DescentBB

After the terrible bombings in Madrid, Spanish voters appease A.Q. by voting out the existing conservative govt. and replace it with a ostrich socialist govt. The new Spanish govt has already stated they will pull their troops out off Iraq unless the UN mandates UN troops into Iraq (fat chance). I'm sure bin Laden is jumping for joy and is already setting his sights on another coalition country.
So who's next? Japan? Poland?

Considering the Spaniards weren't terribly thrilled with joining the coalition (and the 1300 troops were just a token force), I can't really fault them. After all, that's what the Socialists promised to do. There was an ironic photo the other day with all the demonstrators holding up their hands as a gesture to *stop* the violence but it sure looked like a mass surrender. I do consider it a mistake to give even the appearance of being intimidated into withdrawing. AQ will no doubt interpret this as an effective tactic and it will likely embolden it to increase their attacks. The new Spanish government is waffling a bit by setting June 30 as the day they will bring their troops home, thereby trying to please both its own citizens and the coalition, since that's the deadline for Iraq withdraw to begin anyway.

On the other side of the coin, however, whereas the attack toppled a conservative government in Spain I think it will only strengthen the conservative government here at home. Americans were beginning to feel the threat was gone and they could forget about needing a war president. The attack in Spain shows it's still with us, still promising more violence, and that can only help Bush's re-election. If the attack in Spain were to contribute to Bush's re-election I think even bin Laden would have to admit the attack was a mistake. Notice how the Dems keep trying to take 9/11 off the table? AQ itself keeps putting it back. If AQ was smart it would have played possum until after November to increase its chances of getting an American President with much less resolve toward seeing AQ destroyed.

I highly doubt Poland will follow Spain. They are one of the few peoples who have their heads screwed on correctly.

I think on Meet the press they said that 90% of the pop in Spain opposed the war. So I don't know why you guys are suprised...it's only a matter time of before it's other countries. I don't think there was one single country that actually had a majority support the war against Iraq. What were the american numbers before the war? I know it was close but I can't remember. I could be wrong.

and bash I just have to know one thing...Kerry asked for cutting the budget for various reasons. It's not as if he wanted people to not have intel but as a cost cutting measure. You can think all you want of his senate votes but why in the world do you, and other Repubs on this board, think that Bush is the only person that can handle the military?

I can't for the life of me, figure out why in the world you people think Kerry wouldn't act against terrorist threats. Do you think he would react with violence? What do you think he would do in the face of terror? I don't think he would cower, I think he would react the way he should. If I remember correctly, public opinion in Afghanistan was high, and it should have been. Nobody was bothered by retaliation against the Taliban and Al Qaida, I certainly wasnt, and everyone knew that was just.

Zuruck wrote:Nobody was bothered by retaliation against the Taliban and Al Qaida, I certainly wasnt, and everyone knew that was just.

Why exactly was it justified to attack the Taliban?

um, because they along with A.Q. were responsible for 9/11?

I haven't seen one bit of evidence that the Taliban were responsible for ANY terror attacks outside of their own country.

In fact there is much more evidence that Saddam was responsible for international terror attacks than anything pointing to the Taliban, and we all know, now, we should have left Saddam alone...

sigh...

I have a question. Is it really worth going against what the terrorists want just because they're terrorists? I mean I can understand annoying somebody you don't like simply because you want to tick them off, but usually they don't go out and try to kill you after the fact.

Are what the Spanish people want and AQ wanting mutually exclusive?

Why exactly was it justified to attack the Taliban?

Because we were pissed, needed someone to kill. I mean, this is America, we can't have 3k of our citizens killed and not kill at least twice that many back! It just doesn't work that way.

Or maybe because the Taliban offered refuge for Al-Qaeda and their training camps, and Al-Qaeda in turn offered financial and military support to the Taliban?

It's gotten to the point where I can't tell if people are kidding or just not paying attention.

Sarcasm, pure sarcasm...and bait.

I was hoping Zuruck would back up his statement with the obvious answer that index_html provided:
"maybe because the Taliban offered refuge for Al-Qaeda and their training camps, and Al-Qaeda in turn offered financial and military support to the Taliban?"
... to which I would say, 'Right, so what's different about going after Saddam?'

Sorry for the confusion, we need a sarcasm emoticon.

