Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

One thing for sure, foreign motivation to appease the U.S. is nose diving. Spain and Honduras pulling their troops out of the willing coalition and now Poland’s President stating the information disseminated about WMD as premise for invading Iraq was a deception and Poland was deceived.

Things weren’t good before, they are now getting a whole lot worse.

Nick, who exactly is negotiating with terrorists? What are you talking about?

-Cf

Anyway, maybe everyone has it wrong. Perhaps we are wrong to assume that the Madrid bombings made thousands of Spanish voters change their minds.

What if the truth is that the people of Spain DIDN’T change their minds at all?

Yes, Aznar had a lead of several percentage points before the election, but it is important to note that voter turnout was *massive*, the largest turnout ever. Perhaps what actually happened was that those voters who weren’t going to vote at all (mostly young people, it seems) decided to get up and vote after all. And perhaps those voters were inclined to oppose the conservative regime anyway.

(This isn’t so preposterous at all: in America, if voter turnout suddenly jumped by 50% nationwide, it would almost certainly translate into a massive shift to the left. It is well-known that voter turnout is lowest among the young and the poor, groups whose politics, such as they are, are usually liberal in nature)

In other words, maybe the bombings simply woke up the Spanish “silent majority” who opposed the war in Iraq.

Here’s one example of a Spaniard who didn’t change his mind: Zapatero, the Socialist candidate, didn’t change his mind. His platform had always been to withdraw from Iraq.

All this talk of “appeasement” is pretty silly, if you ask me. That said, i think that Zapatero should seriously consider the wisdom of pulling out of Iraq. I’m not sure it will help anyone to do that.

-Cf

Current reports say that the Socialists were leading some polls before the blasts.

The Socialists are threatening to extract the Spanish force from Iraq only if the UN doesn’t take over. They’re not giving up; they’re trying to internationalize and legitimize the rebuilding of Iraq.

It’s not appeasement due to a terrorist attack.

What if Al Quaeda wants to simply frame the results of their attack to their advantage- that is to produce further division in the alliance by having the loudmouths in our state department start talking about appeasement. Such talk can only benefit the terrorists.

What killed the success of the Popular party was officially blaming ETA, even going so far as to lead a security council vote against them, while the evidence was pointing to a different enemy.

They tried to gain votes by playing the terrorism card, and the revelation of the facts gave the appearance of a government willing to put the fortunes of their party ahead of the safety of it’s citizens.

Another fact you have to consider is that most Europeans do not view Iraq as a legitimate target of the war on terrorism. Unless the person is in agreement on the Iraq invasion serving the war on terror, it is not really justifiable to say they are trying to appease terrorists. Even statements blaming the involvement of Spain for the attention of the terrorists must be weighed in the context of our current problems with being target by terrorist there. They may simply believe that the terrorist attack is an expansion of their attacks in the insurrection.

In otherwords, the quagmire of Iraq, the terrorist attacks there are being brought home to them. I mean, here in America, even Republicans are complaining about how big a target American forces have become. Should Spain not worry, especially when it lacks an ocean to divide it from Iraq?

President Bush got rid of the “no negotiations with terrorists” policy in 2002 when he helped pay ransom to al-Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Philippines.

News that the government facilitated the ransom payment comes just one month after State Department officials announced a change in longstanding U.S. policy of not paying ransoms to kidnappers.

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 (I know, every occasion is…).

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 were sold and apparently 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. 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).

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. The whole idea of deterring terorism through force is completely nuts. The death penalty for suicide bombers!!! But why don’t you think every orphan created through the war (I’m sorry, I meant ‘the liberation’) isn’t a potential terrorist with plenty good reasons for wanting to send the bloodshed back our way? Why do you imagine that only Americans want to defend their own countries? Why do you imagine that Americans should be welcomed as liberators when our own agendas are so much more plausible as motives?? Or perhaps national borders really do mean nothing: perhaps, back when the great Satan (you know, Clinton) held the US hostage (as in that long joke by Saint Rush), would you not have welcomed a foreign invasion of our country to oust the dastardly fiend and install a real democratic leader (i.e. a Republican)?

