Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The political fallout from this in Spain defintely looks strange to us on this side of the Atlantic (well, not that strange if you’re a Democrat, I suppose).

The idea that if it would hurt the conservatives if it WAS Al Qeada, that Aznar’s Socialiist critics are railing against him for drawing the ire of Osama bin Laden and this seems to actually be working, is definitely an example of the European/American divide on the approach to fighting terror. Many in the left are apparently willing to surrender to bin Laden, give him everything he wants and cower in fear. I’m afraid if launching a terrorist attack is all it takes convince Europeans to lick Al Queda’s boots, we’ll see a great many more of them in Europe. Let’s see if the Spanish prove capable of bucking their unfortunate continent’s historic tendency to appease and surrender instead of stand up and fight.

I’ll add, though, that it looks like Aznar may have unnecessarily fouled things up by insisting for three days that the perpetrators were ETA, despite all evidence to the contrary. We’ll soon see how the vote comes out, but I’m hoping we don’t see yet another European “Well, let’s hand Hitler Poland and hope he’ll go away,” moment.

Also remember that this supposed rage against the conservatives could very well be like the rage against Bush’s 9-11 ads—namely, an invention of the leftist media, a couple of quotes from a handful of discontents spun into a “fire-storm of controversy.”

Martin, pretty ignorant view to think all left leaning individuals are cowards and want to surrender to Osama. Im a democrat who has supported every war and combat opreation we’ve fought in the last 14 years. I even helped out while i was in the Navy years ago. The bogus intelligence used to justify this last war made me look stupid for supporting it, just as your above comments on leftists made you look stupid. Aznar’s party is gonna lose not because they joined the war on terror, but because he supported going to war in Iraq, while the majority of the country didnt.
Also, the rage against Bush’s 9-11 ads is not an invention. The ad is in bad taste. This attack happened on Bush’s watch. He still hasnt caught the guy responsible for it. What about that would make you want to vote for him? Anyone else in office would have enjoyed the same popularity rise Bush got out of invading afghanistan in the aftermath. Democrat or republican, we’d have gone into afghanistan just the same.

Reading this article gave me the idea that they might be inclined to jump to the conclusion it was ETA. They have been cracking down on ETA harshly. There are also apparent similarities to previous ETA style bombings.

For José María Aznar, who stands down as Spanish prime minister today, the war against terror is personal. ETA has tried to kill him and he in turn has sought to destroy them. In 1995, his car was bombed by the Basque terrorists…

…he walked out of the wreckage with vengeance in his heart. The following year, when he was elected prime minister, he began his relentless pursuit.

But Al Qaeda or not the bombing was a success if the Socialists come to power as a result of this. It shows me that a)terrorism does work, and b)nothing suceeds like success, so expect more bombings throughout Europe as these murderers are emboldened by the appeasement.

As I write this it looks as though the Socialist party is ahead.

Some voters also blamed the government for Spain’s worst terror attack, saying President Jose Maria Aznar invited the attention of Osama bin Laden’s terror group by allying Spain with Washington in the invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein

“Maybe, if we’re real quiet and submissive they won’t hurt us.” Sounds like surrender to me.

Guy, these next paragraphs remind me of your argument that you would have supported military action but can’t because you were ‘lied to’.

Fueling anger were suspicions that the government withheld information in the investigation to avoid political fallout from the Thursday bombings, which killed at least 200 people and wounded about 1,200. The government had initially blamed the Basque separatist group ETA.

…The Socialists pointed to the government’s shifting version of events, which first focused blame ETA, but then included Islamic suspects after a van was found in the Madrid suburb where three of the four bombed trains originated. Inside were verses from the Quran, and detonators.

Obviously it takes time to find evidence and evaluate it, they did after all reveal evidence as they found it.

…In Barcelona, however, voter Ernesto Sanchez-Gey, 48, said: “I wasn’t planning to vote and I’m here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq…. Also, they accused ETA of the attack when they knew all along that it wasn’t.”

…Thousands of people rallied overnight against the Popular Party, saying it should be thrown out of power for drawing al-Qaida’s wrath.

“No more cover-ups,” read a banner carried by the protesters, who were being watched by riot police. -Yahoo News

It seems somewhat perverse that instead of focusing on the killers, the real anger is saved for a domestic political target.

For the Socialist party to actually use it to their advantage is what is really perverse.

How is this different from the Kerry position?

The Socialist leader also promised to bring Spain out of its “isolation” into which, according to him, it has been led by José Maria Aznar after supporting the American intervention in Iraq. “I want to be president of a government that will take Spain out of the Azores trio (allusion made to the meeting between José Maria Aznar, George Bush and Tony Blair on 16th March 2003). I want to see my country allied to Lula, Kofi Annan, Lagos and Jacques Chirac,” he declared, accusing the Aznar government of having “fractured Europe”. The head of the opposition who assured the military of his total support announced that he would order the withdrawal of the troops deployed in Iraq if the United Nations did not take the situation into hand. A contingent of one thousand three hundred soldiers is stationed at present in Iraq.