Z, I believe Kerry would cover his azz and defer to the UN (which would do nothing). That would be consistent with Kerry's entire political career. He might rise to the ocassion and prove to be a tough Commander-In-Chief Kerry (heh, that phrase alone makes me chuckle, and cringe ), but I doubt it too much to support him. Bush has been relentless at pursuing AQ. That's a track record I can bank on to continue. I am hawkish to the extreme regarding terrorists. I don't want to understand them, or appease them or search for reasons to blame ourselves; I simply want them dead. Despite Kerry's dubious credentials of *war hero*, he stinks of an appeaser to me.

Kerry is a joke. If elected, he wont do ANYTHING. All he does is flip-flop on anything and everything, he is never consistant except for being a liberal.

Will Robinson wrote:'Right, so what's different about going after Saddam?'

That there's no proof about him giving Al Qaida refuge?

Top Wop wrote:he is never consistant except for being a liberal.

Since I don't know the history, can you give some examples and links to satisfy my curiousity?

Gooberman wrote:

Why exactly was it justified to attack the Taliban?

Because we were pissed, needed someone to kill. I mean, this is America, we can't have 3k of our citizens killed and not kill at least twice that many back! It just doesn't work that way.

If we did not attack AQ, then the 3000 dead would become 9000 and the count would spiral ever higher as AQ kept attacking. We did not counter attack just to get their body count higher than ours.

I find it immensly dis-heartening that the Spaniards cried uncle after the attack and focused their anger on their own govt instead of where it should have logically been directed. Maybe the Basque have the right idea of wanting a seperate state...in not wanting to associate with toothless spanish mendicity as Spain lays the alms bowl at the feet of AQ.

Delkian, on Kerry's flip flopping:

At a meeting with Arab Americans in Dearborn MI., Kerry tells how a fence seperating Palastine from Israel is a bad idea. Later at a meeting with Israeli govt. officials Kerry tells them that the fence is a good idea and will make Israel safer.

Z, to follow-up a bit on John Kerry, International Man of Mystery and Action, here's a devastating revelation in the New York Post:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... /20808.htm

Note: I don't read the NY Post regularly so I have no idea of it's political leaning but I sure hope this gets investigated further.

woodchip wrote:At a meeting --

Ok, there's one, although the latter occurrence can partially be considered normal diplomacy (most of the time you don't just go and throw at the other party's face everything you have, in many situations it's better to soften it a bit, although if it was phrased like you said, it wasn't just 'softening it a bit'). Got any links? Did the two occurrences happen close to each other or was there a long time between them?

I'm interested because changing one's opinions if the knowledge about facts changes is just natural and actually should happen, for example if someone (heh) initially supported the war on Iraq and now thinks it was a bad idea, it can be completely appropriate. Sticking to the same opinions regardless of what new information is brought onto the table is no wiser than flinging from side to side all the time.

Good dig Bash:

"Sullivan and Elson, joined by aviation-security experts David Forbes and Andrew Thomas, want to see Kerry hauled before the 9/11 Commission to answer questions about what he knew about Logan's lapses, and specifically what he did about them, before that fateful day. It's a reasonable request - especially since Kerry has complained that President Bush will only give the panel an hour of his time."

Funny how a guy(Kerry) who really had a warning, states, "Bush Knew" when in reality it was Kerry who knew

Delkian, here's the GOP's listing of the issues Kerry has *changed his mind* over. You can write it off since it is the GOP but it's based on Kerry's record and I doubt the GOP wants to embarrass itself by posting (and subsequently retracting) erroneous information.

http://www.gop.com/kerryvskerry/backup.asp#1

Also just recently:

"Vice President Dick Cheney said Americans deserve to know what Kerry has been telling foreign leaders. Cheney noted that at a campaign event Sunday in which a heckler challenged Kerry to produce names, the Democrat declined, saying, "that's none of your business."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040315/D81B26A00.html

Delkian, the fence statements were made about a year apart. In this case I am not sure of the relevancy of the time separation issue as the fence only had one intent and thus time should not have mitigated the rightness or wrongness.

bash wrote: You can write it off since it is the GOP but it's based on Kerry's record and I doubt the GOP wants to embarrass itself by posting (and subsequently retracting) erroneous information.

Thanks for the link.

I generally don't write things off completely based on the source alone, but I add a grain or two of salt depending on it.

[edit]
Oh, and no, it probably doesn't want to embarrass itself, but there are many ways of making information appear in one's favour without outright false statements.
[/edit]

I've only read the first ten cases listed on the page (will read more later), and maybe one or two of them could be considered 'flip-flopping', as the page wants to express it, judging by the information provided on that page. Judging a couple of the cases would require background information that I don't have, a few happened too far apart and with too much stuff between them that could understandably affect the opinion that nothing can really be said about them.

A few sound like they've been made to sound like flip-flopping, and at least one of those is presented in a way that I really don't understand how it would be changing sides even if it happened the way that the page tries to imply (though that partially falls to the 'background information needed' category).

woodchip wrote:Also just recently:

Is that supposed to look like changing sides? At least I don't see how it would be, and even otherwise it doesn't seem to be of particular dirtiness comparing to all the other filth that's flying around both ways in the campaigns.

I agree(!) about the relevancy of time in the fence issue, though. It's one of those interesting ones that I'll try to do some digging on tomorrow if I remember.

Frankly, I was just being lazy by directing you to the GOP since many are listed there in brief. Even I (conservative that I am) take what it presents with a grain or two of salt. I've read more in depth about many of those individual instances on other sites (primarily respected news sites) but pulling all those links together was more than I was motivated to do. Suffice to say, yes, Kerry's image as a self-serving opportunist is being overplayed in this election year but it isn't entirely without merit.

btw, are you ex-pat Yank/Brit/etc.?

Delkian wrote:That there's no proof about him giving Al Qaida refuge?

Should we narrow our targets to just the one group of attackers when we decide to launch a war on an enemy?

I always thought Saddams promoting the murder of israili civilians and paying $25,000 bounty for suicide bombers families was worthy of killing him.

Then of course Abu Nidal, who was Arafats right-hand-man left the PLO when Arafat first talked of a peace agreement back in the '70's. He and his namesake orginazation went on to murder 1000 people before he died in his sanctuary...Iraq. His favorite targets were people in synagogues and any arab leader who even remotely talked of peace with Israel.

And of course Salman Pak, the airliner mock up training camp in the desert north of Bagdad where it is claimed by numerous iraqi's that a year or so before 9/11 foreign 'jihadists' were brought in and trained by Saddams security forces in the art of taking over a commercial airplane using knives.

I see more there, just off the top of my head, than anything the Taliban did, after all bin Laddin had his own men embedded into the Taliban ranks to keep them in line. Hell, Johnny Cochran could probably win the case in court that the Taliban were hostages in their own country and not to blame for bin Laddins exploits!

We went to war, not to just slap a few wrists.
It would have been futile and counter productive to just chase bin Laddin into the hills and claim victory.
If afghanistan is justified then getting Saddam was mandated.

Well just heard today Honduras is pulling troops out of Iraq. The Madrid bombings are the reason. So again it looks like AQ wins.

I haven't read the entire thread, so bare with me.

"After the terrible bombings in Madrid, Spanish voters appease A.Q. by voting out the existing conservative govt. and replace it with a ostrich socialist govt."

The spanish electorate wasn't all that thrilled with going into Iraq, because it was something that they, as well has many Americans, saw as having little to do with fighting islamic terrorism. Then, after the bombings, the government quickly blamed the local Basque terrorists(ETA), even after their intelligence showed this was untrue. Anti-terrorism officials threatened to resign, and it blew up. The Prime Minister was seen as politically manipulating this very important event. Such a black eye right before the election produces results like that of the election.

The new government has stated that Spanish troops will be pulled out on June 14, the day we hand over Iraq to the Iraqi's. They have stated that they will work within organizations such as NATO and the UN (like in Afghanistan) rather than a "coalition of the willing."

"'Right, so what's different about going after Saddam?'"

Logistics and priorities. Al Qaida was the group that attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam. Going after Saddam when we did took resources and attention away from our pursuit of Al Qaida, which, and I may be totally off base here, should've been our number one priority. Perhaps this latest bombing is evidence of that?

I'm not saying that going after Saddam is unjustified in the context of a "war on terror," (as broad as that title is) but we should not have sacrificed the pressure being applied in Afghanistan to overthrow Saddam. Those that supported our effort in Afghanistan, yet did not support our effort in Iraq are not "soft on terrorism." They just have different priorities.

