Why is that funny, giddyup? Tell that to the families and loved ones of the reservists and National Guard troops that will have to make up the difference. You don't think our guys were glad to see those Spaniards working with them in Iraq?
These folks are probably pretty much on the bandwagon. Probably would've been hard to get them onboard the whole invasion of Iraq thing. And why did you say "no" and then mention the countries he mentioned?
MC Mark, You took that out of Windows install, didn't ya? Come on now, we can't let all the other countries make decisions for us, now can we? The USA should consider others opinions but must act in it's own best interests. Just as other countries should as well. DD
There are all sorts of reasons to not really like a Socialist government in Spain right now aside from the war in Iraq, not unlike Republicans often preferring a Conservative majority in Britain over a Labour one (though obviously the Labour PM went along on the Iraq thing). Or it could be the Iraq thing. I don't have any idea.
maybe, maybe no... We weren't talking about letting other countries make decisions for us. We were talking about your elite killing force. Take just one commando from each country and you've got your "coalition killing commandos."
That's a separate issue. I don't know where you get their evidence that they are gnashing teeth. It's sad that, apparently 2/3rds of the Spanish people have lost courage (or never had it) for this fight. They won't go away. This is a victory for terrorism. That may be worth gnashing your teeth over. The 1300 Spanish troops who are there (at least that's the number I heard reported) are but a small portion of the total force on the ground in Iraq.
This is in no way a victory for terrorism. The new guy in Spain has said that his number one priority is terrorism. He specifically mentioned attacks in the US, Indonesia, Turkey, and Spain. Just because they want to pull out of Iraq, a war they see as having no relation to the war on terror and probably a detriment to the war on terror does not make them cowards. I remind you and MrPaige that this party is in line philosophically with the Social Democrats who have governed other European countries since WWII, this party got Spain into NATO, this party supported the first Gulf War. Spain also contributed greatly in Afghanistan and lost over 60 soldiers in an air craft crash related to that conflict. There has been no suggestion by the new guys that there is anything other than support for the Afghanistan issue. Everyone understood that an attack on Afghanistan was an attack on Al-Q and not Saddam Hussein just as everyone except Bush puppets understand that an attack on Iraq was an attack on Saddam Hussein and not Al-Q. Given that the elections results in Spain are a "victory" for the terrorists when the stated goal of the new government is to go after terrorists, what then is Iraq under this construct but a distraction and terrorist appeasment? It's clear to me that people who try and equate the war on terror with Iraq are not really serious about the war on terror, but are more interested in propping up the Bush administration's abysmal failure and securing another four years of the same. This whole furor over the Spanish elections is designed to set up a thought process here that goes something like: "If there are no attacks in the US, Bush is doing great and deserves the election while if there are attacks here, Kerry is too weak to deal with them and Bush deserves the election." Well screw that. Two can play that game... Get your priorities right Giddy... you're either against terrorism or for it. If you support Bush and his adventure in Iraq, that means you're for terrorism. (Note: I also like how you say the Spanish have no courage and then try to pretend like the troops they have in Iraq aren't important. They may not be large numerically, but their symbolic weight is much greater. Your post mostly proves my point in the earlier exchange.)
Thank god true patriots like giddyup have the courage and resolve to stick it out in Iraq by doing his part on the homefront bravely posting urban legends on the internet. He has earned the right to be dismissive of the loss of manpower and to denouce the cowardly spaniard for not having his fortitude.
From Newshour... _________________ MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Checa, what is your reading of what was the number one thing behind the outcome? In other words, was it Aznar's support for the war against Bush or those people, or was it this public perception that he was trying to withhold information about who was behind the bombing? 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. 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. MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying it more than just a public suspicion that they were withholding information, in fact the Zapatero campaign had to essentially pressure the government to release this information? NICOLAS CHECA: Precisely. Yet there was a report earlier in the afternoon on Saturday coming out of Spanish intelligence agency saying that they were 99 percent confident that ETA was not responsible for the attacks and that all the avenues of the investigation pointed into al-Qaida. In the early afternoon after the arrests had already been made, the director of the Spanish CIA denied those reports and it was after that that the campaign manager for the Zapatero campaign had to come forward and basically inform public opinion that there was information that was not being shared with the population.
