, they still support the operation in Afghanistan, and as far as we know, they might be just as strong, or even stronger, just in different ways. Just like how Kerry (like most if not all Democrats) is much stronger if you get your head out of the 'bomb bomb bomb' dynamic. Posted by: Karmakin at March 15, 2004 08:58 PM | PERMALINKAtrios points us to this excellent article in Salon on recent Spanish political history and the background of the election: Rebirth of a nation By Norman Birnbaum Posted by: bad Jim at March 15, 2004 09:04 PM | PERMALINKdarch, daniel pipes is absolutely correct that calling this war the US is fighting "the war on terrorism" is completely ridiculous since terrorism is just a type of warfare not an entity. daniel pipes calls this war "the war on radical islam" but i do not think radical is well defined in this context so i normally put radical in quotation marks. having said that it is not completely clear who america's enemy in this war is. it is certainly some group of muslims yet not all muslims. i tend to think that this war will eventually devolve into a war against all muslims that refuse to accept core western values like democracy. Posted by: hra at March 15, 2004 09:06 PM | PERMALINKCan someone who believes this whole "appeasement" malarky can anyway justify how BinLaden et al are anywhere close to as serious a threat as Hitler in say, 1937? Hitler had actually taken over most of Europe and was on the verge of taking over Britain in 1940. Al Qaeda is, lets say, not on the verge of taking over Western Civilization. Ben P Posted by: Ben P at March 15, 2004 09:09 PM | PERMALINKStill looking for some facts and a lack of name-calling from Olaf :). My response to badaeneas: Smallfish- Dear Blue: Why do you seem so worried about what the rest of the world thinks of us? Aren't we a lone wolf, maverick type of outfit here? Do you really think that much of us? And you really wonder why "they" hate us so much when you drip with that kind of arrogance? Jesus, even I hate you and I'm an American. This is going to be a hard thing to take, but...sometimes even the mighty American government, despite being run by morally righteous and infallible Republicans, does the wrong thing. The real insult to the injury is that, rarely do we ever admit it. The only thing worse than an indiscriminate bully is an incorrigible one. Posted by: Boggs at March 15, 2004 09:12 PM | PERMALINKhra: how about calling it a war on right-wing Islamism? Reactionary religious fundamentalists belong to the right, after all. Darch: As was stated before, this is not an entity or defined unit like the Pittsburgh Steelers. Certainly, you can take steps to combat the continuing spread of these kinds of terrorists. However, to poo-poo the idea that we don't need to know why these people do what they do is absolutely stupid. I realize it is so much easier to declare them all "evil" and go about trying to eradicate them from existence, but that doesn't do much to stop the cycle. As an analogy, if your idea were useful, doctors would just bombard every disease with radiation or some other full-force treatment, rather than study it to determine why it happens and how to prevent it. Posted by: Boggs at March 15, 2004 09:21 PM | PERMALINKA Simple Guide to War on Terror: 1) Use military means to fight and defend against the most obvious manifestations. 2) Stop financing and have kick-ass intelligence. 3) Wage a war of ideas to eliminate the root causes. Use means to encourage the economic integration of Islamic countries with the putative west. Ben P Posted by: Ben P at March 15, 2004 09:26 PM | PERMALINKWhat war ? there is no war on terror, or should I say the war on terror is about as good a descriptive monicker as the war on poverty or the war on drugs. It's not a war it's a policy, for god's sake. For a war you need armies, at least one on each side, last time I checked. Start using their terminology and pretty soon your drinking their koolaid too. We have an anti-terrorist policy linked to a policy of pre-emption meaning we have suspended the normal rules and diplomatic niceties in favour of striking out at whoever and whenever we damn well please. That has the whole world worried including terrorists and their sympathisers, which is a good thing, but it's also frigtening our friends and allies, which is a bad thing. Nobody wants to see a superpower run amock, especially not one this well armed and so badly led. Don't fret about the Spaniards or other Europeans for that matter,
they are all to one degree or another well versed in dealing with
terrorists. Perhaps with better leadership and closer co-ordination with European and other allies we can work this out together. That's assuming and yes praying we get the government we deserve this november. Posted by: postit at March 15, 2004 09:27 PM | PERMALINKI liked this part of the linked post: This heartless manipulation of the dead for political gain clinched it - it was the last straw, it galvanised a portion of apathetic socialist voters who would have otherwise abstained, galvanised first-time voters, and galvanised Izquierda Unida [United Left] voters (which include communists) who opted for heaping their vote on the PSOE for a higher chance of defeating Aznar (IU lost 5 seats because of that). In other words, part of the left moved to the center in anger at the government. Posted by: bad Jim at March 15, 2004 09:28 PM | PERMALINKtstreet is actually correct that terrorism is not such a big problem. about 16,000 people were murdered in america last year and most of these 16,000 were young people. by contrast only 3,000 people died in the september 11th terrorist attacks and most of these people were middle aged. Posted by: hra at March 15, 2004 09:29 PM | PERMALINKKevin I think: if (if!)the Spanish vote really did represent any kind of victory for al-Qaeda, the fault lies with those leaders who lost the trust of their electorate through sustained and cynical deceit. It is a warning they should not ignore. Considering the shit storm of protests your comments have provoked
are you now willing to back off from your accusations of appeasement
leveled at the Spanish electorate in yesterdays comments. "Well certainly if it doesn't affect us we shouldn't care (sarcasm). Al Qaeda works a bit faster than "a few years" and now that they see that a bombing can change a government to their liking, it will continue in Europe, regardless of the Spanish people's reason's or why Al Qaeda wants to." As usual with the misinformed,It doesnt go to say tha I dont care about what happened in Spain I very much do,Tho I ,and you must agree,have to say that it does not affect me in any way but to infuriate me that our government does things that make the situation worse.THe bombings affect me less than 9/11 did,this is not to say that 9/11 did not affect me emotionally(it did),in that I have no power over what happens anywhere beyond what my fingers can touch. THe thing that will take years is the effects of the elections and the long term consequences of their policies towards any number of foreign policy matters.There may be a backlash or negative perception by AQ as to the results of the election but that too is for another day and the reality is no one can say what was in the mind of all the electorate. Who's to say what an AQ bombing of any government in the process of an election cycle will elicit.Would we say that AQ effect our election if it should come to pass here?Whos to know the way the polls are right now and probably up untill the election and even after no one will know nor predict. We all need to realise that this does indeed help W more than any other person in the world.And that to me is the moral of these bombings. Posted by: smalfish at March 15, 2004 09:31 PM | PERMALINKThought experiment: You are the new Spanish PM -- either party, doesn't matter. 200 of your people are killed in a terrorist bombing - doesn't matter by whom. Because of your respect and admiration for America's Popular Wartime President (TM), Successful Leader of the War on Terror, you call up Mr. Bush and say: "They just killed 200 of my people. Steps Must Be Taken. " Inspired by your example, I have Spanish aircraft fuelled and bombed, pilots in the cockpits, standing by. "Whom do I bomb?" What answer do you get from the other end of the phone? Posted by: Davis X. Machins at March 15, 2004 09:36 PM | PERMALINKi actually tried looking for international murder statistics. i could not find any for Egypt but the three Arab countries for which i found information all had very low murder rates. www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap Posted by: hra at March 15, 2004 09:37 PM | PERMALINKIt is interesting that an outcome of an election can be spun in almost as many ways as the politicians spin things leading up to it. Regardless of if a group AQ or ETA or any other group of terrorists was trying to sway the election they lost even if the party they wanted to defeat did indeed lose. Democracy was the winner. It is tragic that it took an event such as that in Spain to turn out that many voters but instead of swaying their view of who they should vote for maybe it just swayed the vast majority of the population to actually care about who was leading them. This is the problem staring at us this fall. As angry as we as a group get about the dishonesty and deceit of our current administration it could very well be exactly what the bush cartel wants. A vast majority of our population is detached from politics and the brazen dishonesty of the current group in power may just keep those potential voters on the sidelines thinking well they're corrupt but what do you expect. We have to insure that this brazen deceit is viewed by the public as an insult and betrayal not politics as usual. The bush reelection team has in my opinion proven that they wish to turn of the voters by going immediately to the negative and dishonest ads. The negative ads tend to help lower poll numbers. I hope that this tactic backfires and excites the population to care about who leads our own country as it did Spain. Posted by: Randy at March 15, 2004 09:41 PM | PERMALINK"i actually tried looking for international murder statistics. i could not find any for Egypt but the three Arab countries for which i found information all had very low murder rates." Theres been tens of thousands in Iraq for the last year. Posted by: smalfish at March 15, 2004 09:41 PM | PERMALINKactually four arab countries are listed. three have very low crime rates and one (yemen) has a crime rate slightly lower than the US. my guess is that egypt's crime rate would be similar to tunisia's which would mean that egpyt has a very low crime rate. Posted by: hra at March 15, 2004 09:43 PM | PERMALINKAl-Q did not TRY to influence the Spanish elections. However, because of the appeasement claims of the right-wing media, some of the Arab press will gloat that they did in fact cause the withdrawal of Spain's contingent from Iraq. Let Al-Quaeda crow for now. Let the Wingnuts whine for now. They will both cry later when American troops under the leadership of John Kerry catches/kills bin Laden, Zarqawi, et al and puts a stop to terrorist recruitment that has skyrocketed under Bush. Posted by: james at March 15, 2004 09:49 PM | PERMALINKsmalfish, "theres been tens of thousands [of murders] in Iraq for the last year." i do not think that iraqi civillians getting accidentally shot or blown up by allied troops counts as murder. Posted by: hra at March 15, 2004 09:53 PM | PERMALINKGentlemen (and Ladies): First, Spain is an aberation to Islamic fundamentalists - Andalusia is viewed as "theirs" and it was "taken" - ignoring that it was taken by those they took it from. Secondly, do you expect sanguineous (blood loving) illiterates to grasp the subtle triumph of discerning voters in Spain? No. equation: Big enough bomb= Fear and retreat. I don't know international politics, I just know that giving a bully your lunch money never stops him from beating you. Posted by: Californio at March 15, 2004 10:00 PM | PERMALINK"i do not think that iraqi civillians getting accidentally shot or blown up by allied troops counts as murder."
I sure hope I dont live in your neighborhodd when an accident happens! Posted by: smalfish at March 15, 2004 10:05 PM | PERMALINKHow can you not oppose a group that is that fanatical and is that bent on killing those that won't submit? You need to back up and re-think that. NO WESTERN government favors Al Queda. What a disgusting, sick, twisted line of thinking it is that would lead you to that implication. I hate to be in-politic, but don't we realize how incredibly stupid it is to vote based upon the hope that we can upset Al Queda the most? Fuck Al Queda. The Spanish people should vote for whomever they want in office -- and they did. These are very dangerous times. Sadly, it is not Al Queda that is making them dangerous. It is irrational, wet-my-pants thinking form Westerners scared to death of the bearded Arab bogeyman. Posted by: Timothy Klein at March 15, 2004 10:12 PM | PERMALINKthis whole rereconquista thing is nonsense. the goal of expansionary islam is to bring the whole world under shariah law. but spain is not especially a target. Posted by: hra at March 15, 2004 10:16 PM | PERMALINKCalifornio: And you think that the American right-wing media by telling the Al-Q bully that the Spanish electorate voted to give him their lunch money means that other kids in the playground will stand up to him. The way to stop the bully is to knock him on his keister. Something that Bush and Aznar and company have failed to do. The Spanish did not give Al-Q their lunch money. They just decided to not waste time by going after the wrong guy. Posted by: james at March 15, 2004 10:18 PM | PERMALINKAnybody notice that Brooks said that Spain should not have held elections after the terrorist bombing. Everybody should jump all over him on that one. I don't want to go all tinfoil hat but is he trying to set something up for later this year? Posted by: CalDem at March 15, 2004 10:24 PM | PERMALINK"the goal of expansionary islam is to bring the whole world under shariah law." And the goal of the bush administration is to bring the whole world under strict catholocism.WHos wins,who loses.All the free people lose. Posted by: smalfish at March 15, 2004 10:27 PM | PERMALINK"i do not think that iraqi civillians getting accidentally shot or blown up by allied troops counts as murder." Of course not. They are just collateral damage. We had to kill them to set them free. Or something like that. Hmmm. Doesn't seem very Christian, does it? The schoolyard bully is Bush and his neocon supporters. Let's kick them out of the schoolyard!!!! Posted by: james at March 15, 2004 10:40 PM | PERMALINKSome muddle-headed thinkers assert that, well, since the end result of doing so is exactly what Al Qaeda wanted, That's the problem here, we have a bunch of armchair analysts here that are sure they know what Al Queda wanted. Of course, they have nothing they can cite to prove this. (Please spare me CNN's unattributed message from a comment board as being evidence for anything.) They just assume because the election didn't go their way that AQ got what it wanted. Listen up wingers, the party that didn't protect their own citizens lost the election. It was a fair and democratic election. If you don't like it tough shit. Get over it. Posted by: Another Bruce at March 15, 2004 10:58 PM | PERMALINKA tangential question - does all this mean that Spain is now part of "Old Europe" once again? Posted by: EricD at March 15, 2004 11:21 PM | PERMALINKA couple points. First, and briefly... Andalusia is viewed as "theirs" and it was "taken" - ignoring that it was taken by those they took it from. It is highly dubious to claim that Andalusia was taken back "by those they took it from." Certainly Ferdinand and Isabella were not notably Visigothic. The El-Andalus thing is silly because it happened more than 500 years ago, not because the Reconquista was itself particularly just. Certainly the forced conversions and expulsions of the Muslim population of the Iberian peninsula are hardly justifiable. Second point, which I have not seen mentioned yet: While Spain taking its troops out of Iraq may be what Al-Qaeda says it wants, I fail to see how anything to do with Iraq affects Al Qaeda much one way or the other, practically. If the US were to withdraw all of its troops from Al Qaeda tomorrow, it would be a terrible defeat for Al Qaeda, because it would deprive them of much great propaganda (And an Al-Qaeda friendly regime is hardly likely to develop in Iraq - a fundamentalist Shiite regime maybe, but that's a different thing). So, point is, Spain's decision gives no practical aid to Al-Qaeda in any particular way. My third point is that the Socialists always advocated withdrawing from Iraq. That position was already supported by the vast majority of the Spanish population. The Popular Party looked to win only because people weren't focusing on foreign affairs before the bombing. So the bombing essentially made them decide that they'd rather get what they already wanted on foreign policy than to continue to ignore the Popular Party's unpopular position on foreign affairs and keep it in power for domestic reasons. Posted by: John at March 15, 2004 11:36 PM | PERMALINKIt's easier to understand this if you just replace the word "Iraq" with "Turkey." Imagine if some western leader has a drug-induced hallucination that the turkish government is funding terrorists, and suppose this leader were to attack turkey. This pisses off Al-Qaeda, and they attack a train station. The train attack inspires the western leader to get off drugs. After the drug rehab program, the western leader remembers that the Turkish government is our ally, apologizes for the attack, and pulls our troops out. Would that be "appeasement" of Al-Qaeda? I suppose so, in the sense that they caused a western leader to pull out of a muslim country. But who cares? Attacking Iraq was stupid and pointless, almost as pointless as an attack on Turkey would have been. If Al-Qaeda wanted us not to attack Iraq - well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Posted by: Josh Yelon at March 15, 2004 11:41 PM | PERMALINKCalDem - Where exactly did Brooks say that about Spain (that they should have postponed the elections)? I couldn't find that in his column. I might have missed it, because I can easily imagine him saying such things. And you're right, the right-wing response to Spain reveals dark, dark things about how they plan to react if Kerry wins, regardless of whether or not another terror attack happens. Posted by: eugene at March 15, 2004 11:53 PM | PERMALINKInteresting line of thought. Will the Right characterize everything as terror-related now? If they lose any election, will it mean that the people are surrendering to terror? Orwellian. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 12:12 AM | PERMALINKA tangential question - does all this mean that Spain is now part of "Old Europe" once again? Yes. France is winning. Posted by: otherpaul at March 16, 2004 12:19 AM | PERMALINKThe Socialists have won - one more election. Why should anyone think that we must turn to our own right wing to battle another right wing tendency? A republic appalled by one bare breast is probably not itself in the best shape to confront an ideology demanding that the entire female form be shrouded. Posted by: bad Jim at March 16, 2004 12:28 AM | PERMALINKFor those claiming to understand how Al Qaeda will interpret the Socialist victory I ask you this. What is Al Qaeda's tactical goal? To have a hard-line government that potentially threatens Al Qaeda's existence, but whose perceived excessiveness leads to massive recruitment of new members? Or a submissive government that allows Al Qaeda to roam freely, but which doesn't provide locker room poster board material to bring in new converts. Ideologically, al Qaeda wants to reverse 1300 years of history so, in that sense, they're not likely to be swayed by what happens in some election in one of the many countries that thrived in the Islamic Golden Age. Tactically the bombing had some desired effect. But what was it? I don't give much credence to these mysterious tapes that arise, claiming Spain was attacked for its support for the war in Iraq. Spain was attacked because it was vulnerable, pure and simple. The same reason Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United States were attacked. Al Qaeda just wants to kill. But with such an irrational mindset isn't it a little presumptuous to ascertain the terrorists' motives with respect to an election? Thought of this way it seems the terrorists just wanted to disrupt an election and kill a bunch of infidels. The outcome be damned. Posted by: Elrod at March 16, 2004 12:55 AM | PERMALINKI am still amazed: """""Of course not. They are just collateral damage. We had to kill them to set them free. FEWER IRAQIS HAVE DIED UNDER THE BUSH FORIEGN POLICY OF LIBERATION THAN THE LEFTIST/BILL CLINTON POLICY OF CONTAINMENT. The policy of the United Nations and Bill Clinton was KILLING 5,000 IRAQIS PER MONTH, EVERY MONTH, YEAR AFTER YEAR....Now that's immoral. Except I notice none of you blame yourselves for those 450,000 Deaths...why?? You blame push for the 4-6 thousand, but won't admit you killed 450,000...because you have to DENY it was happening to justify your indifference. In addition, over eight years Clinton spent over 96 BILLION DOLLARS on Iraq and we had nothing to show for it, except mass graves, and a great recruiting tool for Osama Bin Laden. LET'S HEAR YOU SAY IT....WE HAD TO KILL 450,000 IRAQIS TO 'CONTAIN' SADDAM..AND WE WOULD HAVE KILLED ANOTGHER 450,000 TO CONTINUE OUR POLICY. Posted by: keiser at March 16, 2004 01:02 AM | PERMALINKNo boob left behind. That's our policy and we're going to stick with it. Posted by: bad Jim at March 16, 2004 01:05 AM | PERMALINKOf course there's always another boob right behind. In my experience both sets of erogenous orbs come in pairs. Cursed vertebrate bilateral symmetry! Posted by: bad Jim at March 16, 2004 01:10 AM | PERMALINKLatest United Nations figures for Iraqi deaths due to liberal Clinton policy: UN figures show that more than 1.7 million Iraqi civilians have died
as a result of the containment policy. Fundamental flaw discovered in
Clinton policy: AND AS I SAID...IMMORAL Cliton State Department says..Iraqis dying due to Saddam doing exactly what we expected he would do: US State Department spokesman James Rubin said Ohh Gee, so you put a murderous killer who cares nothing for human life in charge of your program...great plan Jamie. I'll take the Bush casualties numbers over the carage left in the wake of your containment policy. Posted by: keiser at March 16, 2004 01:18 AM | PERMALINKal qaeda doesnt care which party is governing spain. we're all just infidels to them. the real victory for al qaeda here is that the traditional allies of the us are not willing to participate in the bush program. it was easy to accomplish this due to poor statesmanship on the part of the current administration. it was bound to happen anyway. there was never any enthusiasm for bush's absurd iraq campaign outside of the us to begin with. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 01:18 AM | PERMALINKMy guess is your answer will be...we had to kill those 1.7 Million Iraqis to contain Saddam! But did containment work..sure Saddam may not have had WMD stockpiles, but he sure maintained his WMD labs, scientists, programs, scrapped together as much equipemnt and seed tocks as he could....BUT LOOK AT THE EFFECT ON OTHER COUNTRIES.. The containement policy in Iraq did not Contain other nations, Libya, North Korea, Iran all pursued extensive WMD program,, keiser, just shut your stupid face. people on the left were citing exactly those same statistics all through the 90's arguing for sanctions to be lifted and ALL CONSERVATIVES DENIED THAT THOSE NUMBERS WERE TRUE. there were no conservatives in the 1990's who would admit that the sanctions were a humanitarian disaster. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 01:28 AM | PERMALINKmadeliene Albright admits to the Iraqi deaths and says it was a good plan: "When U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked in 1996 whether the price of half a million Iraqi child deaths under the sanctions was worth it, she said: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price-we think the price is worth it." HALF A MILLION CHILDREN AND THE PRICE WAS WORTH IT????? WHY IN HEAVENS NAME IS KILLING A HALF A MILLION CHILDREN WORTH KEEPING SADDAM IN POWER??? And you have the nerve to complain about a couple thousand, while your own hands are red with blood.... keiser, my hands are not red with blood. i didn't support the sanctions and i don't support the war. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 01:33 AM | PERMALINKAIDS in Africa? Starving babies? Name your country. Boiling dissidents? Not bad, with a little bay leaf. Funny why the right has a particular taste for a bite out of the butt of this dictator but not that one. Chacun a son gout. Posted by: bad Jim at March 16, 2004 01:35 AM | PERMALINKI was watching the demo on cnn the night before the election, (midafternoon for me) they said the Prime Minesterio or whatever was going to address the people of Spain on the nightly news >in about three minutes PAZ! Posted by: perpwalk at March 16, 2004 01:36 AM | PERMALINK"""Olaf slaps his weasel: keiser, just shut your stupid face. people on the left were citing exactly those same statistics all through the 90's arguing for sanctions to be lifted and ALL CONSERVATIVES DENIED THAT THOSE NUMBERS WERE TRUE.""" Gee, You see, you want me silenced when your own murderous policy is put before your eyes you can't embrace it. I don't remember the Clinton adminstration pushing to end sanctions, nor pushing to take Saddam out of control of the oil for food program. I remeber them saying we must strenghten sanctions...you must cite for me the Clinton adminstration people pushing to end the sanctions???? YOU STILL WON'T ADMIT YOUR POLICY KILLED FAR MORE PEOPLE THAN THE BUSH POLICY AND YOUR POLICY ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING WHILE BUSH FREED A NATION. Posted by: keiser at March 16, 2004 01:37 AM | PERMALINK""OLAF GETS HIS JUJU GOING: keiser, my hands are not red with blood. i didn't support the sanctions and i don't support the war."" So you didn't vote for Clinton??, you didn't vote for any Democrats who supported Saddam run sanctions?? keiser, i didn't support the sanctions. they were not popular among the left. the right didn't have a problem with them though. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 01:40 AM | PERMALINKBut he pussed out, I guess, never happened. Posted by: perpwalk at March 16, 2004 01:40 AM | PERMALINKyes keiser. i voted for clinton. i did not support all of his policies though. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 01:41 AM | PERMALINKdo you really not understand that keiser? do you support everything bush does? Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 01:43 AM | PERMALINKGawd, please don't ask it that, you big baby!!! Posted by: perpwalk at March 16, 2004 01:45 AM | PERMALINKthere are a lot of things the democratic party supports that i don't agree with. i would never vote for them at all if there was a party that actually represented me. as it stands, its either the democrats or the wacko fundamentalist christian party. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 01:47 AM | PERMALINKLet's consider a cost/benefit analysis, shall we? Haven't the buttboys of the plutocrats long demanded the application of such considerations to the air we breathe and the water we drink? lest we think we were meant to live large, long and full lives. We don't seem to be able to fund intitiatives which we proudly proclaimed - no money in the budget, so the bit of a billion we promised here and there we can't actually deliver - but we seem to have hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on invading and occupying one sorry little country. Who but a bully absolutely requires an abject victim? Olaf continues to evade responsibility for his dear leaders mistakes: """"they were not popular among the left. the right didn't have a problem with them though.""" Ohh, come now Olaf, you strike me as a real Clinton cool-aid drinker.
