Category — Spain

This has to be one of the more humorous articles published about socialism in some time. No attempt at humor seems to be a cause to write this article, but reality has a way of inserting twists never intended by the penman.

I experienced that “Groundhog Day” moment reading these words, until I realized this is what scribes always write about how socialism turns out.

Sadly, we read about it here too. In Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, etc.; the list goes on. Our housing troubles, trucking, bad roads, oh pick it. Some entity wants a handout from another’s pocket via pork spending. The government has the solution, right over in that sand pile. Must be, that’s where their heads are.

Read the whole article to see our destination with the Donks, bring tissues:

Spain Smacked by a Dose of Economic Reality

Spaniards, used to socialist largesse, are struggling with market economics — and their prime minister is in heavy denial.

A national truck driver’s strike in Spain may be winding down, but it has brought the already-troubled Spanish economy to a standstill. It has also highlighted what happens when a welfare state goes wild. Some 90,000 self-employed hauliers…[snip]… are betting that the government will cave in to their demands. After all, the Spanish government always gives in to labor unrest. [snip]

Spain complains

[snip]
Considering all these grievances, it seems strange that Spanish voters in March gave Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero another four-year term in office. After all, pre-election polls showed that the majority of Spaniards knew full well that Spain was not on the right track, economically or otherwise.

Maybe they allowed themselves to be persuaded that everything would somehow be okay, thanks to Zapatero’s postmodern relativistic political discourse, which posits that all problems are by definition imaginary. Or perhaps they were bribed by the 22 billion euros — a whopping 2.1 percent of Spain’s GDP — in handouts that Zapatero promised to bestow upon them if re-elected. [snip]

During the past 20 years, Spain cashed in on some 100 billion euros — equivalent to nearly one percent of its GDP every year — by way of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are designed to narrow the gap between the EU’s wealthy and poor countries. But now that Spain has reached a per capita GDP of 98.5 percent of the EU average — it was 72 percent in 1986 — the country will begin paying more into the EU than it receives back.

The implication is that Spaniards will have to strike less and work more. But that seems an unlikely prospect. Spain recently led a block, including Belgium and Greece, which sought to prohibit British workers from working more than 48 hours a week. Spanish Socialists complain that if Brits work more than Spaniards, Britain will have an unfair competitive advantage. (emphasis added)

Can’t have productivity, can we?

Problem? What problem?

Just before the March elections, Zapatero insisted that the Spanish economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2008; since his re-election, however, the government has revised that figure downwards on an almost daily basis. [snip]

So far Zapatero’s post-modern approach to Spain’s economic crisis seems based on three reality-evading pillars: denial, passing the blame, and more denial. His Plan A has involved a pop psychology campaign advising Spaniards that “pessimism does not create jobs.” Plan B blamed “radical liberalism,” which in euro-speak means the free market. Zapatero now wants to implement Plan C, a global advertising campaign in the world financial press designed to highlight his economic management skills.

Spaniards, having grown accustomed to three decades of spoon-feeding by Socialist largesse, are in for a long, hot free-market summer.

Good, big pain might bring some reasoning gain, like getting out of the EU.

A basic tenet in the prog playbook deals with outcomes at variance with wishes. Lie to yourself about what you see. Works every time; ask Gorbachev, Castro, Jong-Il. Or ask the chink leaders who gave up pure socialism in favor of capitalism, why the Great Leap Forward put them on their butt.

….was Benito Mussolini in his gold-braid and be-medaled glory.  He’s the reason for this post and a few to follow,  the opera-bouffee dictator who opened the curtain on fascism almost a century ago.  In 1919, he poured the foundation for the Italian fascist edifice which arose around his party.  Fascist-oriented theorizing bubbled in the 19th century, but Mussolini and his “intellectuals” got it boiling into a malevolent stew in the nihilistic atmosphere after World War I.  The rest is history.

Italian Fascism either spread to, or met with its cousin in Germany, and thrived there in a somewhat different form as Naziism.  By the 1930’s, fascist movements had migrated to nearly every nation on earth.  But in the end, it was only a temporary, lethal inter-war phenomenon.  It survives today only in the minds of some radical Islamists, and Western leftists who attribute it to anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders. 

By the way, the word “fascism” shares letters, but no common root, with “fascinate”.  Still, something resonates in the coincidence.  “Fascinate” has Middle French origins,  and means “to bewitch or enchant”,  which describes the left’s preoccupation with fascism.

I say “the left”, and not “liberals”, because liberalism is nearly extinct.  You find very few liberals now.  They’re in scattered outposts, schools and churches and charitable agencies,  stranded like septuagenarian Japanese soldiers on tiny islands, awaiting a crackling voice message from The Emperor.  But they’ll die alone and forgotten.  Sad, too, because being smart and learned (rather than “educated”), and thoughtful, the old liberals knew something about fascism that their replacements don’t.  They lived through the pertinent years, and had the capacity to make honest distinctions  between fascism and American conservatism.

Fascism wasn’t always an epithet.  It became one when the two principle European fascist states, Italy and Germany, refined the art of street violence, and then invaded everyone within reach.  Also, the Spanish Civil War raised the concept of “anti-fascism” to a romantic art form for men and women of the old left.  Even though the “Republican” volunteer armies against Franco’s presumably fascist regime included genuine, idealistic American Republicans, they also included friends of the Soviet Union and other collectivist types in search of a barricade.

The anti-fascists lost their campaign in Spain.  Franco won.  But the old and new left acquired battle streamers and campaign ribbons which they flash to this day, along with a magnitude of heroic importance that dwarfs their actual numbers and purposes.  Their stock rose even more in leftist circles after Mussolini’s last swing through Milan, and Hitler’s bunker cook-out.  Their demonic anti-Marxist-socialist states, the ones where fascism was “against” almost everything of real importance in the 20th century Western world, and which thwarted all socialist revolutions except their own, were in ruins.

The following is my opinion only.  After the destruction of the European Axis, terms like “fascist” and “anti-fascist” were too useful to retire from the leftist lexicon.  When the expression “anti-fascist” can encompass anyone from Stalin to Gary Cooper and Ernest Hemingway, it punches way above its weight.  It causes a fluctuation of values that can confuse a political dialogue.  Leftist revolutionaries, who need to confuse political dialogues, don’t give up Newspeak like “anti-fascist” easily.  Fascism might be dead as a political system, but alive and healthy as a means to obfuscate political differences.

In such a rhetorical environment, the accusation of “fascist” isn’t even necessary, when the positive attribution of “anti-fascist” to oneself  will ipso facto clarify the nature of your opposition as “fascist”.  This worked pretty well with the bargain-basement revolutionaries of the 1960’s and it seems to be working today.  The tactic of “anti” prefixing (anti-gun, anti-poverty, anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-interventionist, anti-militarism, etc.) is the means by which leftists solidify their virtues against your vices.  They’re anti-war; if you disagree with their policies, you’re pro-war…this kind of demented logic works on the stupid or inattentive.

As for fascism, since 1945 a huge body of literature about it has piled up alongside the fuming pile of crap produced by fascist thinkers around the world.  A lot of it is dedicated to proving that modern American conservatism is a fascist variation, which is additional fuming crap emitted by the left.  Leftism is a system for dragging expired, but unmodified, fantasies and mystical ideas from age to age, and era to era, thinking of them as transcendant and eternal.    In this they have a lot in common with fascists.  More on that later.

Asian Parasite Killing Western Bees – Scientist

MADRID - A parasite common in Asian bees has spread to Europe and the Americas and is behind the mass disappearance of honeybees in many countries, says a Spanish scientist who has been studying the phenomenon for years.

The culprit is a microscopic parasite called nosema ceranae said Mariano Higes, who leads a team of researchers at a government-funded apiculture centre in Guadalajara, the province east of Madrid that is the heartland of Spain’s honey industry. He and his colleagues have analysed thousands of samples from stricken hives in many countries.

“We started in 2000 with the hypothesis that it was pesticides but soon ruled it out…”

They then ruled out the varroa mite…

Then he decided to sequence the parasite’s DNA and discovered it was an Asian variant, nosema ceranae. [snip]

Another theory points a finger at mobile phone aerials, but Higes notes bees use the angle of the sun to navigate and not electromagnetic frequencies. [snip]

What a mess for the Gorbies, Luddites, and other assorted unhinged, none of the catastrophic scenarios worked out. After putting cell phones near hives to prove EM radiation caused the die-off, they garnered a serious case of ring-around-the-collar for the effort.

It becomes quite effortless for them to maintain their status as world-class buffoons today.

Kurt Loder provides a surprisingly balanced look at Michael Moore’s Sicko. Loder points out that Moore completely ignores socialized countries struggles providing medical care too. He ends his piece with this salient point:

As the Caribbean sun sank down on Moore’s breathtakingly meretricious movie, I couldn’t help recalling that when Fidel Castro became gravely ill last year, he didn’t put himself in the hands of a Cuban surgeon. No. Instead, he had a specialist flown in — from Spain.

Yeap. Cuban care is so “good” that Castro won’t use it. The US system has problems, but that doesn’t mean socializing it is the answer. The people holding England and Canada up as models need to take a much closer look and examine those systems honestly. Where did Bill Clinton get treated for his heart condition even though his wife is a huge critic of the US system? How about Mrs. Edwards whose husband is also on the socialism bandwagon?

Half of Tsunami donations still unused: BBC

About half of the billions of dollars donated by individuals, companies and governments worldwide to help the victims of the southeast Asian tsunami two years ago has still not been spent, the BBC said.

According to figures obtained by the broadcaster from a database compiled by the United Nations Department for Aid and Development, several foreign governments have also only given only a small proportion, and at times none, of the money they promised.

Of the 6.7 billion dollars (5.1 billion euros) pledged, about a tenth has yet to be delivered, and only 3.4 billion dollars has been spent thus far, the BBC said.

Among the countries that came up with a fraction of what they promised, China offered 301 million dollars to help Sri Lanka recover from the disaster, but has thus far delivered just one million dollars, the broadcaster said.

Spain pledged 60 million dollars to Sri Lanka, but came up with less than a million, while France said it would give 79 million dollars, but delivered just over a million dollars.

Kuwait had pledged slightly less than 10 million dollars to the Maldives, but has yet to actually hand over any money.
[snip]

All Libs work on the principle of “Out of sight, out of mind.” Once one throws the money at the problem, all responsibility ceases.

Nothing appears in the press about whether the results satisfied the goal. Graft, ineptitude, or outright deception carries no denunciation of the culprits.

But future hand wringing disasters bring the Libs back for more money. How else might one show concern and sensitivity to the plight du jour?

A wave of the chuck’s tail to LGF:

LGF reader Enlil from Gothenburg, Sweden, sent the following disturbing note:

Tonight there were power shortages all over Sweden’s second largest city, Gothenburg. “Youth gangs” took the opportunity, spreading the European tradition of “Ramadan Riots.” Within an hour most schools and commercial centers in the north eastern suburbs were vandalized.

- It’s complete chaos in north eastern Gothenburg. “We’ve sent all available police units but there’s no way we can stop the vandalisation,” police spokesman Frank Karlsson tells gp.se.

- Several youth gangs are wandering about smashing windows and breaking into schools, malls, banks and a retirement center.

Not a word about this on the wires…

UPDATE at 10/8/06 3:37:57 pm:

It’s on the front page of Aftonbladet, and here’s the linked story in Swedish: Vag av skadegörelse i Göteborg.

You can bet your pension, if the “youth gangs” were skinheads, it would have been front and center with the MSM

The politics of inclusion work very well when combined with cultures looking to destroy you, do they not? First France, then Norway and now Sweden gets the warm fuzzies. Next up, England with Italy and Spain definitely in the lineup.

After our next election, we’ll be able to enjoy the fruits of the multicultural life too.

The Dubai Ports World hysteria culminated with the Republican Congress falling all over themselves trying to do what they think will protect their jobs and just do “something” before the Democrats beat them to it.

How a handful of emails, erroneous MSM reports and the Union leadership pressure convinced them to panic like this is a disgrace.

That Sen. Schumer of NY was against anything that would harm his Union contributors is at least understandable, for him, even as it hurts America in general. He is hardly much more then self-focused in any matter. But for the House Republicans who ran for cover and tacked on an amendment to an existing Bill, they are worse then cowards.

The precedents of state-controlled operators from China, Saudi Arabia and Dubai at other American ports didn’t bring out the Anti-Muslim hyperventilation before. Neither did the fact that the majority of port terminals across the country are foreign-run. For instance, more than 80 percent of the terminals in the largest U.S. port, the port of Los Angeles, are operated by foreign companies.

(http://www.cfr.org/publication/9918/)

Plus, DP World already owns port operations in Miami and has for some time. Democrats and the House Republicans have not shown how many Nukes Dubai has brought in through Miami to date.

