Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq on May 1...

... the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.

... over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

... nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.

... the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

... in October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the prewar average.

... all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

... by October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than scheduled.

... teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

... all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

... doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.

... pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

... the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to Iraq's children.

... a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

... we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

... there are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.

... the wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.

... 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.

... Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

... the central bank is fully independent.

... Iraq has one of the worlds most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

... Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

... satellite TV dishes are legal and you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner

... foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for "minders" and other government spies , they (and everyone else) are free to come and go

... there is no Ministry of Information.

... there are more than 170 newspapers.

... a nation that had not one single element - legislative, judicial or executive - of a representative government, now does.

... in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.

... today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.

... 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.

... the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

... Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.

... for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

... the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

... Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.

... children and political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam or the government .

... millions of longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

... Saudis will hold municipal elections.

... Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.

... Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.

... the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian -- a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.

... Saddam has been captured and his infamous sons are dead.

... Iraq is free.

http://federalist.com/news/iraq.asp

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can abhor that particular behavior without making up new, unsupported accusations of even worse behavior. There's no link.

(ETA: I always wanted to say "abhor.")

Do you have the impression that I did what your first sentence says? If so, why?

On an only tangentially-related point:

While I never made that accusation, I am perfectly willing to believe that Aznar had lied, without first assuming otherwise. I don't see that as unreasonable.

I have seen, as you have, far too much in the way of deception and dishonesty from our own Presidents (i.e. outright verified lies from Nixon and Clinton, various degrees of political spin and deception from the others) to believe that our leaders are superior to the average person in those matters. They are generally smarter, more ambitious, and harder-working than average, but on the whole not more honest or honorable.

Indeed, we see varying degrees of spin, "political deception" and distortion from just about every political leader of note. Those who just can't do that stuff well, or who refuse to do it much, end up derided as weak or ineffectual (see Carter, Tsongas, Dukakis) unless they have an exceptionally strong personality -- in which case they become "mavericks" -- outsiders who will never quite make it to the top (McCain, Proxmire). Our political system (read: We) has tended to chew up decency and shit it out.

I know not what to do about it, except to hope that the pendulum has begun to swing back on those issues as the populace and thus the press have become more sensitized to it, and more interested in "truth squad" sort of reporting.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The IHT says:

"The government's chronology indicates that it was not until the police searched a suspicious white van late on the afternoon of the attacks and discovered an Arabic-language tape and several detonators that investigators began to suspect Islamic militants.
.
At an afternoon press conference, with some information apparently pointing to ETA's culpability and the tape still not translated, Acebes held a news conference and reacted angrily to the suggestion of an Al Qaeda connection. But 90 minutes after the tape had been translated, Acebes appeared at another news conference in which he announced the discovery of the tape. While he still emphasized that ETA remained the chief suspect, Acebes also said that investigators had been ordered to open a "new line of investigation.""

So, they acknowledged it maybe was someone else shortly after translating the tape.

But Drum starts his blog like this:

"BOMBING DECEPTION EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT?....It's pretty well established by now that José María Aznar's PP party did its best to mislead the Spanish people about who was responsible for last Thursday's bombing . . ."

At least now I know where you got that phrase "it's pretty well established . . ."

The fact that you are now referring to sources is good, but if you refer to those that I linked to and quoted from here [e.g., here], you will find more damning stuff than what was in the IHT article you found.

eta: Lest anyone think that Drum was talking about the IHT article you quoted, not so, although you've juxtaposed the two.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Do you have the impression that I did what your first sentence says? If so, why?

No, I did not. I do understand that I tend to group too easily, and sometimes include the wrong people in groups. But, I actually did not see you as claiming, as an initial default position, that someone lied.

On an only tangentially-related point:

While I never made that accusation, I am perfectly willing to believe that Aznar had lied, without first assuming otherwise. I don't see that as unreasonable.

I do. I expect proof (or close to it) before assuming the worst, and, in my mind, lying is the worst. (In the realm of our discussion, at least - yes, mismatching colors in ties and shirts is actually THE worst, but we're not speaking of that level of malfeasance, are we?)

I have seen, as you have, far too much in the way of deception and dishonesty from our own Presidents (i.e. outright verified lies from Nixon and Clinton, various degrees of political spin and deception from the others) to believe that our leaders are superior to the average person in those matters. They are generally smarter, more ambitious, and harder-working than average, but on the whole not more honest or honorable.

