Spain rewards Al Qaida: Bomb The Vote! (Neville Chamberlain speaks Spanish)

ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN

It has become even more clear that the Islamo-fascist movement has scored a tremendous strategic victory with its attacks last week in Spain. Dutch economist Bernard Walschots nails it: "Al Qaeda or its affiliates have toppled a democratic government for the first time. This may have dramatic implications for the Western democracies." Did you get that the first time around? The Islamic Jihadists have just toppled the government of a major Western nation. Socialists have taken over in Spain. Islamic terrorists like socialists ... they're brothers under the skin.

This morning we learn that CNN has discovered an Al Qaeda document which set forth a plan to get Spain to pull its troops out of Iraq. Apparently the document was posted on a computer bulletin board some months ago. This document talked about developing a strategy to force the conservative government of Spain out of office and elect socialists. And just how was that going to be done? Terrorist attacks, that's how. So, the plan was formulated, then implemented, and proof of success came quickly. The people of Spain fell into line immediately and voted out a government unfriendly to terrorism, and voted a more friendly one in.

Now Spain is loudly touting its plans to become one of the Axis of Weasels, joining Germany, France, Belgium and other Euroweenie countries in a program of appeasement toward Islamic Jihadists. How weak are the Europeans? Well, let's take this comment from Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission. Prodi says: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists ... terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago."

Force isn't the answer? If not force, what? Appeasement? Doesn't Prodi remind you of Chamberlain prior to World War II? Read your history. Terrorism always works against the appeasers.

What's next? How about England? Intelligence officials are already suggesting that Great Britain will be next in the Islamic campaign of terrorism. Then ... the United States. The Wall Street Journal editorial this morning says that the U.S. must brace itself for the next wave of attacks. They worked in Spain ... so Al Qaeda must be thinking that they can work as well in America.

This election year just got a whole lot more interesting ... and dangerous.

Spain is surrendering ... but World War III continues.

 

SPAIN'S SOCIALIST PRESIDENT-ELECT SUPPORTS KERRY

Well, surprise, surprise. Maybe this is the leader that John Kerry was talking about. Left-wing socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who won Spain's presidential election on Sunday, has endorsed John Kerry. It used to be that world leaders stayed out of elections in other countries. Not so anymore.

Speaking to a British newspaper four days before his election, Zapatero said "I think Kerry will win. I want Kerry to win." He also made several other pro-Kerry statements including calling the Bush administration "the most reactionary American administration in recent times." Why? Because America is striking back at Islamic terrorists while much of the rest of the world watches? What will Mr. Zapatero do in retaliation to the Madrid bombing? Invite the misunderstood terrorists for tea? Give me a break.

More drivel from Zapatero: "We're aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our alliance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration." Maybe the DNC could get this guy to campaign for Kerry.

 

I certainly don't understand the mindset of the terrorist, but I have a hard time believing that they would be so stupid as to think that attacks would have similar consequences in the U.S.

They saw what happened to American resolve (and to Bush's approval ratings) after 9/11. A major terrorist attack just before the election would almost certainly guarantee Bush's re-election.

 

Terrorist attack = vote for Bush

I agree - if they attack us again prior to the election, even I would vote for Bush, simply because I know he'd go in to wherever and cause tremendous pain and suffering for our enemies, weak evidence or not. Sometimes the sword is mightier than the pen.

- Carl

 

Lets start with some facts.

-Around 90% of all Spanish are against the war in Iraq
-Aznar supported the war and sent 1300 troops.
-Aznar tried to pin the blame on ETA even after the Spanish police pointed at Al-Qaeda.

The Spanish voted against Aznar because he got involved in the war opposed by an overwhelming majority of the population, and because he tried to withhold the truth about who did the bombing in Madrid. There was an outrage in SpPain when it was discovered that he had tried to spin the terrorist attack.

Spain's new leader said this Monday "My most immediate priority will be to fight terrorism." But he and the Spanish population don't believe that it has anything to do with Iraq.

The Spanish troops are not going to be pulled out if they get a UN mandate. If I remember correctly Washington is trying to hand over some of the responsibility to the UN, so what is the problem? (apart from Washington trying to out source the work and still keep the control)

 

Columnist David Warren gets it:


Rotten Europe


Three days after the worst terror attack in continental Europe since World War II, Spain voted to capitulate. In compliance with the demands made in an Al Qaeda videotape, the Socialist prime minister elect, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, announced yesterday that Spain would withdraw its 1,300 troops from Iraq -- unless, of course, the U.S. turns over the whole operation to the incompetent United Nations. We have seen the spectacle of nine million Spaniards, demonstrating their grief in the streets, their hands raised and painted white in a poignant gesture of mass surrender.

