Posted on 03/15/2004 6:07:51 AM PST by beaureguard
This morning on CNN they were asking whether or not the socialist victory in Spain meant the terrorists were winning. Answer: Definitely. Up until the time of the terrorist (apparently Islamic) attack on those trains in Spain the government of Jose Maria Aznar was holding a dominating lead in the polls. Spain's new leader will be Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. He is pledging to bring Spain's troops home from Iraq. He will also adopt a foreign policy that is decidedly less friendly to the United States than was Aznar. The new Spanish government will align itself with the European Axis of Weasels, Germany, France, Belgium and other appeasement-oriented countries.
There is no doubt that terrorists are going to consider this to be a victory. How could they not? It's a week before a Spanish election. A man who has been bold and eager in his support for President Bush's war against terror and the liberation of Iraq is enjoying a seeming insurmountable lead in the polls. Terrorists attack ... 200 people die ... 1500 are injured ... and the people go to the polls and vote against Anzar. Many voters said that the terrorist attack was payment for Anzar's support of the United States. So that support is going .. and Islamic terrorism wins.
Today, as a result of the Zapatero victory in Spain, the hand of Islamic terrorism is strengthened.
Clearly the terrorists prefer national leaders who will appease them rather than leaders who will try to locate them and kill them. This would mean that the terrorists would much rather see John sKerry win in the United States than President Bush. I know that's a tough pill to swallow for the Democrats ... but the fact is that in this presidential election they are clearly on the same side as the terrorists. Saying it ain't so won't work. You're just going to have to find a way to accept it and live with it
Now ... here's the more sobering question for you to consider. Do these Islamic terrorists think that the same tactic would work in the United States? Would a deadly terrorist attack in this country help them as it did in Spain? Would voters quickly turn against George Bush and put a man more friendly to them in office? Now I'm not saying that this is the way Americans would react. What I am saying is that this might be the way the Islamic terrorists think you would react. If they do, then the danger of another deadly terrorist attack on America has just become more serious.
That perhaps we should precisely define and engage the enemy instead of making oblique attacks that end up making the enemy stronger, more powerful.
Not really. We should be careful in labeling the Spanish people as cowards, which they are not. They have simply made a very bad decision based on emotions.
Zapatero and his new administration are already saying that they will be tough on terror. But here's where the divergence comes, and this is exactly what Kerry and the dems will be doing here:
The socialists say that they will be tough on the real terrorists, and they will do what will really reduce terror, implying that Bush and Blair and Aznar going to Iraq had nothing to do with the real terrorists, and that all we are doing now is misguided or for ulterior motives. Watch Kerry to come out swinging with "If you elect me, I'll do what will really make us safer, not what the 'blood-for-oil Halliburton PNAC neocons' are doing to inflame America's allies and blunder unilaterally into unrelated, unjustified wars."
In other words, Kerry will run to the UN and apologize, run to France, Germany and Belgium and apologize, and then do everything possible to disengage US policy from Israel and make us the neutral, middle of the road superwimp that benevolently hands out food and AIDS money but takes no position on others' affairs. I only hope that enough of us have our head screwed on clearly come November to prevent the ketchup appeaser from coming to power.
Mothers funded by the Tides Foundation or MoveOn, who will tearfully implore "Why did George W Bush kill my son? And for nothing! We had no business in Iraq. It's all about oil! Boo hoo hoo hoooooo!"
I think you're completely wrong in your evaluation of the enemy. This is the first major attack on a western nation since the twin towers and it was nowhere near a deadly. They have been considerably weakened. They will run and morph and we will continue to hunt and kill. Our 'oblique' attacks have kept them off balance having denied them two countries in which to train.
If one were to take a narrow view of the battle of the buldge, one might think the Nazis had grown stronger and more powerful.
We are in a long fight that will have its ebbs and flows and it will be one by the side with the most determination.
How would precisely define the enemy? Is radical/militant islam too vague for you? How would you engage and enemy that runs and morphs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.