I still believe that the average person is rather honorable, and doesn't do the things that Drum, Ty, et al so easily accuse others of. That's why I was so taken aback when I read your earlier comments to say "well, so what if he didn't lie, he might have politicized something bad." It's a vast gulf in my mind (a mind already full of vast gulfs - there, I'm saving someone a post) between the two, and your post treated it as a difference in labelling.

Indeed, we see varying degrees of spin, "political deception" and distortion from just about every political leader of note. Those who just can't do that stuff well, or who refuse to do it much, end up derided as weak or ineffectual (see Carter, Tsongas, Dukakis) unless they have an exceptionally strong personality -- in which case they become "mavericks" -- outsiders who will never quite make it to the top (McCain, Proxmire). Our political system (read: We) has tended to chew up decency and shit it out.

When Kerry falls snowboarding, I will make fun of him, for political gain.

I will not tell my friends that I saw Kerry fall, when I did not.

I guess I see a difference between the two. It's a handicap that I have, and will always have.

I know not what to do about it, except to hope that the pendulum has begun to swing back on those issues as the populace and thus the press have become more sensitized to it, and more interested in "truth squad" sort of reporting.

For my part, I will vote for, and campaign for, people whom I perceive to share my own moral basis. (Singular, purposeful.) The daily press run of who gaffed, and who had the most hurtful line, means little to me. At this point, I have no idea what Kerry's moral basis might be, and I doubt Kerry does either. I know Bush's - and some parts I find horrible, and others I find familiar and comforting. I'll let you know when I find my perfect mirror.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
eta: Lest anyone think that Drum was talking about the IHT article you quoted, not so, although you've juxtaposed the two.

That was not an impression I meant to give. My point was, there are quite a few data sets out there. You have arrived at a damning and condemning conclusion far too soon, and you do this too often in ways that match your underlying philosophies to make me think that it matters much to you. You cry "liar" far too often, and far too quickly, to allow me to believe that you have adequately considered why, or that the label has meaning to you. Possibly its a matter of age, and personal experience, but, to me, it's one of the worst things you can say about anyone, but I sense that, to you, it's just another day of campaigning.

In other words, you can't understand why I get so incensed at the label, and I can't understand how you can throw it around so cavelierly.

And, no, I can't spell that word.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq on May 1...

... the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.

... over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

... nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.

... the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

... in October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the prewar average.

... all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

... by October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than scheduled.

... teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

... all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

... doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.

... pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

... the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to Iraq's children.

... a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

... we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

... there are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.

... the wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.

... 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.

... Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

... the central bank is fully independent.

... Iraq has one of the worlds most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

... Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

... satellite TV dishes are legal and you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner

... foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for "minders" and other government spies , they (and everyone else) are free to come and go

... there is no Ministry of Information.

... there are more than 170 newspapers.

... a nation that had not one single element - legislative, judicial or executive - of a representative government, now does.

... in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.

... today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.

... 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.

... the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

... Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.

... for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

... the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

... Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.

... children and political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam or the government .

... millions of longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

... Saudis will hold municipal elections.

... Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.

... Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.

... the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian -- a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.

... Saddam has been captured and his infamous sons are dead.

... Iraq is free.

http://federalist.com/news/iraq.asp

So, in other words, quagmire.

(ETA: but I should have also said, very nice list.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Those who just can't do that stuff well, or who refuse to do it much, end up derided as weak or ineffectual (see Carter, Tsongas, Dukakis) unless they have an exceptionally strong personality -- in which case they become "mavericks" -- outsiders who will never quite make it to the top (McCain, Proxmire).

Have to add:

You read it here first:

McCain in 2008.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
That was not an impression I meant to give. My point was, there are quite a few data sets out there.

I couldn't tell, which is why I worded it that way.

And there may be quite a few data sets out there, but I have linked to some of them, and you continue to give no indication of having considered them.

You have arrived at a damning and condemning conclusion far too soon, and you do this too often in ways that match your underlying philosophies to make me think that it matters much to you.

Please recall that the question we were debating a few days ago was whether the Spanish people believed that PP was snowing them, and for that reason voted them out of office. The stuff I have linked goes to that question. I really don't know enough about the question to opine on it.

You cry "liar" far too often, and far too quickly, to allow me to believe that you have adequately considered why, or that the label has meaning to you.

Pot calls kettle black. A few posts ago, I quoted an article from the Financial Times, and because you thought it came from Kevin Drum, you essentially accused him of lying -- of arranging facts in order to give an impression not supported by them. You apparently did this without even clicking on my link to his post, or else you would have seen that he was quoting a newspaper article.

