Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Actually, I think Thomas' hypothetical is fine. You do A, and immediately. You tell the world that there is no linkage between your intentions and the desires of murderous thugs. I would have no issue with the Spanish PM choosing to pull his troops from Iraq and turn his back on the war on terror, if he simply made a public statement that doing so had nothing to do with the threat of terror on Spanish soil or against Spanish citizens and interests.

It's nice to see we agree on something, Scrat!

George, as so often in our conversations, we don't really disagree on much, and the reason to continue discussing is because the disagreement is interesting, not because it is large. In this particular case, we only disagree about this question: Exactly who or what is it whose position shouldn't change? The office labelled "Prime Minister of Spain", or the person who happens to hold that office?

Mr. Zapatero, having analyzed the situation as best he could a few months ago, concluded that Iraq had no place in the war on terror, and that Spain ought not join America's invasion of Iraq. This continues to be his conclusion after the attack, and presumably after he replaces Mr.Aznar in that office. Mr Aznar, having analyzed the situation as best he could a few months ago, concluded that a war on Iraq made sense in the war on terrorism, and he continues to think so after the attack and after he leaves the office of prime minister.

It doesn't make sense to me that the office itself, the square in the organigram of the Spanish government, should hold a position on the issue, and that this position should not change. What counts is that the persons involved not cave in, and they didn't. Both men, the leaving and the incoming prime minister, acted honorably.

Given our area of agreement, does it bother you that the incoming PM has done nothing to dissuade anyone of the notion that his intentions are in part an effort to placate terrorists? For clarity, I'm not stating that he means to placate them, but that he has not clearly stated an intention not to do so, and that having failed to do this, he has left that inference hanging open for terrorists to latch onto?

Unless you think this guy is dumb, shouldn't we assume that he's at least as well-informed and intelligent as you and I and ought to recognize the need to publicly distance his statements from the linkage being made?

I agree the differences are small, but interesting.

I also agree that, so far, both individuals have behaved honorably. However, the moment Mr. Zapatero becomes PM he will be faced with a choice about the policy of the government of Spain, an entity that transcends the personalities of either individual. Notwithstanding Mr. Zapatero's earlier (and present) assessment of the strategic situation of his country on this issue, the bombing and the cynical threat, veiled as a "Truce" that followed , have profoundly changed that situation.

Now Mr. Zapatero must consider again his responsibilities to the people of Spain. Should he, in their name, succumb to the demands of murderors and terrorists who have already murdered hundreds of its citizens and who threaten to do more if he fails to comply with THEIR (not his) wishes. In this aspect of the matter, Zapatero's previous opinions on the desirability of continued Spanish support are not at all relevent. The question is should Spain (not Mr. Zapatero) submit to the demands of the Terrorists? Until the moment the new PM acts, Spain will have opposed their demands. The submission, when it occurs, wil inescapably be in the face of the murders and the accompanying threats.

The question of honor for Mr Zapatero will no longer be merely a personal one. He will bear responsibility for the honor of his country. Admittedly this is a fading concept in Europe. The prognosis, in my view, is not good for Europe or for Spain.

It's just a personal interest, George, but where did you actually read that "a terrorist group had proclaimed a "Truce" with Spain"?

It was on all the news wires (and papers) here yesterday. I'll try and find a link for you if you wish.

Thanks, but no need to make a fuss about that - (re-) found that myself by now.

So, what how are you going to argue, if -the even the most impossible might happen - Bush should win the election?

I believe it is quite premature to write off Bush's prospects in the November election. Kerry doesn't wear well and, during his Senate years he has created a long record that stands in opposition to the views he is expressing now - not a particularly uncommon thing for a politician of any party anywhere, however, one that will make him vulnerable in the months ahead.

What part of not basing decisions on the wishes, statements or demands of terrorists are you having trouble understanding? :wink:

Knowing that some people are gonna attack me for posting the following, I couldn't resist it (and feel all the future attacks will be worth it).
*******************
In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the
intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the
Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational
community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ"
report among others.

There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D.
Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly
achievements:

1. Writings that they produced without aid of staff 2. Their ability
to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which
were then scored using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking. The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points.