This quotation, to a New York Times correspondent in Madrid by "David", a 26-year-old window frame maker who would not give his surname, tells the whole story. He explained why, at the last minute, he had changed his vote from Popular to Socialist: "Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq, and Al Qaeda will forget about Spain, so we will be less frightened."

It should be juxtaposed with this quotation from Mark Steyn, in Britain's Daily Telegraph: "So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. ... Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway."

For Al Qaeda, it is a huge victory after 30 months of continuous setbacks. They have tried a new tactic, and it works. They have shown that by massacring large numbers of innocents on the eve of a Western election, they may persuade the survivors to vote as they wish. Count on it: they will not now abandon this tactic. And they are likely to try it in the United States as well, to defeat President Bush in November, thanks to that Spanish capitulation.

How often small symbols confirm the depth of a betrayal. In Spain's case, one of the Moroccan terrorists of 3/11 has been revealed to be a member of the same cell that participated in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The Spanish Socialists exploited the shock and grief of last Thursday's murderous attacks on Madrid's transit rail system, with demonstrations on the eve of the election. The outgoing government of Prime Minister José María Aznar was accused of "lying to the Spanish people" by suggesting that the attack might have been mounted by the Basque ETA, and thus have nothing to do with Iraq. In defiance of Spanish electoral law, and disregarding the period of mourning that had been agreed by all parties, the Socialist partisans shouted that the blood of Spain was on Aznar's hands.

Let what it did stand to the eternal credit of Mr. Aznar's government. In the early morning of Sunday before the polls had yet opened, and in the full knowledge of what the consequences might be to its electoral prospects, it released information about the capture of Moroccan and Indian Jihadists, and the receipt of the videotape, that left no doubt about the authorship of the carnage.

Analysis and homily must converge in what I have to say today. There is no ambiguity in what has happened in Spain. The rotten heart of Europe has been exposed. The best comparison one can make is to Europe in 1940, when the entire continent had capitulated to Nazism and fascism, leaving Britain alone to fight. It thus came to be known as "Churchill's war", rather than "Hitler's war", only to revert when the Allies had won it, and a generation of Europeans, who had not lifted a finger, decided retrospectively that they had been in the Resistance.

The position of Tony Blair's government in Britain today is further undermined by the Spanish vote, so that it is quite possible that the British, too, may soon abandon what the Europeans now choose to call "Bush's war", rather than "Osama's war".

A good question might be asked of the Bush administration, in light of the Spanish election. It was articulated by an American friend yesterday: "Before we waste another drop of blood trying to create democracies in the Middle East, shouldn't we reflect a bit on how easily democracy in Spain was subverted by terrorists?"

One must not, under the present circumstances, sound an uncertain trumpet. All men of goodwill, regardless of nation, are fighting the Jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq, as we fought the Nazis in Italy and France; and if the Americans must fight them alone, so be it. Then as now we made a lot of blather about "democracy". But screw democracy, we are fighting an enemy of civilization, an embodiment of real evil. There is no compromise with such an enemy, no capitulation to him, no way to avoid casualties, no easy way out. We defeat him, or he defeats us.

We do not retreat because our allies are cowards. We continue to fight, for ourselves, for our children, and for the cowards' children.

 

Be of good cheer

NBC is running a series of articles this week visiting Iragi cities and towns. The tone of them is how much the infrastructure has improved, business is growing like crazy and how upbeat the Iraqi's are.

ABC published a poll a few days ago that stated 70% of Iraqi's are glad Saddam is gone and are positive about their future. Most want the coalition forces to go but not until the government is stable. 50% figure the US forces are effective but that is not bad from a civilian populace facing terrorism. Most have no clue how to fight it in the first place. The Shiites riot when US forces are too close to their religious ceremonies then riot again when these same ceremonies are bombed because the US forces "allowed it to happen". Go figure!

The Naysayers and Do Nothings are being proven wrong again and the new Spanish Prime Minister is going to look like an idiot spouting all his crap about how the invasion is a disaster. What a goof, he should get out of his smoke filled coffee house more.

 

Actually, I think that those who say "screw democracy" are the embodiment of real evil.

And I'm sure that when you guys take over, I will be "cleansed" for making that statement.

Well let me say it again, a little more clearly: "Screw you!"

I will fight to the death to defend the Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law.

 

"A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

 

There are many types of democracy. Direct democracy is what the Federalist were referring to when they discussed "tyranny of the majority."

In Franklin's quote that you cited, he was referring to a republic as another word for indirect democracy. But it is still a form of democracy.

(In fact, the Spanish elections that spurred the above article were an example of indirect, not direct, democracy.)

So when the writer said "screw democracy" he was obviously referring to republics as well.

 

David Warren, a Fascist himself

This David Warren doesn't get it.

Simple minds such as that of Warren are the main reason why America is literally hated all over the world.

I encourage intelligent Americans to re read Woodrow Wilson's famous 14 points in that famous speech to Congress.

God bless him.

 

Re: David Warren, a Fascist himself

No kidding.

Other comments I gleaned from a very quick trip to his website:

-American democracy is falling apart (he's Canadian, by the way...)

-Now that we've "liberated" Iraq, it's pointless to try to institute a democracy or to insure the rights of women.

 

Generalization

As pointed out he is not an American so the statement has no merit from that basis. Worse, it is not true. Yes, you can travel the world and find people whom hate the United States but they are by no means the majority anywhere. In fact the United States is envied and respected as a bastion of freedom and prosperity worldwide. There are far more people wishing they were here than hating us. If you have some backing for this statement please display it. And don't point out some protest of a couple of thousand people here and there.

 

Re: Terrorist attack = vote for Bush

I have long suspected we will be attacked immediately prior to the election.

I think the terrorists would feel, as some Democrats have been saying, Bush has not made America safer and an attack, they think, would prove their point and, they would think America would then vote for Kerry.

For what it's worth, if America is attacked, I believe the country would rally around President Bush.

There are some interesting similarities between this upcoming election and the 1960 election. Kennedy campaigned on keeping America strong and believe the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration was negligent in that arena.

Kerry is saying the same thing about Bush.

Kennedy was from Massachusetts and and his initials were JFK.

Kerry is from MA and his initials are JFK.

Nixon was held suspect by the right of the GOP as is Bush.

 

He said neither of these things

Even though with your prominently displayed liberal bias you would choose to read it that way.

He said it may be impossible to insure women's liberation when it is imposed by an outside mandate. I tend to agree, for the short term. However, current events in Iran show that it cannot be stifled forever. He did not say he did not believe in womens rights himself, just that the Islamist's don't. That is what is known as a fact.

I looked hard to see where he said American democracy is falling apart. I did find where it will change due to 9/11 but he did not say collapse.

It is readily apparent some people on this board have no clue what a "fascist" is.

 

Chris,

I'd like to show you the reasons why I think this person, David Warren is a at the very least a liar. I am sure that we can have a relaxed, intelligent, nationalism-free conversation.

I quote directly from Warren's article.

That's simply a lie. Rodriguez Zapatero made that a part of his electoral program months ago way before Al Qaeda's alleged message at the London paper. No one here conceded to anything as Warren seems to suggest.

Another lie. or, even worse, stupidity. Those white hands simbolize clean hands, innocent blood-free hands unlike those from Al Qaeda members who committed those attrocities. Fascist Warren seems unable t understand anything beyond his spectacles.

Is Warren stupid or simply he thinks his audience is? Is this a good sample to extrapolate conclusions about an entire population? A window frame maker can speak for the entire nation so that Fascist Warren can draw his conclusions? Please, give me a break!

If Fascist Warren would have checked the election results like any intelligent person would have done, he would have realized that Aznar got nine million votes and Rodriguez Zapatero 10 millions, a very exiguous margin to call an entire nation cowards, given the fact that Spain after the US is the country that has lost the most innocent civilian lives to Al Qaeda. Furthermore, Spain, after the US and the UK, has los the most military personnel in Iraq as well whose memory is insulted by this Canadian Fascist. I have been myself in the military in Amphibious Special Operations, and I find Warren's words to be disgusting. In fact Spanish intelligence soldiers have died to save his fat ass since his own country's government didn't send a single soldier if I am not mistaken.

And finally

He who rejects democracy is no better than Saddam or Osama bin Laden. Or, in different words, he's a fascist like them. Until tonight I never heard from this individual but he speaks as if he were an American (he uses always the first person plural and hence my confusion)

Finally you stated

I think those people you mention should come often to this off topic board to see Fascism at large. I personally have lived under one and I can lecture anyone about fascism. Unfortunately, I am able to identify it when I see it.

And

Please let me make something very clear to you. I lived in the United States many years, I met my wife in New York, and my best friends EVER are New Yorkers. During my time in the US, I was born again as I really learned to live, I saw the light if you will and that's where I got my bachelor's degree. I do love the US almost like if it was my own country, and I am not ambiguous whatsoever about this. But still, in my opinion, your claims are not true, and, as I said, I too have been around many many years. Furthermore I think arrogant and uncivilized commenst by people like Warren, whether he is American or not is irrelevant, make people upset at the US.

This is a war in which allegiances are crucial to its development. I believe US popularity is at its worst ever. This unnecessary slander to a nation which has been an unconditional US ally for decades, and probably will be again once this situation is corrected, turns off many Spaniards such as myself who last Sunday voted for Aznar, the pro US candidate. Those insults by Warren have been harder for me to digest than those bombings at my city ( I am from Madrid). I could expect mis understanding and hate from Laden and his group of rats, but not at the other side of the pond.