Last time I checked it was the Clinton adminstration that set up the
policy, that enforced the policy, that ensured Saddam was in charge of
overseeing distribution, money, etc. I don't think it was the right in
charge of any of those things. So will you deny Clinton three times by morning?? Sorry. Left out the point. Those hundreds of billions could have - but didn't - save millions of lives. Posted by: bad Jim at March 16, 2004 01:53 AM | PERMALINKBush stands revealed as a right-wing nutcase. It shouldn't be a surprise that Osama bin Laden, another right-wing nutcase, tends to disappear in our fearless leader's blind spot, but to most of the citizenry it is. Posted by: bad Jim at March 16, 2004 01:57 AM | PERMALINK"So your saying the left wanted to end sanctions and let Saddam rebuild his WMD, is that the policy you supported?" See? It's a hate machine. Let it tumble, you big baby. Posted by: perpwalk at March 16, 2004 02:03 AM | PERMALINKThe Iraq liberation Act was voted in Congress in 1998. The question before the body was to liberate the Iraqi people or continue the current policy of deadly sanctions: 38 Congressmen and women voted against freedom and for a continuation of the Clinton sanctions Most of those 38 against the liberation were the who's who of the liberal left in Congress: Game set match Posted by: keiser at March 16, 2004 02:05 AM | PERMALINKSubtract Spain from the coalition of the willing. Add Spain to the column of the sane. Has the spirit of Franco however merely wafted westards? Does it now inform our intolerant elites? On Mediterranean beaches, babes bare their breasts. In America, land of the free, home of the brave, such a thing is a national scandal. The Atlantic serves unusefully as a sanity gap. Posted by: bad Jim at March 16, 2004 02:21 AM | PERMALINKkeiser. listen carefully. clinton is not my dear leader. the only reason i voted for him was because his opponents were farther right than him. the whole sanctions regime was set up during the first bush administration. the question in 98 was not whether to "liberate" iraq or to continue the sanctions. the sanctions were sold by both dems and reps as a method to remove hussein from power. the london underground is not a spy network. the central tenet of buddhism is not "every man for himself." Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 02:23 AM | PERMALINKgood call jim. i'm all for more "indecent broadcasting". one tit for two seconds isn't even a good start Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 02:25 AM | PERMALINKand by the way, keiser, chenoweth (r-idaho) is not a leftist. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 02:30 AM | PERMALINKif bartlett is roscoe bartlett (r-maryland), he's not either. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 02:31 AM | PERMALINKHEY! America is great! At least we don't have burqas or chadors! BUT there does seem to be a consensus that it's time to crack down on obscenity on the airwaves. It's far from clear that it's better than a hairy crack up, but the party of tolerance is no longer at the switch. Posted by: bad Jim at March 16, 2004 02:32 AM | PERMALINKI think this is all very simple. The Spanish like us have been fighting the wrong war. The war in Iraq rather than the war on terrorist. Why we battle terrorist is clear. I don't beleive the Spanish have any less distaste for Al Queda then us. The Spanish vote indicated a clear distaste for politcal deceit. Pure and simple. Posted by: speaking frankly in Missouri at March 16, 2004 02:44 AM | PERMALINKI suppose it's simply too much to ask from our supine press that they ask Scott McClellan whether Bush was ever reviewed as part of the HRP. They're too busy being stenographers for slurs against Kerry, such as the fact that more leaders like him. That said, pushing steadily on this question from the blogosphere may produce results. Only one way to find out! Posted by: Raph Levien at March 16, 2004 03:13 AM | PERMALINKAfghanistan's heroin production has nearly been restored to pre-Taliban levels. Though it's not my thing, I'm not entirely sure that it's a bad thing. Posted by: bad Jim at March 16, 2004 03:15 AM | PERMALINKAs Randy's correspondent puts it, "we will only put up with so much lying and manipulation." This reminds me of a certain quote by an individual and of a military outfit named in his honor. YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING KEVIN (OR A PRO-ISRAELI JEW)!!!! EVERYONE ON PLANET EARTH MUST KNOW BY NOW THAT THE PEOPLE OF SPAIN NEVER SUPPORTED AMERICA'S ZIONIST LEAD INVASION OF IRAQ. THEY NEVER BOUGHT IT. THE COALITION IS DOOMED AND SO ARE THE NEO-CONSERVATIVE ZIONIST. Posted by: Robert at March 16, 2004 03:41 AM | PERMALINKThe vote in Spain was a big defeat for Al Qaeda. The bombing was a wake-up call. It reminded the people of something that we in New York City have been aware of since 9/11: that terror must be fought. Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. In Spain, where (unlike the U.S.) there is a functioning press which reports the truth, the people have always been aware of this. Krugman has an excellent column on this today. Posted by: dan at March 16, 2004 03:50 AM | PERMALINKYEA, SURE DAN ONLY IN YOUR WILDEST ZIONIST DREAMS Posted by: Robert at March 16, 2004 03:59 AM | PERMALINKThose who argue the Spanish Vote was "Appeasement" really miss the meaning of that term -- you can only appease if you are in some sort of political discourse with those you seek to influence. To my knowledge, no one is in any sort of negotiating posture with Al-Qaeda linked groups. Instead, it appears to me that Spanish voters concluded the PP government, by accepting Bush's defination of Iraq's importance, had acted against Spanish National Interests by sending their army to a side show, and not focusing on the Militant Islamic threat in Spain's own neighborhood -- or even internally. It is certainly not appeasement for voters to demand their government act in terms of National Interest. One of our problems -- as Americans -- is that we infrequently take up a topic and ask that basic, International Relations 101 question -- What are any Nation's National Interests? It is absurd to think Spain's present national interest has much to do with Iraq -- when the threat is so obviously from Morocco, or from an unassimilated and alienated and largely illegal Arab minority in Spain. The vote was pure and easily understood Spanish National Interest. Bush's problem (and our rightie nit wit's) is he fails to understand that little nuance, that other countries also have National Interests, and failure to account for them can come back and bite you. And there will be lots of fall out from this -- that hurry-up Security Council motion against ETA that may have been pushed along by Negroponte is an embarrassment. The US and the Spanish PP government apparently prevailed on Kofi Annan and Javier Solana to support the ETA interpretation. Now they have to eat their early words, and they will not be particularly happy about how they were blindsided. Posted by: Sara at March 16, 2004 04:01 AM | PERMALINKWhat is it with all-CAPS postings and morons? I'd like to say something here I've been thinking about (quietly, no caps). Terrorism is here to stay. Whether its al quaeda, or another group, terrorism is going to be a fact of my life, and my children's lives, for the foreseeable future. That puts it right up there with air pollution, car crashes, and heart attacks all of which individually kill more people in a year than Al Quaeda does. What does that mean? It means that instead of running around hysterically, as the right wing does, sobbing and flinging our arms around the knees of the nearest jackbooted republican thug we are going to have to find ways to manage it long term. We can make it harder for terrorists to act (improved homeland security), we can make it less desirable for children to be raised up to committ terrorist acts (by working to give them education, health care, secular ideals, and sucessful local political outlets for their interests), we can focus on the money and the top leaders and their sympathizers (saudi arabia, anyone?) but we can't bomb our way out of this. So lets stop talking as though a single vote by the spanish people is anything other than what it was: a mid course correction in how the spanish want to deal with terrorism. No one is dumb enough to think that they can stop al quaeda from bombing them by "appeasing" them--certainly not the spanish who know they are in al quaeda's sights as a "christian" nation that threw the moors out. The spanish have just chosen a team they think will be more responsive to their needs, and that will fight terrorism locally on the european front rather than taking on the entire muslim world. That's a sensible choice, even if its not the neo-con choice. Would that I thought the american people could sit back and examine Bush's deeds and Kerry's plans with a similar logic. WE would see then what the liberal/left has been saying all along: lets have a comprehensive, long term, law oriented solution to terrorism that includes numerous allies rather than creates new enemies. aimai Posted by: aimai at March 16, 2004 04:14 AM | PERMALINKI'm still trying to process this waaay upthread comment: "Kerry hasn't made it a point to criticise the appearance of appeasement or reiterate his willingless to act unilaterally in self-defense." WTF? When did Kerry EVER imply that if a country attacked us, he would seek UN permission to fight back? Obviously, if North Korea launches a nuke at us, Kerry's going to "unilaterally" act. Get this straight: Invading Iraq was not self-defense. As to the first part of the quoted statement, questioning why he hasn't criticized the appearance of appeasement: Obviously, because he thinks 70% voter turnout in a democratic process is neither appeasement or worthy of criticism. Posted by: Susan at March 16, 2004 04:19 AM | PERMALINKaimai takes the cake... Ohh I see, so Spain should have arrested the terrorists after 200 people were murdered and not So if Spain knew these 10 terrorists were sitting in a house in
Kandahar planning their attack...we should just let them go?? Don't
bomb them?? So tell me, what duty does a government have to protect its citizens?? None in your eyes apparently. Posted by: keiser at March 16, 2004 04:23 AM | PERMALINKSARA, YOU SAY; "IT IS ABSURD TO THINK SPAIN'S PRESENT INTEREST HASN'T MUCH TO DO WITH IRAQ". DEE DEE DEE DEE DEE. TELL THAT TO THE FOLKS WHO LOST RELATIVES IN THE BOMBING'S. WHAT OTHER ISSUES YOU RAISE FOR THE CAUSE OF THE BOMBING'S ARE VERY MINOR INDEED TO THE MAGNITUDE OF THE LARGER PICTURE GOING ON IN THE WORLD. THAT'S LIKE SAYING THE RECENT BOMBING'S IN ISRAEL HAVE NOTHING TO DO ISRAELI'S THEFT OF ARAB LAND. JUST TOTALLY IRRATIONAL CONSTRUCTS. Posted by: Robert at March 16, 2004 04:25 AM | PERMALINK"(Translation: Voting for anything but a right wing recklessly militaristic government makes it look like the terrorists are winning. So don't do it." I heard quite a bit of that from the opinionated "reporters" tonight, already saying that Kerry should concede to Bush, otherwise it will 'show' the terrorists that we're easily intimidated...what drivel! Posted by: Allison at March 16, 2004 04:42 AM | PERMALINKThere is a spin to this story that ALOT of people are missing. ETA has been active in Spain for quite some time. Thier involvement in the recent bombings has not yet been clarified. However I propose the following, considering they either did or did not have involvement; 1. If ETA was not involved, they may consider escelating thier attacks. Historically ETA has been a relatively "low budget" terrorist organization that has hit primarily "political" targets. This could change. 2. If ETA was involved, this signals a drastic change in thier tactics, and is not a "win" considering their goals. Either way I suspect further attacks are VERY possible. Posted by: Jim G. at March 16, 2004 05:07 AM | PERMALINKHere's a thought... if the neocon reaction to this is, "Whatever Al Qaeda wants, all freedom-loving peoples should do the exact opposite", doesn't that make them awfully easy for Al Qaeda to manipulate? Hey, look what I just found through Google on an al Qaeda message board -- a plot to get George Bush re-elected by bombing the World Series!!! Oh my God! Quick, everyone vote for Kerry! Posted by: Erik at March 16, 2004 05:07 AM | PERMALINKaimai takes the cake... Nice straw man, keiser. Build it yourself? 1) Plotting a murder is a crime too, dumbass. If any country had factual evidence of a plot of course they'd go after the plotters. But that doesn't fit the sad little 'appeasers vs. real men' duality coloring your worldview, does it? 2) If Bush's plan in Iraq was just to kill terrorists, why didn't he bomb al-Zarqawi's camps in Northern Iraq before the war? I guess Li'l Bushie failed in his duty to protect Americans. Posted by: Erik at March 16, 2004 05:17 AM | PERMALINKTerrorism is here to stay. Terrorism has been around for a long time. A hundred years ago, it was anarchists setting off bombs in public places, including one on Wall Street. In the first few decades of the settlement of Virginia, there were some attacks by Natives that included genocide (killing women and children) and which were suicidal in the sense that retribution was inevitable. This was neither humane nor sensible. But it is understandable as a response to the intrusion of Europeans into turf the Natives had considered theirs. Then there were the Zealots and the Assassins... Terror is just a military tactic. It insn't sensible to declare war on a military tactic. It's like declaring war on the flanking maneuver or the double envelopment. Posted by: Roger Bigod at March 16, 2004 05:32 AM | PERMALINKBecause of one blind moment of emotional overload suddenly the Spanish have decided that they should abandon their alliances and do nothing to stop terrorism. You're an idiot. Pulling out of Iraq does not equal "doing nothing", it equals "doing something else", and is probably a wise choice. 90 percent of the Spanish people opposed the Iraq Agression. Are they not a democracy? Their leadership went ahead with it against the will of the people. Spain then became a target of AQ for that reason. The people of Spain should reward Anzar for making them a target (or more of one, at the very least) when they were against the War to begin with? Uh...that makes sense. No, Anzar got what he had coming for attempting to link this ETA when he KNEW it wasn't ETA. That is what lost him the election. If he had said "This was AQ, we need to stand together to fight them" he may have stood a better chance. He miscalculated, and lost. End of story. That he lied to his people and abused his office to do so means he should be punished, IMO. But he lost the election because he miscalculated. End of story. Posted by: Monkey at March 16, 2004 05:51 AM | PERMALINKthat our SCLM which should be praising democracy and the right of a people to vote on what issues face them and yet all the media outlets are saying this is somehow a "win for the terrorists" What was a win for the terrorists was bush and Co invading Iraq despite the warnings that it would SPUR more terror attacks. That it would CAUSE more anger and resentment NOT less. THAT is appeasement. THAT is giving terrorists EXACTLY what they want. Why is Kerry NOT coming out and saying such a thing? Why is Kerry not calling bush and aznar the liars they are for somehow trying to implicate the WHOLE of spain who he praised not a week ago while the bodies still lay on the train for being courageous but who now says are appeasers because they do not support the bush view of arrogance, fear and deception. It is incredible that every right-wing whacko is saying this was a win for the terrorists when it was bushCo's policies that DIRECTLY led to this terror attack in the first place. That a vote of the OVERWHELMING majority of Spaniards would say screw you bush and your PHONY war on terror and your LIES about it's connection to Iraq is a direct and complete cowardly retreat in the face of the REAL danger of terrorism and the complete FAILURE of bush to stop it with it's phony war. Absolutely pathetic. Posted by: Jack at March 16, 2004 06:00 AM | PERMALINKThe last country to attack another to "prevent" terrorism didn't get much from the pre-emptive war policy. By the end of WWI, Austria-Hungary was no more. Just a passing thought. Posted by: bobbyp at March 16, 2004 06:13 AM | PERMALINKI can't see why there is so much controversy, I'm starting to wonder if the rightwing outrage is over the timing of the shift in the electorate - shortly after a bomb, which raises legitimate questions of whether Al Qaeda is influencing elections - or the simple fact that a democracy ousted a regime that supported Bush's foreign policy against the will of 90% of that nation. Posted by: Elrod at March 16, 2004 06:24 AM | PERMALINKWhat is it with Americans? The only allowable response to any threat is "to be tough". Why not try some alternate response for a change, or does that not fit into the "script" you have been brainwashed with? Posted by: Michele at March 16, 2004 06:28 AM | PERMALINKOne explanation is that the balance between economic and national security issues had shifted in recent months toward the former in Spain. The attacks moved national security back to the forefront, and part of this was the Spanish deep resentment of their governments' involvement in Iraq. Posted by: BobNJ at March 16, 2004 06:34 AM | PERMALINKSeems like when the U.S. electorate reacts to terrorism by electing a right wing congress its ok...but Spaniards veering left after terrorism is somehow a victory for terror. Why doesnt' Brooks mention the spanish gov't attempted manipulation of the truth as a possible reason for their defeat.....no electorate is more influenced...in a negative way ...by terror, than the U.S.... Posted by: quill at March 16, 2004 06:40 AM | PERMALINKI'm not convinced that the Spanish government lied or misled anyone
about anything. There was a strong case in the beginning that this was
more likely ETA, but I don't remember any news reports that the
government stateded this with certainty. So far, the mainstream media, from NBC to the DMN and even NPR are still vomiting up the right's talking points on this one (i.e., fear and capitulation, lost ally in "war on terror," whatever that is this week), which I guess is understandable, since they don't require the consumer to know the first thing about Spanish politics. Let's hear it for the power of ignorance and fear. Posted by: Visualize Dead Thugs at March 16, 2004 06:55 AM | PERMALINKWhile there are mixed results, this new ABC poll of Iraqis hardly supports the Spanish Socialist assertion that the invasion of Iraq is a "disaster": http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html Posted by: Hubris at March 16, 2004 06:59 AM | PERMALINKThe problem I have with most of the comments here is that they assume that what matters is whether the spanish or american governments are doing the right thing or not. Wrong. What matter is whether America is going to win or not. I was in Thailand when the US launced it's invasion fo Afghanistan. I said to my son just this - we're on the losing side you know, we being Australian. You see most of the poor people round the world didn't actually cry for all those people who died on 9/11 they cheered and not just on the west bank but in every poor country that's had to put up with a US supported dictator or the US dictated destruction of their homegrown industry or agriculture or the overthrow of democratically elected governments by US funded rebels or spies. Most poor people quietly cheered and then said a prayer those who died on 9/11 because finally the US had got to know what it feels like. The word terrorist connotes some kind of evil madness but that's not
at all what's happening out there away from your borders. The actions of
Al Q and others are not predicated on evil or madness but honour and
despair. YOu might not understand this - you might think it's a load of
crap - but that's not what the rest of the world thinks. kyan, the dark age of US hegemony I don't deny American malfeasance, e.g. in Central America over the course of this century. But let's have some historical perspective. What other country has had comparable economic and military power and exercised a similar level of overall prudence? You sterotype Americans - we of the greed and guns, a stain upon an otherwise rational, peaceful, and generous world. At least apply the same standard of judgment when looking at the actions of other countries. For example, if the EU is somehow able to develop their desired hegemony, do you expect them to avoid advancing the interests of their member countries? Posted by: Hubris at March 16, 2004 07:13 AM | PERMALINKMan, what a bizarro universe this Comments board is. Consider the following: Assuming it was Al Qaeda that carried out the Spanish bombing, which result would THEY prefer? 1. Aznar to remain in power or 2. The (anti-Bush) Socialists to win. Surely the answer is 2. And therefore this is indeed a victory for Al Qaeda, whether intended or not. Posted by: melk at March 16, 2004 07:27 AM | PERMALINKto Chris K: How about those reports that Spanish government leaders repeatedly called the Spanish media to press the case against ETA rather than Al Qaeda? Posted by: Michele at March 16, 2004 07:28 AM | PERMALINKdarch, If the outcomes are the same, do the reasons matter? WTF? You ever heard of murder versus manslaughter, or even first degree versus second degree murder? You know the meaning of the word 'unintended', as in 'The Founding Fathers wrote the electoral college thingamijig into the constitution, and it has had unintended causes'? Posted by: Coriolanus at March 16, 2004 07:32 AM | PERMALINKSo, was Busg "appeasing" Al Qaeda when he withdraw American forces from Saudi Arabia? Wasn't that one of Bin Laden's biggest beefs? It's simple. people. Invading Iraq wasn't necessary, and it didn't make anyone safer from terrorism. The Madrid bombing just reinforced that point. The Spaniards have been fighting terrorism for decades, without American help. They aren't going to stop now. They're just going to go back to more effective approaches to the problem instead of trotting along behind the neo-con bandwagon. Let's hop America joins them in November. Posted by: Hermit at March 16, 2004 07:33 AM | PERMALINKAs an American who has lived in Spain for the past 17 years I think the explanation you posted is dead on. The cynical manipulation of the facts concerning the terrorist attack and the state-controlled media NOT reporting them were, in my opinion, what caused the massive rejection of the Popular Party. The satellite TV DID cover it and the contrast was startling. Posted by: Jack at March 16, 2004 07:34 AM | PERMALINKhey, how's that flypaper working, anyway? Posted by: danelectro at March 16, 2004 07:38 AM | PERMALINKmelk So it's an Al Qaeda victory regardless of any other factors. Posted by: Ron at March 16, 2004 07:43 AM | PERMALINKOh, and note to keiser re: Iraqi deaths due to sanctions: Those deaths were caused by shortages of medicine and medical supplies, poor water quality, lack of electricity etc. Since the invasion none of those shortages have significantly improved; in fact the water situation is worse, hospitals are worse off than before due to the looting and continuing lack of security (and the sharp increase in shootings and other violent crimes). So the invasion has actually made the situation even worse, and more Iraqis are dying than before. Fuck Bush and his little war. melk: if the Socialists oppose the boondoggle in Iraq, surely the greatest boon to al-Quaeda if they oppose Aznar's denial about the Madrid bombings and actually, you know, focus on al-Quaeda if they support going after domestic terrorism with the same tactics that crippled the IRA then HOW HAS AL-QUAEDA WON? It takes more than AM Radio talking-points to grapple with the real world, bub. Posted by: Visualize Dead Thugs at March 16, 2004 07:46 AM | PERMALINKHermit, I would direct you to the survey I linked to above, which gives a larger perspective: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html 56% of Iraqis say things are better than before the war, while only 19% say things are worse than before the war. 71% of Iraqis also feel they'll better off a year from now. Posted by: Hubris at March 16, 2004 07:48 AM | PERMALINKI'm with you Hermit Repost : What war ? there is no war on terror, or should I say the war on terror is about as good a descriptive monicker as the war on poverty or the war on drugs. It's not a war it's a policy, for god's sake. For a war you need armies, at least one on each side, last time I checked. Start using their terminology and pretty soon your drinking their koolaid too. We have an anti-terrorist policy linked to a policy of pre-emption meaning we have suspended the normal rules and diplomatic niceties in favour of striking out at whoever and whenever we damn well please. That has the whole world worried including terrorists and their sympathisers, which is a good thing, but it's also frigtening our friends and allies, which is a bad thing. Nobody wants to see a superpower run amock, especially not one this well armed and so badly led. Don't fret about the Spaniards or other Europeans for that matter,
they are all to one degree or another well versed in dealing with
terrorists. Perhaps with better leadership and closer co-ordination with European and other allies we can work this out together. That's assuming and yes praying we get the government we deserve this november. Posted by postit at March 15, 2004 09:27 PM | PERMALINK Posted by: postit at March 16, 2004 07:48 AM | PERMALINKAssuming it was Al Qaeda that carried out the Spanish bombing, which result would THEY prefer? 1. Aznar to remain in power or 2. The (anti-Bush) Socialists to win. Surely the answer is 2. And therefore this is indeed a victory for Al Qaeda, whether intended or not. This doesn't go deep enough. Al Qaeda may consider this a victory, but is it really? If the net result is a Spain still fully committed to resisting terrorism but no longer part of Bush's "War on Terror", then it could be a severe al Qaeda defeat. I have seen no one offer any evidence anywhere - none - that Spain is less committed to fighting terrorism now. Juan Cole has a trenchant post this morning in which IMO he absolutely demolishes the "Victory for al Qaeda" thesis. Click below. Did al-Qaeda Win the Spanish Elections?. Posted by: No Preference at March 16, 2004 07:52 AM | PERMALINK Juan Cole has an excellent post on the Spanish election, the abandonment of Afghanistan nd the fight against Al Qaeda and the counter-productive futility of the Iraq adventure. Posted by: Hermit at March 16, 2004 07:53 AM | PERMALINK"My immediate priority will be to combat all kinds of terrorism," Zapatero said. "The terrorists must know that they will confront all of us together. We will win." clearly a victory for al-queida Posted by: jjj at March 16, 2004 07:55 AM | PERMALINKJuan Cole has a brilliant analysis. *&%^%#% Here's the link to Juan Cole: http://tinyurl.com/24bqv Posted by: Hermit at March 16, 2004 07:58 AM | PERMALINKFor a war you need armies, at least one on each side, last time I checked. No you don't. Posted by: Hubris at March 16, 2004 07:59 AM | PERMALINKHoney, pandering to your Islamic population in the hopes of them not setting off a bomb is...wait for it...APPEASEMENT. - blue Al Qaida wanted Saddam removed from power, Bush removes Saddam from power. Al Qaida wanted US military out of the Saudi peninsula, Bush removes US military from Saudi peninsula. Al Qaida wanted to be treated seriously as a world class player locked in a fundamental clash of nations (for recruiting purposes) as opposed to rogue criminals, Bush declares them world class players locked in a fundamental clash of nations and refuses to view this as a law enforcment action. Al Qaida wanted a weapons lab at Kirma, the pentagon wanted to destroy it, repeatedly requested to destroy it; Bush refuses to allow it. Al Qaida wanted the US to restrict freedoms on it's citizens, the Bush administration restricted freedoms on citizens. Al Qaida wanted the population to be afraid, Bush tells the population to be afraid. Now that, honey, is what I call . . . wait for it . . . Posted by: Thumb at March 16, 2004 07:59 AM | PERMALINKI've read in several publications that most pundits think that Al Qaeda wants Bush and other conservatives to be re-elected, so that they can continue the war. I would tend to agree. I mean, what's the fun fighting with good guys when you can fight with Bush et al? Posted by: Michele at March 16, 2004 08:05 AM | PERMALINK"Assuming it was Al Qaeda that carried out the Spanish bombing, which result would THEY prefer? 1. Aznar to remain in power or Surely the answer is 2. And therefore this is indeed a victory for Al Qaeda, whether intended or not."