You are the champion here of the principle that there is no truth in politics, just spin. You routinely presume that journalists and bloggers of a different political stripe are lying. E.g., you accused Brad DeLong of twisting the differences between unemployment figures.

Possibly its a matter of age, and personal experience, but, to me, it's one of the worst things you can say about anyone, but I sense that, to you, it's just another day of campaigning.

I think it's a terrible thing to say about someone, and I don't say it lightly.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, in other words, quagmire.

Or Vietnam-esque, one of the two.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Have to add:

You read it here first:

McCain in 2008.

I would vote for McCain in 2008.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And there may be quite a few data sets out there, but I have linked to some of them, and you continue to give no indication of having considered them.

I give you far too much power this way, but I read virtually everything you ever link to here. In fact, I have often (==45%?) read it before I see your link. I read WAY too much. I live via the conference call (which, frankly, beats the hell out of work) and have always been a multi-tasker.

Please recall that the question we were debating a few days ago was whether the Spanish people believed that PP was snowing them, and for that reason voted them out of office. The stuff I have linked goes to that question. I really don't know enough about the question to opine on it.

This sort of clears up something for me - why would you be pushing this? Why would you care? Why would Drum care? I get it, now. It's not the issue of, did azner lie. It's, did the Spanish really wimp out badly and vote themselves out of the war out of fear. You guys don't want that to be - it makes an antiwar choice seem dishonorably and cravenly arrived at - so you need a new focus. In spite of all of the marches and protests pre-election and during-election with signs about "get us out" and " the US war has killed us", you now want to spin it as "ha! we all see that Avnar lied!!". Too little, too late, Ty. That ship sailed. The main public accusations of that came post-vote. But, for that, to support that spin, you dishonor him and call him a liar? Cheap.

Pot calls kettle black. A few posts ago, I quoted an article from the Financial Times, and because you thought it came from Kevin Drum, you essentially accused him of lying -- of arranging facts in order to give an impression not supported by them. You apparently did this without even clicking on my link to his post, or else you would have seen that he was quoting a newspaper article.

First, I read CalBaby prior to your post. (I was amazed when he got hired, only because it's the start of the end of the blogging - they're joining the hive, they're becoming the Establishment - wow.) I cited Drum's bolded headline and following sentence that said, basically, "now that we've proven that the craven Avnar lied, . . .". What crap. What partisan, unsupported crap, designed (now that I see this) to keep supporting what he wants people to think in the overall antiwar picture. You, as a lawyer, accepted his claim of "proof"? I have more respect for someone who tells an untruth out of ignorance than for someone who lies to bring people to an unsupportable position. He cited half of the evidence - "his" half - to support the "lie" BS. "Whore" comes to mind . . .

You are the champion here of the principle that there is no truth in politics, just spin. You routinely presume that journalists and bloggers of a different political stripe are lying. E.g., you accused Brad DeLong of twisting the differences between unemployment figures.

Because I think he did just that. Ever seen me come here and cite a blog that spun and then drew the "best" possible conclusions from the spin? Nope. I cite news and then draw my own conclusions, or I post cartoons. Neither represents any attempt to convince anyone that "we've already settled this point, so let's move on . . .". That's pandering. That's bull. Either respect your audience and nevermore say "we've already established that . . . ", or stick with cartoons.

I think it's a terrible thing to say about someone, and I don't say it lightly.

But frequently, loudly, repetitively, unsupportably, one-sidedly, . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I give you far too much power this way, but I read virtually everything you ever link to here. In fact, I have often (==45%?) read it before I see your link. I read WAY too much. I live via the conference call (which, frankly, beats the hell out of work) and have always been a multi-tasker.

If I don't say anything about my sideline as a nuclear physicist, then none of us knows about it, right? I wasn't insinuating that you weren't well read -- I was observing that you were complaining that I was "automatically" calling someone a liar without acknowledging that I was linking to several sources supporting that view.

This sort of clears up something for me - why would you be pushing this? Why would you care? Why would Drum care? I get it, now. It's not the issue of, did azner lie. It's, did the Spanish really wimp out badly and vote themselves out of the war out of fear.

