Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says 'some have argued that the nu' -- this is you speaking -- 'that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: 'No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I meant to post this earlier. The Europeans will never learn. They are truly cowards who think that appeasement will really work this time if only given a chance. I hope and pray everyday that if Kerry wins the election he will continue prosecuting the war on terror, because that is civilized society's only hope.

Appeasement gets you no where in the Arab world. Arab culture is violent and brutal. They respect the use of force to overpower and little else.

This type of retarded behavior by the Spainish people will only make them more of a target.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not asking where it is, but where it should be. I submit that a world in which tv and radio is subject to a "dinner at a partner's house with em's wife" standard would be a world not worth living in.

Just because you can't talk about graphic sex on TV or radio doesn't mean you cannot engage in sex. Sex alone makes the world worth living in. I would rather do it than hear about others doing it.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I may have to rethink my position on an arts education, because you did not follow my analogy. I wasn't comparing the FCC to Nazis, I was using the 60 year old slippery slope argument of "first they came for X, and I did nothing. Then they came for y and I did nothing" etc, and comparing it to "first radio, then cable and internet, etc."

I got that part. I just think that a less extreme slippery slope example was in order. I think the holocaust slippery slope example should be reserved for arguments pertaining to situations where people's lives are at stake.

The slippery slope I understand and I also understand your point. I just didn't like your use of the holocaust as an example of a slippery slope when we are talking about speech, not about people being murdered.

Originally posted by sgtclub
how bout this http://www.italian-american.com/wwii.htm [took me 2.7 seconds to google]

What a bunch of whiners. I bet none of them would have survived a Japanese WWII internment camp, let alone Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Or was the wrong way to prosecute the war on terrorism.

If they think that, they understand nothing about Islamic terrorists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
If they think that, they understand nothing about Islamic terrorists.

Because it's now clear that Al Qaeda was crawling all over Iraq before we invaded, right?

Now all you need is $200 million and maybe you can get elected President.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I meant to post this earlier. The Europeans will never learn. They are truly cowards who think that appeasement will really work this time if only given a chance. I hope and pray everyday that if Kerry wins the election he will continue prosecuting the war on terror, because that is civilized society's only hope.*

*not meant to be a partisan post, I'm just not clear on what Kerry's stance on the war is.

Kitten, wasn't the government that got voted out one of the only ones in Europe that was supportive of Bush in the whole Iraq/terrorism thing (well, relatively supportive)? And then they got bombed? Gee, I totally want to have in office the government that will cause my loved ones to be blown up.

I guess you are more selfless, and would like to publicly tell all terrorists that next time they take a major action in the US, they really should focus their efforts on your state.

[Not Me]

Anyone else see it? I thought it was hilarious when he was going off about how it was not the US's place to unilaterally invade Iraq. He then went on to ask, why don't we just invade North Korea, too? Tim Russert looked at him and said, "because they have nukes." So then Howie boy looks taken aback and then says, "exactly." Then he went on to ramble on about how countries don't respect the US like they used to.

Umm, huh?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Now all you need is $200 million and maybe you can get elected President.

Since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, there hasn't been an attack on US soil.

We cannot control what goes on inside the borders of foriegn countries.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, there hasn't been an attack on US soil.

I don't think the Spanish people were particularly exercised about Afghanistan.

We cannot control what goes on inside the borders of foriegn countries.

Whatever that means.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Whatever that means.

It means that maybe if they had cracked down on muslim terrorists inside their own borders as we have, it might not have happened.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
It means that maybe if they had cracked down on muslim terrorists inside their own borders as we have, it might not have happened.

Or if they had done what France and Germany have, it might not have happened. Or perhaps what Switzerland has done. Or Norway -- I really think the Norweigan route bears exploring. Or Poland?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It means that maybe if they had cracked down on muslim terrorists inside their own borders as we have, it might not have happened.

If that's right, then the Spanish are surely just angry at their government for failing to crack down on the Muslim terrorists inside Spain, and this stuff you and club are saying about appeasement is nonsense.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If that's right, then the Spanish are surely just angry at their government for failing to crack down on the Muslim terrorists inside Spain, and this stuff you and club are saying about appeasement is nonsense.

All I know about how the Spanish people feel about all this is what is being reported in the news. And what is being reported in the news is that the Spaniards think that the bombing occurred not because of a lack of vigilance, but because of their government's support of the US Iraq invasion.

I think if they want to be mad at something it should be the lack of vigilance in cracking down on muslim supporters of terrorism. But yet, that seems not to be what they are mad at. They seem to want to appease the muslims. This is based on what is being reported. Maybe you are right and they really are mad at the muslim terrorists and the failure of their government to get tough with the muslims. But I have seen no evidence of that in the reports I have read.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If that's right, then the Spanish are surely just angry at their government for failing to crack down on the Muslim terrorists inside Spain, and this stuff you and club are saying about appeasement is nonsense.

Watch it, nonsense is my corner on Politics.

The real question to ask is what were polls predicting on 10 March. As understood, the polls predicted an easy win for the whatever party that was in Power.

There was no apparent claim by the Socilaists that they would have done internal security better or different, leaving getting out of Iraq as the only motivation for the switch in votes. I am surprised, because Spain has been seeing bombing for awhile, althought from a much poorer terror group w/o access to the powerful explosives made available by countries that fund Islamic terrorists.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The real question to ask is what were polls predicting on 10 March. As understood, the polls predicted an easy win for the whatever party that was in Power.

This was AQ's most well-thought-out, and successful, move yet. (I'm assuming it was AQ, of course. If it was ETA, then the Spanish look a bit more foolish right now.) They actually overturned a government by scaring a population. This should make Spain much more secure in the long run. This new guy must be one of the phantom leaders who told Kerry that he has to win.