Sorry link to the above quote is here.

Guy, what I said was “many on the left”— not “all-left leaning individuals.” The difference is—or ought to be—perfectly clear.

If you supported the war only because of “bogus intelligence” and now feel stupid about it, then perhaps you should have been paying attention to the broad-based rationale for going to war in the first place, the ten years of leaky sanctions that killed thousands, Saddam’s finacial support of suicide bombers, the fact that he had used and had ongoing programs to develop illegal weapons and the only thing stopping him from succeeding was a massive and expensive US military presence next door. Perhaps if you remember the depth and scope and rationale of the case for war (instead of the Monday-morning quarterbacking of a Democratic media who wants to rewrite history to say that we only went to war because of an “imminent threat” of WMD), you’ll feel a little smarter. You were right the first time, Guy—give yourself a little credit.

The Spanish have a perfect right to throw out their leaders for supporting the war, if that’s what they want to do. I’ve got no gripe with democracy. What’s totally disasterous is the perception—rightly or wrongly—that it’s happening as a result of Al Queda dictating Spanish foreign policy with the use of terror. If that’s how Al Queda percieves this, then it’s open season on democracies and the Madrid bombings may very likely be a bitter foretaste of what’s to come. Imagine if the US had caved to Tojo after Pearl Harbor, if Churchill had given von Ribbentrop the keys to London after the Blitz. I’m afraid that bin Laden is being handed his biggest victory since he drove us out of Somalia.

Well Martin i apologize. sometimes i read things too fast, felt like an idiot when i re-read your first post. You did indeed say “many on the left”.

Republican conservatism on state affairs and it’s pervert( almost too perfect) immoral roots in profiting from leaning in and bouncing back , the all-out dependency from weaponry of mass destruction, it’s production levels and all the covert proliferation activities ,like Dr. Hahns(Pakistan ,the unexpected friend and new atomic state) selling atomic secrets precisely in the Axel of Evil youg Mr. Bush inhereted from his Big Daddy,(nicely done Mr. Carlyle)in order to prepare and deliver future warzones to the Republican Parties Top Executives. This is the disgrace of america, the land of the brokery of death and destruction , well more or less a wobbly standing on his feet for now. The low interest rate and cheap taxes for the rich are the last straw to recuperate from a unprecedented deficit and domestic politics a real democracy unworthy.It’s more or less on it’s way in subordination for a police state ruling ordinary life and work.Like the juntas you know so well and lowthed not so long ago.
Results are uncertain, jobgrowth is too meager, consumption levels are a worry to industrialist and union labourers.
You should re-invent yourselves, redefine your real task as leader of the world instead of imploding on corrupting, crime, civil murder and poverty or rather the mediocre state of mind and souls among your younger generation and future electorat. Middle classes are commercial values not even patriotic or political.There are middle classes all over this world, you see.With changing numbers in majorities. Like everywhere, they mirror underclass as well as upperclass values, which requires a international approach of politics to keep them aboard.Violence is not the first thing what comes in mind, but there, you see, i am not a american.
Hiding your failures in delivering liberties and blindly trusting into the tradition (not an very old history) of immense, strangling violence of all sorts upon your own people, hiding the truth in your dialog with the electorat will alienate america from itself, the electoral base and the world you are depending from. Where would you like to go after the exploding into Armageddon, the Moon, Mars, the Kabbala Magician, the secret faith of forseeiing numbers? A Jewish invention ,by the way.Well, gambling is yours , I suppose .

It is extremely troubling that by conducting a horrific terrorist attack on Spanish civilians the evil doers can change the outcome of an election. In allowing the evil doers this victory the Spanish electorate has ensured that we will see more terrorists attacks attempting to impact election results

The problem with both our current administration and the one in Spain is their willingness, for what they see as a good cause, to jump to conclusions, stretch the truth, and even lie to people to see their well intentioned efforts through. Admirable as their intention might be, what they do is wrong.

The first problem is that it may very well let the guilty get away with their crimes. Focused on the ETA, police may have lost their chance to get at those who really did it.

Second, people don’t want to be manipulated in such a cynical fashion. People who go through such national traumas do not want to be manipulated or emotionally blackmailed into policies they otherwise wouldn’t agree with. It only makes them feel that much more vulnerable, and if such politicians don’t watch out, they will end up on the recieving end of part of that strong emotional backlash already stirred up by the terrorists.

The moral of the story? Screw the agenda. Screw trying to ride the political shift. Go out there and go after the real enemies. Take care of the practical problems and let politics take care of itself. Those who serve well during a crisis will, by the truth of what they do, do better than those who fail their country in a time of need.