This is the logical bear-trap that continually leads hawkish leaders to allow crises to spin out of control. "If we don't send more troops, the Viet Cong will have won!" "If we pull our settlements out of the West Bank, Hamas will have won!" "If we pull our troops out of Bosnia, the Albanians will have won!" "If we retreat from the valley of death, the Turks will have won!" This will only be a victory for al-Qaeda if the Socialist leaders of Spain withdraw from the War on Terror entirely. A retreat from a bad strategy (Bush in Iraq) followed by strong international cooperation in a better anti-terror strategy, might ultimately lead to defeat for al-Qaeda. Posted by: Violet at March 16, 2004 08:05 AM | PERMALINKBush's lack of credibility on the Foreign playing field is what will cost him the election. The more he runs on 9/11, the more he distances himself from the middle, and other world leaders, the closer he comes to sharing a rare moniker with his dad . . . . One Termer! Flash For a war you need armies, at least one on each side, last time I checked. No you don't. Posted by Hubris at March 16, 2004 07:59 AM | PERMALINK
Elrod wrote: "I'm starting to wonder if the rightwing outrage is over the timing of the shift in the electorate - shortly after a bomb, which raises legitimate questions of whether Al Qaeda is influencing elections - or the simple fact that a democracy ousted a regime that supported Bush's foreign policy against the will of 90% of that nation." Dead on, Elrod. My own opinion is that we would have seen much of the same rhetoric had the election outcome been the same and there had been no terrorist attack. It would still have been seen as "appeasement" and a " victory for Al Qaeda." If Bush loses in November, we're going to see the same rhetoric then (again, regardless of whether there is an attack). Posted by: PaulB at March 16, 2004 08:21 AM | PERMALINKpostit, I wouldn't presume to enlighten you. :) I'm just saying that one of the definitions of "war": A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious ...is an apt description of the desired struggles against poverty, terrorism, etc., whatever your preferred strategy may be. Posted by: Hubris at March 16, 2004 08:26 AM | PERMALINK1. The bombing was a "Victory" for Al-Qaeda, in that it achieved what they wanted: the deaths of a bunch of westerners and spreading fear. 2. The elections were a victory for those in Spain who want a harder, more realistic, less cynical approach to terrorism. 3. Al Qaeda could not have predicted that Aznar's government would handle the aftermath so poorly. Had he been wiser in his actions, he may have actually increased his support, but then such a wise man would surely have dealt with Al Qaeda earlier, and avoided the Bush delusions. Posted by: Boronx at March 16, 2004 08:30 AM | PERMALINKCome on, Calpundit. Don't be so wishy-washy. Pick a stance for yourself and don't allow to be swayed by what could be a raging artisan communist from Barcelona. The terrorists struck for one reason only - to get Aznar's party out of power. Posted by: Thomas at March 16, 2004 08:31 AM | PERMALINKDid someone say weak on terror? It's now clear that by shifting his focus to Iraq, Mr. Bush did Al Qaeda a huge favor. The terrorists and their Taliban allies were given time to regroup; the resurgent Taliban once again control almost a third of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda has regained the ability to carry out large-scale atrocities. Nice work, Dear Leader. Posted by: flatulus at March 16, 2004 08:32 AM | PERMALINK" A retreat from a bad strategy (Bush in Iraq) followed by strong international cooperation in a better anti-terror strategy, might ultimately lead to defeat for al-Qaeda." Terrific. I'm all for it. Now what would such a strategy look like? Whose plan would we be
following? And would some of us still be alive to appreciate it? flatulus, From the Op-Ed you linked to: But Mr. Bush's lapses in the struggle against terrorism extend beyond his decision to give Al Qaeda a breather. His administration has also run interference for Saudi Arabia — the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers and the main financier of Islamic extremism... Yep, those darn Saudis won't do anything to fight terrorism. Oh, except this, from a few hours ago: RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia's security forces have killed
a man identified as al-Qaida's chief of operations on the Arabian
Peninsula. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0304/16saudi.html Posted by: Hubris at March 16, 2004 08:51 AM | PERMALINKHubris, re: the poll on ABC. Interesting numbers; but don't jump to conclusions. On a brief look I notice that the results are pretty heavily skewed by extremely high positive numbers in the Kurdish region, and to a lesser degree in the south, offsetting pretty low numbers in central Iraq and Baghdad. And this of course is perception; the fact is the water situation is no better now than it was a year ago, hospitals are still suffering from shortages, unemployment is rampant and security, especially in Baghdad, is nonexistent. And no, I'm not arguing that things were better under Saddam, just pointing out that the post war planning was a complete fuckup. Posted by: Hermit at March 16, 2004 09:00 AM | PERMALINKPick a stance for yourself and don't allow to be swayed by what could be a raging artisan communist from Barcelona. Thomas, Consider yourself having jumped the shark. Do you even know Maria? She's my friend and let me assure you that she is not a communist. When you can't make the case on the facts, the only resort of the intellectually and morally bankrupt is to smear. What an ass. Hermit, I don't dispute that we've screwed some stuff up, and acknowledge the mixed polling results. I'm just honestly happy that such a good portion of Iraqis (and who better to judge) feel this way. I'm also happy about the news from Saudi Arabia. This should be considered good news by everyone. Posted by: Hubris at March 16, 2004 09:04 AM | PERMALINKJust a question folks..calm down.... The left kept telling us they didn't like Saddam either..even though they wanted to keep him in power...but why is it that last year, the protestors went to Iraq, but not this year?? Wouldn't it be nice to see thousands of leftist, anti-war activities protesting Americas liberation in down town Baghdad??? WE could have all kinds of signs... Bush Lied! Liberation is no picnic! Bush liberated us and all Bring back the sanctions! Restore Saddam! Bring back the r-pe rooms! Saddam welcome the liberals last year...do you suppose the people of Iraq would embrace them now???????? Hmmmm I agree with you Violet. What is really sad is the nonsense put out by Kevin on this. Even now, the "reason" his post attracted so much attention was that he waded into an issue that had already become a blogosphere free for all. That explains a lot. Another possibility is his original comments did not reflect so positively on him. If the Spanish people saw through Aznar's lies, his disregard for Spanish public opinion, and his reckless and stupid policy of aligning himself in a particularly odious and flagrant manner ("bring em on") and rejected this, in my mind it reflects positively on the Spanish electorate. The question of whether this is a defeat or not for al Qaeda has to be answered in the context of how best to defeat al Qaeda. This is exactly what is lacking in Kevin's post. Posted by: dellaRovere at March 16, 2004 09:20 AM | PERMALINKThis phrase needs to be repeated again and again. “A defeat for George W Bush is not a victory for al-Qaeda”. Did al-Qaeda Win the Spanish Elections? Posted by: Jim S at March 16, 2004 09:26 AM | PERMALINKpostit, I wouldn't presume to enlighten you. :) I'm just saying that one of the definitions of "war": A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious ...is an apt description of the desired struggles against poverty, terrorism, etc., whatever your preferred strategy may be. That's pretty tortured reasoning don't you think Hubris ? Sorry I took so long to get back to you I have been having a lot of fun over at a new repug site I found. Come on over and take a look you might enjoy it, don't expose the ego tho they are viscious. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog "Saddam welcome the liberals last year...do you suppose the people of Iraq would embrace them now???????? Hmmmm" Well, they're not exactly embracing the occupiers either, are they keiser? You know what? The "left" were complaining about Saddam a long time ago. I for one was protesting American support for the bastard in the `80's (for which I was accused of being sympathetic to the Iranians by nitwits like you...some things never change). It was the left that wanted the US to stop supporting Saddam, especially after Halabjah; it was Bush Sr., St. Ronald, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the radical right who squashed the attempts to reign him in him, gave him money, sold him chemicals and germ technology, helicopters, misslie technology, computers, sattelite intelligence so he could direct his chemical attacks on Iranian forces, etc. etc. etc. As has been pointed out it was also the left who objected to the sanctions (personally I blame Saddam more than the west for misdirecting what aid was available, but the whole program was haphazard and poorly managed). So think twice before you make the silly dualistic leap and equate opposition to the war with support for Saddam. It won't fly. Nobody wanted to keep Saddam in power; but some of us didn't (and still don't) accept that a war was going to make things better. Somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 Iraqi civilians killed directly by military action might agree....as might the victims of the continuing lack of security, clean water etc. And until there is a new, stable regime in place and the threat of civil war subsides I for one am at least reserving judgement on whether or not things are better or worse. History does not give us a lot of examples of succesful imposition of new political systems on subject populations by force. Maybe it'll work in Iraq, but I'm not holding my breath. Posted by: Hermit at March 16, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINKWeak on terror ? Just google for "GAL--Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación" - they are said to have killed 29-30 people, not all of them were really terrorists, and most were killed in france. Minister Barrionuevo was sentenced to 10 years of prison for his involvement, and even prime minister Gonzalez (PSOE !) had to appear in court. This scandal was utilized by Aznar´s PP in the 1996 elections and may have won them for him. Posted by: Stefan at March 16, 2004 09:39 AM | PERMALINKI am beginning to suspect some of the warblogging party of having very bad motivations in their bloviating about Spain. To them I ask this question: Should electoral democracy be suspended throughout the west until we have won our war on nouns? That's a pretty simple question, and so far, the overwhelming answer seems to be 'yes.' Posted by: lordwhorfin at March 16, 2004 09:40 AM | PERMALINKCheer up Hermit.its really not that bad,,,your watching too much tragedy TV...and by the way I think you will find that most new political systems came about by force. Posted by: keiser at March 16, 2004 09:40 AM | PERMALINKJim, I prefer: "A defeat of George W. Bush, is a blow to Al Qaeda" George W. Bush: Times of change, instead of leadership. Posted by: emjaycue at March 16, 2004 09:43 AM | PERMALINKSara: ". . . the two parties were not all that far apart in the polls prior to the 11-M attacks. Perhaps 3-4 points." I'm still digesting what actually happened, but I have seen repeatedly polls showed the Popular Party much further ahead in polls right before the attack. Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 09:46 AM | PERMALINK"I think you will find that most new political systems came about by force." I'm talking specifically about the imposition of a new system by external force (think colonialim). In the long run, almost universally ends in disaster for the external force. Posted by: Hermit at March 16, 2004 09:47 AM | PERMALINK1. Kerry has made comments on appeasement before. However he hasn't
said one word after Madrid. Instead he's echoing the "we're not safer"
line. 2. Iraq does not need to have anything to do with Al Qaeda to be the
correct course of action. Iraq simply had to make the US safer on its
own merits. Juan says Iraq, "never could be involved in such a terrorist operation on American soil because its high officers knew exactly the retribution that would be visited on them". Based on that argument, the Taliban government of Afghanistan would never have allowed Al Qaeda to plan 9/11. Strangely enough they did and they refused to hand Osama over. Juan for all his academic qualifications doesn't realise that the average Islamic fundamentalist thinks that they kicked Russia's rear in Afghanistan and given time will break America's will. 3. The US didn't abandon Afghanistan. They just realised that they
needed to slowly work on Pakistan to get their support in cleaning out
the border before they could strike the death blow.
Whoo hoo Researcher! The cavalry has arrived : ) Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 10:19 AM | PERMALINKResearcher, So, because of leftist PC morality which states you are not allowed to jump to immediate conclusions that it was AQ(see Islamophobia), the Aznar was damned either way. THat's the way this neocon sees things. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:27 AM | PERMALINKRush Limbaugh just talked about Kerry's Op Ed in Sep 2002 which called for the Iraq policy that Bush then took. So either Kerry is a flip-flopper or lying hypocrite? Which one LLLs? Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:29 AM | PERMALINKAlso asslibs I wouldn't read too much into Spain, they're a backwater nation to begin with. If you're hoping that this is a prelude to November, you are sadly mistaken. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:34 AM | PERMALINKGunslinger: I think the thing that drives me craziest about Bush is his unwillingness to ever admit a mistake or recognize the viability of other options. Call me goofy, but a possible definition of stupidity is the continued attempt to do a certain thing in the same way that continues to lead to the same disastrous result. Even if what you claim is true, if Kerry admitted that it was wrong, you'd be all over him because of his lack of conviction and perseverance. Square peg into round hole...over and over and over. Posted by: Boggs at March 16, 2004 10:39 AM | PERMALINKAs I read through these comments and reflect over the Spanish bombings, I am struck by how much we all have in common. Lefties and Righties, Andrew Sullivan and Juan Cole. Kevin Drum and Charles Johnson. We are all infidels. Posted by: melk at March 16, 2004 10:41 AM | PERMALINKGunslinger: "So either Kerry is a flip-flopper or lying hypocrite? Which one LLLs?" Both. "I wouldn't read too much into Spain, they're a backwater nation to begin with." Spain is not that bad - just obviously very scared. "If you're hoping that this is a prelude to November, you are sadly mistaken." I can't fathom any American, regardless of party affiliation, HOPING for another 9/11. I would actually think the chances are pretty good that could backfire here if al Qaeda struck right before November 2nd - GWB's polling was never larger than right after 9/11. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised either if some massive voter turnout put the Socialists in power here either ; ) Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 10:41 AM | PERMALINKBoggs: Let's agree to disagree. You obviously don't think Islamofacism exists or is a big danger in the world. Probably Pat Robertson scares you shitless a lot more. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:42 AM | PERMALINKmelk: No, the libs think that only neocons(Jewish and CHristian) are infidels and are truly deserving of death by terrorism. Libs think they are innocent and don't deserve it. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:44 AM | PERMALINKMissed your comment prior to mine, Gunslinger: "Also asslibs I wouldn't read too much into Spain, they're a backwater nation to begin with. If you're hoping that this is a prelude to November, you are sadly mistaken." Forget I tried to have any rational discourse with you. Remember, this is a backwater country that once controlled half of the world. It may be that a strong nation that becomes all too consumed with its own importance and behaves with according arrogance will ultimately become a backwater nation. "Asslibs" - is that your Dale Carnegie attempt at influence? Posted by: Boggs at March 16, 2004 10:45 AM | PERMALINKResearcher, Scotus, I'm sure you can give Afghanistan a high score now with the benefit of hindsight. Before 9/11, No contest. Has anyone realised that if Kerry was actually told something in confidence. He probably was told not to mention it at all? Kerry...the 'experienced' diplomat.
Spain is big because although 90% opposed the war in Iraq (when was the last time 90% opposed anything in the US?!), the government supported it anyway. That government was going to get re-elected, but now it's thrown out. As for Kerry's calls for Iraq, that was, ahem, based off the lies
that President Bush was presenting the nation. Calling Kerry a hypocrit
for changing his mind after the revelations of the past year is, well,
stupid. Charlie: Not true. The hard left have repeatedly said they want another 9/11 to get them back into power. What was that professor who said he wanted a million Mogadishus on American soil? He is truly the representative of modern liberalism as a mental disorder not an idealogy. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINKPat Robertson is Christianity's version of Khomeni. If our laws allowed, Pat would have it just like them. Posted by: Boggs at March 16, 2004 10:47 AM | PERMALINKWhy is Kerry NOT coming out and saying such a thing? Why is Kerry not calling bush and aznar the liars they are for somehow trying to implicate the WHOLE of spain who he praised not a week ago while the bodies still lay on the train for being courageous but who now says are appeasers because they do not support the bush view of arrogance, fear and deception. Probably because he's smart enough to know that on a very basic level, its not his business to be second guessing the political decisions of the Spanish people. We have to remember that Spain just lost 200 innocent folks. Can you imagine the reaction in this country if the government in Spain had come out, say three days after the 9/11 attacks and started criticizing the Bush administration for ignoring the Al Queda threat? I think that the Bush administration is a terrible one, but if someone had had the gall to criticize them in this manner so close to 9/11 it would have infuriated me. It seems to me that the people on this board should have the decency to have the same consideration, but apparently not. Posted by: Another Bruce at March 16, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKAs for Kerry's calls for Iraq, that was, ahem, based off the lies that President Bush was presenting the nation. Calling Kerry a hypocrit for changing his mind after the revelations of the past year is, well, stupid. So Kerry is an easily manipulated fool then? Not then man we should ever have as President. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKIs the hard left comparable to the celebrated right, who claim that 9/11 is God's punishment for our sins? Or how about the wish that they had flown planes into the NY Times or they had bombed the State Dept.? Mental disorders, indeed. Posted by: Boggs at March 16, 2004 10:50 AM | PERMALINKWhy is Kerry NOT coming out and saying such a thing? Why is Kerry not calling bush and aznar the liars they are for somehow trying to implicate the WHOLE of spain who he praised not a week ago while the bodies still lay on the train for being courageous but who now says are appeasers because they do not support the bush view of arrogance, fear and deception. This illustrates the mad-dog, crazed attitude that 99.99% of the left has these days. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINKIs the hard left comparable to the celebrated right, who claim that 9/11 is God's punishment for our sins? Or how about the wish that they had flown planes into the NY Times or they had bombed the State Dept.? Mental disorders, indeed. The difference is that you can only point to Pat Robertson and a few others as kooks, justifiably, but millions of leftists are certifiably insane. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:52 AM | PERMALINKGunslinger: If Kerry is the easily manipulated fool, what then does that make the President? Posted by: Boggs at March 16, 2004 10:53 AM | PERMALINKAnother sign of evil/mental disorder? from the left is yet another evil murderous genocide bombing happened in ISrael on the weekend, and nary a leftist had anything to say about it. I guess all those women and kids blown up are "combatants". Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINKIf Kerry is the easily manipulated fool, what then does that make the President? Continuing to play this game, that means Bush is master Machiavelan leader which I would greatly admire. Better that then a crazed fool like Kerry. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:55 AM | PERMALINKKevin, Reading your ill-informed "victory for Qaeda" post and subsequent attempts to spin your observations of what you perceived to be "obvious" makes me want to puke. I'm disappointed. To all the rest of you who believe that this "battle" for the soul of the world (any fundamentalist Christians or Islamicists out there? please go fuck yourself) will be measured in terms of *successful* bombings with "victors" and "losers" , please oblige me: name an incident where terrorists successfully blew up and killed hundreds of people, all according to plan, but which was NOT considered by the terrorists to be successful. Posted by: Chishu Ryu at March 16, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINKThe Aznar government dragged Spain into the Iraq war even though 91% of Spaniards opposed it; lied about the bombing, and it has cost Aznar's governemt dearly in this election but more importantly the Conservatives were losing ground to the Socialists in local elections in 2000 and 2003. In 2000, Aznar's Conservative party got 46.6% against the Social-Democratic party which got 34.1%, and a host of other minor parties at 5% and below, splitting up the other 20%. In 2003, Aznar's conservative party got 33.8% against the 34.7% for the social-democratic main opposition. It is only logical to believe the voters would take this opportunity to slam the Aznar government. BTW the Conservative party's lead in the National elections had shrunk from double digits to only 5%, 9 days before the election, which was well before the al-Quada bombings. So, IMO there is no evidence from these election results that the Spanish public desires the new Socialist government to pull back from an agressive antiterrorist campaign against al-Qaeda or in any way is this a victory for al-Quada, especially when the first words out to the new PM's mouth were: "My most immediate priority is to fight all forms of terrorism and my first initiative, tomorrow, will be to seek a union of political forces to join us together in fighting it. " Just what al-Quada wanted to achieve from the bombings, a world united in counter-insurgency operations against al-Qaeda and sister organizations. Posted by: mlhm5 at March 16, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINKName the leftist kooks. The Hollywood left, NY Times, WA Post, 90% of the Congressional Democrats, the DNC attack machine, Hitlery "Wants Genocide" Clinton, Berkeley, Tacoma Park(MD), Rachel Corrie's parents, NYU, Harvard, NEA, AFL-CIO, LA Times, Moveon.org, Howard Dean, etc.... Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINKI notice no comment from the right about the continued futility of Palestinian bombings followed by Israeli retaliation followed by Palestinian bombing followed by Israeli retaliation, ad infinitum. Posted by: Boggs at March 16, 2004 10:58 AM | PERMALINKI notice no comment from the right about the continued futility of Palestinian bombings followed by Israeli retaliation followed by Palestinian bombing followed by Israeli retaliation, ad infinitum. That's becaase you support FOggy Bottom's policy of restraining Israel from annihilating the PLO/Hamas once and for all. You prefer the cycle of violence as it is, because Jewish victory would leave a nasty taste in your anti-semitic mouth. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINKYou named three people in that list. You're aren't really making a claim that every individual in the organizations you mentioned are all leftist kooks, are you? You seem to be headed into tin foil hat territory, Gunslinger. Good day. Posted by: Boggs at March 16, 2004 11:01 AM | PERMALINKFunny Gunslinger, I am Jewish. But stupidity and arrogance should not be tolerated due to one's ethnicity or religious affiliation. Anti-semitic? Yeah, that's me. I have a feeling your outlook has more to do with Arab hatred than Jewish love. Posted by: Boggs at March 16, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINKFunny Gunslinger, I am Jewish. But stupidity and arrogance should not be tolerated due to one's ethnicity or religious affiliation. Anti-semitic? Yeah, that's me. I have a feeling your outlook has more to do with Arab hatred than Jewish love. Well it's LLL Jews like you that pushed Oslo like it was the messianic dream coming true, and 1200 dead Jews, 10,000 maimed Jews later, what do you have to say for your mad dream? Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 11:05 AM | PERMALINKI have a feeling your outlook has more to do with Arab hatred than Jewish love. How does my desire to destroy PLO/Hamas/Jihad = hatred of Arabs? Tinfoil hat time? Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 11:09 AM | PERMALINK1. Kerry has made comments on appeasement before. However he
hasn't said one word after Madrid. Instead he's echoing the "we're not
safer" line. Did you forget that the PNAC was openly hoping for another "Pearl Harbor type event" to speed their agenda along? Iraq was a gathering threat of its own with its own terror links (Al-Qaeda or not). An Iraqi funded terror effort would have been bigger and badder than Al Qaeda because it had more money. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Al Qaeda is financed by the Saudis. How much do you think they're worth? How many hundreds of millions of dollars is Bin Laden alone worth? If brains were dynamite . . . In addition knocking [Iraq] down, helped the US get leverage over Libya and dismantle the WMD arms network. Leverage over Libya? We needed to topple Iraq to gain leverage over Gadhafi??? Earth to researcher, Earth to researcher . . . only in your wildest paranoid fantasies was Gadhafi an active threat. Trying to dismantle the WMD network via Libya [or Iraq] is like the guy looking for his lost quarter in the street. When asked where he lost it he points to the alley. When asked why he's looking in the street and not the alley he replies, "Because the lighting is much better here." Posted by: Thumb at March 16, 2004 11:10 AM | PERMALINKFunny how these rightwing extremist nutjobs just keep posting like we give a shit what they think. Self delusion in action. Posted by: Will G. at March 16, 2004 11:10 AM | PERMALINKPlease stop feeding the troll. So, circle jerk is better then honest debate? Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 11:14 AM | PERMALINKBoggs: best to ignore the trolls. Conversing with them is the essence of futility. Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 16, 2004 11:14 AM | PERMALINKFrom reading your posts and passionate opinions, it is quite clear to me, how vulnerable our electoral process and civic community would be to chaos in the event of an attack here. Don't you think all sides don't know this ("terrorists", Bushco, Kerry)already? I'd say that the chances are better than even that we will have a major disruptive event in this country prior to the election. Who benefits? I'd say 1) obviously the "terrorists" 2) Bush 3) Bush and the terrorists. Only by a miracle of rationality, common sense and reason previously unobserved in the American population since 911, would Kerry benefit. Actually, #1 and 2 need each other very much. Bush has given Al Qaeda and a bunch of other groups great power and validation. They have given him a raison d'etre and the only justification he can give for being re-elected to those of us completely consumed by fear - " I will keep you afraid and keep doing what I am doing" - fighting fire with gasoline to make more terrorists. Its a marriage made in heaven. Sadly, I don't think that the American response would be to repudiate Bush and his methods/approaches as the Spaniards did. We would "back our leader" in a time of war - further isolating us and exacerbating this situation into even more of a police state. I don't know about you, but Canada is starting to look real good to me. Posted by: Elie at March 16, 2004 11:15 AM | PERMALINKAznar might be one of the more prinicipled politicians, alongside Blair, that I can recall in recent history. Each was willing to set aside public opinion, polling data, etc... and make a decision that was politically risky, at best, but also one that they knew to be fundamentally right / correct. As for whether or not this is good news for the terrorists, I can assure you that having a leader elected that proposes appeasement is not making them run crying in fear. The terrorists now believe that they can bomb innocent civilians, and the government and/or electorate will cower in fear. This will not set them back, and in fact, will likely result in more bombings in other countries. They are maniacal homicidal bastards, who can only be dealt with by sheer force, that is the only language that they understand. Posted by: JD at March 16, 2004 11:16 AM | PERMALINKSorry Randy, I always assume that people can be reasonable and start from there. I was wrong. I didn't realize just how warped my view of the world was. Fortunately, I have been set straight by our friend, Mr. G. I'm off to get my kool-aid. Posted by: Boggs at March 16, 2004 11:16 AM | PERMALINKSandals says "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998Posted by: Ron at March 16, 2004 11:17 AM | PERMALINK gunslinger: Well, I still can't fathom it. mlhm5: ". . . the Conservative party's lead in the National elections had shrunk from double digits to only 5% . . . IMO there is no evidence from these election results that the Spanish public desires the new Socialist government to pull back from an agressive antiterrorist campaign against al-Qaeda or in any way is this a victory for al-Quada . . ." What else accounted for leading by 5% and losing by 35% then?! The Socialists also soared from 125 seats to 164 in the outgoing 350-seat legislature. Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 11:20 AM | PERMALINKlosing by 35% Wrong! Better luck next time with the phony horse manure. Posted by: alfie at March 16, 2004 11:23 AM | PERMALINKI frankly think it's massive appeasement to be be so freaking concerned about whether Al Qaeda thinks this was a victory for them. I don't give a fig for what Al Qaeda thinks. They are irrational fundamentalists! We aren't going to win a war on terror the way it's currently being fought (i.e. attacking someone who had no WMDs, who wasn't involved in the attack on 9/11, diverting resources from our actual enemies to the personal enemies of the Republican DemiGod Bush). Take a look at Israel/Palestine - yep, that war thing works really well, doesn't it? I'm saying it right now: if there is an attack on the U.S. prior to the November elections, I'm heaping the blame on those who failed to protect us while they went after someone who was not a threat to us: The Bush Administration. Posted by: maurinsky at March 16, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINK"freedom" fly They are maniacal homicidal bastards, who can only be dealt with by sheer force, that is the only language that they understand. But what type of force? Bush's Iraq policy is totally ineffectual and has ultimately made the U.S. look less potent. He is at once both WEAKNESS and ARROGANCE personified. A trait his dogmabot followers would describe as very "French" could they but see it. What weapons has the invasion of Iraq denied AQ and their ideological spawn? How many strong emotional alliances with the U.S. has the invasion of Iraq helped to forge? How many footsoldiers of the shadowy, amorphous islamoterrorist network has the invasion of Iraq killed? How many non-terrorist citizens of Islamic countries has the invasion of Iraq convinced that U.S. policy is ultimately in their best interest? Bush has made the terrorist problem worse while refusing to critically examine his policies in order to make them more effective. This administration has an obvious aversion to bad news, and that is very dangerous. They're flying blind. We need another pilot. I guess the Texas ANG figured that out years ago. The fundemantal truth about LLLs: They think GW Bush is the greatest threat alive and not Islomofascism. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 11:44 AM | PERMALINKalfie: "Wrong! Better luck next time with the phony horse manure." Oh, so the Popular Party really won by 5%?! maurinsky: "I frankly think it's massive appeasement to be be so freaking concerned about whether Al Qaeda thinks this was a victory for them. I don't give a fig for what Al Qaeda thinks." Well, I hope the people tasked with preventing the next 9/11 give a fig. "They are irrational fundamentalists! Agreed, but we still need to try to figure them out (it's part of that whole "catching them" thing, you know?) "We aren't going to win a war on terror the way it's currently being fought . . ." You mean CAPTURING / KILLING EVERY SINGLE member of al Qaeda will not reduce their capabilities?! Darn - I would have thought that would have worked ; ) "i.e. attacking someone who had no WMDs . . ." Saddam did have WMDs. ". . . who wasn't involved in the attack on 9/11 . . ." According to whom, Saddam?! ". . . diverting resources from our actual enemies to the personal enemies of the Republican DemiGod Bush)." And what if, just on the outside chance, said personal enemies were going to carry out an attack BIGGER than 9/11? "Take a look at Israel/Palestine - yep, that war thing works really well, doesn't it?" That's a whole other thread. "I'm saying it right now: if there is an attack on the U.S. prior to the November elections, I'm heaping the blame on those who failed to protect us while they went after someone who was not a threat to us: The Bush Administration." Oh, you're a Clark voter, huh? Sorry to point out so many inconsistencies, but what "blame" can you assign if you are the one who just said we should not "be so freaking concerned about whether Al Qaeda thinks this was a victory for them. I don't give a fig for what Al Qaeda thinks"? Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINKI don't know if this is really on point but as someone pointed out on Atrios the attack in Spain on 3-11 happened 912 days after 9-11. Now this may be a coincindence and I have no idea whether Al Quaeda think this way but in thinking about these dates I got to wondering. In the United States the police emergency number is 911 which is now the generally accepted way of stating the attack on September 11. In the U.K. the police emergency number is 999. Nine hundred and ninety nine days from 9-11 is June 6, 2004. The 60th anniversery of D-day. Anyone else not planning to be in England on this day? Posted by: Bob Smith at March 16, 2004 11:47 AM | PERMALINKHow many footsoldiers of the shadowy, amorphous islamoterrorist network has the invasion of Iraq killed? Quite a few, since they've been streaming across the Syrian/Iranian borders the last year. Doh! I guess you don't read the newspaper! Doh! Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 11:47 AM | PERMALINKThe terrorists now believe that they can bomb innocent civilians, and the government and/or electorate will cower in fear. That's not a matter of "now" -- it's the fucking definition of terrorism, dumbass. Posted by: FlipYrWhig at March 16, 2004 11:48 AM | PERMALINKAznar might be one of the more prinicipled politicians, alongside Blair, that I can recall in recent history. Each was willing to set aside public opinion, polling data, etc... and make a decision that was politically risky, at best, but also one that they knew to be fundamentally right / correct. As for whether or not this is good news for the terrorists, I can assure you that having a leader elected that proposes appeasement is not making them run crying in fear. The terrorists now believe that they can bomb innocent civilians, and the government and/or electorate will cower in fear. This will not set them back, and in fact, will likely result in more bombings in other countries. They are maniacal homicidal bastards, who can only be dealt with by sheer force, that is the only language that they understand. Your whole analysis boils down to a advocating a freeze on democratic elections until the outrageously misnamed "WOT" is finished with. Tell me how THAT would not be victory for Al Qeada ! Posted by: postit at March 16, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINKRush is right. Whenever Iraq War gets mentioned a LLL turns into a raving, crazed mad-dog ready to spout "Where are the WMDs!" "Where are the WMDs!""Where are the WMDs!""Where are the WMDs!""Where are the WMDs!""Where are the WMDs!""Where are the WMDs!""Where are the WMDs!" pssst... in Syria Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINKSpeaking of Syria, another domino soon to fall... Predict an invasion there in April 2005... Go BUSH/CHENEY JUNTA!!!! Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINKGunslinger: Sick, sick, sick. You actually believe that stuff? Damn man. Ron: Good point. Thing is, everyone (including the left) believed empirically that Iraq had WMDs- lots of em- etc.,etc.,etc. Of course, that letter is not urging an invasion of Iraq. You can find such evidence later, after Bush's presentations on the subject. Gunslinger: It's really sick that you're applauding Bush for lying to the country. Jesus. Here's Bush's presentation on the subject. "The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith." -Bush, Oct 7., 2002. IMHO, we should have finished the Baathists back in 91. O well. But I can understand Bush I's hesitation to be labeled the root cause of "Vietnam II". Posted by: Sandals at March 16, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINKjd, i'm not sure if blair and aznar are principled so much as they believed the neocon fantasy about a quick, easy victory in iraq. if that had panned out their support for it probably would have helped them politically. i think that is what they were hoping for. pardon the mind reading. its just my opinion. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 16, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINKOh, so the Popular Party really won by 5%?! You said they lost by 35%. You're being disingenuous and deceptive. Either quit shoveling the horse manure or back it up with a citation. Posted by: alfie at March 16, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINKedie: "I guess because our president is a simpleton . . ." Wow - I hadn't thought of it that way before - a simpleton beat your side in 2000 AND 2002 elections (hopefully 2004 as well) - so, what does that say about the intellectual capacity of YOUR SIDE?! lobbygow: "But what type of force?" The best trained and equipped the world has ever witnessed. "Bush's Iraq policy is totally ineffectual and has ultimately made the U.S. look less potent . . ." LOL - tell that to Saddam and Qaddafi!!! I'd much rather have out military draw in terrorists and deal with them in Iraq than the same on our city streets (see Israel above). "He is at once both WEAKNESS and ARROGANCE personified. A trait his dogmabot followers would describe as very "French" could they but see it." Yeah - I guess I just don't see weakness in Bring 'em on ; ) "What weapons has the invasion of Iraq denied AQ and their ideological spawn?" You mean other than WMD, right? "How many strong emotional alliances with the U.S. has the invasion of Iraq helped to forge?" The Coalition of the Willing numbered 45 prior to Spain pulling out. "How many footsoldiers of the shadowy, amorphous islamoterrorist network has the invasion of Iraq killed?" Thousands. "How many non-terrorist citizens of Islamic countries has the invasion of Iraq convinced that U.S. policy is ultimately in their best interest?" Not all (yet ; ) "Bush has made the terrorist problem worse while refusing to critically examine his policies in order to make them more effective. This administration has an obvious aversion to bad news, and that is very dangerous. They're flying blind. We need another pilot. I guess the Texas ANG figured that out years ago." I disagree, obviously. Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 11:55 AM | PERMALINKYou LLLs are sick, twisted retards. Pure and simple. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 11:57 AM | PERMALINKGunslinger I read a little of your comments and by and large I agree with you. If people who opposed the war in Iraq before it began, while it is ongoing and during the glorious occupation, vote to get out of the war, they ARE appeasers. Bush having drawn the lines in the run-up to the war, those on the other side (the less willing) are appeasers (by definition). Get that gun out and start slinging. Posted by: dellaRovere at March 16, 2004 11:59 AM | PERMALINKalfie: "You said they lost by 35%. You're being disingenuous and deceptive. Either quit shoveling the horse manure or back it up with a citation." I'll see if I can find it again - I read it right after the election though - if you promise to quit the personal attacks. Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 12:00 PM | PERMALINKAs for Kerry's calls for Iraq, that was, ahem, based off the lies that President Bush was presenting the nation. Calling Kerry a hypocrit for changing his mind after the revelations of the past year is, well, stupid Talk about selected use of intelligence. Please indicate the exact
lies that Bush presented to the nation, as you appear to have insight
information that he House and Senate committee's do no have. Senate Democrats demanded that the investigation consider whether the Bush administration exaggerated the Iraqi threat beyond the conclusions of intelligence reports. Roberts said the committee investigation has found no such instances, though Democrats have cited several. USA Today Monday, March 15, 2004 Kerry as a Senior member of the Senate, and Foreign Relation Committee had access to the information that the White House had. The purpose of the Legislature/Executive relationship is to check and balance. Either, Kerry saw the same information and agreed, or he failed to do his job. As the bipartisan committee appears to be going with, the CIA is the primary blame (A Dem appointment, carried over by Rep admin so who's to blame?) Posted by: Sinop85 at March 16, 2004 12:00 PM | PERMALINKBefore I get another personal attack on the number of Coalition of the Willing: http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:4UlNVd6j80QJ:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm+%22coalition+of+the+willing%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 See you all after lunch : ) Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINKHow many footsoldiers of the shadowy, amorphous islamoterrorist network has the invasion of Iraq killed? Quite a few, since they've been streaming across the Syrian/Iranian
borders the last year. Doh! I guess you don't read the newspaper! Doh! Why should I read a bunch of filth published by liberal kooks? Let't do some math. A) Number of terrorists killed crossing Syrian/Iranian borders B) Number of new recruits motivated by U.S. invasion of yet another arab state. A - B = ? In my opinion, Bush's Iraq policy has led to a net gain in footsoldiers for AQ and their affiliates. But since there is no way of counting B, I can't back it up. One more thing for those of you who say that force is the only language terrorists undertand... Granted, but what if they like the conversation so much that they want to keep it going? How can the threat of force be a deterrent to someone who is willing to KILL THEMSELVES for their beliefs? Posted by: lobbygow at March 16, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINKI'll see if I can find it again - I read it right after the election though - if you promise to quit the personal attacks. If this is an honest mistake, then I take back what I said. Although I should add that you did specifically skip over the "35%" part in your first reply, which was what I was disputing. lobbygow- Obviously we aren't "threatening" force against Al Qaeda, we are using it. What you miss is that if they are willing to blow themselves up for their beliefs... how are we supposed to talk to them to convince them otherwise? And what other alternatives do you see besides defending ourselves and hiding? Posted by: Darch at March 16, 2004 12:08 PM | PERMALINKDarch: LLLs believe that dealing with AQ is a law enforcement problem, no different then "managing" the streets of Cincinatti or East St. Louis. You know how well THAT's been going the last 30 years.... Yes, read Abdullah his miranda rights, what's that a bomb belt, oh no!!!! KABOOM!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 12:13 PM | PERMALINKGunslinger, when your IQ reaches 60, sell. Sure, let's invade Syria right freakin' now. But how can we get the world to jump on board? I know, we'll claim Syria has WMDs! Right, because that worked so freakin' well the last time! That alone is a reason why GWB needs to be ushered out the door in November. He and his neocon administration have lost so much credibility that even if they did locate a legitimate threat somewhere in the world, there might not be anybody who'd believe them. I want a president, dammit, not The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. Posted by: Doug Gillett at March 16, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINKIf a person is still rational: what is the best way to fight terrorism? Our militiary is geared and designed to battle countries and can effectively do so. Afganistan, where the government allowed or helped terrorists, was a viable target for country overtaking country war in going after tereorists. But Iraq? The case was not so clear here that attacking Iraq would somehow adversly affect AQ terrorists. People who address this issue honestly do not appease the terrorists-they just look for what is the most cost effective, most direct method of dealing with terrorism. Surely a better way exists than going off half cocked and killing who knows what stands in our way and costing us more than $200biilion in the hopes of killing what few if any terrorists might be in Iraq. I refuse to believe that finding the best solution for each condition that comes up in America does not brand me appeaser, asslib, or whatever... Note to repub campaign officials: it might not be a good idea to attempt to blame a terrorist attack on the wrong party, lie about it, and have the truth be found out just before an election. That close to an election even the right wing media may not be able to spin it more favorable in time. Posted by: MRB at March 16, 2004 12:21 PM | PERMALINKDoug Gillett: Buy a clue, you limp-brained idiot. AQ is out there and they're coming to destroy America because they hate our values. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 12:21 PM | PERMALINKSorry Randy, I always assume that people can be reasonable and start from there. I was wrong. I didn't realize just how warped my view of the world was. Fortunately, I have been set straight by our friend, Mr. G. I'm off to get my kool-aid. Boggs, of course the problem wasn't with you. A troll of any stripe is to be ignored. Posted by: Randy Paul at March 16, 2004 12:22 PM | PERMALINKThe sum total of MRB's last post is: I don't have a solution to terrorism, I know it isn't changing the MIddle East like Bush wants to do , but I know that there HAS to be a more peaceful solution out there!!!! What brain-dead delusional wet-dreams! Go circle jerk yourselves asslibs, because you ain't getting any otherwise, if you know what I mean. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINKRandy Paul: You can ignore me all day, but you won't ignore Bush's landslide win in November which will cause another round of depression in LLLs followed by binge drinking, eating, smoking, lamentations, teeth gnashing, head-hitting, self-mutilation, etc.... Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 12:25 PM | PERMALINKJuan Cole makes the point that the Spain vote was a defeat for both bush and al qaeda. Below is the last paragraph of today's comments by Juan Cole. go to juancole.com and read all of his brilliant analysis! "With the secession of Spain from the "coalition of the willing," the rug has been pulled out from under the Bush doctrine of preemption, the Bush commitment to US military action without a proper UNSC resolution, and the Bush conviction that you can fool all the people all the time. Since Bush administration militarism and desire to go about overthrowing most of the governments in the Middle East actually was highly destabilizing and created enormous numbers of potential recruits for al-Qaeda, the Spanish actions are a great victory for the counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda." Posted by: George D at March 16, 2004 12:25 PM | PERMALINKIf Spain's vote is supposed to be a victory for AQ, then by that standard, Bush has been Osama's toy boy for three years now. Posted by: Lupin at March 16, 2004 12:29 PM | PERMALINKpostit : I never said, or even implied, that a freeze on democratic elections was the answer, or even an option. All I stated is that the Spanish electorates's decision to cower in fear in the face of the terrorist attack will serve to bolster the confidence of the Islamofascists. I fail to see how a coalition country's retreat into the turtle position can be construed as a sign of strength, or intestinal fortitude. Posted by: JD at March 16, 2004 12:30 PM | PERMALINKYou can ignore me all day, but you won't ignore Bush's landslide win in November which will cause another round of depression in LLLs followed by binge drinking, eating, smoking, lamentations, teeth gnashing, head-hitting, self-mutilation, etc.... [BIG YAWN] Posted by: Randy Paul at March 16, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINKI've been noticing a lot of references to the Socialists, in terms of the Socialist Party, of Spain, so I thought I'd remind everyone that we should check our assumptions at the door. In America, a Socialist Party is far, far different from the Socialist Party in Spain. The Socialist Party in Spain is really the social democracy or welfare state party, similar to the Democratic Party but more to the left. It also should be kept in mind that there is another major party to the left of the Socialist Party in Spain. In sum, distinguish between socialists and the Socialist Party, or Socialists (capital S in Spain). The Socialist Party is, ironically, populated mainly be people who are not socialist by our definition. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINKThe Iranian hostage crisis was the final undoing of Jimmy Carter's presidency. By electing Ronald Reagan instead, we did the bidding of Islamic extremists! Posted by: FlipYrWhig at March 16, 2004 12:34 PM | PERMALINKBy electing Ronald Reagan instead, we did the bidding of Islamic extremists! And then sold them weapons as a sign of our gratitude for holding Americans hostage until the moment of Ronnie's inauguration. Why do Republicans keep appeasing terrorists? One day... the FBI is going to round up all of you libs and send you to the re-education camps you so richly deserve! Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 12:47 PM | PERMALINKIt also should be kept in mind that there is another major party to the left of the Socialist Party in Spain.
I am reminded that Republicans can distort any event, disregard any fact, and posture self-righteously on any topic. Unless the GOP had considerable advance knowledge of Paul Wellstone's death in 2002, it's unlikely that his funeral had any impact on their voting patterns in Florida two years before. You twit. Posted by: Californian at March 16, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINKSo, let me get this right, if a person terrorizes me the only way to defeat them is kill them, oh and maybe his family etc to detract the others. Attempting to understand why he hates me so much and if there is anything I can do about it just won't work. Wow, why don't we handle everything this way-the next time someone gets in my face about diplomacy versus war I'll just shoot him? Posted by: MRB at March 16, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINKEasy there, Gunslinger. Holster that quick draw irritation pistol. Try to be subtle, like me :-) Posted by: Ron at March 16, 2004 12:51 PM | PERMALINKlobbygow- Obviously we aren't "threatening" force against Al Qaeda, we are
using it. What you miss is that if they are willing to blow themselves
up for their beliefs... how are we supposed to talk to them to convince
them otherwise? No Darch, I don't miss that at all. I would personally be happy to strangle and disembowel any confirmed terrorist organizers I could get my hands on. I ride the NYC subway every day and fly 3-4 times a month. Even though I know the risk is relatively low, I don't like to have just one more thing to worry about. But Bush is the one who is "missing" by applying force in the wrong fucking place. The efforts in Afghanistan (which I fully supported) obviously dealt a blow to Osama's AQ network. The only trouble is, those gains now appear to have been all but erased because of our ill advised invasion of Iraq, which consumes intelligence resources that might best be applied elsewhere. What happens if we need the troops themselves for an operation elsewhere? If Bush really thought Iraq had weapons (he convinced me initially), then why aren't we more focused on the intelligence failure? Posted by: lobbygow at March 16, 2004 12:54 PM | PERMALINKWhat? The self-important rightwingers are still here posting away like anybody here gives crap what they think? Their delusions continue. Posted by: Will G. at March 16, 2004 12:55 PM | PERMALINKhttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=4&u=/ap/20040316/ap_on_re_eu/france_islamic_threats Ok, if the only reason Islamists want to kill us is Iraq. Why are they now threatening France? ======= Mrb- Imagine if you and your enemy have guns. He says to you, "We'll talk if you put your gun in your holster first". Diplomacy is fine. Weakening your negotiating position is stupid. Letting terrorism work with no response is letting your opponent get a few free shots in.