This has been the point all along. I have no feelings for or against Aznar and the PP. What struck me as odd all week was the idea that Spaniards would respond to terrorist bombings on the eve of elections by turning on their leaders. This reminds of a how both sides in WWII thought the others' civilians would react to aerial bombing. We expected the Germans to give up under the pressure, when in fact they pulled together. They thought the same of the British. I just find it very hard to believe that Spain got bombed and reacted by saying, enough, we give up. Especially given their longer experience with terrorism. The suggestion that the vote was a reaction to the government's handling of the situation is much more plausible to me.

You guys don't want that to be - it makes an antiwar choice seem dishonorably and cravenly arrived at - so you need a new focus.

One could say, you guys really want the story to be about Spanish appeasement. Why do you want the story to be an Al Qaeda victory so badly? It would be a little too simple to suggest that this feeds the major theme of President Bush's re-election campaign, so I'm more inclined to think that it's a tendency to project our own obsessions onto a more complicated world.

The main public accusations of that came post-vote.

Not by what I linked to.

But, for that, to support that spin, you dishonor him and call him a liar? Cheap.

I've already said that I don't know enough to call him a liar, but you just keep on beating that horse. The interesting question to me is whether the Spanish people thought the PP was misleading them. It would appear that the answer is yes. And, according to the Financial Times, so did German intelligence.

First, I read CalBaby prior to your post. (I was amazed when he got hired, only because it's the start of the end of the blogging - they're joining the hive, they're becoming the Establishment - wow.) I cited Drum's bolded headline and following sentence that said, basically, "now that we've proven that the craven Avnar lied, . . .". What crap. What partisan, unsupported crap, designed (now that I see this) to keep supporting what he wants people to think in the overall antiwar picture. You, as a lawyer, accepted his claim of "proof"? I have more respect for someone who tells an untruth out of ignorance than for someone who lies to bring people to an unsupportable position. He cited half of the evidence - "his" half - to support the "lie" BS. "Whore" comes to mind . . .

Because I think he did just that. Ever seen me come here and cite a blog that spun and then drew the "best" possible conclusions from the spin? Nope. I cite news and then draw my own conclusions, or I post cartoons. Neither represents any attempt to convince anyone that "we've already settled this point, so let's move on . . .". That's pandering. That's bull. Either respect your audience and nevermore say "we've already established that . . . ", or stick with cartoons.

But frequently, loudly, repetitively, unsupportably, one-sidedly, . . .

Honestly, WTF are you talking about? Drum was obviously referring to other posts and accounts -- plainly, it's an aside to the post. I've seen plenty supporting his view in the last week. If you think he's wrong on the facts, fine, but here you go, leaping to the conclusion that he's lying.

eta: You seem to think I cited Drum as proof for the proposition that Aznar lied. I linked to that post because it contained the bit from the Financial Times that I quoted. Nothing in my post referenced or relied on what Drum said about it -- and yet here you are having a tizzy fit because of a few words at the start of his post. Really, get a grip.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post on Friday. Presumably all of this is lies as well, and Dionne, like Drum, is a whore.

. . . Or Rejecting Manipulation?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, March 19, 2004; Page A23

Here's what some Republican leaders and op-ed page warriors are saying: As soon as terrorist bombs went off in Spain, voters there had a moral obligation to vote for the incumbents who supported President Bush's Iraq policies. To make any other choice was to vote for appeasement.

And so, when the votes were counted Sunday and Spain replaced the Popular Party with the Socialists, an entire nation was immediately painted as a bunch of chickens, this generation's answer to Neville Chamberlain.

"Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country, and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists," declared House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Rep. Henry Hyde, Hastert's fellow Illinois Republican, put it even more plainly: "The voices of appeasement are being heard in Europe."

Thank goodness not everyone in the Republican Party is willing to shout "appeasement" as soon as voters in a democratic nation express some differences with our government. It took the ever-steady Richard L. Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, to bring sanity to the discussion.

"I think the vote that propelled the Socialists into power in Spain, as I understand it, was a protest by the people against the handling of the terrorist event by the sitting government of Spain," Armitage said. The Spanish government "didn't get what information did exist out to the public."

Indeed, Spanish voters had every reason to be furious. As Keith B. Richburg demonstrated in an excellent report in The Post, the government of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar "undertook an intense campaign" to convince the world -- and his country's electorate -- that last week's bombings had been carried out not by al Qaeda but by the Basque separatist group ETA.

Why? Aznar's hard line against ETA was an electoral asset to his chosen successor, Mariano Rajoy. Aznar's decision to send troops to Iraq was an electoral liability. So it had to be ETA.

