Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

Don't you want Kerry to RETURN to fighting the war on terror?

We kind of stopped fighting that war when we went into Iraq and decided it was more fun and electorally rewarding to fight for geopolitical advantages. If Bush would debate Kerry, I think you'd hear the voice of someone who was much more focused on combatting terrorism and much less focused on occupying foreign countries because we don't like them.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAKY07MTRD.html

I am going to Madrid today (I suppose that's outable -- but I trust you lot... well, that and I'm not on Martindale...), and I don't post much on this board, although I do read it from time to time, but I have been inspired by a combination of revulsion and self-interest to say, WHAT A BUNCH OF FUCKING PUSSIES THE SPANISH ARE.

I am SO not looking forward to the non-stop America-bashing conversations that I'm sure to be subjected to, and the retarded justifications those idiots are going to have for why they should just have "stayed out of it."

Right. The best solution is to be scared and do what the terrorists want -- that's a great idea. Seriously. Czechosolvakia anyone? What a bunch of fucking pussies (anyone who knows me IRL knows I don't really speak like this -- but I just can't find the words to express my utter disgust at the reaction of the Spanish populace.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If Bush would debate Kerry, I think you'd hear the voice of someone who was much more focused on combatting terrorism and much less focused on occupying foreign countries because we don't like them.

Actually you'd hear the voice of someone saying what polls tell him should say that week.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Actually you'd hear the voice of someone saying what polls tell him should say that week.

Kerry would certainly take us a long way back to direct government. Enough with the "representational" crap - but would we need to actually nationalize Zogby?

[sgtclub]

From Andrew Sullivan:

It's a spectacular result for Islamist terrorism, and a chilling portent of Europe's future. A close election campaign, with Aznar's party slightly ahead, ended with the Popular Party's defeat and the socialist opposition winning. It might be argued that the Aznar government's dogged refusal to admit the obvious quickly enough led people to blame it for a cover-up. But why did they seek to delay assigning the blame on al Qaeda? Because they knew that if al Qaeda were seen to be responsible, the Spanish public would blame Aznar not bin Laden! But there's the real ironic twist: if the appeasement brigade really do believe that the war to depose Saddam is and was utterly unconnected with the war against al Qaeda, then why on earth would al Qaeda respond by targeting Spain? If the two issues are completely unrelated, why has al Qaeda made the connection? The answer is obvious: the removal of the Taliban and the Saddam dictatorship were two major blows to the cause of Islamist terror. They removed an al Qaeda client state and a potential harbor for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. So it's vital that the Islamist mass murderers target those who backed both wars. It makes total sense. And in yesterday's election victory for the socialists, al Qaeda got even more than it could have dreamed of. It has removed a government intent on fighting terrorism and installed another intent on appeasing it. For good measure, they murdered a couple of hundred infidels. But the truly scary thought is the signal that this will send to other European governments. Britain is obviously next. The appeasement temptation has never been greater; and it looks more likely now that Europe - as so very often in the past - will take the path of least resistance - with far greater bloodshed as a result. I'd also say that it increases the likelihood of a major bloodbath in this country before the November elections. If it worked in Spain, al Qaeda might surmise, why not try it in the U.S.?

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Kerry would certainly take us a long way back to direct government. Enough with the "representational" crap - but would we need to actually nationalize Zogby?

Ah, yes, the POTUS calling the Kettle Black! Good to see the party line so quickly adopted here. Aren't you guys happy we Dems actually chose someone with a record, and, amazingly enough, someone thoughtful enough to have complicated answers to complex questions?

Yes, expect this election to be all about subtle versus simple.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
. . . someone thoughtful enough to have complicated answers to complex questions?

Good one.

"Nuance". Right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

I think you assume too much. Matt Yglesias said it better than me:

What a difference an assumption makes:

• As Joe Gandleman has pointed out (see also here), the Socialists have promised to withdraw Spain from the Iraq coalition in the event of their election. Which is to say, of course, that the terrorists got what they wanted - assuming that Al Qa'eda was indeed behind the attack - to deter a European country from further participation in Iraq, after punishing it for its involvement to this point.

Well, yes, that's true if you add two auxiliary premises.

• (a) al-Qaeda wants to deter European countries from further participation in Iraq.
  (b) al-Qaeda believed that launching the attack was likely to help the Socialist Party.

How strong are those assumptions? Well, the evidence for (a) seems to be that al-Qaeda is interested in killing western soldiers serving in Iraq. This, however, is consistent with them either wanting to drive the troops out, or else hoping more troops come so there will be more targets.

The evidence for (b) is that the Socialists did, in fact, win the election. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, however, the conventional wisdom was that this would help the PP as they would benefit from a "rally 'round the flag" effect. Certainly 9/11 was a great boon to the political popularity of George W. Bush (and other incumbents, notably Giuliani and Pataki) and rather predictably so.

At any rate, everyone's beliefs about these matters are so obviously going to be colored by their partisan political preferences that I don't know if there's a particular point in trying to argue for one version or another. It just seems worth pointing out that it's certainly not clear that this is what the terrorists were trying to achieve. Personally, I very much do not favor withdrawing troops from Iraq, and will be disappointed if that is the ultimate outcome of this tragedy. One ray of hope is that the circumstances of the attack would give the Socialist Party a possible excuse for flip-flopping were they so inclined. I doubt, however, that they will be.

linky

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From Andrew Sullivan:

[T]he removal of the Taliban and the Saddam dictatorship were two major blows to the cause of Islamist terror. They removed an al Qaeda client state and a potential harbor for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

There is, of course, no good evidence that Hussein had WMD or harbored Al Qaeda. Iraq was a "potential harbor" for Islamist terror in the same way that Malaysia or Indonesia are -- let's invade them next to really stick it to Al Qaeda. The only tight nexus between Iraq and the war on terror is in the neo-cons' brains.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think you assume too much. Matt Yglesias said it better than me:

Long passage decrying the obvious. This is as good as the Democrats saying images of 9/11 do not belong in the campaigns, and for similar reasons.

I suppose the timing was coincidental?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I suppose the timing was coincidental?

If Al Qaeda is trying to start a larger conflict between Islam and Christendom, why would they want the Socialists in power in Spain? And wouldn't you think that the country would rally around its leadership when under attack?

Who knows what they were trying to do, but I think it's a mistake to look at the way things unfolded and conclude therefrom that they were planned that way. I am, at least, consistent in this regard -- look at my sig line.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Who knows what they were trying to do, but I think it's a mistake to look at the way things unfolded and conclude therefrom that they were planned that way. I am, at least, consistent in this regard -- look at my sig line.

Irrelevent why it choose the date, this time. Our point is that it worked out pretty well, and a few days before a national election will in the future be a time for it to launch an attack. The Spanish people made sure of this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Our point is that it worked out pretty well, and a few days before a national election will in the future be a time for it to launch an attack.

And my point is that "it worked out pretty well" only if you think Al Qaeda wanted the Socialists in power, and why would they want that?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Irrelevent why it choose the date, this time. Our point is that it worked out pretty well, and a few days before a national election will in the future be a time for it to launch an attack. The Spanish people made sure of this.

Wait wait wait, was the object to increase overt military hostility between Christendom and Islamdom (I made that word up, obviously) or to get various Christendom governments to withdraw from their support of the "war on terror"?

God, this is so confusing. Obviously the White House is too distracted by the election to have disseminated the party line. Or, this is another example of the growing inefficiency of the party line dissemination machine.

[sgtclub]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040315/D81ASG4G0.html