The Spanish elections: Victory for terror?
by JohnHuang2
First, is any one really surprised at how very anti-Bush, very anti-American this bozo is? C'mon, the guy even looks French, for Pete's sake. He's got A-P-P-E-A-S-E-M-E-N-T scrawled across his forehead. Even after last week's commuter train bombings in Madrid, he's still as big a 'Blame-America-Firster' as ever. Ten French fries short of a 'Happy Meal,' he calls the U.S.-led war in Iraq a big error and blames Bush's Mideast policy for all the bombings. He thinks the U.N. could do a better job in Iraq (especially after fleeing Iraq), and that Kofi Annan should be given full reign there ASAP. He says U.S. policy has not only failed, it's created more terrorism. That using force is no way to treat an enemy out to kill you, yada, yada. But what would you expect from an Old Europe-type pol, hmmmm? Then again, whatever you might think of this guy, it's not fair to say he has no vision for dealing with the enemy we face. To him, a more sensible approach would be to avoid preemption. Basically, his vision is, 'When you're in a tough battle with a tough opponent, be brave, but don't shoot. Then, only when you see the whites of their eyes, surrender.' Some vision.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, he says he'll 'fight' terror vigorously. He says he's no peacenik. No Neville Chamberlain. On Iraq, he admits things could be worse. It's not a total loss. At least Saddam's alive and well. But have you checked out his party? Oh, just a bunch of appeasers. A moonbat brigade of socialists, just like him. Of 'peace at any price' radicals, just like him. Everything about his party is extreme -- way, way, out on the fringe, just like him. So fringe are he and his party, they seem to think we owe Osama an apology -- for our power, for our freedoms, for our way of life. Can you believe that? It's mindless. Well, anyway, enough about Kerry and the Democrats.
Now, about the situation in Spain, keen observers assure us that Saddam had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Sure, there may have been contact, oh, say, a gazillion or more, but nothing untoward happened during these powwows. When Binny decided to drop by Baghdad in March 1998, I'm sure it was only to share the latest Martha Stewart keepsake Wedding Planner. CNN's terrorism analyst, Peter Bergen, insisted Sunday on Late Edition that Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda (That's just White House character assassination against Saddam! They did the same thing to John McCain!) "I think the evidence (of a link) is somewhere between tenuous and nonexistent," Bergen keenly observed. Al-Qaeda could care less about Saddam. Indeed, Saddam fiercely opposed al-Qaeda. (Bergen also keenly noted that al-Qaeda, which doesn't care about Saddam (who fiercely opposed al-Qaeda), attacked Madrid for backing the U.S. attack on Saddam). Indeed, so "between tenuous and nonexistent" is evidence of a link, that a tenuous and nonexistent al-Qaeda videotape surfaced on Saturday showing a link and claiming responsibility for the bombing attacks. The attacks, said tenuous and nonexistent spokesman Abu Dujan Al Afgani, was "an answer to (Spain's) collaboration with criminals Bush and his allies" in "the crimes . . . caused in Iraq and Afghanistan and there will be more . . . the blood will flow more and more and these attacks are very little compared to what could happen..." (These Jihadists can be charming smooth talkers, as you can see).
So, Democrats say al-Qaeda bombed Madrid as payback for removing Saddam who fiercely opposed al-Qaeda which didn't give a lick about Saddam whose removal made al-Qaeda so mad it retaliated by timing its attack in hopes of defeating the ruling Popular Party which backed the U.S. removing Saddam whose connections to al-Qaeda were "somewhere between tenuous to nonexistent." (Al-Qaeda memo to Popular Party: You helped to topple Saddam, who fiercely opposed us. We had to punish you for that!) If only more things in life were this crystal clear.
(Democrats . . . Reality. Hmmmm. I think the evidence of a link is somewhere between tenuous and nonexistent).
The newly elected Socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose tough-as-nails policy on al-Qaeda is to 'butter 'em up real good, then beg 'em not to kill ya,' vowed proudly to stay the course and not be intimidated by the bad guys -- Bush and Tony Blair. (Bulletin: Europe has re-released Appeasement Version 2.0 -- upgrade now!) Spain, ousting the ruling party in reaction to terror, has traveled too far down Surrender Road to stumble now. (Appeasement, please don't fail me now!) To the Socialist Party, an important value too often sadly missing in global affairs today is a willingness to . . . surrender. To Zapatero, confronting a threatened danger could take Spain down the slippery slope to victory (let's not go there). Eager to show that when push comes to shove the Socialists roll over, Zapatero, who had endorsed John Kerry recently, reiterated Monday his pledge to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, just as al-Qaeda graciously demanded, no later than June 30, unless the U.N. takes over. (If the U.N. takes over Iraq, al-Qaeda will close up shop immediately, head home, collect early retirement, live happily ever after, Democrats insist. Furthermore, Democrats insist no evidence exists linking Iraq and al-Qaeda -- a claim al-Qaeda hotly disputes).