 

Hi JLV:

Thank you for your eloquent and thoughtful posts. I am appalled by the shift in Spanish policy signalled by the election of the PSOE. I believe that the vote may have been pushed by the bombings--as would have happened here or almost anywhere else had a terror attack taken place immediately before a general election. (Aznar wasn't helped by the dithering about whether the attack was ETA or Islamo-Fascist.)

However, I could not agree more that this does not reflect some sort of dishonor on the part of the Spanish people. We (Americans) did not throng into the streets by the millions the day after 9/11 to signal our outrage; we wondered if it was safe to go to the grocery store (at least that was the common reaction where I was in suburban Milwaukee).

I am also amazed how Spain became a great European power overnight according to National Public Radio (Radio Havana), when previously NPR constantly billed Spain as small, poor, and insignificant.

The world is full of strange stuff.

At your service, Janko

 

Dear Janko, thank you very much for your words.

I think we were all appalled to learn that the Social Democrats won in Spain. No one expected that at all. You shoud have seen these socialists' faces when they were told they were winning. They just couldn't believe it!

Well, we cannot expect much from our Cuban "friends" of Radio Havana. Aznar has been bashing Castro's regime for years, and it seems this upset the old dictator. But Spain is not reallly a European power. It has improved a lot since Aznar took office in 1996 thanks in part to its European partners. Nevetheless Aznar managed the country quite good, reducing unemployement and creating richness for everyone to enjoy. 8 years ago other European leaders laughed at him when he would explain his plans for Spain. Nowadays those very leaders call him for advise!! I think he's been the best president of Spain ever. In international politics he tried to separate from France and Germany, our traditional allies, and search for more loyal friends finding them in Blair and Bush. He believed in the transatlantic bridge to be essential. I think the friendship was even at the personal level, and everything worked out pretty well for everyone. Last Thursday's massacre, on the verge of national, elections, everything changed . There has been always opposition to the Iraq war, and specially to Spanish participation in it, so the terrorist attacks were unfairly used by opposition parties to demolish Aznar's goverment. What they did is beyond manipulation; it is certainly borderline with delinquent behaviour. Spanish people, or at least some of them, bit the bait, and Aznar's party lost (Aznar had voluntarily stepped out from office). They still hold majority in the Senate (Warren disregards it ignorantly, BTW). This is not to suggest anti AMerican feelings in Spain. Not at all.

What will happen with the Spanish modest contribution in Iraq? I think Zapatero won't withdraw from there. Kerry already asked him to reconsider his position, and I think he realizes the extreme danger that conveys not only to the allies but also to Spain. I think Spain will stay.

 

I've been reading all these posts with great interest since politics is one of my interests.

What's happended to Spain?

They seemed to capture the word's awe in 1992 when they hosted the Olympic games in Barcelona and hosted EXPO '92 in Seville. Madrid was once named the European Cultural Capital.

They've had a socialist government before so I guess it was time for them to have another. They will swing right again and reclaim their former glory, that is, unless Franco resurrects.

When Blair leaves office, look for the same thing to happen in England.

It's not atypical for many Eurpean countries to swing from the far left to the far right in elections.

The bottom line for America is that we really do not have that many consistent friends around the world.

 

JLV

Your eloquent post missed the point. Up to the day before the bombing every poll indicated that the Socialist's would lose the election and, obviously, after the bombing there was a massive shift of opinion. The opinion of "Dave" was offered as a reason why. It was not the only opinion which has been given by Spaniards echoing the same view. Using it as an example in a commentary is not indicative of Fascism. In reference to the white hands commentary, look up the word allegory. It will be inciteful for you in understanding the meaning of his comments. Once again nothing in his comments indicate he believes in the repression of human rights or in a non-representative government. Those are the hallmarks of a fascist, so I again say that it is incorrect to label him as such.

And yes, I lived in Europe for 12 years (was married to one for 10 years) and visited Spain several times. So I do have some insight into the mind of the European. Americans are not mass protestors of the European sort, it is not our way. However, I think our willingness to individually put ourselves in harms way to fight for freedom is at least as good (or better) than the willingness to safely protest en masse.

Face it, the conduct of Zapatero is disgusting and IWILL abet terrorism. He can't even get his facts straight. As I pointed out earlier the situation in Iraq is only a "fiasco' in the minds of the committed liberals and Bush bashers. Warren may have been a little abrasive in his comments but I should also point out that his first two articles on the bombings were very favorable to Spain. He may have overreacted to the vote but in calling him a fascist you are doing the same thing.