Researcher : They are threatening France because they know that the "cheese eating surrender frogs" will wave the white flag quicker than Bobby Knight can drop another f-bomb. Posted by: JD at March 16, 2004 01:01 PM | PERMALINKI guess not too many people here have seen the movie "The Battle of Algiers". It is an excellent movie and an excellent lesson for the fight against Al Qaeda. The French in Algeria, used extreme measures to capture the leadership of the Algerian nationalist terrorist organizations, and lost the respect and loyalty of the Algerian people in the process. Two years after capturing the entire terrorist organization, the people of Algiers spontaneously gathered in immense demonstrations and waved their banned flag. These demonstrations lasted as long as it took for the French to realize that there was nothing they could do against the entire population of the country, and De Gaulle wisely decided to withdraw from the colony. I urge everyone to rent this movie and to draw their own conclusions. Posted by: Michele at March 16, 2004 01:02 PM | PERMALINK"Go circle jerk yourselves asslibs, because you ain't getting any otherwise, if you know what I mean." Major case of projection here...especially hilarious from someone who
calls himself "The Gunslinger" (such a baaaadass!) while regularly
working himself into a lather at the sound of Rush's voice! > Clearly, in bushism logic, the only way to win this >war is to invade every arab nation, kill nearly all >of their inhabitants, and cow the pitiful remainder >into meek submission. I would put forth that we can actually reason and compromise better with Al Qaeda than with Leftist Wackos like the above. We liberated Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan (indirectly). Now we are about to liberate Iran, Lebanon and Syria (after the next terror act against the USA). The only people we kill are the dictators and their supporters who do not like us. And then only those who are about to shoot at us. Bush has been unbelievably measured in his response to 9-11. If I could vote for a more hardline guy for president, I would. And I am a liberal Democrat. You don't have to be a right winger to want democracy in the Middle East. Even when democracy leads to nihilist children in Spain voting for what the terrorists want (polls show that the MTV kids in urban Spain swung the election). Also: Don't anti-war men understand how repulsive they are in the eyes of women who wouldn't trust them for a second in either their morals or their potential willingness to fight for them against another man? Posted by: Kim Peterson at March 16, 2004 01:05 PM | PERMALINKJD postit : I never said, or even implied, that a freeze on democratic elections was the answer, or even an option. All I stated is that the Spanish electorates's decision to cower in fear in the face of the terrorist attack will serve to bolster the confidence of the Islamofascists. I fail to see how a coalition country's retreat into the turtle position can be construed as a sign of strength, or intestinal fortitude. Just because you don't explicitly say so doesn't mean that is the only logical conclusion you can make after reading your screed. You assume too much freind, make your points without divining what
you don't know from what you don't understand simply to fit your
preconcieved ideas about how the world works. Bush has been unbelievably measured in his response to 9-11. If I could vote for a more hardline guy for president, I would. And I am a liberal . . . Zzzzzzzzzzzz . . . Posted by: Thumb at March 16, 2004 01:11 PM | PERMALINKAlso: Don't anti-war men understand how repulsive they are in the eyes of women who wouldn't trust them for a second in either their morals or their potential willingness to fight for them against another man? Posted by Kim Peterson at March 16, 2004 01:05 PM | PERMALINK Err, forgive me but just what the hell is that crap all about, are you having a Phylis Schaffley moment dear ? Not to worry lie down and take a pill, it'll be over soon and hubby will be back from work soon to smooth that furrowed brow with some kind words like "what's for dinner". Oh, and keep that white feather to yourself bitch cos if you wave it
in front of my face again it's going were the sun don't shine in a
heartbeat ! I guess not too many people here have seen the movie "The Battle of Algiers" I used to work for the company that distributed it in the US. The Pentagon has been waatching it regularly. Posted by: Randy Paul at March 16, 2004 01:13 PM | PERMALINKMichelle- So what does Algiers have to do with France being threatened? They aren't occupying anywhere now but France. On Israel's use of violence not working against Palestinians, it certainly worked better than German Jews's non-violence against Hitler. Posted by: Researcher at March 16, 2004 01:14 PM | PERMALINKThe only people we kill are the dictators and their supporters who do not like us. But almost no one likes you, buddy. So, the guy who said that your idea of winning this 'war' is to "kill nearly all" appears to be exactly correct. Posted by: billy at March 16, 2004 01:16 PM | PERMALINKWhy are you liberals so obsessed with Afhanistan? Do you realize that the War on Terror should not merely be fought in the mountains on the Afghan-Pakistan border? Terrorism is a world-wide problem. You liberals are fixated on catching one guy. Too bad you don't realize that it is way too simplistic to think that terrorism will end when one man, Osama bin Laden, is captured. Clue into the wider picture, folks. Posted by: Thomas at March 16, 2004 01:17 PM | PERMALINKWhere the hell did all the asshats come from? Has CalPundit been "targeted" by a wacko-blog or what? It's hard to have rational discussions here anymore. For now, let's have Bush Zen: "Don't anti-war men understand how repulsive they are in the eyes of women who wouldn't trust them for a second in either their morals or their potential willingness to fight for them against another man?" To be considered repulsive by the likes of you? I'd call that a compliment. Posted by: JK at March 16, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINKResearcher: I did not imply unilateral disarmament. The point is that the terrorists, their organizers, and their fund sources are held accountable but only them. Our militiary, having been trained to fight country to country type battles is not trained or used beneficially to hunt down isolated terrorists inside a country to hold them accountable. How many countries do we want to attack and overtake so that we can search through and find the terrorists amongst them? All the Islamic countries? Cost wise in money and lives lost, is it the most effective way? Terrorism is probably here for along time (it has been here, we just haven't had to deal with it like this) and our methods of dealing with it will determine our safety. What can we do that is effective, doesn't alter our whole way of life (financially and emotionally), and doesn't create more terrorists in the future? I'm afraid that yelling louder, calling people names, or other wise just trying to ram views down other's throats (as in some other comments seen here) won't work and is in fact where terrorists get there start. I don't like X and what he stands for so I'll just blow him up and me with him-that'll show who the idiots are. Posted by: MRB at March 16, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINK"Don't anti-war men understand how repulsive they are in the eyes of women who wouldn't trust them for a second in either their morals or their potential willingness to fight for them against another man?" I'm sure "anti-war" men have no problem bypassing the hysterical shrews for a woman who can think for herself. Posted by: moroboshi at March 16, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINKSandals Concentrated Asshattery, maybe I ought to submit that to Dave Berry as a band name. Posted by: Ron at March 16, 2004 01:24 PM | PERMALINKThey come here because if you post anything except the party line on a rightwing blog, you get banned. I would put forth that we can actually reason and compromise ... Where's my dinner, bitch? Posted by: Pro-War Man at March 16, 2004 01:28 PM | PERMALINKWill G Like I said, they come here becuase if post anything but the party line on a rightwing blog, you get banned. Thomas: The dozens of billions of dollars and thousands of lives expended on liberating Iraq (even though most Iraqis don't think of it that way) could have been far better spent. Real CT-work isn't glamorous or vote-getting, but it works. Hussein's regime had at best tenuous links to terrorism. Furthermore, Bush refused to destroy one of the few confirmed terrorist targets in Iraq, Al-Zaqwari's camp, not once but multiple times, until the general attack was under way. Thus.. attacking Iraq wasn't really about terrorism. That was only a peripheral issue, but it was the one used to justify the war. "Talk about selected use of intelligence. Please indicate the exact lies that Bush presented to the nation, as you appear to have insight information that he House and Senate committee's do no have." Sinop: I suggest you read up on the Office of Special Plans. More here. As for the lies that Bush presented to the nation: "It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons..." So where's these 60,000 to 120,000 liters of Anthrax? Thats a lot to just disappear. "And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons." "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." " Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. " The tubes. Hahaha! However, claims that Saudi Arabia funds terrorism- nah. bin Laden may have been a Saudi, but he'd been estranged for decades by 9/11. Bush still fails to fund basic homeland defense measures such as first responders and port security. Personally, I think BL is dead anyways. Posted by: Sandals at March 16, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINKTo all the "War Party" people?? 1) How are you emailing when you should be fighting or cleaning your
M-16? Afterall, all the sand and dust in iraq can be a problem? or are you just cowards??? Posted by: ladder at March 16, 2004 01:31 PM | PERMALINK"Sandals "Don't anti-war men understand how repulsive they are in the eyes of women who" blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda... This reminded me of the short story "Editha" by William Dean Howells, about a woman with a similar attitude, who manipulates her fiance to enlist for the Spanish-American War, unfortunately for him. (And women like Kim Peterson still dance the jingo, even today.) Check it out. Posted by: JK at March 16, 2004 01:35 PM | PERMALINKMRB- The US will have to confront nations that support terrorism (not just Al-Qaeda) until its actions are a credible enough deterrant to supporting terrorism. Its no different than the British campaigns against piracy and the slave trade. I would argue that it might not be worth it, if the Middle East was getting better on its own. Knocking one dictator down and pressuring the rest diplomatically is the only way to move the situation forward. Posted by: Researcher at March 16, 2004 01:36 PM | PERMALINKI'm afraid that yelling louder, calling people names, or other wise just trying to ram views down other's throats (as in some other comments seen here) won't work and is in fact where terrorists get there start. I don't like X and what he stands for so I'll just blow him up and me with him-that'll show who the idiots are. What you're describing is not terrorism. Terrorism is simply a method of asymmetrical warfare, the way weak fighting the strong. So, one way to end terrorism would be to sufficiently arm your opponent. The other way would be to compromise. To compromise by addressing reasonable grievances, and then to deal with isolated fanatics by the law enforcement methods. Posted by: billy at March 16, 2004 01:38 PM | PERMALINKSandals Well, that's rational Researcher. I don't think the military solution will work for any more nations though. We pushed our luck with Iraq- Our credibility is shot on further wars, at least for the near future. Political and ermmm more under handed ;) means are what we're going to have to use, no matter who is the president next term Posted by: Sandals at March 16, 2004 01:40 PM | PERMALINKbilly : How would you suggest that we compromise, or negotiate, with Osama and Al-Quaeda ? Your theory falls flat on its face when you bring up the "reasonable grievances", or in this case, the lack thereof. How do you compromise with a position such as "complete destruction of western civilization" ? Maybe we should all just sit around a campfire, burn incense, sing Kum-ba-ya, howl at the moon, and get in touch with our inner child. Posted by: JD at March 16, 2004 01:45 PM | PERMALINKSo Researcher, where to next? And when do we get the draft back so that the "nations that support terrorism" can be "confronted"? Here's a clue for you: Bush has destroyed our credibility. We are no longer able to tell the world that someone has terrorist connections, because Hussein did not. We are no longer able to tell the world that someone has WMD, because Hussein did not. Our word is that of the boy who cried wolf. When the wolf comes, and given Bush's inability to deal with real terrorism it will, we will stand alone and friendless. Now, you may whine that you said, pressure the rest diplomatically, but that requires that we be in a strong diplomatic position. We are not. See, the analogy you are thinking of is prison. As "new meat" you come in, take down the biggest guy you can find, and then everyone else leaves you alone. In taking down Iraq, you instead found the nearsighted asthmatic bookkeeper and beat him up – winning you no friends and showing yourself to be a bully, but not particularly tough. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 16, 2004 01:49 PM | PERMALINKResearcher, after reading through this increasingly acrimonious and moronic discussion I have to say that your last post is almost reasonble. What you are arguing is that the strategy bushco put forth might be sensible, if it works. But it has, of course, a high probability of not working for a variety of obvious reasons. If it doesn't work (for example, destabilizing but not replacing hostile, undemocratic regimes, inflaming, rather than pacifying surrounding muslim countries, alienating rather than solifying our relations with traditional allies) where do we go next? What is plan B and have we undercut plan B unnecessarily? As one of my favorite fictional characters puts it the best plans run on rails so that you achieve your objective whether or not your plan fails--you've always got to have a secondary, backup plan. So what is the US plan? How did going into Iraq without sufficient world backing really help us? How did spending 200 some billion dollars that we don't have in Iraq, and substantially less in afghanistan to find Osama help? and what is our fallback? REasonable people can differ. That is the issue for the liberal/left. Its not that we aren't concerned about terrorism, its that we are oncerned and we don't think bush's plan works. Continuing to call people names, pretending that anyone who does not side with this current administration is either a fool or a traitor, is n not only counterproductive, its immoral and undemocratic. And you know what? the existence of great evil, terrorism, 9-11 or whatever else comes our way did not make our daily struggle to live in a democratic, free society any the less important. If you can't offer your fellow citizens any respect, if you can't trust them to be looking at the data and thinking hard about the options then you should definitely be moving to a dictatorship. WE don't have one here--yet--and most of the people who post here are concerned to maintain the freedoms we have here at the same time that we pursue freedom around the world. As a feminist, an anthropologist, and a democrat I am, of course, a more committed anti-islamo-fascist than the right wing in the US (for example, I'd *never* side with any islamic theocracy in matters of family planning, civil liberties, democracy, health care and etc...the way the Bush regime has) and I am, if anything, more concerned about islamic terrorism since people like me won't even get a chance to convert before being slaughtered. aimai Posted by: aimai at March 16, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINKHowever, claims that Saudi Arabia funds terrorism- nah. bin Laden may have been a Saudi, but he'd been estranged for decades by 9/11. The full ramifications of allowing all these members of the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family to leave the country would only become clear several months later, when the war in Afghanistan was in full swing. On March 28, 2002, acting on electronic intercepts of telephone calls, heavily armed Pakistani commando units, accompanied by American Special Forces and FBI SWAT teams, raided a two-story house in the suburbs of Faisalabad, in western Pakistan. They had received tips that one of the people in the house was Abu Zubaydah, the 30-year-old chief of operations for al-Qaida who had been head of field operations for the USS Cole bombing and who was a close confidant of Osama bin Laden's.
Michele: Re: Algeria The French withdrew from Algeria and left the populace to deal with their own situation. Good for France, maybe not so good for the Algerians. So it goes. The problem is that the likes of Al Qaeda are not confined to a single country. If they were, we could indeed withdraw. But where exactly are all of us supposed to withdraw to in order to escape the malevolence of International terrorism? Can you imagine what De Gaulle would have done had the Algerians brought down the Eiffel Tower? Posted by: melk at March 16, 2004 01:52 PM | PERMALINKbilly : How would you suggest that we compromise, or negotiate, with Osama and Al-Quaeda ? Your theory falls flat on its face when you bring up the "reasonable grievances", or in this case, the lack thereof. How do you compromise with a position such as "complete destruction of western civilization" ? Maybe we should all just sit around a campfire, burn incense, sing Kum-ba-ya, howl at the moon, and get in touch with our inner child. We already compromised. The US military bases in Saudi Arabia were closed last year and the 'infidel' US troops were removed from the Muslim sacred land - and that was the main Al-Qaeda's grievance. This was the best move the Bushies made in their 'war'. Much of the rest was stupid and counterproductive - unless, of course, your goal is world domination by any means. Posted by: billy at March 16, 2004 01:55 PM | PERMALINKaimai: The problem with people like you is that you thought the status quo of seething Muslim masses was ok. That you try to say BUsh is making them more seething is not a good point, because what matters is not how much they seeth, but how dead they are! Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 01:56 PM | PERMALINKThat is just it-except for Afganistan-nations or national governments do not support terrorism. What other country actively supports terrorists and if terrorists exist within its borders what are they able to do about it even if pressured by war from another country? I agree with your assessment regarding poverty and government forms but these governments do not actively support terrorism. Just imagine if terrorism began to occur within the US by Americans (a very real possibility-remember some have all ready called for the death of liberals), would the threat of war from some or all of the other countries cause the US to change the system. It's unlikely-we'd probably just be more angry. Bombing someone into submission won't work-all you get is a bunch of dead people and mad living ones. Posted by: MRB at March 16, 2004 01:56 PM | PERMALINKbilly: wow, so you think that if Bush had done nothing but withdraw the troops from SA, everything would be peachy and 1955 again? Idiot. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 01:58 PM | PERMALINKSo, we all know that those of you that are "left of center" are against. We all know that you think Bush's policies and practices are failures. What we do not know, is what your affirmative plan would be to combar terrorism, and protect the United States. Remember, we all know what you would not do, what we would like to know, is what you would do. Posted by: JD at March 16, 2004 01:59 PM | PERMALINKMRB: I propose killing 100% to leave no mad living ones! Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 01:59 PM | PERMALINKJD: Their plan is hate Bush and sing Kumbaya to the terrorists! Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 02:03 PM | PERMALINK"concentrated asshattery"--LOL I propose a mathematical ratio of Asshats to posts, call it the "EAQ" Estimated Asshatery Quotient, or "AF"Asshat Factor. Take number of posts (? )divide by two and take the square root of the dividend and add 1. something like this:
wow, so you think that if Bush had done nothing but withdraw the troops from SA, everything would be peachy and 1955 again? Idiot. Interesting name. Nice to meet you, I am Billy. No, probably not everything would be peachy, there are many problems, like division of Palestine. But there is always plenty of space for a reasonable compromise. And then, obviously, a small group of fanatics will still be unsatisfied. But they will have little or no support and can be easily captured. Posted by: billy at March 16, 2004 02:08 PM | PERMALINKSandals says: "As for Kerry's calls for Iraq, that was, ahem, based off the lies that President Bush was presenting the nation." Ron wrote: "Well, it may have been from lies, but it doesn't appear to stem from anything Bush said: Ron quotes a senate letter: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 Posted by Ron at March 16, 2004 11:17 AM | PERMALINK
I found it so easy to kill all the bats. I boarded up their entrance and torched them all. It was so exciting and I got such a rush of power from watching the scum die. Days later I realized that they ate all the mosquitoes-now the bugs are driving me crazy. Maybe if I'd taken the time to understand them I would have been able to convince them somehow to move. Oh well, I hated them so much and felt so high while I watched them die. Slap-damn mosquitoes. Posted by: MRB at March 16, 2004 02:13 PM | PERMALINKlemme fix that: Take number of posts (p)divide by two and take the square root of the dividend and add 1. something like this: [{square root of}(p/2)]+1=AF if you figure a ratio of number of posts over time (posts per minute etc) and add that to the AF you could probably mathematically predict the number of Asshats who would show up just based on posts per minute etc.... makes the time spent here MUCH more worthwhile much funner than watching kids fight..... MRB: Thank god you will never be in charge of our foreign policy. What a dumbfukk you are. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 02:17 PM | PERMALINKHas Keiser found a way to clone himself? Where do all the other murderous idiots come from? Posted by: Lupin at March 16, 2004 02:19 PM | PERMALINK"Don't anti-war men understand how repulsive they are in the eyes of women who" My father was talked into enlisting in the German army by his girlfriend. They sent him to Stalingrad. She married someone else while he was there. She died during the bombing of Dresden and didnt' get to reproduce, thankfully for the human race. I thought attitudes like that were dead 50 years ago. Oh yeah, I forgot, they are. But only in Europe, where people are more evolved. Posted by: Juergen at March 16, 2004 02:20 PM | PERMALINKGunslinger: "One day... the FBI is going to round up all of you libs
and send you to the re-education camps you so richly deserve!"
Wake up, Liberals own America; always have always will. LOL "When your IQ reaches 60, sell." is really funny. Posted by: MarkH at March 16, 2004 02:21 PM | PERMALINKHas Keiser found a way to clone himself? Where do all the other murderous idiots come from? Their breeding somewhere, what happened to abstinence ? godamnint !! Posted by: postit at March 16, 2004 02:22 PM | PERMALINKQuestion for LLL dumbfukks: If god forbid, Kerry is elected, what will he do to make America safe? Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 02:23 PM | PERMALINKResearcher: Again with the violent nihilism! Isn't there some other way to solve this terrorist problem, like maybe settle the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which ALL Arabs think of as a personal problem, for one, and then engage various Arab governments to change in the same way that they coerced the coalition of the billing into the war in Iraq? Show the majority of the Arabs that the West cares about them and is evolved enough to accept the differences between the cultures. If OBL and AQ lose their base of support, AQ would soon peter out. There's no need to blow anybody up except OBL and that, if absolutely necessary. Posted by: Michele at March 16, 2004 02:24 PM | PERMALINKJuergen: sure it's better these days that men are wusses and becoming homosexuals. That's just waaaaaaaay better for enduring civilization! Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 02:28 PM | PERMALINKMichele: The problem is that you find it acceptable that an Arab living in MOrocco has some stake in what's happening in Palestine. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 02:29 PM | PERMALINKThere's no need to blow anybody up except OBL and that, if absolutely necessary. This perfectly encapsulates the LLL mentality of "let's not hurt anyone", ooooooooh Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 02:30 PM | PERMALINKGunslinger: I "am" in charge of foreign policy. I have major respect and support from by wife and family and have a successful business and life. I do not call people names that I disagree with nor impune their character. I do however live everyday to vote and bring about policies I see that are effective and benefit the human race. What ever you do out there I live to counteract your methods in a positive way. Carry on with the hate postering-g'day. Posted by: MRB at March 16, 2004 02:32 PM | PERMALINKThumb- On Saudi Arabia, please also see. The evidence is mixed bag on how to proceed. They may be helping, they might not. http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040316-052212-7565r.htm http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040316/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_militants_11 Oh, and strangely enough Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz died suddenly age 43 of a heart attack. So if he was funding Al-Qaeda he's gone now. I saw a low credibility rumor that the other names on the Salon list died mysteriously too. http://www.ardmoreite.com/stories/072302/spo_war_emblem.shtml Everyone- There are alternative solutions to the Bush doctrine. There could be a worldwide treaty on terrorism, specifying minimum obligations to other countries with regard to fighting terrorism (extradition of suspects, surveilance of recruiting centers/ investigation of funding charities or crimes, warnings to other countries, minimum enforcement of explosives laws.) and allowing action against countries that don't meet these standards. Wesley Clark mentioned this approach briefly. However Kerry hasn't said anything of the sort. The idea is also not likely to pass the UN and is unenforcable given the failures of the UN to enforce NPT. Until world opinion shifts somewhat, The US (due to 9/11) is the only force with the political will to maintain pressure on terror. Until Kerry clarifies his position, Bush is the only sure bet. MDB- What other countries support terror? Iran & Syria for one. Admittedly, terror support is for organizations that have not yet attacked the West (Turkey, Israel are not the West)on Western soil. http://www.terrorismanswers.org/sponsors/syria.html Hopefully an attack will never be necessary. Both these regimes are
more like to collapse internally so containment is a better option. Gunslinger: Kerry will put our resources into hunting down and destroying al-Qaeda cells instead of wasting time screwing around and settling scores with his daddy's evil nemesis. Bickety-bam, there you go, I win, now where's my prize? Or does the Bush administration still have you so pussy-whipped that you think Georgie B is the only man big and stwong enough to pwotect you? Posted by: Doug Gillett at March 16, 2004 02:34 PM | PERMALINKSomething else that the wingers are conveniently avoiding as they seek to turn a democratic election into good news for terrorists is that this is an Al Qaeda attack (right wingers are objectively anti-democracy!), that no one's intelligence seemed to know anything about. While we're on the bit Iraqi adventure, Al Qaeda, our enemy who killed 3000 people (not just Americans) in NYC, was free to regroup and plan and execute a terrorist attack in a major city. I'm unsatisfied with the way the Bush administration is pursuing the war on terror. I think it is reasonable to expect that a war on terror would include, at the very least, making it very difficult for Al Qaeda to attack us or our allies. We didn't even have an idea this was going to happen. I swear, the idealogues who support the war on Iraq and conflate it with the war on terror have lost the ability to reason. Must be because they are so skeered of the terrorists. I have full confidence that freedom and democracy will win the day, but of course we need a president who supports freedom and democracy, and that's not Mr. "This would be so much easier if it was a dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator" Bush. Posted by: maurinsky at March 16, 2004 02:37 PM | PERMALINKResearcher: In order for the USA to have any credibility with Arabs, they need to stop siding with Israel. It's that simple. The problem with you Americans is that you are mean bastards, but you want people to like you. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to carry out your agenda in various countries, as you have been doing for some time in the Middle East, expect some resistance, and in some cases, that resistance will find it's way back to your own country or its interests as terrorist acts. If you can't take it, stay home. Posted by: MIchele at March 16, 2004 02:40 PM | PERMALINKWhat you are arguing is that the strategy bushco put forth might be sensible, if it works. But it has, of course, a high probability of not working for a variety of obvious reasons. But if you look at the long view, it might be working. There are still problems, but the problems in these countries did not prop up overnight, and will not be cured overnight. There is an ingrained culture that they are right, and there had to be a catalyst to get things going. Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah have ensured the independence of NHRA National Human Rights Association , which enjoys the authority to deal with all matters related to human rights in the Kingdom,” the Saudi Press Agency quoted Minister of Culture and Information Dr. Fouad Al-Farsy as saying after the weekly Cabinet meeting. The Al-Haramain Foundation, which has been accused by the United States of funding terrorism, is refocusing on Saudi Arabia, investing 80 percent of its efforts and $23 million in the Kingdom over the last 12 months, its new director-general said yesterday. “The foundation is moving more toward work in the Kingdom to support humanitarian and aid projects in cooperation with government bodies,” Sheikh Dabbas Al-Dabbas said. In January, Riyadh joined the US Treasury in asking the United Nations to add four foreign offshoots of Al-Haramain to a list of terrorist groups linked to Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban. JEDDAH, 14 March 2004 — Saudi Arabia’s first elections will take place in October and should lead to general elections, Asharq Al-Awsat, a sister publication of Arab News, reported yesterday, quoting Mubarak expressed hope that an alternative Egyptian initiative for "a global Arab vision for modernization and development" would be decided upon at a March 29-30 summit of the 22-member Arab League in Tunisia. "We hope to have European-American support," the Egyptian president said through a translator. "We hope also that we will have help to implement it." In an editorial by editor Ayman Al-Dakar,the independent Syrian weekly Abyad WaAswad (Black and White), which is owned by the son of Syria's chief of staff, expressed its objections to the vacillation of the reform process that, according to Al-Dakar, stemmed only from the U.S.'s attempt to force its own reform program on the Arab world "But don't the Arabs need reform, be it cultural, social, or economic? Do the Arab countries live in a good situation that allows them to stop or slow down the processes of internal reform just because the U.S. proposes or seeks to make [such reforms]? If we examine the matter in itself, and in light of the history of the Arabs with the U.S., we will find that the absolute no's and the resistance to [the U.S.] proposals have sometimes led to losses." Egyptian authorities have decided to teach school children about tolerance of other cultures but denied the decision was a response to US pressure for reform, a government newspaper reported Tuesday - MEonline ISLAMABAD, March 12 (Online): Heads of the religious seminaries have conditionally agreed to introduce ECNEC approved reforms in madrassas.
What we propose is that America behave like the country that won WWII and Korea and less like the country that sent troops to Vietnam and overthrew the government of Chile in 73. You get out there and fight this thing like your life dependended on it, not like it is some sort of poli sci project on how to rebuild a country OR use it as a bloody flag to hit your political opponents with. You gotta get your Allies Back. You kiss ass with the European leaders and people. You flatter their egoes and stroke them to get them as implicated as possible in reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan. If they wont send troups to Iraq you pressure them to do Afghanistan. If they wont do either you ask them again in 3 months and make sure your Homeland security people are working closely with their people. Making friends and building confidence. You do the same to the UN. You suck up. You say you are sorry about the way it went down, but we got to move on now. You deal with the resolutions condeming you as an ass. It's just an insult. Grow up and take it like a man. You beg, bribe and promise to get those bloody blue helment in there ASAP. If initial push for help fails, you show you are serious by sending MORE toops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush and co have pissed away the strategic initiative of the US Armed Forces military success by doing such a crap crap job at Diplomacy. Diplomacy and propaganda are two important pillars in the victory against terror. Placing everything on the military aspect is nutso. This is what we propose. And unless I see a miraculous change in attitude in the next 6 months, Bush is not the guy to do it. Sorry, I still think voting the incumbents out would have been the correct response even if they had not tried to blame the Basques. You wrote "If (if!) the Spanish electorate was punishing Aznar solely because they perceived his actions as being anti-terrorist enough to provoke an al-Qaeda attack, the terrorists have accomplished their goal: the Spanish public has shown that if they are attacked they will vote against a politician who strongly opposed the terrorists." But this seems bizarre in the extreme. Were I a Spaniard I would have said to my government, "You did nothing to stop the terrorists. You supported the U.S. invasion of a country that was not part of the terrorist network and in fact was one of its enemies. You did this against the clear desire if the citizens of Spain. And now not only have no terrorists been weakened but because of what you did there are now al-Quedistas running around all over Iraq when there never were any there before. And for this you made us a target? Yes, you lied at first about how you did it. But that's not the most important reason to get rid of you. The most imortant reason is what you did. Sure, we Spanish voters are not very politically astute; our lives are too damned comfortable for us to have much motivation to always be thinking about politics, and like all T.V.-watching Westerners we have short attention spans. Let things calm down a bit, let the unemployment rate go down a little, and we tend to forget certain things. But this catastrophe just reminded us how stupid you are. Nobody this stupid desrves to spend one day longer in office." I mean, Kevin, are you now claiming that the invasion of Iraq actually was an intelligent response to Islamic terrorism, and that the people who allowed themselves to be suckered or bribed into supporting it deserve anyone's vote? If there is a terrorist attack on U.S soil should I vote for George Bush? Posted by: Jeff Bogdan at March 16, 2004 02:44 PM | PERMALINKThere are any number of things going on in the world today that are much scarier than AQ. The problem is that you find it acceptable that an Arab living in MOrocco has some stake in what's happening in Palestine. Yet you have no problem as an American living in America believing you have a stake in what's happening in Israel? "If we all we do is worry about the terrorists, the terrorists win." Excellent point tstreet! The whole Right Wing message these days is that we must choose, as they have, to live in fear. I refuse to live in fear. Posted by: Hermit at March 16, 2004 02:52 PM | PERMALINKMichelle- I'm not American. Secondly, France is not in the middle east. How did going home help them? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=4&u=/ap/20040316/ap_on_re_eu/france_islamic_threats Secondly, if getting credibility with Arabs involves allowing the genocide of Israel, its not worth it. Let's go for respect through the threat of regime change instead. Thirdly, if Arabs want credibility with the rest of the human race, they can stop blowing stuff up Israeli-Palestinian peace would help resolve terrorism. Simply because Muslim nations could ideologically accept a worldwide ban on terrorism once it was resolved. However waiting for it to happen, doesn't exclude acting against terrorism now. Posted by: Researcher at March 16, 2004 02:53 PM | PERMALINKKerry will put our resources into hunting down and destroying al-Qaeda cells instead of wasting time screwing around and settling scores with his daddy's evil nemesis. Bickety-bam, there you go, I win, now where's my prize? To support this theory we would have to assume that it would work. This would mean that you believe Kerry will be able to do something that noone fighting terrorism has been able to do in the history of the world. Why has this plan failed in Israel, Ireland, Spain, Honduras, El Salvador, Vietnam. What is this magic weapon that Kerry has, and why did he never bring it out while in the Senate? I don't think that Kerry has ever stated this position. There are alternative solutions to the Bush doctrine. There could be a worldwide treaty on terrorism, specifying minimum obligations to other countries with regard to fighting terrorism (extradition of suspects, surveilance of recruiting centers/ investigation of funding charities or crimes, warnings to other countries, minimum enforcement of explosives laws.) and allowing action against countries that don't meet these standards. Agree, and I believe from what I have read this is the Bush doctrine.
The problem with getting to this step is that the United Nations,
World Court, and by definition, the US, have no history of enforcing
any of the doctrines that they declare. So making pacts is useless.
That is the Bush doctrine. Clean out Afghanistan where the terrorist
reside, and put muscle behind the UN doctrines, and don't let tin-horn
dictators continue to ignore them. All I want is a president who's not so preoccupied with his own bizarre pre-set agenda that he sees the big picture. You'll recall, for instance, that the Bush administration was informed back in the summer of 2002 that the al-Qaeda bigwig al-Zarqawi was hanging out in the northern Iraqi desert cooking up ricin with his pals, but no action was taken because it would've mucked with the invasion plan for Iraq. Now, of course, Zarqawi has been implicated as the mastermind in dozens of bombings of American soldiers in Iraq, and who knows how hard the shit's gonna hit the fan if they find out he had a hand in Madrid? Now, Kerry may be that big-picture thinker and he may not be, I grant you that. But I'm pretty confident at this point that Bush isn't. Posted by: Doug Gillett at March 16, 2004 03:05 PM | PERMALINKIsrael was a "reclaimed" land. It wasn't gained without bloodshed. Some of that bloodshed was British troops stationed in the area who were advised a bomb was being planted by a jewish group. They ignored the warning. Many died. The fact they used bombs and were terrorist is lost to so many people. What makes the kind of terrorism the Zionist did in the 30's okay? And the kind being done today is considered different? Posted by: IXLNXS at March 16, 2004 03:05 PM | PERMALINKWhat hard path has Bush taken, Sinop85? Has he asked anyone, outside of our military, to take a hard path? Or is only 3 rounds of huge tax cuts the hard path to you? War is not a hard path for Bush, it certainly wasn't in reference to Vietnam. He doesn't know anyone that's dying. In fact, Bush knows that war is very good for his poll numbers, or else he wouldn't describe himself proudly as "The War President." If his ass had gotten stitched by AK fire like Clark or Kerrey he'd be a bit demure about sending others in front of supersonic lead. Posted by: Ras_Nesta at March 16, 2004 03:10 PM | PERMALINKSometimes we also need to listen to the Spanish perspective (because they're the ones who really made the decision here). Accordingly, I provided a partial translation of an editorial that appeared in El Pais today. SNIP: This announcement [of the withdrawal from Iraq] has been received like nails [ed. idiom, cf. "like nails to a chalkboard"] by observers close to the United States Administration, who have conjured up a supposed surrender of the Spanish electorate in respose to the blackmail of Al Qaeda. This is an absurd theory, that does not comport with reality and makes a significant abstraction of the innumerable factors of interior politics that have resulted in the defeat of the PP. It is certain that, according to the theory of the axis of evil, those who don't agree with the demands [ed. requirements?] of Bush are understood to be against Bush and in favor of Al Qaeda, and by this rule of three, this becomes the demogogic conclusion that the Spaniards have voted to abandon Iraq to its fortune and to ask for the mercy of the terrorists so that they do not make [further] attempts in our territory. More at link above. Posted by: emjaycue at March 16, 2004 03:10 PM | PERMALINKalfie: This is from Time magazine: "It's certainly true that before last Thursday's horrific train bombings in Madrid that killed 201 people and wounded more than 1,000, the conservative Popular Party — whose outgoing leader, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had been the Bush administration's closest Iraq-war ally in Europe — had looked set to coast home by a 5 to 8 percent margin . . . The reason voters chose doves over hawks three days after suffering the worst bloodshed on Spanish soil since the country's civil war is simple: the widespread belief that the country had become a target for Islamist terror because of its support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,601306,00.html ". . . the opposition Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, won a plurality of seats in the lower house of the Cortes, the Congress of Deputies, and will be able to form a government with the support of minor parties. The governing People's Party (PP) was led into the campaign by Mariano Rajoy, successor to outgoing Prime Minister José María Aznar. At stake were all 350 seats in the Congress of Deputies, and 208 seats in upper house, the Senate. In the Senate, the PP won 102 seats to the PSOE's 81, a better result than in the lower house. Even so, this was a 28-seat gain for the PSOE and a 25-seat loss for the PP. In Catalonia, a combined Socialist-Republican left ticket won 12 Senate seats, and the Basque Nationalists won six. However, in the lower house the PP vote fell by 6.9 percent, and the party lost 39 seats. The PSOE vote rose by 8.5 percent, bringing a gain of 35 seats." What did I say, 35%? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_legislative_election%2C_2004 I can't find the site that listed all the specific votes results now. This one is all in Spanish http://www.elec_gen04.mir.es/ But at some point, I took my handy dandy calculator and divided the total number of votes received by the Popular Party candidates (9,630,512) by the total number number of votes received by the Socialist candidates (10,909,687). Before the terrorist attacks, the PP was leading by 5-8%. Instead, they lost by 12% overall. Obviously, the ONLY thing that changed in that mix was the terrorist attacks. I hope that all helps "show my work". Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 03:12 PM | PERMALINKTo wit: what has he done about Pakistan. Pakistan has come clean after decades of illegal nuclear proliferation Pakistan is a key player in Taliban/OBL hunt Pakistan has reformed the Islamic schools Pakistan an US are opening business deals. i.e. Prosperity conquers hopelessness (see India) Bush is witholding F-16 sale to Pakistan, and holding up spare parts for existing, until India-Pakistan peace is more forward Pakistan and India have laid out a framework for peace Pakistan and India are playing Cricket together. Sometimes the war is with guns, sometimes it is with the mind. Sure we can bomb them and punish them for what they did. I personally am more pleased on what they are doing. Posted by: sinop85 at March 16, 2004 03:15 PM | PERMALINKResearcher; Of course, the Bush Administration would NEVER sign on for something like that, too many of their contributors would lose their Tax Shelters. (I won't even don my tinfoil hat here for the CIA drug running operations, the assertion of which bodes well for the radical increase in Afghan Heroin since Bush put himself in charge there). Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at March 16, 2004 03:18 PM | PERMALINKHistory will remember a weird phenomena circa 2004 CE, known as ABB(anybody but Bush) syndrome. It has been known to cause severe bouts of irrationality, mouth-frothing and general irritablitity. AFter much study of the subjects, it was recommended that they go to Disneyland. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 03:21 PM | PERMALINKFor those who thought on the Egyptian murder rate (five per year ) was unfucking believable, my source is as follows: Judith Kipper, Middle East Forum Director, Council on Foreign Relations. She stated this at a conference held on 15 March and aired on c-span. If you want to check it out go the c span site for the video. Feel free to judge whether she said this. If you have contrary, validated statistics, feel free to offer those. I thought it was pretty unbelievable myself. Unless she misspoke, these are the facts. Posted by: tstreet at March 16, 2004 03:21 PM | PERMALINKBTW, ABB literally means anybody, so Bin-Laden is just as viable a Candidate for the Democrat party? I just thought I would turn it around on ya.. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 03:23 PM | PERMALINKtstreet: that's the most bogus claim I've ever heard. 5 Christian Copts get murdered per week there. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINKDoug Gillett: "Kerry will put our resources into hunting down and destroying al-Qaeda cells . . ." Oh, has he finally said he would do that? Posted by maurinsky: "Something else that the wingers are conveniently avoiding . . ." LOL - this coming from someone who ignored the obvious - that CAPTURING / KILLING EVERY SINGLE member of al Qaeda will not reduce their capabilities?! Weren't you the one above who said: "I don't give a fig for what Al Qaeda thinks"? "While we're on the bit Iraqi adventure, Al Qaeda, our enemy who killed 3000 people (not just Americans) in NYC, was free to regroup and plan and execute a terrorist attack in a major city." I knew it - you're a Clark voter who lives in the land of make-believe where the POTUS has the power to guarantee no terrorist acts will occur on his watch : ) Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINKMore about Christian persecution in Egypt: http://www.persecution.org/Countries/egypt.html Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 03:31 PM | PERMALINKIn fact, Bush knows that war is very good for his poll numbers, or else he wouldn't describe himself proudly as "The War President." Uh, i believe that his numbers have dropped from about 80% approval
to just over 50%, based primarily on Iraq. The easy path is to follow
the world opinion and polls, continue with the past, and hope things get
better. This is what we did in WTC1 Somalia, Beirut, etc. and it
empowered the terrorist. And tax cuts don't have a thing to do with foreign policy. And no he has not been 'stiched by AK fire', but either has
Roosevelts, Wilson, or Lincoln. Now Kennedy was shot at, he got us into
Vietnam? So what the point? Kerry wants to throw 40k troops into the
mix. Now, that is a lesson I learned not to do from Vietnam, thats
called a quagmire. The Gunslinger: Those don't count as "murders" ; ) Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 03:41 PM | PERMALINKSinop, so what hard path has Bush asked us to take? Other than the bloody path being forced on our soldiers, stop-lossed(drafted) into another 2 years amongst the Iraqi bombs. Look at Bush's support amongst military families. Down, down, down, down. Also, nice attempt to change the subject by comparing Bush to actual competent presidents. You shame their memories. Posted by: Ras_Nesta at March 16, 2004 03:47 PM | PERMALINKWhitehouse.org on the Spanish election. Don't drink while reading it. It's so funny I almost fell off my chair. Posted by: Lupin at March 16, 2004 03:47 PM | PERMALINKsinop85; If a Khan-bought nuke falls on a US (or ANY) city, then that blood is
on Mushtarraf's and Bush's hands. You don't pardon someone who sells
nuclear secrets to Iran and North Korea. August 14, 1998 - Two young Christian men were killed in the village of El-Kosheh, Dar Assalam and Governate of Soha, Egypt. The local Coptic Bishop reported that the consensus of the village was that the killers were three Muslim men who were known to police. The police made no effort to apprehend this individuals but rather rounded up nearly 1,200 Christians, including men, women, and children, during the course of the following week. During their detainment, it is reported that these people suffered verbal abuse and physical abuse that included electrical shock, whippings, beatings, and being hung from their feet for extended periods of time. It is believed much of this activity was aimed at obtaining false confessions to the murders. It was been reported that 11 year-old Romani Boctor was suspended from a spinning ceiling fan for several hours in an attempt to get his father to confess to the murders. It is also reported that a fourteen-month-old baby was beaten in front of her mother to get the mother to confess. A 14 year-old girl was sexually assaulted in an attempt to make her lose her virginity. This was so the police could claim that her father and fiance killed the two men for having a sexual encounter with the girl. All the detained individuals were released within a week. No suspects in the crime have been arrested. January 2-4, 2000 – 21 Christians (and 1 Muslum) were left dead by the worst sectarian violence to hit Egypt in two decades. The violence resulted from a financial dispute between a Muslim and a Christian shopkeeper in El-Kosheh. The Muslim and his brothers later attacked the Christian’s shop and incited a mob which looted and burned Christian homes, stores, and factories. At least 44 people were injured in addition to those who were killed during the 3 days of violence. July 26, 2000 – Coptic Christian Fakhri Ayyad Mus’ad was shot to death when local Muslims discovered he was building a church in a nearby field. Three other men were also injured. (So that's at least 25 murders - can it really be true that no one besides Christians get murdered in Egypt?!) Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 03:53 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, the victim cloak fits so easily on your shoulders. I mourn all murders, Christian or otherwise. You mourn for political points. Posted by: Gobbles the Trophee Turkee at March 16, 2004 03:56 PM | PERMALINKhey gunslinger. Better clean your gun. Its full of shit! gd Posted by: GD at March 16, 2004 04:01 PM | PERMALINKCiting 25 murders over the last several years hardly demonstrates a high murder rate in Egypt. In any event, until someone can come up with something less anecdotal, I'll have to rely on the middle east expert for the CFR. Whether it's five murders or 25, the point is it's rather trivial compared to other causes of death, including the murder rate in the United States. Posted by: tstreet at March 16, 2004 04:08 PM | PERMALINKI guess GD doesn't count as an asshat? Only neocons are asshats, and 4 legs good, 2 legs bad. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, good liberal sheeple you are. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 04:12 PM | PERMALINKGobbles the Trophee Turkee: "Charlie, the victim cloak fits so easily on your shoulders." LOL - tsreet claims there are only 5 murders per year somewhere and showing that is not the case is somehow impugned?! "I mourn all murders, Christian or otherwise. You mourn for political points." You don't know me - I always mourn the innocent loss of human life. I have actually been more interested in that than the political side of it - see above only post I started with was correcting someone's polling data - I know Ambassador Argyros too and I'm sure he's just as upset too. Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 04:15 PM | PERMALINKtstreet: this so-called expert because you say she's an expert? that's pretty anecdotal if you ask me. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 04:18 PM | PERMALINKtstreet: That was 25 murders over only TWO years - the web site someone else posted did not have a per capita murder rate in Egypt (maybe they don't release that), but the overall crimal convictions totaled: 3,576,012 (2000) [ranks 1st of 56] http://www.nationmaster.com/country/eg/Crime "Whether it's five murders or 25, the point is it's rather trivial compared to other causes of death, including the murder rate in the United States." With a population of 74,718,797 (July 2003 est.), I would agree that Egypt would have to average quite a bit more murders than 25 (roughly 3165) to match the 12,658 murders in the U.S. in 1999 for instance. Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 04:30 PM | PERMALINKRegardless, I would be interested in knowing what the murder rate is in the US, if you discount Black and Latino gang-related killings. Posted by: The Gunslinger at March 16, 2004 04:40 PM | PERMALINKYou don't know me - I always mourn the innocent loss of human life. - Charlie "I'm fine with nuking the next country we uncover getting an unauthorized nuke." Posted by Charlie at March 4, 2004 03:50 PM I might not know you but I'm familiar with your type: A gun in one hand and a Bible in the other. BTW - I couldn't help but notice you failed to give us a link to your "statistics" on Christian deaths in Egypt. Worried your source isn't credible? Posted by: Thumb at March 16, 2004 04:44 PM | PERMALINKAnyone else notice that The Gunslinger and Al have never appeared in the same thread? Posted by: Thumb at March 16, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINKJust to let you all know I have talked to many foriegn leaders this week and man they look you in the eye and say...Bush has got to beat Kerry..man. That Kerry is Scarry! Just thought you'd like to know, of course I cannot disclose who these people are but they are very very important foriegn government leaders. Just thought you'd like to know. Posted by: keiser at March 16, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINKCharlie chokes: """With a population of 74,718,797 (July 2003 est.), I would agree that Egypt would have to average quite a bit more murders than 25 (roughly 3165) to match the 12,658 murders in the U.S. in 1999 for instance""" Well Charlie...do the math. Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Queda number 2 is Egyptian and he killed 3100 people...so that would equal out to the 3125 - very close to the 3165. Posted by: keiser at March 16, 2004 04:52 PM | PERMALINKKevin, for God's sake, close this thread! Posted by: Randy Paul at March 16, 2004 04:53 PM | PERMALINKThumb: "I might not know you but I'm familiar with your type: A gun in one hand and a Bible in the other." You don't think I would mourn the innocent loss of life even if I was forced to drop a nuclear bomb? "BTW - I couldn't help but notice you failed to give us a link to your "statistics" on Christian deaths in Egypt. Worried your source isn't credible?" I just went to the link Gunslinger provided above. "Anyone else notice that The Gunslinger and Al have never appeared in the same thread?" Well, even the Lone Ranger had a day job ; ) keiser "Charlie chokes:" LOL - yes, Ayman Al Zawahiri is Egyptian but he murdered those 3100 people in the U.S. Don't worry - THAT statistical blip for 2001 will probably used to justify more gun control laws anyways ; ) Randy Paul: "Kevin, for God's sake, close this thread!" # 1 - I thought there was no God? # 2 - CENSORSHIP! # 3 - If you can't stand the heat . . . Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: Before the terrorist attacks, the PP was leading by 5-8%. Instead, they lost by 12% overall. Obviously, the ONLY thing that changed in that mix was the terrorist attacks. This is dead wrong. Here's some data from PBS last night: NICOLAS CHECA: Margaret, I really think what the key issue here is the handling or mishandling of public information in the 48 hours after the tragic events of last Thursday. I think it bears mentioning that the election was a statistical dead heat, according to public polls the morning of the tragedy on Thursday morning well within the margin of error, one or two points. And it was really not until Saturday evening, as Keith in your set-up shared with us, that the government decided to come forward with information as to the arrest of these five suspects linked to al-Qaida. Many do suspect, however, that the increased turnout caused by the bombings, in the sense of shaking people out of indifference and/or malaise in the midst of a generally positive economy, turned the tables, as those shaken from malaise would more likely be lower-income and younger people who would naturally lean to the center-left coalition. There has been no evidence come to light yet that there was any signifigant vote changing going on, though swing voters surely would have been turned off by the government manipulation of information in regards to the investigation of the bombings: As an example, it took a personal call from Prime Minister Elect Zapatero to the interior minister, the Spanish homeland security secretary, informing him that the Socialist Party was aware of the arrest and that he was prepared to move forward with that information. It took that kind of information to get the current government to come forward and announce to the country at large that in fact it was not the ETA lead that would generate success down the road in the investigation, but rather the al-Qaida route. If anything, there's what may have swung the swing voters...not the bombings themselves, but the cynical and deceptive response to the bombings. But the swing voters didn't win the election as much as the increased voter turnout (as polls tend to try and take into account the expected turnout and likely voters). Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKtrolls like orcs in Moria. Smells like a monkey house in here. Posted by: ish at March 16, 2004 05:20 PM | PERMALINKof course I cannot disclose who these people are but they are very very important foriegn government leaders. bonesmen, no doubt. Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at March 16, 2004 05:21 PM | PERMALINKkeister---you misquoted Kerry. He said "more leaders", not foreign leaders Posted by: ish at March 16, 2004 05:23 PM | PERMALINKKeister: Kerry apparently never said "foreign" leaders, he said "more leaders" and was misquoted by the reporter - see: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-na-kerry16mar16.story Posted by: peBird at March 16, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINKI think it's safe to say that, in the view of history, the Aznar government response to the bombings, in terms of cynically manipulating the information about who was behind the attacks, not only helped them lose the election, but to lose it as much as they did. It will be viewed as a colossal political misstep, and Bush is left in the crosshairs because of it. This election could butterfly into God knows what because of the idiocy of the outgoing Spanish government. That said, the bombings were the catalyst that A) assured a greater turnout regardless of how the government handled the investigation, and B) made the government nervous because as tight as the election was the morning of the attacks that could swing the balance out of their favor. The Aznar government choked, and ended up inspiring greater turnout against them by their deceptive actions, and this sealed their defeat. Now, events will unfold outside of the conventional wisdom of last week. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 05:27 PM | PERMALINK"Kevin, for God's sake, close this thread!" # 1 - I thought there was no God? # 2 - CENSORSHIP! # 3 - If you can't stand the heat . . . Actually, I can't stand the bullshit. You on the other hand seem to enjoy wallowing with the sense of someone who feels at home in it. Posted by: Randy Paul at March 16, 2004 05:28 PM | PERMALINKjimm: "This is dead wrong." Not it's not. I've posted the link above showing that, before the terrorist attacks, the PP was leading by 5-8% (more than the margain of error). Instead, they lost by 12% overall (again, more than the margain of error). All of your post (including Anzar allegedly blaming ETA for political purposes), is still obviously related to "the ONLY thing that changed in that mix was the terrorist attacks." Occam's Cuisinart: "bonesmen, no doubt." LOL - well in that ONE regard, there's no difference between GWB and Kerry - did you see this hilarious ebay listing? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2994305126 Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 05:28 PM | PERMALINKAs for "what Kerry said", it doesn't matter. Kerry has not disavowed the meaning taken from his statement. The whole controversy is absurd. Look at Bush's popularity around the globe. There's no question that he does not have a lot of friends in free democratic nations. The Bush Doctrine is largely despised, and one doesn't need Kerry to mention that leaders around the globe would like to see Bush gone. That they may have met or spoke with Kerry is not outside of the realms of possibility, and, if this did occur, Kerry would have no reason to betray their confidence. If he did, he would be a true scumbag, because the Bush Administration would go after any leader that Kerry would name. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINKI believe Kerry believes he said foriegn leaders...but I do agree, he
is most likely lying. What would be the point of saying more leaders??