Vander wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, so bare with me.



The new government has stated that Spanish troops will be pulled out on June 14, the day we hand over Iraq to the Iraqi's. They have stated that they will work within organizations such as NATO and the UN (like in Afghanistan) rather than a "coalition of the willing."

The new spanish govt could have waited until May before announcing this. As it is, it looks like the new spanish govt. is doing the 'ole appeasers two step.

Vander wrote:"'Right, so what's different about going after Saddam?'"

Logistics and priorities. Al Qaida was the group that attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam. Going after Saddam when we did took resources and attention away from our pursuit of Al Qaida, which, and I may be totally off base here, should've been our number one priority. Perhaps this latest bombing is evidence of that?

I'm not saying that going after Saddam is unjustified in the context of a "war on terror," (as broad as that title is) but we should not have sacrificed the pressure being applied in Afghanistan to overthrow Saddam. Those that supported our effort in Afghanistan, yet did not support our effort in Iraq are not "soft on terrorism." They just have different priorities.

The problem with that is we don't know for sure that A.Q. was not operating in Iraq or that at some future point in time Uncle Saddie would have let them. We do know that al Islam was in Iraq and they were terrorist. Thanks to Clinton and the Church committee, we were not allowed to have on the ground agents with certain unsavory character flaws that might have given us a clearer picture of what was going on in Iraq.

bash wrote:Frankly, I was just being lazy by directing you to the GOP since many are listed there in brief.

Ok. Thanks for the effort.

Suffice to say, yes, Kerry's image as a self-serving opportunist is being overplayed in this election year but it isn't entirely without merit.

It would seem that way.

btw, are you ex-pat Yank/Brit/etc.?

Ex-pat? Sorry, me no understand...

But Yank or Brit, no. Check profile.

woodchip wrote:The new spanish govt could have waited until May before announcing this.

Maybe, but that would have placed them in a difficult situation, considering that they had just promised in their election campaign (before the bombings) that the troops would be withdrawn and that promise may have been a major factor in their election victory.

Remember, foreign politics aren't unimportant to domestic politics - not in Spain, not in the U.S.

The problem with that is we don't know for sure that A.Q. was not operating in Iraq

Usually you know for sure that something is happening before acting based on it rather than knowing that it doesn't happen.

I did check your profile. I am impressed by your English language proficiency, hence my curiosity.

In other news... reportedly AQ estimated it would take 2-3 attacks in Spain to swing that nation against its conservative government and disengage it from the coaliton. If that information is to be believed, it would suggest other attacks were nearing final planning stages and I wonder whether those will be cancelled, redirected nearby (France? Italy?) or followed through.

Usually you know for sure that something is happening before acting based on it rather than knowing that it doesn't happen.

Well, that's the chicken and the egg question confronting all of us. The US position is that we (all Western intelligence) are at an immense disadvantage because we don't have solid assets inside AQ. Acknowledging that, it basically means you will frequently only know for certain if you are being targeted when your dead are being taken to the morgue.

That said, I've never seen Afghanistan and Iraq as linked that closely. Afghanistan was a attack against easily identifiable enemies in direct response to an attack on us. Iraq was a big question mark. But in the larger picture, a foothold in the Middle East that we could recast into a beacon of democratic empowerment for the peoples in that area held the possibility of redirecting the anger and desperation motivating these attacks away from the false enemy (the West) and toward their real enemy (their own repressive regimes).

Did the Bush adminsitration take advantage of the lack of intelligence about Iraq's culpability in terrorist attacks to launch it's own larger strategy to reshape the face of the Middle East? Maybe. But it did have the pretext through Hussein's unwillingness to prove he had destroyed the weapons he acknowledged having at the conclusion of the first Gulf War.

If Bush did rush into a war under the cover of uncertainty, however, would that have been such a bad thing considering it's already paying dividends in Iraq, Libya, Iran and even Saudi Arabia (and arguably in North Korea)? By taking the fight to the neighborhood the terrorists call home rather than waiting until they are in our neighborhood and catch them (hopefully) just prior to an attack, in my mind it makes for a sensible pro-active (as opposed to pre-emptive) foreign policy and not a defensive, reactive one. To achieve that objective, we needed control and not just cooperation.

Delkian wrote:

woodchip wrote:The new spanish govt could have waited until May before announcing this.