(I fully expect that it will still be condemned in this way, probably right here in this forum).

Yes, sort of. Not to spew invective directly at you Vic, but when the left says we should ‘examine our history’ or ‘why do they hate us’ they often go on to talk about how rascist, sexist, homophobic and imperialistic the capitalist culture of our nation is. I’m not saying that you are saying that in this instance, but…

Maybe I listen to Pacifica radio too often. Perhaps it is skewing my views. I admit I do find it entertaining. I think I probably feel like a liberal who listens to Rush Limbaugh, both repelled and compelled to listen at the same time.

I think there has to be a realization that these people who have declared war against us aren’t mad about being oppressed in a literal sense. We really can’t have been said to really be oppressing anyone in the middle east yet. They are radically committed to killing infidels. We are them, and unless we convert wholly they will never see us as good guys.

Yep. It’s pretty clear by now that giving in to terrorists demands doesn’t stop the attacks.

After all, President Bush tried to appease al Qaeda by pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia (a major al Qaeda goal), and the United States is still getting hit on a regular basis by terrorists… Oh, wait a minute. There hasn’t been an attack on US soil since bush appeased al Qaeda.

In fact, Abu Bakar Bashir, the leader of the al Qaeda offshoot Jamaah Islamiah, came out today and said,

“We have to oppose America physically in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere,” but, “Nowadays, we should not attack America with weapons, politics (is) enough.”

Of course, I don’t believe appeasement works and I don’t believe Bush meant to appease al Qaeda when he pulled our forces out of Saudi Arabia. He was just doing his good buddies in Saudi Arabia a favor so his Daddy could stay on the Saudi payroll. The Saudis were the ones actually appeasing al Qaeda. It didn’t help them much.

To think that the Spanish people are appeasing al Qaeda is ridiculous. The Spanish people never believed Iraq was harboring al Qaeda terrorists, they were against the invasion from the start, and they don’t believe that garrisoning Iraq will keep Spain safe.

I think it’s reasonable, based on how President Bush mislead them over Iraqi WMDs, that the Spanish people are more comfortable creating security alliances with their European neighbors (who they probably now see as brave and wise for not being fooled by the WMD scam) rather than with the US.

Basically, this is just another manifestation of Bush’s inability to play well with others.

So the socialists now promise that their first priority is to “fight terrorism.” In the same breath they say that events prove that “force is not the way” to do it. So it will be interesting to see what sort of pacifist accomodationist policy they think will work.

The supreme irony, though, is that force works marvelously, has worked marvelously, especially when it’s directed against Spanish civilians.

No Martin,
the supreme irony is that action taken after 9/11 was supposed to stop things like 3/11, and it didn’t work, infact it failed completely, and yet there are still people arguing for it.

I don’t think I can speak for the Spanish people. I don’t know any and I’m sure I’ve never been there. They do want peace, we can be sure, but not unreasonably. What happens in the middle east can spread to their backyard much easier than ours.

But appeasement? UN involvement is what he’s asking for as a condition of his troops remaining there. It is US authority he is pulling out from, not the fight against terrorism. Spanish troops are in Afghanistan, and I have heard no talk of them being withdrawn from there.

He’s given himself a gigantic out, one Bush could very easily, with a few technical concessions, and little bit of negotiation, take advantage of. What’s more it could a long way to improving Bush’s image concerning being an undiplomatic unilateralist.

Of course, if Bush is going to play the “Freedom Fries” Game again, it’ll be France and Germany all over again. Bush doesn’t realize that half of what such diplomacy would serve to do is dispel the resentment of American power, while still effectively allowing it to be used.

Question is, is Bush going to take the opportunity to score points in the international community, or is going to continue with the John Birch approach to the international community.?

You don’t stop things like 9-11 over night, Suhasini. And definitely not by sitting on your hands and playing nice with murderers. You won’t find Bush or any member of his administration saying that our response to 9-11 ensures that we should all go back living in a utopian dream where everbody loves everybody else and nobody ever gets hurt. That was the Kool-Aid we drank the first time the World Trade Center was bombed and it didn’t work.

What you do is what you can, and it may be a long painful process. Of paramount importance is to try to create conditions which make it less likely—not impossible, alas—that 9-11 ever happens again. Or that something happens to make 9-11 or 3-11 look like child’s play. This is why small scale police actions won’t work and what’s needed is democracy in the middle east, a process in which will hopefully take in Iraq and cause a domino-effect elsewhere. This is broad and ambitious thinking—some very fine “strategery” in my humble opinion.

Martin,
I’m not saying we should be twiddling our thumbs and staring at a blank wall while terrorists wreak havoc across the globe. I’m saying that this current approach is fundamentaly flawed, and as a result cannot act as a deterrent towards terrorist acts.Probably because their is no actual “deterrent”.
Nobody in Spain voted agaisnt fighting terrorism, infact I doubt they even voted against the approach currently being used to fight it. They were just upset that they were pushed into a war they didn’t believe in and then were punished for it.

Martin,

This is not based on any hard facts, but I think it’s a valid point none the less (I’m sure you’ll disagree). To believe that we can simply go into a middle eastern country, topple their government and set up a democracy seems overly ambitious and very unlikely. Yes, it would be nice if it were so simple, but democracy is a form of government that has to truly come from the people.

No one can say whether the Iraqi people are ready to have their own democracy. However, I belive that if they are it must be set up by them and run solely on their own terms without the major help of ANY foriegn country.

Setting up a successful democracy in the middle east and consequently having this domino effect tumble every theocracy and dictatorship in the surrounding area sounds nice on paper, but the people who live these countries have to set the situation up themselves.

Our societies have been evolving separately for a million years on opposite sides of the planet with little to no communication until recent times. To expect that our system of government can just be forced onto them is far-fetched. The process will most likely take an extremely long time, and our interventions are just as likely to stagnate it as they are to expedite it.

We’ll find out how well forcing a democracy on a people who weren’t willing to fight for it themselves works over the next year.

I personally think the only way it could work is if Bush has the courage to keep Bremer and a US administration in power over the course of many years to ensure a tradition of liberal constitutional democracy and peaceful transfer of power after elections.

Pulling out early and leaving the government in the hands of a US backed council who are even now loathe to give up power is going to make democratizing Iraq a tough job.

Martin, your approach is fine if you’re talking about murderers alone. However, this administration has not merely been reticent to be diplomatic with Bush’s Evil Rogue Regimes, but also with friendly democracies, on the grounds that they aren’t properly committed to taking on the Bush Orthodoxy on The War On Terror (pat. pending)

The Iraq war is only justifiable on it’s original premise by the most tortured twisting of the words, and by some degree of reliance on our national cultural amnesia as to what candidates said a year back.

Though no person in the Bush administration literally said the threat was imminent, to my knowledge, They spared no expense in drumming up America’s paranoia about it. You aren’t trying to bring about a sober perspective on the issue when you warn that the next smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities, when you talk about them gather the technology to build the bomb. Whether these dreadful warnings came from an honest fear of those things happening, or from cynically manipulative handlers, the plain truth is, the threat was not there. Oh, there were weapons of mass destruction related program activities, but holding meetings about regaining WMDs and possessing them are two different things.

How much support would Bush have had in the beginning if he had merely claimed that he was invading Iraq pre-emptively to liberate it from Saddam Hussein? This drumbeat of WMDs and Terrorists was the only thing that could have brought the majority support from Americans to motivate them into this war. Otherwise Afghanistan would have remained the top priority.

As it should have.

> Though no person in the Bush administration
> literally said the threat was imminent

You’ll love this:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

-Cf

There is a school of thought that believes President Bush could have persuaded the UN to remove Saddam Hussein from power based on the ‘bad man’ argument alone.

Why couldn’t President Bush convince the UN to remove Saddam Hussein?