(http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3720795.html)

Of course my instinct to object to this deal almost took over when our own best friend of any Dictator or Terrorist leader, Jimmah Carter endorsed the deal without reservation and again when it was revealed that Bill Clinton was cashing Dubai checks at the same time Hillary was denouncing the Bush Administration for approving it

But I looked into the facts vs. following the House Republicans off the cliff. Let me share some facts and some opinions with you.

Security will actually deteriorate, not get better.

Unlike the noble sounding speeches by our Congressional politicians, the security issue of our ports has now gotten worse, not better. It doesn’t take much concentration to recognize that the risk to Americas ports are from containers ALREADY on the ships coming into US ports. The risk to America by the company unloading the containers is nominal. Searching the container HERE is already too late. Clearly this security risk is meaningless in comparison to the security issues of the containers being loaded elsewhere by others. The Bush Administration knows this. The initial sale makes sense FOR security as this excerpt from a White House email published by PowerLine shows.

“The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O – basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports.

The UAE Is An Established Partner In Protecting America’s Ports. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (CSI) – a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism. Dubai was also the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Department of Energy’s Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material. Port Security Begins Abroad. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) created the CSI to enable CBP to inspect 100% of high-risk containers at foreign seaports before they are loaded onboard vessels destined for the United States. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join CSI. Cooperation with Dubai has been outstanding and a model for other operations. DP World currently manages 19 container terminals and has operations in 14 countries. The United States government has a strong working relationship with DP World.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013223.php

The security agreement worked out by the administration had DP World increasing security in the ports they were shipping FROM with American input. This is where the security needs to be done before the potential bomb gets here. Once it’s here, it’s here.

The failure of the Republican House to comprehend this is so staggering on this one issue I would be hard pressed to vote for any MA Republican House member, if we had one of course.

I personally believe that this whole issue initially started due to Union leadership fears of DP Worlds efficiency programs lowering the number of workers needed in the ports it serves around the world, hence less Union employees here.

(http://www.dpa.ae/itwork/itefficiencies.htm)

The economic fallout of sticking a finger in the eye of the UAE will affect the US on a number of levels.

First there is the effect on exports. Last year, US companies exported goods worth $8.5 billion dollars to the UAE, making the small country of 2.5 million people a bigger export market for the United States than much larger India and Spain.

(http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/10/060310180934.v39xq8d9.html)

Along with normal US exports being in jeopardy, is the current multi-billion dollar deal with Boeing, who Dubai chose over Airbus, and the potential of being left out of the future $115 billion in Middle Eastern purchase projections for commercial aircraft. Another sector potentially to take a hit is the $30 billion per year worldwide military sales of Boeing.

(http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B60511631%2
DF54E%2D43DF%2D9812%2DC8C7F2EE3F0E%7D&dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&keyword)

The additional financial damage this rebuke may cause is in reduced US exports to other ME customers, adding to the fallout. According to Forecast International, “the UAE’s military budget for 2006 is estimated at about $3.7 billion dollars, compared with $20.2 billion dollars by Saudi Arabia, the Middle Eastern nation with the largest single defense budget, followed by Israel ($9.9 billion dollars), Iran ($7.9 billion dollars) and Kuwait ($4.9 billion dollars).”

(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32273)

The impact also will be felt as the pressure on US exchange rates comes into play due to Arab banks and companies shifting out of the US greenback and their holding reserves in the Euro or other currency’s. A double whammy putting pressure on export pricing and import costs.

Add in the potential shift of ME investment in the US now going to other countries and the Republican House may have set the stage to plunge the US aerospace manufacturing industry and other US exporters into a death spiral.

“Arab central banks move assets out of dollar”

(http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article351127.ece)

Republican political fallout will keep coming as the Democrats finally have a security theme to get out front on.

When the Clinton team realized that by using their straw men in the MSM they could politicize this issue and use it as an issue to make it appear they were to the Right of the Bush administration, they jumped on it. Then the Union funded Democrats jumped on board and together with the “Fake-but-accurate” group they misrepresented the entire issue to the American people.

Instead of stepping up as a single group and explaining the facts of the deal to Americans, the cowards in the Republican House started running for cover because their interns began receiving phone calls from the now ill-informed voters.