Bush should have remained in Afghanistan exclusively until the Taliban and Al Quaeda were eradicated and Osama Bin Laden captured or killed. We didn’t land on Normandy Beach, go half way to Germany, then decide to take care of General Franco instead of Hitler. We pushed into Germany, and ended the war only when we knew our enemy was defeated.

Bush can talk about what kind of new wars these were, but I can guarantee that Al Quaeda would be in far worse shape if we had taken out Osama early on. As for those who say he’s already dead, I say, show me his body. Prove that he’s dead. As the casualties in Spain may have just demonstrated, those who rely on half-truths are half-dead already.

No kidding, Dan. This is the most depressing event so far in the war on terrorism—Al Qaida actually bringing down a Western government. Wow.

I’m hoping we’lll find out that the Spanish turned out the Conservatives for reasons other than the terror attacks—for economic reasons, corruption, whatever.

Again, Stephen, you make it sound like Bush made a decision to leave Bin Laden alone, let him go golfing, take Carribbean cruises, whatever, and suddenly refocused only on Iraq—that it’s impossible, basically, to do two things at once, say walk and chew gum. If this is true, then by god prove it to me and I’ll register as a Democrat first thing tomorrow morning—otherwise it comes across as just a cheap shot, a game where we pretend, for example, that we shouldn’t have faught Hitler until we had taken out the Japanese (after all, they’re the ones who attacked us!). That Lincoln shouldn’t have taken New Orleans until he’d taken Richmond. That we live in a world where two things simply cannot happen at once—a violation not only of the laws of politics, but of basic physics. Increasingly, this seems the only way to attack Bush—with arguments which pose false dilemnas, twist logic and which rewrite history.

Looks like terrorist attacks are bad for sitting sdministrations.

Does anyone know if the Socialists were expected to win the election before the bombings? It may just be that the Socialists would have won anyway, or even by a larger margin, if this hadn’t happened. Until we know that, it’s very hasty to draw the conclusion that the terrorists were rewarded in the ballot box.

Reports I’ve seen say that the Socialists were behind in polls before the bombings—if anybody has hard data on this, it would be appreciated.

I was just speaking to a friend of mine whose pretty vehemently anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war, and even he’s disgusted about the bombings being the reason for toppling a government (even one he doesn’t support—as I don’t either, particularly, not being a follower of Spanish politcs). It’s an absolutely terrifying precident—giving Al Quada the government they want, surrending in the face of intimidation. Hopefully the Socialists will step up quickly and make it clear that they won’t let their democracy be beholden to the demands of murderers—if they don’t, none of us, even those totally against Bush, against the Iraq war, have reason to be terrifed.

It seems that the bombings gave the election to the Socialists:

Before Thursday, the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin. CNN

Two things:

(1) Those who have opposed the war with Iraq have consistently said that there’s no link between Iraq and Al-Qaida’s terrorism. How can they go on saying this now with a straight face? If Al Qaida carried out the Madrid bombings to punish Spain for supporting the Iraq war as they have claimed to have done, then they CLEARLY regard it as the same war. This ought to be obvious now to everybody—-and it’s what Bush and Blair have been saying all along.

(2) The results in Spain should now discredit yet another oft-repeated shibboleth of both the International media and the American left: namely that there was a great outpouring of affection and support for America after 9-11 that was squandered by Bush’s response. Yes, they were saddened to see us die in large numbers, but as Spain proves, there is something intrinsic to the European psyche (in western Europe anyway) which makes it impossible for them to mount even a defense of themselves. The problem isn’t Bush, though they mericilessly caricature and demonize him—-it’s Bush’s challenge to their entire world view. If they’re now caving in to Al Qaida’s demands in the face of terrorism on their own soil, if they won’t stand up for themselves even after the slaughter of their own fellow citizens, then it’s clear that no matter what Bush did they never would have—and never will.

Martin:

1) Because we can claim that the war created the link :)

Seriously, the claim before the war was that Iraq supported Al Qaeda in 9/11. The only evidence we’ve seen is that Al Qaeda was mobilized by the war to get involved in Iraq to defend what they see as an occupation by Christian and Jewsih crusaders. That they’re upset that we invaded a Muslim country does not mean that country had supported them.

2) We really don’t know enough about Spanish politics to be making this claim (ok, I know I don’t and I doubt anyone on this board does). Who knows what myriad motivations were involved for the Spanish voters? I’ve heard one motivation was frustration that Aznar insisted on blaming ETA despite evidence to the contrary.

It’s rash of us to claim this means that Spaniards have given up on defending themselves.

Likening the Socialist victory in Spain to the appeasement of Hitler is absurd: Al Qaida doesn’t control Spain!

The Spanish election might have some influence on our own election in November. I see at least two possible effects:

1) The American people will think of the Spanish election and its relevance to the American election in the same ludicrous way many people in this thread seem to be seeing it: That a vote against Bush is a vote for Osama bin Laden.