From The American Prospect... _____________ Rational Security The problem isn't that George W. Bush hasn't done enough in the war on terrorism -- it's that he's hardly fought it at all. Matthew Yglesias Eager as ever to Leave No Corpse Unexploited, the right has wasted little time in promoting the idea that last week's horrifying terrorist attacks in Madrid are a vindication of the Bush administration's policies. On March 12, Andrew Sullivan declared his hope that, if al-Qaeda or an affiliate is found to be responsible, "the democratic nations of Europe will begin to realize what Tony Blair and George Bush have been warning about for so long." Arnold Beichman, writing in The National Review Online, proclaimed that the attack "reminds the world that there's a war out there," a phrase echoed in Secretary of State Colin Powell's remark on Fox News Sunday that the bombings "show that there is a war on terror that must be fought." Condoleezza Rice expressly linked this point to electoral politics on Meet The Press, predicting that "we are going to have a debate about whether we are at war." Too many Democrats seem to want to dodge this debate, either agreeing with Howard Dean's remarks later on Meet the Press that "jobs, jobs, jobs" and "economic security" will be the biggest issues in the campaign, or at least hoping that he's proven right. A strategy of changing the subject might work for the Democrats, but as we learned last week it places a dangerous amount of power in the hands of America's enemies, who might strike at any time and rapidly alter the political discourse. The possibility of new attacks aside, it must also be recognized that the incumbent president has an intrinsic ability to shift attention to national security. The traditional power of the bully-pulpit has been amplified by the White House's ability to manipulate the terror alert system, selectively leak intelligence about chatter, or announce new initiatives without warning. Meanwhile, when Democrats do talk about national security, the tendency has been to focus on domestic topics like homeland security and energy independence -- areas where the national security agenda conveniently overlaps with that of left-leaning constituencies like public sector unions and environmentalists. There are good points to be made on these topics, and they should be made. Nevertheless, the central debate here is not one Democrats should be running away from. The contention that the continued reality of the terrorist threat somehow vindicates the Bush approach is absurd -- if anything, it does the reverse -- and liberals need to start saying so. The administration's first action on the national security front upon taking office was to downgrade the fight against al-Qaeda from the status it held under Bill Clinton, prioritizing instead the danger of "rogue states" by seeking to construct an unworkable missile defense shield. It's impolite to say so, but if Condoleezza Rice had focused less on abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and more on Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger's advice during the transition to "spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally and al-Qaeda specifically than any other issue," there's at least a chance that September 11 might have been averted altogether. Once the attacks occurred, Bush began to exercise what the media has universally proclaimed to be "strong leadership" on terrorism. In fact, he did nothing of the sort. Instead, after spending the day flying around the country in an apparent state of confusion, he delivered a widely panned address to the nation in which he falsely claimed that, "Immediately following the first attack, I implemented the government's emergency response plans." There were no such plans, and Bush's immediate reaction to the first attack was to continue reading a children's book to a group of young students. It wasn't until over a week later that the president demonstrated the closest thing to strong leadership that his administration has ever had to offer: an excellent speech before a joint session of Congress, one of a number of rhetorically brilliant foreign policy addresses he's delivered since 9-11. The country, however, is in need of a president who can assemble a competent national security team, not a crack staff of speechwriters. The substantive response to the attacks was the war against the Taliban. I, like the vast majority of Americans, supported this effort. Media mythology has it that the military campaign was a stunning success, due to its short duration and low casualty count. This theory conveniently ignores the fact that the president and his team failed to accomplish the actual goals of the war: Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and other top leadership elements got away, and no stable government was introduced in their stead. To this day, the Taliban is conducting military operations in the southern portion of the country. Our main objectives stymied in Afghanistan, the president did not do the sensible thing and redouble our efforts; instead, he chose to take the country on a two-year detour from al-Qaeda to invade Iraq. At the time, we were repeatedly assured that preparations for war were not detracting from efforts in the war on terror, an assertion that's hard to square with the March 13 announcement that we are only now stepping up efforts to capture bin Laden and his top deputy. It appears, moreover, that in exchange for permission to deploy troops into Pakistan, Bush has agreed to let that government continue to turn a blind eye to the global arms bazaar run by its top nuclear scientist. The focus on Iraq also led the administration through a mind-boggling series of flip-flops regarding North Korea, Pakistan's main rival as the world champion of weapons proliferation. Bush's efforts to keep the public focused on the Iraqi "threat" have placed the United States in the position of accepting the reality of the DPRK as a nuclear power. Meanwhile, the one thing we can be quite sure terrorists won't do with any nuclear weapons they manage to buy is load them on top of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nevertheless, the 2005 budget request for missile defense stands at a staggering $10.2 billion. This might be at least vaguely defensible were it not for the fact that the system in question doesn't work. Under the circumstances, it's hard to deny that the money would be better spent trying to do something about America's dangerously understaffed Army. Instead of addressing the problem, however, the administration is trying to paper it over with unprecedented mobilizations of National Guard and Reserve units, while using "stop-loss" orders to prevent soldiers from leaving the service. This will work through the fall election, but it threatens to destroy America's all-volunteer force in the long run. For all the big talk, then, 9-11 appears to have changed nothing for the Bush administration. Their priorities remain the same as before the attacks: missile defense and Iraq, symptoms of a state-centric worldview incapable of really grasping global terrorism. The only difference was that they started saying their policies were directed at counter-terrorism. John Kerry was on the right track in his Feb. 27 national security speech: "I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he's done too little." The sentiment is exactly correct, and needs to be repeated. Often. And with specifics. The Madrid attacks seem to have hurt Spain's conservative governing party badly at the polls, and rightly so. When bad things happen under a government's watch, the officials responsible ought to be held accountable. The American right is quite correct to say that the terrorist threat remains serious; this is, however, less a reflection of our enemies' strength than of the simple fact that the Bush administration hasn't bothered with doing much of anything about it, preferring to offer tough talk as a rhetorical smokescreen for an unrelated agenda. Don't they know there's a war on?
I'm not moved by the symbolism of 1300 troops (of whatever nationality) nor am I moved by the symbolism of OBL being captured on the eve of convention or election. Gosh, you've exposed me; I'm not serious about fighting terrorism. The furor over the Spanish elections is that the terrorists have successfully intimidated a nation and tilted an election toward a party who will do something that they (the terrorists) want: pull support away from the US-- regardless of what is said about fighting terrorism. Since when did terrorists become concerned with innocent victims-- like ALL of Iraq is supposed to be?
So you admit that the action in Iraq was unilateral? Because outside of the U.S. and G.B. almost all of the other countries in the 'coalition' have similar numbers of troops, or none at all. If Spain's troops aren't significant, than no other country's troops are outside of G.B. Like we've been saying Bush had no world wide support, or big coalition.
The only thing insignificant about the troops was their number. It was only 1300 soldiers-- or so I heard. No, I don't think it was unilateral. We had nations that were supportive. Some were not. How could that be considered unilateral? Now some have lost the stomach for it. That's what happens. With apologies to MacBeth and Canada, wherever there is brave dirty work to be done, the US will always be among the first to be there and will usually be there in a majority. We don't own Germany. We don't own Japan. We won't own Iraq.
It is simply another excuse for them to reward core constituncies with more money fresh from the govt. tit and out of my wallet. If we go after aggressively and largely put the terrorists on the run from our Predator drones and spec ops teams, we don't need to transfer more money to these "first responders," which of course are all good Democrat-loving unionists. We have not been attacked since 9/11. What solution do the liberals have, more mealy mouthed talk and begging the UN "please mommy may I?" Action speaks louder than words and our attacks on terrorists world-wide have shown that we are serious. Well Sandy, why the **** didn't you and your boy Clinton do anything about it. You had eight years and yet.....nothing was done. Not a damned thing. And if I hear one more liberal say that Clinton was engaged when it comes to national security, I am going to spew my ice water through my nostrils laughing. Bill Clinton was asleep at the wheel when it came to national security. Instead he pissed away our forces, already saddled with his ridiculous defense cuts, in bull**** peacekeeping operations in countries that we have no business intervening in. More crapola from the liberal talking points that Bush was "reading to school children" instead of doing his job on the morning of 9/11. Matthew Yglesias, it is good to see you got that memo and dutifully relayed it as it were fact. And it is SOP for the President to be evacuated in the event of a threat on his life. Bush was flying around for his damned safety, which apparently you care not a whit about. This columnist is obviously a lapdog shrill for the DNC. Media mythology? God, this guy is such a beacon of hope and light! I'd like to see this guy and other liberals go to Afghanistan and look down every pisshole for OBL. Like they could've had done it better. If it would've been Gore, he'd have shot a wad of cruise missiles and ran away like a scared girl to the UN. We have not detoured in Iraq! Jeez, what, does this guy think our military is like Star Trek, with only one ship in the damned quadrant? We have a military that can chew gum and walk at the same time, which this guy apparently can't without his DNC talking points fax. What are we supposed to do, bomb 'em? Anything is better than Clinton's solution of giving them a damned nuke reactor and free gas for promising with fingers crossed to stop their WMD program. Clinton proved what a dangerous moron he was with that sequence of events. That's every liberal's favorite line. We don't need it and it doesn't work. Well, folks, no military system has ever worked right out of the box and it takes R & D funds to make anything that complex work. And frankly, I'd rather have some sort of protection than nothing, because MAD will not save us from some dumbass Islamists who get hold of an ICBM and want to head to Paradise for their fill of 72 virgins, regardless of whether or not we turn their little sandbox into a smoking ruin of obsidian. Any sort of missile defense, be it tactical to protect our troops in the field or national is a good investment. Well, what are we supposed to do, start a draft? Don't b**** unless you have a solution. Ridiculous. We've captured terrorists, killed others by various means and yet this isn't enough? A lot of it goes on in the war behind the closed shroud of secrecy, where the media does not receive a press release. Like liberals are going to be aggressive in waging a war against terrorism. Lemme guess, we capture OBL and every single liberal kook will go "see, Bush had him the whole time and waited until the election." God, there is no pleasing you bunch of nattering nabobs of negativity, is there?They know only subordinating our defense to the UN and appeasement. The only thing liberals are aggressive about is finding new ways to spend my money.
The contention that the continued reality of the terrorist threat somehow vindicates the Bush approach is absurd -- if anything, it does the reverse -- and liberals need to start saying so. Good point. I am serious about fighting terrorism. On this I agree that the Bush Administration is, too. So is Basso, TJ and bless his heart, Bama. Who wants to die in a terrorist act? Not even Dubya. Not even for the Republicans to win the Senate or the 2004 election. Now wanting to fight terrorism and doing so effectively are two different things. It is sort of like drug abuse. Everyone wants to fight it, but then we have the horribly counterproductive "drug war" that spends billions, but a shortage of treatment centers. Even more fundamental we have the stupid prohibition that leads to drug cartels and big time criminals and billions spend on locking up otherwise law abiding citizens. Similarly on terrorism, spend big bucks on elite terrorism squads and spend billions for informer and intelligence networks. Fund efforts by allies if they are short of cash. Stop the needless invasions and wars that make the world dislike us. Also critical is to start dealing with the issues that lead millions of otherwise sane people to indirectly support terrorism or be silent about it. An important first step is to stop the persecution of Palestinians by Jews. Obey international law in Palestine. Don't support the frantic efforts of the Sharonites to grab another 10% of the West Bank. Israel will be a more comfortable place once it joins the ranks of law abiding nations. Now, we have this wierd state in which Israel has set themselves against unanimous world opinion and then sees itself as the victim of anti-semtism because the world disapproves of their conduct. Stop the spin nobody is procancer, pro drug abuse and nobody is pro-terrorism.-
It is good to see the President elect of Spain getting it right on combatting terrorism. "I will listen to Mr Bush but my position is very clear and very firm," Zapatero told Onda Cero radio. "The occupation is a fiasco. There have been almost more deaths after the war than during the war." [...] "My position is the same. I have explained it throughout the election campaign," he said. "The occupying forces have not allowed the United Nations to take control of the situation." [...] "Fighting terrorism with bombs, with operations of 'shock and awe', with missiles, that does not combat terrorism it only generates more radicalism," the 43-year-old Socialist leader said. "The way to fight terrorism is with the rule of law, with international legislation, with intelligence services," he said. "This is what the international community should be talking about." link