In order by presidential term:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D] 142,

Harry S Truman [D] 132,

Dwight David Eisenhower [R] 122

John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D] 174,

Lyndon Baines Johnson [D] 126,

Richard Milhous Nixon [R] 155,

Gerald R. Ford [R] 121,

James Earle Carter [D] 175,

Ronald Wilson Reagan [R] 105

George Herbert Walker Bush [R] 098,

William Jefferson Clinton [D] 182,

George Walker Bush [R] 091


in order of IQ rating:

182 . . William Jefferson Clinton [D]

175 . . James Earle Carter [D]

174 . . John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D]

155 . . Richard Milhous Nixon [R]

147 . Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D]

132 . Harry S Truman [D]

126 . . Lyndon Baines Johnson [D]

122 . Dwight David Eisenhower [R]

121 . . Gerald R. Ford [R]

105 . Ronald Wilson Reagan [R]

098 . . George Herb ert Walker Bush [R]

091 . . George Walker Bush [R]

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ
of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President
George W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ
of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President
Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.

No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176).

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G.
W. Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of
the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary
[6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other
presidents], his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work w hich could be studied on an intellectual basis.

The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to
arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis. "All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white
papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."

The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes
high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human
behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F.
Dilliams.

******
I didn't write this report: I'm only the messenger.

Wow this must be a hate the President site. I wonder several things.
First, how in the world can you get behind kerry, as the man has a different version of the truth every day?
Second, why do you look for someone else(other than kerry) to run?
Third, what's wrong with hillary? She's very anxious
Fourth, Why the vitriolic attack on GWB's past when you let bill c slide on his extremely sordid past?

You folks seem to be driven, like a large portion of the masses, on unfounded hysteria, generated by the DNC on every conceivable issue, aimed at your senses, knowing that most won't bother checking it out. As they well know, you will listen to their incessant rantings, and will allow polls to determine your stance on issues. Such is the nature of the liberal Democratic party.
GWB has prosecuted the most amazing war on terrorism the world has ever seen. The death rate of our soldiers in the war on terror is unbelievably low. Many inner citys have a higher death rate.

"The liberal is continually angry, as only a self-important man can be, with his civilization, his culture, his country and his folks back home. His is an infantile world view. At the core of a liberal is the spoiled child -- miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." P.J. O'Rourke

hill, I've opted to answer only one of your questions, "Fourth, Why the vitriolic attack on GWB's past when you let bill c slide on his extremely sordid past?" You see, what Bill C did was a private sexual affair between two consenting adults. What GWB did was lie about taking us into a war that has cost American lives and billions of tax dollars. What Bill C did only resulted in a soiled dress. What GWB did cost over 15,000 lives, 10,000 of whom were innocent men, women, and children. If you can't see the difference, you never will no matter how many times this is explained to you.

bill clinton exhibited behavior that was reprehensible. His penchant for sordid sex outside of marraige was a huge national security issue. The fact that he willingly lied to you and me on TV while pointing his finger at us was unimaginably arrogant. But his lying under oath to congress was truly the most heinous crime committed by a sitting US president I can think of. His impeachment was merely a slap on the wrist. He should have been removed from office, and imprisoned for that crime. Look what they are doing to Martha. Not quite the same, but she's not the Pres.
What you folks don't seem to see is that these Islamic terrorists are truly evil people and will stop at nothing in killing infidels. It is as important to them as providing for our families is to us. GWB has it right in declaring war on terrorism, just not on a large enough scale. I predict that you will get your way sooner or later as you regain control of the white house, then you will see what terrorists can really accomplish, given their way unfettered by the only GOOD opposition left. I doubt John Kerry will survive the election, (he may not even get to it) but I know you will ultimately have your way. Then you can re-read your thoughts expressed here and see how well you did.

Let's start the the next ones soon and ...
... of course displeasing polls should be forbidden by law!

hillclimber

There's not much you've written in your two posts above that isn't an ad hominem and immediately disposable on that basis alone.

The fragment I've quoted isn't an ad hominem. But it is terrifically silly. What one lies about, and the circumstances under which one lies, is the ethical framework upon which one might make other than silly judgements. We'll assume you've lied? We know that John McCain lied to his Vietnamese captors. We know that Carl Rove has lied in previous campaigns in working to get his candidate elected. We know that the Bush administration has lied where it thought that such a strategy was in the best interests of the US (Rumsfeld was caught in one just the other day).

Reason and justice are far from you folks here. I have far better things to do than try to convert liberals. See ya.

Not all of us are liberal by any means. But we do try to be careful in our arguments and to avoid the partisan cliches.

Well, thanks for dropping by. :wink: