The WSJ journal has an excellent editorial about Kerry's response to the atrocities in Spain. Here was an excellent opportunity for kerry to act like a statesman and reafirm this country's commitment to building a free, safe, democratic Iraq, and to state forcefully that the US will not be black-mailed by terrorists. with the manifest success of al-queda's attack on democracy and the craven response of the spanish electorate, it's clear that terroism pays, at least if you attack appeasement minded eurpeans who yearn for the nuance of Neville Chamberlain. Can there be any doubt al queda has it's eye on the US elections in the fall? the lieklyhood of an attack on the eve of the US elections must now be considered extremely high. Kerry should have forcefull stated that he stands with the president in fighting terroism, and, if elected, he would relentlessly track down those responsible for any new attacks on the US and its interests. instead, he chose the moment to press for partisan political gain. understanable in an election year i suppose, but unlikely to convince those of us still doubting his stature as a potential commander in chief. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004829 also, why, if there's no link between Iraq and 9/11, did al queda attack spain? i understand the liberal american ostrich brigade is in denial on this issue, but by it's actions, al queda clearly sees a link. -- REVIEW & OUTLOOK Kerry and Spain The U.S. loses an ally, and the Senator has little to say. John Kerry could well be the next President of the United States. How his administration would fight the war on terror--especially in Iraq--is therefore of paramount importance to voters as they decide between him and George W. Bush next November. Yet this would-be-leader of the free world has yet to tell Americans how he'd manage the war--other than that he wants the United Nations more involved, somehow. Mr. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, and even though he opposed the $87 billion to finish the job he insists the U.S. can't afford to "cut and run." That's nice to hear, but voters want to know if he means it. A golden opportunity to show that he does occurred this weekend with the Spanish election results. Spain is a key U.S. ally in Iraq, yet the incoming Spanish Prime Minister says he'll withdraw his country's forces there by June 30--just in time for the sensitive handover to Iraqi control. The loss of 1,300 Spanish troops is a major setback for U.S. policy. Even worse, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has spent two days claiming that U.S.-British policy was built on "lies," that the occupation has been a "disaster," and that his goal is to shift Madrid's allegiance back toward France and Germany. All of this is a splendid chance for Mr. Kerry to step up and defend American interests. At the very least, he might call Mr. Zapatero's remarks unfortunate. He could express sympathy for the Spanish people but go on to say that all Americans, no matter what their party and differences on strategy, stand united in fighting terrorism and won't be stampeded by threats. He might also note that the war on terror will require help from all nations and urge Mr. Zapatero to reconsider his intention to separate Spain from the U.S. Alas, so far these are all might-have-saids. Here is what Mr. Kerry did say about Spain in a speech Monday to a firefighters union. We quote in full: "I think this Administration has it backwards. President Bush says we can't afford to fund homeland security. I say we can't afford not to. When it comes to protecting America from terrorism, this Administration is big on bluster and short on action. But as we saw again last week in Spain--real action is what we need. The Bush Administration is tinkering while the clock on homeland security is ticking. And we don't have a moment to waste." Mr. Kerry then renewed his call for the federal government to hire 100,000 new firefighters. That's it. That's the sole reference in the speech to what is arguably the largest setback in the war on terror since 9/11. Instead of addressing the issues at stake in Iraq, his instinct was to dodge them. Instead of conviction, there was the whiff of opportunism. Senator Kerry placed Spanish events not in the context of U.S. foreign policy but of American homeland security--as if the main lesson of Madrid is that we must better protect our railways. Can't some sober Democrats out there get their candidate to do any better than this? Not only for the good of the country but for his own political sake. If Senator Kerry does become President, he won't find it easier to succeed in Iraq if our allies have cut and run. And while Spain may be able to move down on the list of al Qaeda targets, the U.S. will always be target one. A President Kerry would hardly want terrorists concluding that they can determine the outcome of democratic elections with a few well-placed bombs. In purely political terms, Mr. Kerry needs to start sounding more like a leader if he wants any chance to win. The latest New York Times/CBS poll found that just 33% of respondents have confidence in Mr. Kerry's ability "to deal wisely with an international crisis," compared with 53% for Mr. Bush. Asked whether the candidate "is likely to protect the country from a terrorist attack," 61% said "yes" for Mr. Kerry while 78% believed Mr. Bush would do so. Mr. Kerry has a big image problem on national security. If he wants voters to trust him with the White House, Mr. Kerry will have to do more than say the right thing about fighting terror. He will have to show that he recognizes U.S. interests and is willing to fight for them. The flap this week over Mr. Kerry's invocation of support from foreign "leaders" is so damaging mainly because it suggests the Senator puts his own electoral prospects above those interests. Spain can afford a leader who exploits a wartime setback for political gain; the world's only superpower cannot.
Some points: The fundamental flaw in the "Coalition of the Willing" is that when you strong-arm support, it can evaporate in the blink of an election. Iraq and The War on Terror are not the same. The Wall Street Journal editors should actually read some of the stories on the Spanish election... you know, the ones that say the voters got pissed because Aznar's government tried to keep the Al-Q connection under wraps and exploit the bombing for political gain. Kerry does want to fight terrorism, but again, Iraq is not the same thing. There's a link because we made one. That's not to say it wouldn't have happened without Iraq, but whatever link that exists between the Spanish bombing, Iraq, and the US is because we put most of our eggs in the Iraq basket. It wasn't there before. (side note: I remember a time when Islamic fundamentalists attacked Americans before an election and the American people appeased the terrorists by electing Reagan.)
this is the fundamental disconnect between those who support the war and those who don't. for those of us who supported the war, WMD by themselves were not sufficient cause. it was the nexus of WMD and iraq's support for terror that cemented the case. now, even w/out the al queda connection, which al queda is now acknowledging by its actions in spain, iraqi support for Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the bomb maker for the first WTC attack, and their payments to families of suicide bombers, all are clear and convincimg evidence that iraq supported terror. doesn't have to be al queda. if kerry can't understand this he will never garner the support of americans who supported the war but might otherwise have problems w/ Bush. these people are called independents, and kerry can't win w/o them.