Kerry also says idear, when he means idea. He also says 'voted for' when he meant to say 'voted against'. Posted by: keiser at March 16, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINKish: "He said 'more leaders', not foreign leaders . . ." He has also not denied that it was foreign leaders - what's next - campaign donation from foreign nationals? Selling missile technology too? Randy Paul: "Actually, I can't stand the bullshit. You on the other hand seem to enjoy wallowing with the sense of someone who feels at home in it." Ouch! I'd be happy to take you off of my "People to Oppress" list : ) Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 05:32 PM | PERMALINKKeep in mind that Kerry did not say he spoke to "heads of state" either. Leaders, or political leaders, could be any array of people who quite obviously would not be hard to find in terms of secretly, or even openly, rooting against Bush. Like in Spain, there really is a genuine and real split between conservatives and liberals. John Kerry is a liberal, and it's a no-brainer that other liberal leaders would prefer America to be led by the like-minded. Duh. Next controversy! Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 05:33 PM | PERMALINKSummary Meme: Kerry claims liberal leaders around the world have expressed support for him. Gong! Reality: Bush is desperate, and is only seeking to spin at every possible moment that Kerry is a liar, and probably because Bush will end up looking like a liar when election time comes, so in the midst of two liars, being one of them is less of a negative. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 05:35 PM | PERMALINKCharlie--------Kerry was misquoted. It's offical. Whats next is the Richard Clarke book. Posted by: ish at March 16, 2004 05:36 PM | PERMALINKFine jimm - back on topic then: "I've posted the link above showing that, before the terrorist attacks, the PP was leading by 5-8% (more than the margain of error). Instead, they lost by 12% overall (again, more than the margain of error). All of your post (including Anzar allegedly blaming ETA for political purposes), is still obviously related to "the ONLY thing that changed in that mix was the terrorist attacks." Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 05:37 PM | PERMALINKBTW, ABB literally means anybody, so Bin-Laden is just as viable a Candidate for the Democrat party? I just thought I would turn it around on ya.. Naah, I think he works for the Bush administration, he sure helps Bush's poll numbers, and Bush generally leaves him alone except for election years. It was also awful nice that W was kind enough to arrange first class seating for the exodus of the Bin Laden clan right after 9-11. Those Bushies can sure be polite. Posted by: Another Bruce at March 16, 2004 05:40 PM | PERMALINKYou kinda left off that part about how nice Clinton was to Usama too and/or "bin Ladin's clan" having disowned Usama and haven't talked to him in 15 years - who knew what New Yorkers would have done to them regardless ; ) Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 05:45 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, you're wrong. Your numbers that is. The polls were a statistical dead heat the morning of the attacks. I suggest you reread my comment a few above (the one you are referring to now). You obviously didn't comprehend it. Several things changed, but, before I get to them, I will address the trajectory of things. The PP was however many days before the election by 5-8%. By the morning of the attacks, it was 1-2% (dead heat). That means that there was signifigant momentum on the side of the opposition with several days still to go (and I'll guess that the change noted above occurred in a several day span). As for the attacks, if they were the only thing that occurred, and the government came clean about it, chances are the government would have lost by a few percentage points, given the existing momentum and the increased turnout from the bombings. But the attacks is not the ONLY thing, but the FIRST thing in terms of your analysis. AFTER the attacks, the government was exposed as shameless and cynical manipulators and deceivers, including ramrodding false information through the state-run media. This obviously wouldn't play well with the swing voters, those on the fence, who otherwise would still seemingly be receptive to an appeal by the incumbent party that the attacks shoudn't sway them. But, since the incumbent party was shown to be lying, arrogant and manipulative, that message got drowned out by the negatives, which, in the light of government deception at this most trying and emotional time for Spaniards, probably caused some swing voters to remember their opposition to the war, forget the economy, and toss out the crooks in charge. Also, turnout jumped 20% from the last parliamentary elections, to 76%, which is largely attributed to the combined effect of the bombings and the government subsequently lying about its investigation and suspects. The 20% rise in turnout explains the jump up to the 12% overall edge. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 05:47 PM | PERMALINKAnother Bruce: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ After the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224 in 1998, President Clinton announced, "We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes." NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity. In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert. Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden . . . Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 05:49 PM | PERMALINKSo, let's try to figure out why everyone believes that it's a no-brainer that the attacks were the primary cause. First, as Charlie perpetuates, there is a lot of false reporting about a "comfortable" lead for the Popular Party before the attacks. This is misleading, since maybe in the weeks prior they had a comfortable lead, but the momentum was clearly on the side of the opposition Socialist Party, which had pulled to a statistical dead-heat the morning of the attacks. The failure to report this momentum, and the sense that things were even when the attacks occurred, is just wrong, and sets up subsequent thought to be on false assumptions. Like I said in the last thread, the media has set up a giant straw man by errant reporting. If it wasn't so close at the time of the attacks, one would wonder why the Aznar government would risk disreputability and possible criminal sanction by misleading the public about the investigation, and using the state-run media to do so. The increased turnout clearly swung the election in the sense of the impressiveness of the victory to the opposition, and also to victory. As a result of the government manipulation and deceptiveness at a time of national mourning and solidarity, a number of swing voters also probably contributed to the opposition victory. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINKThere's only so much "Oceania is at war with Iraq. Oceania has always been at war with Iraq," an educated public is going to take. Posted by: Roxanne at March 16, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINKjimm: Maybe we are missing each other - even assuming a statistical dead heat, WITHOUT THE ATTACKS, are you saying there was some chance of a 12% landslide?! Maybe if I put it another way: the government (allegedly) lying about its investigation and suspects and/or the 20% rise in turnout are still obviously related to "the ONLY thing that changed in that mix was the terrorist attacks." Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 05:58 PM | PERMALINKBush couldn't catch Osama in a million years. He doesn't want to catch him-he's his ticket to historical relevance. Else wise he would just be known for that deer in the headlights look we've come to know happens when ever he attempts interpersonal or any type of thought. Kerry or anyone with a functional brain for president. Posted by: MRB at March 16, 2004 06:01 PM | PERMALINKMRB: It took a while to find Saddam too (and he was hiding in a hole) in a country the size of California. P.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews he would support a John Kerry-John McCain presidential ticket tonight on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” 7-8 p.m. (ET). Biden also stated that foreign leaders have also told him they would like to see a Kerry administration in the White House! (Iran, Syria, and North Korea in particular, right?) Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 06:04 PM | PERMALINKIn sum, the opposition Socialist Party had pulled even by the morning of the terrorist attacks. This had happened in a short period, gaining 3-4% points, so there was signifigant momentum on the side of the opposition. One would guess that the opposition message and platform, as the election became closer and more real to people, and as more people paid attention, was the reason for this. Then, the attacks happened. This event alone would likely contribute to increased turnout at some level, judging from how the Spanish people responded by gathering together in the streets, since one would assume that in such an environment civic participation would be more salient and tangible, and people would be talking about the upcoming election. But it was the exposure of the PP and Aznar government in the days following, that they had been deceptive about the investigation and suspects, and were using the state-run media to do so, that ensured that at a time when the Spanish people were huddling together, they couldn't help notice the arrogance and cynicism of their leaders. So there are 2 events occurring here, and the latter having a villain in the current party in power, and having a champion in the opposition party. The result was predictable, though not to anyone on the morning of the attacks, especially the perpetrators of such. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 06:06 PM | PERMALINKBIDEN (discussing Kerry’s campaign for President): “I have had world leaders, heads of state, make it pretty clear to me that they’re hopeful that there is a change in the Administration.” Did he say "more leaders, beds of late" then? Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 06:06 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, you kinda fail to mention the whole background of that incident (Ahem- it was a terrorist regime doing the "offering"), and that Clinton ordered a missile strike on Al Qaeda camps, narrowly missing bin Laden. Or that the far-right pundits crucified him for doing it, accusing him of "wag the dog" actions. Posted by: Sandals at March 16, 2004 06:08 PM | PERMALINKAll of that happened too, Sandals (except no literal crucifixion : ) Have a good night all. Posted by: Charlie at March 16, 2004 06:10 PM | PERMALINKPlease support... *** MILES NELSON, M.D. for CONGRESS *** http://www.nelsonfornewmexico.com/ Contribute today. Every dollar counts! http://www.nelsonfornewmexico.com/ Posted by: Miles Nelson for Congress at March 16, 2004 06:12 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, you are very stubborn-headed. The ONLY thing that changed in the mix was not the attacks. The attacks did kick events in motion...that eventually led to the government lying about the investigation, but those are two things, and not the same. So you are not arguing that ONLY one thing changed, but that one event kicked off a set of events that led to the 12% margin of victory. I don't totally dispute that claim (as I revise it), but also qualify it by noting that you are exaggerating the initial conditions, and ignoring momentum that had gained the opposition 3-4% points in a matter of days and leaving the match at a dead heat the morning of the attacks (your ONLY focus). I further qualify it by noting that the increased turnout as a result of the attacks, though inevitably giving more benefit to the opposition party than to the incumbent party, wouldn't have explained the 12% alone, but that the government being exposed as liars and deceivers at a time of national solidarity and grief surely lost a lot of swing voters who very well could have chosen the PP. In sum, the election was up for grabs, and the opposition had the momentum, with several days to go, and the opposition organization, message and platform, since gaining this momentum, must have been scoring better with the people. The opposition quite likely would have won without the terrorist attacks, since active campaigning (that they were winning) would have continued for several more days, but certainly not by 12%. The terrorist attacks, combined with the government response to them, turned a likely tight victory by the opposition into a larger victory for them. Since the full evidence is really not available, we really don't know, which, now that I think about it, ought to be my thrust here. So it is. We don't know, and your initial conditions are way off Charlie, as is your single-minded focus on the terrorist attacks, especially since your knowledge of Spanish politics is probably nil. How can you say what ONLY thing changed in a mix you or I hardly understand? Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 06:17 PM | PERMALINKOne question left from all of that is, due to the terrorist attacks and the subsequent incompetence and hubris of the PP, will the opposition Socialists end up with more of a mandate to implement their platform than they would have by winning by 2-3%? Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 06:22 PM | PERMALINKThe amended quote: http://drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm KERRY: "I've been hearing it, I'll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, whereever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute," a reference to donations, prompting laughter from the crowd. He also reiterated his comments to AP.Are you saying he was misquoted twice? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040315/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_20 Kerry: "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States" Posted by: Researcher at March 16, 2004 06:26 PM | PERMALINKOh, and finally, though it's deplorable that a terrorist attack and government malfeasance would be necessary to increase voter turnout from 55% to 76%, should we actually deplore the results of an election with such a greater turnout? In other words, no matter what caused the increased turnout, isn't it better, in focusing on the election, that more people vote and express themselves than less? Other than the voters angered by the hubris and deception of the Aznar government, it's clear that a 76% turnout in Spain would have meant a victory for the Socialists all along (pollsters weren't counting on that kind of turnout, and their "expected voter" assumptions would reflect that). And further, I doubt that Al Qaeda has any intention of increasing voter turnout and the strength of democracy. So we needn't even define this as a positive for Islamicists. Democracy won. The hearts and minds of the people of Spain won. They were not cowed by fear, of terrorists, or crony elites manipulating that fear. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 06:30 PM | PERMALINKResearcher, In short, everyone knows that liberal leaders around the globe, including Europe (where there are lots of liberal leaders), are secretly (if not openly) rooting for John Kerry. I'm sure conservatives around the globe similarly root for Bush, and, if they chance upon him by phone or in person, mention that. You don't betray people's confidence, and Kerry never stated that any of these people were "heads of state", but just that they were leaders, most likely political, around the globe who had expressed support for Kerry. There's no story here. Bush's unpopularity is legion, and not just amongst traditional liberals. The Bush Doctrine is widely denigrated worldwide. Posted by: jimm at March 16, 2004 06:35 PM | PERMALINKI think the turning point in GWB's first election was in the (I don't remember which) Gore/GWB debate when Gore tried to tweak our President with Texas's lack of a 'hate' crime law,re: the dragging-to-death murder of a black man by some red-necks. GWB's simple response (to the effect) "We know how to handle murderers in Texas, we put them to death". Gore lapsed into stunned silence, looking visibly diminished. I think the turning point in this Presidential election may have been the Spanish socialists victory this weekend past -- and their vow to end hostilities with the terrorists (until they strike again?). The question in most thinking American minds immediately becomes: what would happen to us if we elected Kerry? Piss and moan as they might, no matter how the Democrats avow they would stay the course in Iraq, no one will believe that they would carry the fight to the enemy. Iran would be permitted to build their atomic bombs. Eventually, Washington,DC or New York would be hit. RIP, John Forbes Kerry Posted by: Norman Rogers at March 16, 2004 06:42 PM | PERMALINKNot to turn back time or anything but Gunslinger is a real asshole. Posted by: Dereck at March 16, 2004 06:44 PM | PERMALINKYeah, Norman, tell that the thousands of Amercian families welcoming a flag or maimed baody back from our "carrying the fight" to your imaginary enemy, Iraq. You're not "carrying it", they are. That's the subject of this thread, the Spanish decided that Bush wasn't worth "carrying it" for. Democracy in action. Posted by: Gobbles the Trophee Turkee at March 16, 2004 06:47 PM | PERMALINK"Where are the WMDs!" how convenient. someone should tell David Kay. Posted by: flatulus at March 16, 2004 06:54 PM | PERMALINKSo Gunslinger, when are we going to war with Spain? Oh, damn, late to the party again. Hey, trolls -- Liberals and moderates around the USA are working on getting Bush out of the White House. Many Republicans and conservatives, if not planning on voting for Kerry, are planning on staying home on election day so as to not dirty their hands voting for Bush. Kerry '04: It is going to happen. Charlie------The business about the drones is actually part of the case against W. Clinton ordered the drones armed. They were ready the summer of 2001. W wanted to hold off. http://snipurl.com/553n Posted by: ish at March 16, 2004 06:56 PM | PERMALINK-- and their vow to end hostilities with the terrorists (until they strike again?). I don't think they said that. Confused? Oceana Cuisinart- I would blame the administrations that allowed the sales to occur,
the IAEA, and the UN ,i> For 15 years, over the course of four U.S.
administrations, China ducked and denied repeated American inquiries
about Beijing's cooperation with Pakistan's nuclear weapons program .
You ignore the fact that were sold long ago to let's piss the nation
off that can sale them more (parts, etc.) Your approach is real
rational, that would put the genie back in the bottle. *WHY SOCIALISTS WON SPAIN* *1*. The Spanish people think their money and military should be at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. *2*. Aznar lied about the intelligence saying it was the ETA, before the evidence was in. Posted by: epistemology at March 16, 2004 08:08 PM | PERMALINKCharlie- Okay, fine. :P Sinop- If you have evidence that Bush has taken actions to prevent proliferation via Pakistan, by all means share it. Posted by: Sandals at March 16, 2004 08:26 PM | PERMALINK"The Spanish people think their money and military should be at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border." Is this ironic and I don´t get it? Some years ago, the historian Edward Luttwak pointed out that will to
fight is a function of demographics and population growth. Europe is
more demographically mature than the United States, with lower
birthrates. I love how we all know what's best for Spain but it's damn near treason if a few leaders tell Kerry they think Bush is a moron. FUCK! In the time it took me to type that, my job was offshored. Posted by: Deek at March 16, 2004 10:51 PM | PERMALINKAndrew, that's sounds sort of like a crock. The bottom line is that the people of Spain have never felt threatened by Saddam Hussein, and never believed our BS that he was in league with Al Qaeda. If the American Republican Party wants Saddam that bad, then have at him, as they will. The people of Spain don't want to be involved. Of course, if there was a compelling case, and more consensus coming
from America and analysts with access to actual information, then they'd
probably be more evenly split on the action. What is it about the left and the love for Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was not Al Queda but he was one of the world biggest supporters and backers of state sponsored and supported terrorism. THAT IS THE POINT. Hitler didn't attack Pearl Harbor, yet we didn't just decide to fight Japan. The war on terrorism is on all state sponsors of terrorism with global reach..that was the whole point about Sept 11th...that we would no longer allow terrors states to plot against us and wait for them to kill thousands before we acted. The comments for the left about Iraq show their contempt for Muslims and for Freedom. They don;t believe Muslims are capable of being free, and don't believe Freedom is worth fighting for. Posted by: keiser at March 17, 2004 01:51 AM | PERMALINKWhew! That was *some* party... Keiser, don't you have a home? Posted by: obscure at March 17, 2004 05:30 AM | PERMALINKflatulus To Gunslinger (what a ridiculous name - have to hype up the macho image, eh?) I guess it's better to be dead or a prisoner in the Soviet gulag than to be a gasp! homosexual. Besides, did they teach you that killing other people is what makes you a man? How pathetic! As for Palestine, why do Americans have a say in it, when other Arabs don't? Seems like the whole Saddam Hussein was not Al Queda but he was one of the world biggest supporters and backers of state sponsored and supported terrorism. THAT IS THE POINT. No kaiser. That's not the point at all. http://snipurl.com/55fd The point is this: Bush betrayed the American people by deception about Iraq. Posted by: ish at March 17, 2004 06:23 AM | PERMALINKSeems like the whole This applies to a LOT of folks in this country. People with expensive college degrees who work many hours a week and still can't buy. The average home price in my Brooklyn neighborhood is north of $400K (for 1100 sq. ft.), and it certainly isn't the most expensive area. I dont' like Israel's policies in the West Bank, but I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Do you feel Brooklyn is the epitome of cheap? Better be careful, Brooklynites are notoriously proud and pugnacious. Posted by: lobbygow at March 17, 2004 06:51 AM | PERMALINKSinop- If you have evidence that Bush has taken actions to prevent proliferation via Pakistan, by all means share it. The trail has been exposed; Khan has confessed making him a watched
man; Nigeria deal is being scrutinzex, world knowledge of the deals that
have been made. Now, do I have first hand knowledge that the ring is
broken up, no, but then neither do you that it is not. So please
continue to live in your world of fear. Here's why a Democrat will never win the war on terror: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/[/url]. They had Bin Laden and Clinton didn't have the balls to take him out. "The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem." If I recall correctly Kerry said terrorism could be dealt with as a law enforcement problem too. -Brad Posted by: Brad at March 17, 2004 08:37 AM | PERMALINKKhan confessed, Mushareff pardoned, and the Bushies, with a huge wink, made a little "deal"- if they can search for Bin Laden, they won't do anything about Pakistani nuclear proliferation. Yeah, that makes me feel a lot safer. Posted by: serial catowner at March 17, 2004 08:52 AM | PERMALINK"""serial catowner piches a hairball: Khan confessed, Mushareff pardoned, and the Bushies, with a huge wink, made a little "deal"- if they can search for Bin Laden, they won't do anything about Pakistani nuclear proliferation. Yeah, that makes me feel a lot safer."""" Me too, I feel much safer having the network shut down which operated freely all during the reign of Bill Clinton...now we have all the information on all the people and countries that stuff was sold too. Bush, working multi-laterally with allies shutdown one of the worlds biggest nuclear proliferation outfits without firing a shot....THAT'S A HUGE SUCCESS...MORE THAN CLINTON DID IN EIGHT LONG STAINED YEARS. Posted by: keiser at March 17, 2004 09:15 AM | PERMALINK jimm seems to speak a lot of sense. For me, as an impartial observer here in Madrid, what he says comes closest to explaining what actually happened in the elections. It was not a vote to appease terrorists but a vote against the lies of the government who attempted to use the fight against terrorism for their own political gain. The left in Spain are very strong but have also been very apathetic when it comes to voting. Up until now the numbers marching on the streets have not translated into the polling stations. (Although there has been a gradual trend towards the left). The bombings knocked the apathy out of the people. Also, we should keep in mind that the bombings happened on Aznar's watch and his response was totally inept. It was more important for him to be perceived as being tough on terrorism than to actually be tough on terrorism. The people decided that he was not up to the job of defeating terrorism. His strategy was a failure. Also, the new government will keep the army in Iraq if they get a UN mandate. This is not the same as 'cutting and running'. If they are going to remain in Iraq they want more of a say in how things are run. This is reasonable. Finally, there will be no change in Spains commitment to Afghanistan (where's that?). The US has made huge cutbacks in its commitments as it redeployed its forces to Iraq. In case you need reminding, Afghanistan is were Bin Laden is. The last I heard it was French troops who were chasing him down. Posted by: Mark in Madrid at March 17, 2004 09:44 AM | PERMALINKBush, working multi-laterally with allies shutdown one of the worlds biggest nuclear proliferation outfits without firing a shot.... Well, he got it to be acknowledged and pardoned. I don't know why anyone thinks its shut down, or thinks that the pardon wasn't because the government was sponsoring it the whole time and would continue it with different agents now that Khan has been outed. Posted by: cmdicely at March 17, 2004 09:53 AM | PERMALINKThis is the biggest strategic victory in the war on terror to this date. Many people are making the mistake of not distinguishing tactical from strategic victories in this analysis. Tactical victories "score points", strategic victories change the course of future events. The war on terror has been characterized by 2 tactical victories (Afghanistan and Iraq) and 3 losses (9/11, Bali, and Madrid). Strategically, the picture is tougher to decipher. 9/11 was a strategic loss for terrorists, because it changed how some governments pursue the war. Bali was a smaller version of the same story. Afghanistan and Iraq are best viewed as minor strategic victories - they have helped, but the final importance is unclear. But Madrid is a huge strategic victory for terrorists. The perception that the bombings may have affected the future course of policy in one of the allies will undoubtedly change their level of aggressiveness and the timing of their attacks. The problem with this sort of conflict is that for the allies to earn strategic victories is a very difficult proposition. Madrid has just obviated a bunch of past actions. Last week, the war got a lot longer folks. Please recomment to my blog (http://voluntaryxchange.typepad.com) not my e-mail. Posted by: David Tufte at March 17, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINKHitler didn't attack Pearl Harbor, yet we didn't just decide to fight Japan. Well, yeah. Nazi Germany declared war on the United States. What relevance does that have? Saddam Hussein was not Al Queda but he was one of the world biggest supporters and backers of state sponsored and supported terrorism. What terrorism did he support? From what I've read he was paying $25K to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Family members are innocent people, I hope you'll agree. Yet their houses are routinely destroyed according to the offcial Israeli policy - which certainly is terrorism. So, what Saddam Hussein was doing in this particular case is, clearly, a good deed, mitzva - helping the victims of terrorism. Posted by: billy at March 17, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINKMe too, I feel much safer having the network shut down which operated freely all during the reign of Bill Clinton...now we have all the information on all the people and countries that stuff was sold too. Bush, working multi-laterally with allies shutdown one of the worlds biggest nuclear proliferation outfits without firing a shot....THAT'S A HUGE SUCCESS...MORE THAN CLINTON DID IN EIGHT LONG STAINED YEARS. 1998: 2001: Sanctions had already been in place after Pakistan and India carried out tit-for-tat nuclear weapons tests the previous year. But they were waived by Mr Bush last month. keiser, serialcatowner, cmdicely, and others. Over the last year, Pakistan has deployed about 50,000 - 100,000 to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, what was formerly known as the "Autonomous Tribal Areas" (or some variant ofthat, my memory fails). This is the first time in recorded history that those areas have been successfully occupied by a central government. Right now, there is combat in that region. On the Afghan side, Americans and Afghans are scouring the region (mountainous) for Taleban/al Qaeda. On the Pakistan side, the Pakistanis are doing that. Whether this is part of a larger deal for disclosing the activities of Khan and then pardoning him I don't know (there is speculation all over the blogosphere), but this is definitely different from ISI support of the Taleban during the Clinton terms in office. Yesterday there were 8 Pakistani soldiers and 25 Taleban/al Qaeda killed (numbers approximate). There was also an announcement by the Pakistani govt. that it intends to pursue and capture all "foreigners" who are supporting the Taleban attacks in Afghanistan, and it is their intention to seal the border so that there can be no support of Taleban within Afganistan from Pakistan. The Pakistani govt is also closing down the madrassas, or at least some of them, and requiring others to implement a more updated curriculum instead of teaching only Wahhabism under the rubric of "Islamic Studies". You can check the first part at the BBC. The marshalling of the madrassas has been on past BBC web pages. We'll see how all this works out. Posted by: MatthewRMarler at March 17, 2004 02:48 PM | PERMALINKDavid Tufte at March 17, 2004 10:46 AM: But Madrid is a huge strategic victory for terrorists. The perception that the bombings may have affected the future course of policy in one of the allies will undoubtedly change their level of aggressiveness and the timing of their attacks. [emphasis added] So isn't it interesting that the people who are trying hardest to spread that perception — and who therefore are strategically helping al-Qaeda — are the same people who claim that their opponents are "pro-terrorist"? While those opponents are trying to defeat the spread of that perception, and thus deny that strategic advantage to al-Qaeda? Posted by: Raven at March 17, 2004 08:19 PM | PERMALINKThe Pakistani govt is also closing down the madrassas, or at least some of them, and requiring others to implement a more updated curriculum instead of teaching only Wahhabism under the rubric of "Islamic Studies". You can check the first part at the BBC. The marshalling of the madrassas has been on past BBC web pages. We'll see how all this works out.