Maybe, but that would have placed them in a difficult situation, considering that they had just promised in their election campaign (before the bombings) that the troops would be withdrawn and that promise may have been a major factor in their election victory.

The promise before the bombings is one thing. After the bombing, no matter what govt that wound up being
put in power, the Spanish should have reacted in a manner proportional to the attack on their country. As it is, I'm sure at the very least ETA now knows how to go about getting their long desired separate state. The Madrid bombing and the reaction by the spaniards, will encourage other group that terrorism works...and size matters.

Delkian wrote:Usually you know for sure that something is happening before acting based on it rather than knowing that it doesn't happen.

Not so. If enough indicators show that something bad is imminent, pre-emption is warranted. This in light of 9/11. You have to remember that everyone thought Iraq had WMD's prior to our forces going in. A secondary concern (and not very well publisized) was Saddie was starting to lose his grip and civil war was a possible result. Iraq coming apart may have been as bad a scenario as WMDS. You are right about knowing what is happening before going in. If our prior liberal Clinton and friends hadn't eliminated perhaps the best source of intel (humanintel), we could have good enough info to make a better decision.

"The new spanish govt could have waited until May before announcing this. As it is, it looks like the new spanish govt. is doing the 'ole appeasers two step."

Considering they campaigned on withdrawl from Iraq, and a majority of the citizens did not want to go into Iraq, I hardly find it abnormal that once elected they might declare that they will actually be withdrawing from Iraq. Perhaps it's the notion of campaigning for something, and then actually following through that is so foreign?

I think this whole "terrorist appeasers" theme is lowbrow conservative analysis. Vote out a conservative and you're a terrorist appeaser! That is the message for all you good Americans.

"The problem with that is we don't know for sure that A.Q. was not operating in Iraq or that at some future point in time Uncle Saddie would have let them."

Yes, that *IS* the problem. We knew Al Qaida was in Afghanista and Pakistan, just as we still know this. So why take away from that effort to go somewhere with little to no connection with Al Qaida? We don't know if Al Qaida is working in Venezuela or if at some point in the future Chavez will let them. Should we keep Afghanistan on the back burner and topple Chavez?

"The promise before the bombings is one thing. After the bombing, no matter what govt that wound up being put in power, the Spanish should have reacted in a manner proportional to the attack on their country."

Let me guess, you want them to attack Panama! No wait, South Africa? WTF does an Al Qaida bombing have to do with pulling troops out of Iraq?

Jeff, hyperbole aside, it wouldn't be abnormal to reassess campaign promises in light of a drastically changed landscape. The promises were pre-election promises that appealed to many Spaniards, yes, but coming on the heels of such a savage attack it complicated matters and presented an impression of capitulation to the demands of the terrorists. I have no doubt AQ sees this as a win. Spain had a responsibility to the community of nations also facing terrorist threat to revisit it's pre-election promise. Just as the Spanish Socialists claimed *the bombs dropped in Iraq fell on Spain* so too then does the next country attacked have justification along the same logic to blame Spain for its appearance of giving the terrorists what they wanted and for raising AQ morale and emboldening it to increase and broaden it's attacks elsewhere. I agree with Chipper that it was bad timing.

Let me guess, you want them to attack Panama! No wait, South Africa? WTF does an Al Qaida bombing have to do with pulling troops out of Iraq? Vander

Alas it looks more and more that the bombers we're from Morocco and may be the same group that bombed Casablanca. If this is the case, then instead of pulling out of Iraq, Spain should be making noise about working with Morocco to help stamp out terrorist operating in their country. Lets not go off the liberal deep end with suggestion Spain should out and out attack another country. After all, we already took care of that situation.

You're making a connection between an Al Qaida attack and Iraq policy that I just don't get. You see the attack as a manipulation to draw Spain out of Iraq. I see the attack as a result of a policy directed at the wrong target.

So lets say that Al Qaida effectively removed Spain from Iraq. Doesn't that mean Spain will now be more fit and have greater cause to fight actual Al Qaida terrorists?

I suppose if the people who perpatrated the attack were Iraqis, and the Spanish knew this and decided to pull out of Iraq, you could call them appeasers. But that isn't the case.

