Open letter to Spain's voters: Where is the courage of 1937?

I wondered how long it would take before someone managed to work out that the cowardly Spanish were costing brave American lives. Instead of sending a letter, I suggest Ms Mansfield goes to Madrid and delivers her lecture to them in person. She wont of course, she isnt brave enough. Sentiments like that expressed by Mansfield encourage me to bring home British troops too. Then you really would be up al Qaida creek with no paddle, Missy.

Damn those Spaniards ! ! !


Somebody go round up some firewood . . . Cletus, you start puttin' up some stakes, we gonna have us a greaser roast . . .

Reconquista started in 722, Mrs. Mansfield, not 1937. And yes, Al-Andalus certainly is part of the Middle East - just depending, from where you look at it.

My first thought was this picture:



Then I realized the freaking third monkey is actually speaking.

I am now very tired this continuing flow of insults to the Spanish people.

fbaezer
fbaezer, I posted the item because I thought it was an unusually unique view of the Spanish people's response to the bombing.

You can critique their actions as you please, but until you've walked in their shoes you don't understand their motives.

BBB

Re: fbaezer


Unique, BBB?
It's ordinary blatant American nationalism.
Almost every one else has reacted more rationally.



Precisely.
The American right (and on this matter, most Americans are in the right end of the specter) does not give a damn about the real motives of the Spanish voters.
They don't walk in their shoes. They don't care.
All they see is that they've lost an inconditional ally and that Spanish voters don't react like high school kids.

--------

As an aside, in 1937, the Spanish were fighting a bloody civil war.
I don't even know who this woman is talking about. The brave defenders of the Spanish Republic? The courageous followers of clerico-fascism?

I'm sorry. Ignorance and arrogance, when put together, infuriate me.

Re: fbaezer


Indeed. <sigh>




Es la hora de partir. Todo en ti fue naufragio

Re: fbaezer


Great poem by Neruda.

"Es la hora de partir, oh abandonado!"

Then there's the delightful Ms Rectal Noun

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040318.shtml

More of this crap...

fbaezer
fbaezer, I don't know if other A2Kers are hearing from other people re the Madrid bombing and the election results. The friend that sent me the piece is a conservative, retired teacher, (who supported Ross Perot) and we have strong but civil disagreements about politics, US foreign policy, etc. Kind of similar to the debates Asherman and I have, but we are still friends.

BBB

For U.S. Hawks, Madrid 2004=Munich 1938
For U.S. Hawks, Madrid 2004=Munich 1938
Analysis - By Jim Lobe - 3/18/04 - IPS

WASHINGTON, Mar 17 (IPS) - For neo-conservative and other right-wing U.S. hawks, Madrid has suddenly become Munich in 1938 and Spain's Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

In an extraordinarily unanimous campaign, newspaper columnists and television commentators are flooding the media with cries of ''appeasement'', the dreaded epithet with which Chamberlain was permanently tagged after his meeting in Munich with Adolf Hitler, which permitted the Nazis to slice off a major chunk of Czechoslovakia.

In the hawks' view, the electoral defeat of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's People's Party in the wake of last Thursday's bombings, followed by Zapatero's pledge to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq by Jul. 1, marks a collapse of will by a key U.S. ally in President George W. Bush's ''war on terrorism'' that will only encourage Islamist extremists.

''Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol'' was the title of the featured column by Ramon Perez-Maura of Madrid's 'ABC' newspaper on the neo-conservative editorial page of Wednesday's 'Wall Street Journal', while the New York Times' David Brooks asked in his bi-weekly column Tuesday, ''What is the Spanish word for appeasement?''

Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for 'The Washington Times', was quick to put a name to what he called Zapatero's ''policy of appeasement'' -- ''The Spanish Disease'' -- while the increasingly neo-conservative editorial writers at the 'Washington Post' worried that the Socialist leader's ''rash'' response to the bombings will mark the beginning of a domino effect throughout Europe.

''The danger is that Europe's reaction to a war that has now reached its soil'', the Post said, ''will be retreat and appeasement rather than strengthened resolve'', a point echoed by Edward Luttwak, a long-time fixture of the national-security commentariat who wrote in the 'New York Times', ''the Zapateros of Europe ... seem bent on validating the crudest caricatures of 'old European' cowardly decadence''.

The image was starkly drawn as well by Robert Kagan, the neo-conservative who coined the phrase ''Americans are from Mars, and Europeans are from Venus''.

Warning that the bombings and the election results in Spain ''have brought the United States and Europe to the edge of the abyss'', the co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), whose alumni include the most powerful hawks in the Bush administration, poured scorn on European Commission President Romano Prodi's comment after the attacks that, ''It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists''.

''Are Europeans prepared to grant all of al-Qaeda's conditions in exchange for a promise of security?'' asked Kagan. ''Thoughts of Munich and 1938 come to mind''.