2) The American people will think that Bush’s “coalition of the willing” is a lot flimsier than we ever thought, and that Bush’s job performance as the leader of the global war on terror, a fight we all support, has been pathetic.

Ironically, I agree that the Neville Chamberlain example is relevant here: After a yearlong policy of appeasement, Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany in 1939. He was initially quite popular in opinion polls as Britain went to war, but by May 1940, British forces were suffering defeats and Chamberlain was voted out of office, perceived at last as a poor leader in time of war.

When a country is at war and the leadership is thought to be incompetant, it is entirely appropriate AND PATRIOTIC to remove them from power.

-Cf

Although Al Qaida may not directly rule Spain, they certainly are controlling it with fear. They launched one of the most successful get-out-the-vote campaigns in history on behalf of the Socialists. And it worked, much to shame of the Spanish of the people.

It’s obvious that the degree of agreement of nations with Bush throughout the world is governed mainly by whether or not their leadership is liberal in ideology. Where the leadership is on the left they repudiate Bush and claim that Bush is dividing the world. Pretty much what our democratic party is doing.

It’s rather enlightening don’t you think? The left has no problem putting their ideology above the lives of their citizens to oppose governments who are not liberal. It makes me think that they prize victory over their political enemies before Al Qaeda.

If Bush had focused solely on Afghanistan, and not invaded Iraq, the left would be using the same arguments they are now to say he is lying, dividing the world and doing everything wrong. It’s all about politics.

They began the protests against ‘imperialist agression’ when we invaded Afghanistan for god’s sake. That’s when the socialist throughout the world began their chant of no blood for oil and Bush is Hitler.

I would like to pretend that Spain’s election
of the Socialists indicates a change of ideology
in Europe and a strong rejection of American imperialism, while right-wingers want to use the occasion to bash Europe (ho-hum). However:

The most obvious reason for the change of government, which had NOT been behind in the
polls until immediately before the election,
is as follows:

The government went out of its way to pin the
attack on the Basque seperatists. It was a stretch. The government was found out, fast. An already angry people became angrier.

It is pretty ridiculous for the American right
wing to read this as “no-good Spanish public
bows to Al Qaeda” when the ousted government of Spain tried specifically to make sure Al Qaeda didn’t get the credit, or blame. Do you see the inherent contradiction? The government didn’t even make a case for ‘not bowing to Islamic extremists’ by voting against them because they TRIED TO COVER-UP THEIR INVOLVEMENT in the first place.

Still, I’m thrilled at the results, and don’t mind saying so. If this does reflect anything
deeper than immediate reaction to the cover-up,
it says a lot about the good sense of the Spanish people. Americans by and large seem to
have bought the “they hate us because we’re beautiful” argument around 9-11. The horror could have been an occasion for examining the history of our relationship with the Islamic world. But in the twisted thinking that prevailed, such examination was condemned beforehand as excusing the bloodshed. (I fully expect that it will still be condemned in this way, probably right here in this forum). Choosing the most expedient answer around terrorism is a good way to get more of it and I’m sorry, bully boys, but there actually isn’t anything that does SCARE people who are willing to give their lives as a pre-condition of their attack. Your idea of a response is to find a figurehead, rain down the bombs, mostly on the innocent - only a fool thinks that this practice deters terorism. Terrorism doesn’t need governments to support it, doesn’t need all that much money, it just needs terrorists. And victims.

This whole “if you’re not with us you’re against us” crap gets annoying after a while.
A loss for the conservatives means a win for terrorism.Yes, convenient isn’t it?
Nobody, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative has a problem with fighting terrorism! But you can bet that sane people are going to get upset when terrorism becomes an excuse for imposing your military presence all over the world, and trying to justify it on false claims, about weapons, or even more ludicrous, making the argument that “yes, we were wrong about those weapons, but it’s ok now cause in the end the Iraqi’s are better off without him”
Come on, what business of it is ours to decide whats good or bad for Iraq.
God forbid anyone should even suggest that at the very least a mistake was made.Then you get screamed at as being unpatriotic, a coward,a weakling.
Not one word of apology for the “mistake” thats costing soldiers lives, tax payers money, nothing, thats what really gets to me.No, no, we’re still holdong our breath, cause Iraq is a big country, we could still find them. Yeah I know its hard to locate an entire biological weapon manufacturing factory isn’t it.Buried under a sand dune probably.

We voted the lying, war loving, Bush poodle OUT.

We are so happy about that. Do you think we should have voted otherwise just because of what the terrorists might think? We had very good reasons to oust the Popular Party. And their lying and manipulation right after the attacks certainly helped.

Their lying and manipulation, not the attacks themselves. Make no mistake.

Germán
Madrid, Spain