So lets say that Al Qaida effectively removed Spain from Iraq. Doesn't that mean Spain will now be more fit and have greater cause to fight actual Al Qaida terrorists? Vander

Sigh...no, because AQ views Iraq as a cause celebre (sp?). Iraq in turmoil plays directly into AQ's hand. By stating they will now pull troops out gives AQ the impression that Spain is weak and easily manipulated. If Spain now tries any anti-terrorist action, AQ will now go in and kill a few more spaniards just to show them the errors of their way. View it this way:
You are walking down the street and the local punk thug steps in front of you and demands money. If you hand over your money, guess what will happen the next time you walk in the punks territory. On the other hand if you knee him in the balls, run his head through the nearest window and the glass slices his throat causing the thug to bleed to death...I suspect the other punks in the area will do their best to avoid you.

To look at this further, in response to terrorism Saudi Arabia has just killed Ali Haj, another top terrorist leader. To date Saudi Arabia has eliminated 600 terrorists since 9/11. At least the Saudi's get it. The kingdom of Saud could have just folded when they were bombed like Spain...but didn't.

"By stating they will now pull troops out gives AQ the impression..."

Hmm, I'm getting the impression that you're playing into Al Qaida's hands. By calling the Spanish "appeasers," you're giving Al Qaida an even greater victory than they already have! Now they're making us fight amongst ourselves! They know they won, but now they know we know they won! OMG!

"Iraq in turmoil plays directly into AQ's hand."

/me shakes head. Could it be because we're not as focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan when we're focused on Iraq?

"If Spain now tries any anti-terrorist action, AQ will now go in and kill a few more spaniards just to show them the errors of their way."

I really don't see how you can draw this conclusion.

And yeah, Saudi Arabia. Now thats the country other's should aspire to be.

Jeff, the only ones *not as focused on Afghanistan* are the members of the press. Don't interpret lack of coverage as lack of activity. Afghanistan, with its twenty years of devastation by the Soviets and Taliban misrule is infinitely more complex a problem to *fix* than Iraq. It certainly won't be remedied in a timeframe that would satisfy your apparently limited patience. Expecting it to be rehabilitated in time for November's election is not only unrealistic and naive, it's maliciously unfair to the folks working towards that goal.

In regard to Pakistan, since when are we at war with Pakistan?

Anyway, back on topic, do you really believe AQ will not assume credit for Spain's withdraw from Iraq, regardless of whether it was a standing pledge from the Spanish Socialists? And if you agree AQ will take credit, how can you not allow yourself to see that as a setback in the efforts to stem its attacks?

If you want linkage, while not a smoking gun, this information seems to point to an explicit plan to affect the changes we have recently witnessed:

A December posting on an Internet message board used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers and obtained by CNN, spells out a plan to topple the pro-U.S. government.

"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.

"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europ ... index.html

I agree with you, btw, that the PP shot itself in the foot by initially blaming ETA and sticking to that story long after evidence began to surface that contradicted that assertion. For that dishonesty they paid the price but now the ball's in the Socialist's court and I think it was a mistake to throw salt in the wounds of the coalition by branding Iraq a disaster (wrong, read the BBC-sponsored study of Iraqi beliefs about whether their lot has improved since the war) and calling both Blair and Bush liars. That can be somewhat attributed to Zapatero's neophyte status in global politics and pandering to the Angry Left but you can be certain it warmed bin Laden's heart seeing such unnecessary and insulting public infighting among the nations he has sworn to destroy. The Spanish Socialists royally facked up and now others will likely pay for their appearance of appeasement.

Only time will tell if it's decision to sacrifice it's victims without a clear rebuke toward the perpetrators (the real authors, not the useful idiots that physically carried out the attack) will insulate Spain from further danger. That said, even if Spain is never attacked again, I believe AQ has already placed Spain in the *win* column and is busy plotting it's next attack, most likely at a time and in a nation close to a major national election. Hmm, I wonder what country fits that description.

But as I mentioned earlier, if the US is targeted successfully before the election, in my mind that will assure a Bush re-election. Unlike Spain, the majority of Americans continue to support our efforts in Iraq and have more stomach for a fight than the Spaniards apparently possess.

/me shakes head. Could it be because we're not as focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan when we're focused on Iraq? Vander

What makes you think America can only handle one situation at a time. With your philosophy, we sure as heck should not now be in Haiti trying to smooth out the situation Clinton initiated there. America can not only walk and chew gum at the same time...we can also spit.