First, the fact that Washington’s justification for war seemed to shift as occasion demanded led many outside observers to question the Bush administration’s motives and to doubt it would ever accept Iraq’s peaceful disarmament. Second, the United States failed to synchronize its military and diplomatic tracks. The deployment of American forces in the Middle East seemed to determine American policy, not the other way around, and diplomatic imperatives were given short shrift. Third, the failure to anticipate Saddam’s decision to comply partially with UN demands proved disastrous to Washington’s strategy. Fourth, the belated effort to achieve a second Security Council resolution could still have succeeded, had the United States been willing to compromise by extending the deadline by just a few weeks. But such a compromise was not forthcoming, which leads to the last lesson: the Bush administration’s rhetoric and style alienated rather than persuaded key officials and foreign constituencies, especially in light of Washington’s two-year history of scorn for international institutions and agreements.

…

As mentioned above, another problem was the shifting rationales for war. The evolution of the administration’s arguments — from the threat of WMD, to the link to al Qaeda, to the Wilsonian claims about human rights abuses and democracy in the Middle East — convinced many that the American president was determined to invade no matter what. Of all of these claims, the Wilsonian argument especially might have been effective had it been argued consistently from the beginning.

The article is a really interesting post-mortem of pre-invasion diplomacy.

WE DIDN’T CHANGE OUR MINDS IN THE ELECTION. THAT’S LUDICROUS.

WE JUST TURNED OUT TO VOTE. THE HIGHER THE TURNOUT, THE MORE VOTES FOR LEFT-WING PARTIES.
THAT’S BASICALLY TRUE IN SPAIN, AND SO IS IN THE US.

AFTER THE ATTACKS, WE FELT VOTING WAS OUR DUTY AS CITIZENS. WE HAVE A STORY OF FIGHTING TERRORISM WITH DEMOCRACY HERE.

ALMOST 78% OF US VOTED ON 3/14. THE SOCIALISTS WON. DID THE ATTACKS HELP THEM? YES. HOW? FIRST, WE WERE REMINDED ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR, WHICH WE OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSED. SECOND, THE GOVERNMENT LIED AND SPINNED IN ORDER TO BLAME ETA, WHEN WE ALREADY HA A CLEAR IDEA OF WHO HAD DONE THIS.

THE SOCIALISTS HAD VOWED TO PULL OUR TROOPS FROM IRAQ -IF NO CLEAR UN MANDATE IS IN PLACE BY JUNE 30 2004- 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION, SO I FAIL TO SEE WHERE THE APPEASEMENT IS.

IT’S DECENCY: WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN A PART OF THIS ILLEGAL INVASION.

JUST ONE LITTLE RECOMENDATION FOR SOME: PLEASE DON’T COMMENT ON ANYTHING YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT. INCLUDING SPANISH POLITICS.

AFTER THIS ELECTION, WE’RE BACK TO THE CAMP OF CIVILISED NATIONS. WE’RE WAITING FOR YOU GUYS HERE.

GERMÁN
MADRID, SPAIN.

I just noticed the capital letters. I apologise.

Thanks, Germain, that’s exactly the argument I suggested on the Democrats/liberals blog.

I, of course, know almost nothing about Spanish politics, either — but I at least give you and your countrymen the benefit of the doubt: the Spanish people don’t seem like they would be easily frightened by terrorism any more than Americans would be.

-Cf

Christopher,

I have already read some ridiculous OpEd articles playing on the ‘appeasement’ BS.

The Right-Wing can be mean-spirited everywhere, but you guys seem to have a particularly vicious one.

After the first denouncements as the cowards we really are, we’re bracing for a major persecution from the US right-wing media (of which you have too many, if you ask me, from the Washington Post right), now that it seems that we have re-applied for membership to a number of clubs, such as:

- The Chocolate Making Nations’ Club (Hershey doesn’t count. It sucks)
- Old Europe Club (nothing like a left-wing victory to make one feel old again!)
- The Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey Club (We’ve been made Honor Members from day one!)

That’s the bad news for us.

The good news for us is that any of these clubs feels more honourable than being in the company of Mr. George ‘Pre-emptive Strike’ Bush.

We’re much better off now.

Germán
Madrid, Spain.