Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Thomas - Is it your contention that the US should have refused to name countries that supported the effort in spirit only?

Look, it's perfectly valid to argue that you think the US lacked the "right" coalition, but it is meaningless to whine that they took "unilateral" action. And once again, I am reminded of the huge vacuum of concern evident when Clinton went into Bosnia without even consulting the UN, and with only a "coalition of the willing". Where were you men of principle then?

I'll bet that all but maybe one of you were sitting fat and happy on your couches, unconcerned because you failed to question anything Clinton did with the same ferocity with which you do question everything Bush does.

Which simply makes you hypocrites, and not men of principle at all.

BE ADVISED: It doesn't matter whether you approved of the war in Bosnia or did not. The issue, as you have framed it, is that the President of the US went to war without the blessings of the UN and the broader international community. Well, that's EXACTLY what Clinton did, and neither you nor the media nor the great hand-wringing masses of the international community seemed to care in the least (unless you count cheering him on as "caring").

Oh, there are a couple of differences between Bosnia and Iraq: Bosnia posed the US absolutely no threat whatsoever, past, present or future, and the US had no compelling national interest in Bosnia.

ok, Scrat, two can play this...........

who is whinning?

Scrat wrote:


Yes, Scrat, but what about the punishment argument? What are you going to do with that?

I think it likely that the intervention in Iraq has not had much of a repressive effect on the kind of terrorism that occured recently in Madrid. Indeed in some ways it may well have motivated more.

However both life and history offer numerous examples of the futility of placating bullies, paying off those who would shake others down for their own purposes, and feeding the ambitions of fanatics who are quite sure that god is on their side. I do not believe a pragmatic approact to this sort of thing ("Let's see if this works....) is at all useful. Firmness and steadfast resolution are the keys to victory. It is axiomatic that victory in war (and sometimes business) occurs only when one's opponent has lost hope of victory. We must deprive the fanatic Islamist terrorists of hope.

The rationalization for the Iraq intervention had less to do with the tactics of combatting Islamisat terrorism, than the strategy of influencing the future development of the Moslem world and thereby eliminating its causes. It was also directed at another form of terrorism - the state terrorism practiced by North Korea and formerly Lybia with nuclear and other WMDs as well as other modern weapons. It is far too early to call it a failure on any of these fronts. Indeed there is substantial reason to believe it has been fairly successful.

Spain has exhibited the behavior of a second-rate nation - one not to be taken seriously. Not good for them in the long run, given their continuing interests in North Africa and their future relations with Morrocco.

Trying to talk about those countries that supported the "coalition of the willing" is truly meaningless. Don't forget that the US supported Saddam not that long ago as a ally.

Especialy since their rapid identification of the culprits in the Madrid bombing makes the US' efforts look even worse than they have in the past, right?

georgeob 1 said

Perhaps, but if you recall our own history with the native americans, it was only after all hope was gone that the Ghost Shirt Society emerged leading to some of the most horrendous battles/losses for the Amerinds of the western states. When they realized there was no hope of maintaining their "standard of living" they also realized that death "with honor" was their only remaining option. They "went out" with their boots on, so to speak.

The Islamic terrorist already die for honor by choice, hope or no hope.

A blindingly arrogant, completely inaccurate, and absurdly preposterous statement.

It'll be refreshing to have some diplomacy inserted in our foreign affairs in just a few months instead of this nasty, hegemonistic discourse.

God, we've got so many bridges to rebuild that these goddamn Republicans have burned...

Contraire. The citizens of Spain have exhibited the behavior of first-rate world citizens.

From all my readings about the recent events of Spain, I agree with blatham and PDid, that they have shown great maturity and sophistication. I think they are to be admired for their forward looking ability in foreign affairs unlike many other developed countries.

Well, those are snippets from one of the longest conversations I've yet seen about something all participants admitted not actually knowing the numbers about ;-)

Actually, fbaezer has repeatedly posted the poll numbers and explanations, primarily in the main thread here about the attacks.

Aznar's party led in the polls by a margin of some 3-4% until the terrorist attack.

That is hardly "a strong lead" as Scrat would have it - especially considering that almost all the third parties of note lean towards the Socialists as well. But it also hardly suggests Aznar "was bound to lose", as PDiddie would have it.

In the end, it wasnt so much a massive change of mind, but the unexpectedly high turnout that turned the numbers around.

Fbaezer quoted a poll which said only 1% of the voters actually changed their mind after the terrorist attacks - so much, thus, for Scrat's theory that the Spaniards gave in to the terrorists by massively letting their attack decide whom they would vote for. What happened instead was that a great number of people, among whom many youngsters, turned out to vote when they had initially not been expected to. In the face of a massive attack just before the elections, voting was seen as a civic duty more than ever. And those extra voters mostly voted left.

Partly this is logical, since in Europe high turnout is almost always good for the left - irregular voters tend to be more leftwing than dutiful voters, and young people especially. So even a wholly non-partisan flavour to the higher turnout would already have swung the vote more into the Socialists' direction.

Partly the high turnout was also driven by outrage over the way the government tried to cover up the Al Qaeda news because it was expected to benefit fro the assumption of an ETA attack. All TV stations in Spain are under quite firm government control, and the perceived cover-up aroused the already existing unease about being lied to. Especially among the young, since they had also been the most massively opposed to the war, and had already faced the TV news reluctance to report about their mass demonstrations.

So though Scrat seems to be wrong about the Spaniards massively deciding to switch votes in reaction to what the terrorists did, it can be said that a large extra group of Spaniards decided to go vote in response to the terrorist attacks and the way the government dealt with them - and the net result of that was to tip the victory to the left.

Yes, and let's not forget that France and Russia were doing business with him as recently as last year.

I stand corrected then. Thanks nimh!

nimh wrote



Too true - and proved often, in nearly every election here in Germany.

Sheesh...what's it all coming to when even the WSJ figures that the Bush administration is doing too much lying...
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB107954022193157980-H9jgoNplad3n5ynbHyHca2Bm4,00.html

Or, how about this dilly...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097306/

blatham, I believe that information on the silencing of the actuary on the new drug bill is "old" news. It's just that WSJ is now covering the "news" - which is good.

Blatham - HR 3920 certainly sounds absurd. Sadly, Thomas.loc.gov currently lacks even summary information for it, so there's a possibility there's some subtle nuance to it that is missed in the broad strokes of the description, but as presented here it would represent a huge blow to the separation of powers central to our system. The USSC reviews Congressional action, not the other way around, and giving Congress the power to overturn USSC rulings would give the legislature total power to legislate outside the limits of the Constitution. (Not that they are all that concerned with staying inside the lines now, but let's not make it worse.)

WASHINGTON D.C. (Mar. 17) - Georgia Republican Congressman Mac Collins Wednesday announced he is a proud co-sponsor of the "Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act (H.R. 3920)." This bill would give Congress the authority to reverse certain future judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court through a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress.
"It is in the intent of this legislation for each Congressional chamber to set a precise process for challenging Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court should interpret and not remake the laws of America," Collins concluded