While some of these commentators conceded that Aznar might himself bear some responsibility for the sudden turn of events -- notably by trying to blame the Basque group ETA even while evidence that the perpetrators were radical Islamists was becoming overwhelming -- the basic thrust of all their comments was that, by supporting Zapatero, the Spanish electorate had lost its will to confront the larger terrorist threat, just as Chamberlain had done in handing over the Sudetenland.

This interpretation of the Spanish electorate's choice and of Zapatero himself obviously ignored a number of factors, among them the fact that the Socialist leader said explicitly from the moment of his victory that he was committed to the fight against terrorism.

''My most immediate priority is to fight all forms of terrorism'', he said. ''And my first initiative, tomorrow, will be to seek a union of political forces to join us together in fighting it''.

That right-wing commentators here generally ignored that vow, or refused to take it seriously, helps illustrate their view -- which they have been hawking since Sep. 11 with great success among the U.S. public -- that Iraq is part of the larger war on terrorism, as opposed to there being two different conflicts.

In the hawks' view, opting out of one war means opting out of both -- a notion that accords very well with their ''you're either with us or you're against us'' political philosophy.

But the Spanish electorate, like much of the rest of the world, clearly did not see it that way. ''In this country, Iraq and terrorism are indelibly linked in the public mind'', according to Charles Kupchan, a foreign-policy specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. ''In Europe, they are almost indelibly separated''.

''Indeed, there's a general sense in Europe that the war in Iraq has certainly not advanced the struggle against terror and probably degraded it'', he added, noting Tuesday's release by the Pew Global Attitudes Project of surveys in eight European and Arab countries that showed strong majorities who concur in that assessment.

Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan, asserted that, by mixing Iraq with al-Qaeda, the neo-conservatives -- in particular -- had made a strategic error in the war against terrorism, which was now coming home to roost.

''Aznar, in supporting Bush on the war against Iraq, was not standing up to al-Qaeda'', Cole wrote, noting that the former prime minister's decision to deploy troops and spend financial and intelligence resources in Iraq meant those same assets could not be used against al-Qaeda, even when it was clear from last May's attack on a Spanish cultural centre in Casablanca that Islamist terrorists had Spain in their sights.

''How much did Spain spend to go after the culprits in Casablanca?'' asked Cole? ''How much did Bush dedicate to that effort? How much did they instead invest in military efforts in Iraq?''

In that respect, Zapatero's pledge to refocus the war against al-Qaeda can hardly be called a ''victory for (Osama) Bin Laden'', according to Cole.

But aside from this rather fundamental disagreement over whether Iraq is or is not part of the war against terrorism, the eagerness with which the hawks have taken to comparing the Spanish electorate's verdict to the 1938 Munich agreement also betrays a basic distrust of democracy, about which the neo-cons have long been ambivalent.

In their view, it was liberal democracies that appeased Hitler in the 1930s and so paved the way to World War II and the Nazi Holocaust. Indeed, the perception that ''liberals'' failed to fight for their principles in the 1960s is what first alienated neo-conservatives from the Democratic Party.

The neo-cons' perception that Spaniards voted for the Socialists out of fear of al-Qaeda's wrath confirms to them that democracy, particularly of the European variety, is weak.

''Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters'', wrote Brooks, who argued that U.S. voters would, in a comparable situation, rally around their president.

''Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures''? he added.

But this contention ignores the growing weight of political opinion that the main reason for the last-minute swing to the Socialists was public outrage with the Aznar government's attempts to withhold and manipulate what it knew about the perpetrators for its own political advantage, as well as citizens' opposition to the Iraq war.

Such attitudes were reported by journalists' following the election in Madrid.

''In interviews," the 'New York Times' reported, "they said they (voted for the Socialists) not so much out of fear of terror as out of anger against a government they saw as increasingly authoritarian, arrogant and stubborn".

That lesson might cut a little too close to the bone for the hawks, who led the drive to war in Iraq.

The Leo-cons and likudniks must be getting worried. Iraq is coming apart at the seams, and the inside story stinks. Will Bush be exposed before November. Not it the rectal noun* has anything to do with it

*anagram ann coulter for anyone who missed it.

Here's a bit from her piece (link above)

"After his stunning upset victory, Socialist Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq if the United States does not turn over Iraq to the United Nations. He also vowed that all of Spain's remaining trains will run on time."

Have you heard the one about the New Yorkers in the WTC diving for cover? Not very funny is it ms asshole?

Hey! I didn't write **** I wrote ****

Ann Coulter: Al-Qaida Barks, The Spanish Fly
Ann Coulter is such a turd. I have a suggestion for Coulter. Ann, why don't you go down to the Army or Marine recreuiting office and sign up so you can go fight in Iraq and Afghanistan for your beliefs that you impose on everyone else, at least Democrats if not Republicans?
!---BBB

Al-Qaida Barks, The Spanish Fly
Ann Coulter
March 17, 2004

AFTER A terrorist attack by al-Qaida that left hundreds of their fellow countrymen dead, Spanish voters immediately voted to give the terrorists what they want -- a Socialist government that opposes America's war on terrorism. Al-Qaida has changed a government.