I believe the underlying plan now by Democrats is to nationalize the Ports, making the port workers Civil Servants with all the taxpayer funded benefits, retirement schemes and inability to fire any poor performing workers that go with it. Add into this dynamic the voting pattern of government Union workers and you see why the Democrats and their Union counterparts in the news business embraced this.

Why the Republican “leadership” can’t get on the same page and provide clear communications to the people of America of what and why they are doing what they do, will go down as the single biggest failure of this administration and this period of Republican majority of Congress.

Because, lets be honest here for a moment. If this Republican Congressional leadership is going to continue being out-smarted and out-politic’d by some of the dimmest bulbs of any political party in history with the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Joe Biden, perhaps this Republican leadership should just be “out” period, and the Republican base can find some real politicians who have a brain and a spine and just start over. They work for us after all, not the other way around.

Perhaps its time to “hire” a new group in the House after what they just did to America in their self-preservation based “Chicken Little” panic.

Airbus rolls out its new jumbo jet and Chancellor Schroeder starts talking smack. Easy there Gerry. Here is a dose of reality regarding your stewardship of the German economy:

Germany’s unemployment rate is now higher than when Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was first elected in September 1998. Companies are cutting jobs and shifting production to cheaper countries such as neighboring Poland and the Czech Republic. “High labor costs, a lack of flexibility over working hours, a short working week and red tape” are leading companies to move production abroad, said Martin Wansleben, the executive director of the DIHK industry and trade association, which represents 3.3 million German companies, in an interview. “Companies aren’t creating anything new here, they’re only consolidating what they’ve got.”

Here is a look at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s October 2004 unemployment numbers of some of the EU leaders as compared to the United States:

France-9.5% Germany-9.9% Spain-10.5% United States-5.5%

Yes…your jet is cool. Your economies are not cool.

Did you catch Richard Branson’s comments about the way he plans on equipping his Virgin Atlantic jets?

Richard Branson, the head of Britain’s Virgin Atlantic, said his airline would pamper passengers on the six A380s it has ordered by including gyms, beauty parlours, bars — and even casinos and double beds. The last two features meant “you’ll have at least two ways to get lucky on our flights,” Branson joked.

Geez, I take a weekend off from Blogging and Bin Laden rears his ugly head! Here are my quick thoughts on the tape, I’ll be posting more stuff throughout the day.

First, the fact that Bin Laden released a video instead of unleashing an attack on American soil signals how successful President Bush has been in the War on Terror. Al Qaeda would have much rather attacked us like they did in Spain rather than releasing their version of a campaign ad. Voters should remember that America has not been attacked since 9/11. On 9/12 nobody thought that would be the case.

The video was nothing less than a direct endorsement of John Kerry by the #1 Enemy of the United States. Much of the video contained DNC and Michael Moore talking points, something Democrats should be ashamed of. The use of these talking points shows that the Democrat’s actions in this campaign have been providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Of course that is something John Kerry has experience with as his actions during the Vietnam War show.

Voters need to ask themselves why Bin Laden wants John Kerry to win. The only reasonable answer is that Al Qaeda is losing the War on Terror and Bin Laden thinks that a President Kerry (god forbid) would be less aggressive. John Kerry’s actions protesting the war in Vietnam and his anti-defense record in the US Senate are evidence that Bin Laden is right to think that.

This election is about one thing, National Security. If you don’t have a secure homeland, the other domestic issues become meaningless. Voters need to decide who will better protect this country from terrorism. Most polls give the President a big lead on this issue.

If you are undecided or persuadable, you should ask yourself why Bin Laden wants President Bush to lose. The answer to that question should make your decision in the voting booth crystal clear. If you are still undecided, ask yourself why 8 out of 10 soldiers support the President. It is because they know he is a good leader and that we are winning the War on Terror.

Ed Koch, former Democratic mayor of NYC, wrote this excellent column a few days ago.

Why Bush must win

I support the reelection of President George W. Bush. Why? Because I believe one issue overwhelms all others: the President’s strong commitment to fight the forces of international terrorism regardless of the cost or how long it takes to achieve victory.

I do not agree with President Bush on a single major domestic issue, but in my view, those issues pale in comparison with the threat of international terrorism. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the evil poster boys of mass murder, are revered and supported by millions of Muslims throughout the world. The stated goal of al-Qaeda and its supporters is to kill or convert every infidel, and that means Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and everyone else who will not accept Islam’s supremacy.