Yet, if al-Qaeda thought it could bomb a whole nation into submission, al-Qaeda was right. As Zapatero and Kerry see it, in war there is no substitute for total surrender. (Ah, the thrill of sucking up to Osama!) With appeasement traditionally the proud forte of Euroweenies, Zapatero knows just what need be done to lose decisively. (Be honest. Don't you sleep better just knowing Jose Maria Aznar has been captured?) But, in a bid to reassure allies, Zapatero, furious that the government had insisted on making ETA (a band of cuddly little angels) its prime suspect for 3/11, says he takes all threats against security seriously (why else would he be willing to wage all-out surrender?)
A trailblazer, Zapatero, like Kerry, also seeks a fresh approach to economic policy. Something never, ever, ever tried before: Socialism (Ring-a-Ding! We've got a winner!)
With Spain having courageously cut a deal with Osama, U.S. Appeasement experts (majority of Democrat Party) believe al-Qaeda is ready to rest on its laurels for now, allowing Johnny Kerry to shift campaign debate back to jobs, education, health care, 31-year-old dental records, etc. (CNN News: Osama, 12 years as al-Qaeda head coach, says he's ready to spend more time with his family. Osama will continue teaching political science at Berkeley. Developing...).
You see, Binny and the boys are somewhat in a quandary. The more bombs they detonate, the more terrorism is in the news, the more Bush's poll numbers rise, as Americans are reminded the world's too dangerous to elect an Appeaser-in-chief to the White House. Kerry, cut from the same mold as Spain's Zapatero, vows to move the War on Terror from battlefield to courtroom. To be effective, Bush says it must be both, vowing to hunt down the bad guys, not just serve them papers. The differences in approach can be quite stunning. Under Kerry's approach, Binny gets a 'knock, knock' on the door, and a raft of subpoenas. (Mr. Osama, sir, you're wanted for questioning). With Bush, Osama gets a courtesy visit from Daisy Cutter, weighing almost as much as Dixie Chick Natalie Maine. Osama been Fried, versus Osama been tried. Which would you rather be?
Kerry says, with him, you'll have a job -- just keep an eye on your office window for 767s. (Clinton says he created millions of jobs. Problem is, al-Qaeda got most of 'em). Bush says, with him, you get the job, but having a job means little if you end up blown up at work. (That can ruin your whole day).
No matter how you slice it, on jobs versus security, the public will side with Bush over Kerry any day.
Thus, the Madrid attack, which Kerry won't touch with a 10-foot pole, had the opposite affect with American voters, with a CBS News Poll showing Bush moving ahead of Kerry, 46 percent to 38 percent. It's a massive swing from 2 weeks ago, when Kerry had a slim lead. Ralph Nader got 7 percent in this poll of 984 registered voters, conducted March 10-14.
Bottom line: Bush is popular. And not just with ordinary people. Even among leaders in America, Bush is popular. Look, everywhere I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, 'Bush's gotta win this, Bush's gotta beat this guy.'
Excuse me? Name names? No, I'm not gonna name names. What leaders are backing Bush over Kerry? That's none of your business! Let me just say something to you, sir. Just a minute. Just a minute. I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody and get some leader -- they have to deal with the government. No leader would obviously share a conversation if I started listing them. The point is that all across America, the Senator is meeting with a new level of hostility.
Meanwhile, "The White House, seeking to raise credibility questions about their presumptive Democratic challenger, suggested that Sen. John Kerry had made up claims that some foreign leaders privately back his candidacy," CBS News reports.
"Either he is straightforward and states who they are, or the only conclusion one can draw is that he is making it up to attack the president," White House spokesman Scott McClellan is quoted as saying Tuesday. President Bush weighed in as well, challenging Kerry to back up his claims. "If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts," said Bush.
Facing falling polls and running out of money, Kerry, for his part, hotly denied he made it up, accusing the White House of trying to change the subject. "They don't have a campaign, so they're trying to divert it," he told reporters.
At the center of the growing controversy is a claim by Kerry that foreign leaders want him to win in November.
Speaking to reporters in Florida 2 weeks ago, Kerry said this: "I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, 'you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy.'"
Facing growing pressure, Kerry says he can't name names, telling a voter in Pennsylvania who questioned him on his claims Sunday at a town hall meeting, "It's none of your business."
"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody and get some leader -- they have to deal with this administration." Kerry added that "No leader would obviously share a conversation if I started listing them. The point is that all across the world, America is meeting with a new level of hostility."
Hey, Kerry -- don't get snippy!
Heh, it's only March, and Kerry's already losing it. Give him a few months, and he'll morph completely into Howard Dean.
Don't ya love it when a plan comes together so beautifully?
Anyway, that's...
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