Until the bombings last week, the center-right Popular Party of outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had been sailing to victory. But then the al-Qaida bombs went off and Spaniards turned out in droves to vote against the government that had been a staunch Bush ally in the war on terrorism. (I guess it's OK for a Spanish Socialist to "politicize" a terrorist attack just to get elected.)

In a videotaped message, the al-Qaida "military commander" for Europe claimed credit for the bombings, saying that the terrorist attack was meant to punish Spain for supporting the war in Iraq. The message came as a total shock to liberals who have been furiously insisting that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaida.

Apparently al-Qaida didn't think so. After the Madrid bombings, it looks like liberals and terrorists will have to powwow on whether there was an Iraq/al-Qaida link. Two hundred dead Spaniards say there was.

The New York Times called the Spanish election "an exercise in healthy democracy." And an ATM withdrawal with a gun to your head is a "routine banking transaction." Instead of vowing to fight the people who killed their fellow citizens, the Spanish decided to vote with al-Qaida on the war. A murdering terrorist organization said, "Jump!" and an entire country answered, "How high?"

One Spaniard who decided to switch his vote in reaction to the bombings told the Times: "Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq and al-Qaida will forget about Spain so we will be less frightened." That's the fighting spirit! If the violent Basque separatist group only killed more people, Spain would surely give them what they want, too.

After his stunning upset victory, Socialist Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq if the United States does not turn over Iraq to the United Nations. He also vowed that all of Spain's remaining trains will run on time.

Zapatero said the war with Iraq had "only caused violence" and "there were no reasons for it." One reason for the war, which would seem to be a sufficient reason for a more manly country, is that the people who just slaughtered 200 Spaniards didn't like it.

But, like the Democrats, the Spanish hate George Bush more than they hate the terrorists. Zapatero said the war in Iraq was based on "lies" and called on President Bush and Tony Blair to "do some reflection and self-criticism." So don't think of the Spanish election as a setback for freedom -- think of it as a preview of life under President John Kerry!

What kind of lunatic would blame Bush for 200 Spaniards killed by al-Qaida bombs? Oh wait -- Howard Dean just did. Summarizing the views of Socialists everywhere, Dean said: "The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend."

Yes, with 1,700 dead or injured Spaniards, George Bush certainly has some explaining to do. What have the terrorists ever done besides kill and maim thousands of innocent civilians? Bush isn't fully funding "No Child Left Behind," for God's sake!

Before he was put into office because he supported policies favored by al-Qaida terrorists, appeasement candidate Zapatero said: "I want Kerry to win." Kerry is also supported by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, who broadcasts Kerry speeches over Radio Pyongyang with favorable commentary.

So now Kerry really does have two foreign leaders on record supporting him: a Socialist terrorist-appeaser and a Marxist mass murderer who dresses like Bea Arthur.

Zapatero predicted that his own victory would help the anti-war party "in the duel between Bush and Kerry." Would you mind repeating that, sir? I was distracted by that large white flag you're waving.

However Spain's election affects Americans, we can be sure that Spain's surrender to terrorism hasn't been lost on the terrorists. It's difficult to imagine the American people responding to a new terrorist attack by deciding to placate the terrorists, as the Spanish did. A mollusk wouldn't react that way to an attack. Only a liberal could be so perverse.

No matter how many of our European allies may surrender to the terrorists, America will never be alone. This is a country founded in a covenant with God by people who had to flee Europe to do it.

Sailing to the New World in 1630 on the ship Arabella, the Puritans' leader and governor, John Winthrop, said Americans were entering into a covenant with God to create a "city upon a hill." We would be judged by all the world if we ever broke that covenant. But if we walked with God, "We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when 10 of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies." He has intervened in our affairs before, such as in 1776, 1861 and 1980.

With the Spanish election, we are witnessing a capitulation to savagery that makes full-scale war inevitable. The Democratic candidate wants to represent godless Europeans. The Republican candidate wants to represent Americans. As Winthrop said: "The eyes of all people are upon us."

Letters to Editors re Spain election
Letters to Editors re Spain election:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/opinion/L19FRIE.html?ex=1080363600&en=968e71c6a238ad66&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

We're getting a lot of the "Spanish caving in to AQ's threats" press here in Oz, too. Very insulting to the Spanish people, I think, & very arrogant of the Right to assume that "the war on terror" is no 1 on everyone's agenda. The fact is, most Spanish people did not want to get involved in Iraq (neither did the British, or Australians) in the first place. Their government wouldn't listen, lied to them & betrayed them. They simply withdrew support from that government to one they felt better represented them at the first possible opportunity. I hope Australians do the same, at our elections later this year.