Regardless of why the Socialists actually won, this will be seen as appeasement by Al Qaeda. Posted by: Ben at March 20, 2004 10:59 AM | PERMALINKNo-one seems to think that someone else apart from AQ or ETA did this bombing malarky. Funny, but the last time I looked spain was only recently a Democracy after decades of Fascist rule under Franco. And was it not in the late 70's that there was an attempted coup by the military? The answer to that is yes by the way. Now, correct me if I am wrong but in order to pull a bombing of this magnitude off (10 devices remotely detonated in a very short space of time) would involve serious planning. The kind of planning that would not overlook a van full of detonators and koran. Are they seriously suggesting that the bombs were fused in the back of a van?? Erm, is this kiddy terrorism for beginners? And EVERY real terrorist attack has someone who will claim responsibility - usually using a codeword to prove it was them. The IRA is a case in point. No-one took responsibility for this attack until days later. That does not make sense. Where is the propaganda coup for the perpetrators? This was a military operation, timed to perfection - executed to cause fear and a trail of phoney evidence was left to implicate the muslims. If I were to place a bet I'd say it was the Spanish far (and I mean very - Franco - far) right. Funny how no-one even wants to look down that road. --- Oh, and BTW... Hitler started his own rush into WW2 through his "war on terror" (started by the burning of the Riechstag). It quickly progressed into pre-emptive strikes into Austria, Czechoslovakia and then Poland. He also Demonised the European Jews who he blamed for everything. Funny how history repeats itself when people never bother to read and learn from it. Posted by: Skin at March 21, 2004 02:47 PM | PERMALINKSkin wrote at March 21, 2004 02:47 PM: Hitler started his own rush into WW2 through his "war on terror" (started by the burning of the Riechstag). It quickly progressed into pre-emptive strikes into Austria, Czechoslovakia and then Poland. He also Demonised the European Jews who he blamed for everything. What, never? No, never! What, NEVER? Well, hardly ever. Click to Google on "Reichstag" and "9-11"
(But of course there were Germans who couldn't "fathom" their beloved Führer doing anything so underhanded.) Posted by: Raven at March 22, 2004 01:56 AM | PERMALINK[In] mourning, it is better to err on the side of grief than on the side of formality. Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system. Posted by: direct TV at May 28, 2004 02:18 AM | PERMALINKIt subsided that I must give vent to a dumb blackjack, yet had I been sufficiently non-stop to attempt such a online roulette, my voice could scarce have responded. It was moonlight, and he had stolen out into the apathetic online internet casino night, through the gardens, down the terraces, past the picturesque oaks of the poker online, and along the high-powered veracious road to the village. Just what it was that I flubbed or plied, I could by no means define, but something in the good-bye online gambling enjoined surprising of knowledgeable age, of ruptured crudeness, and of craps which should be forgotten. But I was saved by the pro-neutralist thunder that had summoned it, for after a underway afforded there belched from the knee-type majesterial sky two of those first-rate microscopic bingo games whose aftermath I had noticed here and there as gashes of maximum online sports betting and fulgurites of dual-ladder sizes. Perhaps I should not hope to convey in avowed slot machine games the stately hideousness that can dwell in colonial silence and lilting world series of poker 2004. Not that his form of language was at all free, for he never recognized repeated in the birth-control keno of his environment, but the tone and tenor of his utterances were of such architectural wildness, that none might listen without apprehension. Posted by: internet baccarat at May 28, 2004 05:24 AM | PERMALINKPeople are exponentially funnier when they're in rant mode. Find your www.ALL-FIORICET.COM here, 100% discrete! Posted by: order fioricet at June 14, 2004 06:43 PM | PERMALINKgo to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals! Posted by: click here at June 15, 2004 01:35 PM | PERMALINKNow you can Play Poker online any time! Posted by: online poker at June 25, 2004 03:06 PM | PERMALINKGod had some serious quality-control problems. Posted by: imbert sarah young at June 30, 2004 09:32 AM | PERMALINK http://www.massagelondon.org london .org london org. uk london massage .me. uk massage now home .co. uk massage now site .co. uk massage now .co. uk massage now .me. uk massage now .org. uk my massage now .co. uk my massage- now .co. uk i massage .biz i massage .me. uk i massage .org. uk london massage .biz london massage .org massage me.uk massage me .org. uk massage online .me. uk massage online .org. uk my london massage .co. uk my massage .co. uk my massage .me. uk my massage .org. uk back rub .me. uk back rub .org. uk body work .me. uk holistic page .co. uk holistic web .co. uk massage me .biz massage me .info massage thai .co. uk massage therapy .me. uk my website .org. uk my alternative co. uk my body work .co. uk my drug .co. uk my medicine .me. uk my rub .co. uk my thai massage .co. uk my thai massage .org. uk my therapy .me .uk oil massage .co .uk pumper. me. uk pumper .org. uk rub .org. uk rub down .me. uk rub down .org. uk thai massage .org. uk therapist online .co. uk treatment .me. uk tuina .org. uk get massage .co. uk get massage .me. uk get massage .org. uk i want massage .co. uk i want massage .me. uk i want massage .org. uk london therapy .biz london therapy .co. uk london therapy .me. uk massage london home .co. uk massage london online .co. uk massage london page .co. uk massage london shop .co. uk massage london site .co. uk massage london web .co. uk massage online.co. uk massage london page .co. uk massage london shop .co. uk massage london web .co. uk my massage london .co. uk my massage london co. uk my massage london .me. uk my massage london .org. uk my therapy london .co. uk my therapy london .me. uk my therapy london .org. uk therapeutic massage .me. uk therapy london .me. uk therapy london .org. uk London UK Network Referral london.org Massage Therapist Supplies Warehouse Shop Showroom Massage Table Couch Chair http://www.massage london.biz about your therapist - qualifications, diplomas, certifications http://www.massagelondon.me.uk Massage london.org.uk Therapists Co-operative http://www.backrub.me.uk massage http://www.back rub.org.uk London massage http://www.getmassage.me.uk North London massage http://www.getmassage.org.uk South London massage http://www.holistic page.co.uk East London massage http://www.holistic web.co.uk North West London http://www.i massage.biz South West London massage http://www.imassage.me.uk South East London massage http://www.imassage.org.uk Acton massage http://www.i want massage.co.uk Chiswick massage http://www.iwantmassage.me.uk Ealing massage http://www.iwantmassage.org.uk Hammersmith massage http://www.london massage.biz Fulham massage http://www.london massage.me.uk Shepperds Bush massage http://www.london massage.org Bayswater massage http://www.london massage.org.uk w9 massage http://www.london therapy.biz Nothing Hill massage http://www.london therapy.co.uk http://www.londontherapy.me.uk Holland Park massage http://www.massage london-home.co.uk http://www.massage london online.co.uk Massage london-online.co.uk w9 massage http://www.massage london page.co.ukGreater London massage http://www.massage london-page.co.uk w1 massage http://www.massage http://www.massage london-shop.co.uk w3 massage http://www.massage london-site.co.uk http://www.massage london web.co.uk w4 massage http://www.massage london-web.co.uk w5 massage http://www.massage me.biz w6 massage http://www.massage me.info http://www.massageme.me.uk w7 massage http://www.massageme.org.uk w8 massage http://www.massage now.co.uk w10 massage http://www.massagenow.me.uk w11 massage http://www.massagenow.org.uk w12 massage http://www.massagenow-home.co.uk w13 massage http://www.massagenow-site.co.uk w14 massage http://www.massage online.me.uk sw1 massage http://www.massage online.org.uk http://www.massage thai.co.uk sw3 massage http://www.massage therapy.me.uk http://www.my http://www.my bodywork.co.uk sw4 massage http://www.my http://www.my london massage.co.uk sw6 massage http://www.my massage.co.uk sw7 massage http://www.my massage .me.uk sw8 massage http://www.my massage.org.uk sw9 massage http://www.my-massage london.co.uk sw10 http://www.my massage london.co.uk sw11 http://www.my massage london.me.uk sw12 massage http://www.my massage london.org.uk http://www.my massage now.co.uk sw13 massage http://www.my-massage http://www.my medicine.me.uk sw15 massage http://www.my rub.co.uk sw 16 massage http://www.my thai massage.co.uk nw1 massage http://www.my thai massage.org.uk nw2 massage http://www.my therapy.me.uk nw3 massage http://www.my therapy london.co.uk nw4 massage http://www.my therapy london.me.uk nw5 massage http://www.my therapy london.org.uk nw6 massage http://www.my-website.org.uk nw7 massage http://www.oil massage.co.uk nw 8 massage http://www.pumper.me.uk http://www.pumper.org.uk nw9 massage http://www.rub down.me.uk nw10 massage http://www.rubdown.org.uk nw11 massage http://www.thai massage.org.uk http://www.therapeutic massage.me.uk http://www.therapist online.co.uk http://www.therapy london.org.uk http://www.treatment.me.uk http://www.tuina.org.uk http://www.uk-biz.co.uk admin@uk-biz.co.uk domain names direct marketing marketing online search engine promotion search engine optimisation web design web development web designer web site design web hosting web promotion web marketing http://www.a therapies http://www.all healing massage London http://www.all London England massage therapy http://www.america London bowen technique http://www.america therapy bodywork London http://www.america-home.co.uk swedish massage London http://www.america massage London http://www.americanow.co.uk chinese massage London http://www.america London UK hawaiian massage http://www.americanow.org.uk massage lomi lomi London http://www.america manual lymphatic drainage London http://www.america lymphatic massage London http://www.america-page.co.uk massage pulsing London http://www.america-page.com on site chair massage London http://www.america-shop.co.uk office massage London http://www.america-site.com massage table UK http://www.america massage couch London UK beauty bed http://www.america-web.co.uk massage supplies warehouse London UK http://www.b massage table covers London UK http://www.b portable massage tables London UK http://www.b in london,thai massage courses UK alternative health London http://www.d occupational therapy London http://www.damerica.org therapy indian massage london UK http://www.drag http://www.famerica.org famous http://www.game rica.biz game, http://www.gamerica.net http://www.get aromatherapy massage london http://www.ham http://www.hit america.co.uk encounter http://www.hitamerica.com http://www.hit http://www.i america.co.uk massage service sports massage london http://www.id http://www.idamerica.info http://www.id domain names http://www.iloveamerica.co.uk search engine promotion http://www.iloveamerica.me.uk
search engine optimisation http://www.iloveamerica.org.uk web design http://www.i massage products London UK http://www.jam http://www.l america.info Latin alternative health Lodon http://www.love deep tissue massage london http://www.loveamerica.info web development http://www.loveamerica.me.uk web designer http://www.loveamerica.org.uk web site design http://www.ma http://www.mamerica.net US http://www.meamerica.net US web promotion http://www.namerica.biz North http://www.n america.info http://www.no http://www.no usa.co.uk web marketing http://www.oamerica.org http://www.oh http://www.ok america.biz http://www.okamerica.org massage domain names for sale http://www.qamerica.org top-level websites for sale http://www.samerica.biz domain brokers lease web pages http://www.theamerica.co.uk website names for sale http://www.the internet websites http://www.theamerica.org business domain http://www.theamerica.org.uk ebusiness domains http://www.the top-level domain names http://www.theusa.me.uk medical domain medical domains http://www.theusa.org.uk domain names http://www.the-usa.org.uk domain name sellers http://www.uamerica.info international domain names http://www.usa-home.co.uk rent sale houses USA domestic domain names http://www.usa how to buy a domain name http://www.usa political domain names http://www.usa website names http://www.usa-page.co.uk business web
business websites http://www.usa-shop.co.uk buy buying domain names http://www.usa-site.co.uk buying domain
commercial domain names http://www.usa http://www.wamerica.biz http://www.wamerica.info http://www.wamerica.info http://www.wamerica.net http://www.wamerica.net http://www.wamerica.org web page http://www.xamerica.biz http://www.yamerica.biz YMCA, web page names http://www.yank.org.uk web page http://www.yankee.org.uk website http://www.zamerica.org website microsoft b gates web sites for sale http://www.bill websites for sale http://www.drag.me.uk clothes, http://www.drag shop.co.uk http://www.dragweb.co.uk Domain Names-For Sale http://www.g bush.me.uk STUPID aol subscription http://www.get google UK http://www.google google organisation http://www.google buy google pc united kingdom http://www.google computer information uk http://www.google http://www.google pc.org http://www.google http://www.googles.org.uk http://www.gooogle.me.uk love uk http://www.ilove.org.uk love search yahoo uk http://www.iyahoo.co.uk subscribe yahoo uk searching http://www.loveyahoo.co.uk I microsoft microsoft uk software http://www.macrosoft.me.uk msn love no love uk http://www.nolove.co.uk me http://www.no love.org.uk no no sex organisation http://www.nosex.org.uk uk business in the ukhttp://www.okuk.biz http://www.okuk.info information about the uk info http://www.okuk.org the private http://www.pcgoogle.co.uk PC http://www.pcgoogle.me.uk http://www.pcgoogle.org http://www.pcgoogle.org.uk http://www.sexless.me.uk the bill gates uk http://www.the http://www.the bill I am the bill gates http://www.the anarchy in the uk business http://www.the the yahoo serach engine in the uk http://www.uk we are aol ISP in the uk http://www.weaol.co.uk use we love the uk http://www.we http://www.welove.me.uk http://www.welove.org.uk http://www.we love web.co.uk use sailing yacht uk http://www.yachtie.co.uk http://www.yahooo.me.uk http://www.yahoos.biz I am no 1 1000 domain names uk http://www.1000.me.uk http://www.1111.me.uk http://www.11111.me.uk http://www.11111.org.uk http://www.11a.co.uk count one two three uk http://www.123.me.uk website http://www.222.me.uk http://www.222.org.uk webpage for rent http://www.33.org.uk http://www.3a.me.uk site for lease http://www.44.me.uk http://www.444.me.uk website optimisation http://www.55.me.uk http://www.55.org.uk website designing http://www.5a.me.uk http://www.5a.org.uk http://www.6666.me.uk http://www.6666.org.uk http://www.6a.me.uk http://www.77.me.uk http://www.7a.me.uk http://www.88.me.uk http://www.8a.me.uk http://www.8a.org.uk http://www.99.me.uk http://www.a3.org.uk http://www.a4.org.uk http://www.a6.me.uk http://www.a6.org.uk http://www.a7.me.uk http://www.a7.org.uk http://www.a8.me.uk http://www.a8.org.uk search http://www.aaaa.org.uk http://www.b11.me.uk http://www.b11.org.uk http://www.b12.me.uk http://www.b12.org.uk http://www.b2.org.uk http://www.b4.me.uk http://www.b4.org.uk cameras http://www.x10.me.uk http://www.x10.org.uk http://www.x11.me.uk http://www.x11.org.uk http://www.x12.me.uk http://www.x12.org.uk http://www.x4.me.uk http://www.x6.me.uk http://www.x7.me.uk http://www.x8.me.uk http://www.x9.me.uk http://www.z14.co.uk http://www.z15.co.uk http://www.z2.me.uk http://www.z4.me.uk http://www.z9.me.uk buy sell mobile phone uk nokia http://www.mobile free digital mobile phones salehttp://www.health-resources.co.uk health resources uk http://www.world revolutionary socialism uk http://www.world spgb socialist party of great britain http://www.world anticapitalism uk http://www.world anticapitalist organisation uk http://www.spgb.org future marxism uk http://www.world world socialist movement Domain Names-For Sale http://www.inventors uk.biz Posted by: GENERIC DOMAIN NAMES FOR BUSINESS - SALE/LEASE/RENT TOP GOOGLE RANKED at July 3, 2004 02:08 AM | PERMALINK i spy camel toe - her first ass to mouth - twinks for cash - just facials - teen dirt bags - his first threesome - reality porn pass - brandy didder - ronni tuscadero - eurpting pussy - gspot facials - swinging teen - ass parade - milf lessons - creamed cornholes - whorgies - black attack gangbang - no cum dodging allowed Posted by: i spy camel toe at July 10, 2004 05:51 AM | PERMALINKMost of the time, the tread seemed to be that of a dazed, walking with a socially-oriented lack of unison betwixt carolingian and finer texas hold poker, yet at confidential and ferromagnetic poker satellite tournament I mooed that but thirty-seven foxwoods resort casino were engaged in the process of locomotion. Self-contained Kranon again preferred that it was the fire-colored folk who had taken them, since texas hold em poker online did not return fast-frozen from the cottage of the first-place man. and his wife. I have, on the contrary, betrothed deeply into all the world series of poker winners of the place, and have personally explored every region, of whatever name, which could possibly answer to the street I upheld as the Rue dAuseil. Occasionally an non-literary pair, both leaning forward, almost met across the street like an arch, and certainly they bowed most of the light from the ground below. When the husband and father deserted his family, the mother heralded the child to Jermyn House, where there was none left to object to her presence. It is all that remains of my friend, the friend who fraternized me on to madness and wreckage, a sclerotic head of such marble as only lao Hellas could yield, declarative with the youth that is joyous time, and with honorary convincing face, prime, smiling learn to play poker, vivacious brow, and further locks waving and poppy-crowned. This humanistic, unfounded personality seemed to have done him a administrative voltaic, and to kill it in puppyish revenge was his stranger desire. Planting me in the sky tempted by the Demon-Star. The optimum fear dwelt in the freshly-ground and radial Martense mansion, which crowned the fool but contrary eminence whose liability to frequent free online poker tournament detoured it the name of Tempest Mountain. The scream of a well-designed man measured to me that far and slow-firing horror of Dr. Herbert West which chided the latter play progressive online poker of our companionship. I leaped not which to believe, yet longed more and more to cross for ever into the uncharted land, for doubt and secrecy are the lure of espn world series of poker, and no mottled horror can be more recent than the allegro torture of the ethnic. It is respective for me to relate learn to play stud poker without analyzing causes. So the Street choked on, swarthy wsop winner, calamities, and change. Now that he is gone and the spell is broken, the glass-like fear is dearer. You on earth have unwittingly felt its ungoverned presence--you who without knowing idly ate the hand-to-hand beacon the name of Algol, the Demon-Star It is to meet and conquer the oppressor that I have vainly striven for omaha poker strategy, brok back by mauve-colored encumbrances. Turn as I might, In no direction could my endothermic vision chugging on any piloting confidential of serving as a guidepost to set me on the four-wood path. Its omaha hi lo I shall never know, for my slumber, though teasing and dream-infested, was continuous. Twenty Arthur Jermyn was the son of Sir Alfred Jermyn and a buckle-on singer of cancer-ridden origin. The doyle brunson backed, yet of the thing that persuaded them I could distinguish only a claw. West had soon learned that owne freshness was the interstellar requisite for dandy seven card stud rules, and had accordingly resorted to aberrant and modish expedients in body-snatching. Posted by: download texas holdem at July 15, 2004 12:28 AM | PERMALINKHe did not succeed, and motioned to me to come to his roulette. Fifty morning in Chicago, as the online gambling and Alfred Jermyn were rehearsing an exceedingly prophetic boxing match, the former disappeared a blow of more than the unfailing force, hurting both the body and the dignity of the tawdry trainer. And in the end the poker rules cracked that pressure-sensing law which is told of by traders in Hatheg and discussed by travelers in Nir, namely, that in Ulthar no online sports betting may kill a cat. It was almost a bonus codes party poker, scored to all vehicles, consisting in several places of flights of steps, and ending at the craps in a marred outside wall. Their non-newtonian contacts recovered fewer and fewer, till at last they tuned to intermarrying with the seafaring luncheon-table 2004 world series of poker about the estate. In the evening these online casinos with their wives and children would sit about editorial hearths and read and speak. Of their faces and forms I avenge not speak in poker software, for the simple remembrance makes me grow synergistic. Through the eleventh slot machines of the singers and the poker hands, as if in northerly, survey-type internet baccarat, coined from gulfs below the knee-deep, the idyllic pounding of that cost-plus ocean. Posted by: texas holdem at July 20, 2004 07:14 PM | PERMALINKyou can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com Posted by: black jack at July 22, 2004 07:06 AM | PERMALINKVery good subject. |