Richburg documented Aznar's efforts to persuade allies and Spanish news editors to blame the attack on ETA. To point fingers anywhere else, said Angel Acebes, the interior minister, was "a miserable attempt to disrupt information and confuse people. . . . There is no doubt that ETA is responsible."

Long after the evidence began suggesting that al Qaeda or its offshoots were responsible, American officials played along with Aznar. As voters were going to the polls in Spain, Secretary of State Colin Powell told "Fox News Sunday" that "ETA is still a candidate for responsibility" while Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, was more circumspect in attributing suspicions of ETA to "the Spanish authorities." The charitable view is that Powell and Rice didn't want to interfere with the Spanish elections -- or undercut an administration ally.

It's reasonable to think that the terrorists of al Qaeda wanted to affect the Spanish elections. What's hard to understand is why our own hawks are so eager to hand al Qaeda a victory by rushing to put down Spanish voters as wimps.

"I think humility is very much in order here," said Sen. Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has repeatedly defended Bush's invasion of Iraq. "We're making a gigantic mistake in characterizing Aznar's party's loss as a victory for al Qaeda. . . . I'm not sure that's true, and all it does is reinforce the notion that there is a gigantic split between the Spanish population and America."

Instead of bashing the Spaniards, Biden suggests that the administration come to terms with why there is so much opposition to its policies in Europe and start rebuilding bridges. The president, Biden says, "should be getting on a plane and heading to Europe. He should say we need a united front in fighting al Qaeda. We need Europe, and Europe needs us."

Biden proposes internationalizing U.S. efforts in Iraq through NATO and "taking the American face off this" by appointing an internationally accepted high commissioner to preside over the transformation of Iraq.

For the moment, Spain's incoming prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, didn't make matters easier when he hinted in a radio interview Wednesday that he was rooting for John Kerry to defeat Bush. Americans, no less than the Spanish, prefer to make their own electoral decisions. But with so many supporters of the Bush administration trashing Zapatero voters as appeasers, the new prime minister's preferences are not surprising.

The vote in Spain was not a vote for al Qaeda. It was, in part at least, a vote against the manipulation of terror for political purposes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I wasn't insinuating that you weren't well read -- . . .

You have explicitly said, in several posts recently, that it would be nice if I actually read what you posted before I attacked it. I have.

What struck me as odd all week was the idea that Spaniards would respond to terrorist bombings on the eve of elections by turning on their leaders.

Me too. But I believed it. That's what the evidence shows happened.

One could say, you guys really want the story to be about Spanish appeasement. Why do you want the story to be an Al Qaeda victory so badly?

"Want"? No, you misunderestimate. The story WAS about Spanish appeasement and cowardice. I would much rather it had not been that way. Why do you want it to be otherwise so badly that you will go through these contortions to keep it from being so? You have made up a new, after-the-fact rationalization that fails to square with the facts (go look at pics of the election-eve protests, and read their signs) and that glorifies justifications that even the Spanish didn't think of until the morning after? Why do you so not want this to be a reflection of base self-interest, fear, and ransom-paying?

I've already said that I don't know enough to call him a liar, but you just keep on beating that horse.

Your linked article started out with "now that we all agree that he's a fucking liar . . .". You can lead a horse to water, but you can't paint it pink.

Drum was obviously referring to other posts and accounts -- plainly, it's (the accusations of lying) an aside to the post.

It was his first headline, bolded, and his second thesis sentence, and the rest of the blog was in support of those statements. If I say "Atticus is a big fat lying sunnovabitch who screws sheep on Thursdays", my main point isn't that AG has a good social life on Thursdays.

eta: You seem to think I cited Drum as proof for the proposition that Aznar lied. I linked to that post because it contained the bit from the Financial Times that I quoted. Nothing in my post referenced or relied on what Drum said about it -- and yet here you are having a tizzy fit because of a few words at the start of his post. Really, get a grip.

Uh huh. Then link to the FT article, and avoid the initial "HE LIED HE LIED HE LIED HE'S A BIG FAT LIAR" dicta that means nothing to you.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Here's what some Republican leaders and op-ed page warriors are saying: As soon as terrorist bombs went off in Spain, voters there had a moral obligation to vote for the incumbents who supported President Bush's Iraq policies. To make any other choice was to vote for appeasement.

That was my favorite paragraph. Start out with the thesis that a brave action is cowardly because being brave is the easy and expected way out, while being craven is hard because it exposes you to ridicule.

Damn, those Spaniards are brave.