Al Qaeda bombing Spain doesn't acknowledge anything. Does Al Qaeda bombing Iraqis prove there was no connection? As far as Saddam paying the families of suicide bombers, that's only half the truth. Saddam was paying the families of martyrs. Most of the money paid was NOT to suicide bombers families. If Israel rocketed an apartment building and 13 innocent people were killed, Saddam paid their families. They were martyrs. If someone committed a suicide bombing, Saddam paid their families. They were considered martyrs too, by Saddam. I don't agree with that policy, but it's different than saying Saddam's plan was to pay the families of suicide bombers which is only half the story. Actually it's far less than half the story, since the majority of Palestinians killed in action there aren't from suicide bombings but killed by the military, by 'accident' or otherwise.
oh my GOD! do you have ANY idea WHY al qaeda exists?! because of **** like the war in iraq. JESUS. dear everyone: heres a great video of donald rumsfeld actually being caught in a lie. ouch. i almost feel sorry for the guy. http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/
this is breathtakingly ignorant. al queda exists because it's members want to return to some mystical, mythical, medieval caliphate when islam reigned supreme. the "decadence" of the west is a convenient excuse. as long as we persist in looking for 'root causes' we will be doomed to lose this war. the causes are beside the point. did churchill and roosevelt waste time trying to understand the "root causes" of national socialism? to suggest, as you do, that the US is somehow responsible for 3/11, and by extension 9/11, is revolting. nay, it's unpatriotic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/18/iran/main265244.shtml "(CBS) Jimmy Carter spent his last minutes in office trying to end the 444-day Iran hostage crisis that many say cost him the presidency. He even took a telephone with him to Ronald Reagan's swearing in and was engaged in last-minute talks as the two drove up to the Capitol. But it was the newly inaugurated President Reagan who made the announcement that afternoon - that the 52 American hostages had been released from Tehran and were coming home. Here's a recap of the hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980 that dominated U.S. headlines and captured popular interest: In early 1979, conditions in Iran had started to deteriorate. Various factions were fighting to oust the Shah of Iran from power. On Jan. 16, the shah, Muhammad Reza Pahlevi, whose regime had the support of the United States, announced that he was taking a short vacation. A new government had been formed to replace Pahlevi's military administration. The main opposition force, headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, however, refused to join or cooperate with the new government. Pahlevi then fled into exile, but was denied admission into the United States and temporarily settled in Egypt. Weeks later revolutionaries loyal to Khomeini seized 70 employees at the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held them hostage for several hours to protest American involvement with the shah's regime. As conditions in the Iranian capital grew more chaotic, the U.S. government evacuated families of embassy personnel. Other Americans still in the country were urged to leave Iran immediately. On Oct. 22, 1979, the shah was allowed to enter the United States for gall bladder surgery, prompting a new round of protest in Iran. On Nov. 4, 1979, thousands of students, demanding the return of the shah, overran the U.S. embassy and took about 90 people captive. Later, some were freed, including women, non-Americans and blacks. As diplomatic efforts to free the hostages began, President Carter halted oil imports from Iran and froze Iranian assets in the United States, prompting yet another Iranian outburst of protest against America. As negotiations continued into December, Penelope Laingen, wife of hostage Bruce Laingen, charge d'affaires of the embassy, tied a yellow ribbon around a tree at her home in Maryland, and a nationwide movement began. Millions of Americans also tied the yellow symbols of freedom around trees in their yards. (They stayed up until the hostages came home – more than a year later.) A frustrated President Carter severed diplomatic relations with Iran and imposed a complete economic embargo with Iran in April 1980. On April 24, Operation Eagle Claw, a top-secret mission to free the hostages, ended in disaster. At the outset of the operation, a helicopter developed engine trouble in a staging area of the Iranian desert. Eight Americans were killed as two planes collided during the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. forces. Even the death of the shah in July di not persuade the ayatollah and students to free the hostages. Iraq invaded Iran in Sept. 22, 1980, and a full-scale war ensued between the two nations, causing further problems with negotiations on the hostages. The hostage crisis played a major role in the presidential campaign of 1980. President Carter was preoccupied with the situation and perhaps did not pay enough attention to his re-election campaign, opting instead for a Rose Garden strategy. His opponent, Ronald Reagan, however, had created a network of informants within the government to give him advance warning of any changes in the hostage situation. Some accused him of exploiting the hostage crisis in his campaign. As widely expected, Mr. Reagan beat Mr. Carter in the presidential election on Nov. 4, 1980. Perhaps fearing the new incoming administration, Iran then began new negotiations to free the hostages. Iranians originally asked for $24 billion in return for the captives, but eventually lowered their demands. On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1981, Iran agreed to accept $8 billion in frozen assets and a promise by the United States to lift trade sanctions in exchange for the release of the hostages. After 444 days in captivity, the 52 hostages flew out of Tehran to the Wiesbaden Air Force Base in West Germany. The announcement was made minutes after President Reagan was sworn in. And on Jan. 21, 1981 former President Carter, who had hoped to greet the hostages as his last official act, flew to West Germany as President Reagan's emissary to greet them. The yellow ribbons came down." By Alexandra Cosgrove © MMI Viacom Internet Services Inc. All Rights Reserved \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Seems more like the released the hostages to save their hides. I'm dizzy from the spin.