These terrorists are convinced that non-Islamic nations do not have the will and courage to persevere in this ongoing struggle, which could last decades. They believe the democracies are weak-willed and will ultimately yield to whatever demands are made upon them. By withdrawing their troops from Iraq in response to terrorist attacks, Spain and the Philippines have already shown that, tragically, terror tactics, including suicide attacks, car bombings and the beheading of innocent civilians, do work. They also intend to destroy moderate Muslim governments that want to live in peace with countries that are not Islamic. Shortly after 9/11, President Bush announced his commitment to the struggle against Islamic fanatics who believe they can destroy the values of western civilization and democratic governments everywhere. On entering this war against terrorism after 9/11, President Bush said, “We shall go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.” This Bush Doctrine rivals in importance the Monroe Doctrine, which limited the colonization efforts of foreign powers in the western hemisphere, and the Truman Doctrine, which contained the spread of Communism. President Bush has proven that he is prepared to keep to his commitment to fight terrorism.

If John Kerry were to win this presidential election, would he stand up to terrorism to the same extent as George Bush? I don’t think so. Regrettably, my party, the Democratic party, now has a strong radical left wing whose members often dominate the party primaries. Those same left-wing radicals have an anti-Israel philosophy, reviling that democratic state which shares the values held by a majority of Americans.

Kerry is a patriotic American who performed heroically in the Vietnam War. Regrettably, he surrendered his philosophical independence to the left wing in the recent primaries in order to prevail over the original darling of the radicals, Howard Dean. Kerry owes his nomination in large part to the supporters of Dean and the support of Senator Ted Kennedy. Kennedy sadly demonstrated his loss of any sense of decency with his crude attacks on President Bush using unacceptable, abusive language. The hatred deliberately stirred by Kennedy directed at President Bush is contemptible and dangerous. It encourages our terrorist enemies with whom we are at war, and it incites the crazies in our own country.

On July 9th, a Kerry/Edwards fundraising concert was held at Radio City Music Hall. During that concert Hollywood comedienne Whoopi Goldberg engaged in unprintable, despicable, sexual references to the President and the Vice President. She combined the President’s family name with allusions to the female anatomy, and she made a sexual reference to Vice President Dick Cheney’s first name by referring to the male anatomy. Even worse was Kerry’s thank you from the stage to all of the performers saying that they conveyed “the heart and soul of our country.” Shameful.

Now a comment about the war in Iraq. Most Americans understand that few, if any, wars go smoothly. Just cast your mind back to the American Revolutionary War, during which New York City was occupied by enemy forces for seven years, or the American Civil War, in which Confederate armies won victory after victory on the battlefield, or even World War II, in which the Nazi menace was defeated at an enormous cost in human lives. Should we have gone to war with Iraq? I believe the answer is yes.

During a daily briefing after 9/11, then CIA Director George Tenet told the President that Iraq had the ability to wage chemical and biological war on the U.S. He referred to Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction as a “slam dunk.” Had the President not engaged in the preemptive war against Saddam, and if this madman had subsequently released biological agents in the U.S. or poison gas, which he had already used against the Kurds and Iran, does anyone doubt that the President would have been impeached? The security agencies of nearly every democratic nation provided to their President or Prime Minister the same description of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability. The U.S. Congress had the same information and concurred with the President’s decision. The U.N. Security Council unanimously concurred, passing Resolution 1441. But it was President Bush who had the courage to take up arms in defense of the U.S. and our allies. That is what leadership is all about.

A poll released by the Washington Post on July 14, 2004, showed that “55 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism,” and “51 percent also said they trust Bush more than Kerry to deal with terrorism, while 42 percent prefer the Democrat.”

We also should not forget that President Bush, in my opinion, has been the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. At the U.N. Security Council and in the U.N. General Assembly, allies of the U.S. and others who are indifferent or hostile to our country have conveyed the view that if we end our alliance with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, they would welcome back the U.S. into their circle. President Bush has refused to abandon our ally Israel. In my opinion, the U.S. presidents who have been Israel’s greatest friends are, in order, the current President Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. This November, we Americans in the Jewish community should remember our friends. We should thank President Bush for his courage in the war against terrorism and for his strong and consistent support for Israel and democracy.

Last night while flipping channels, I came across the tail end of the Tom Brokaw interview with President Bush in Normandy, France. While Brokaw repeatedly tried to catch him in a gotcha moment, the President came across as thoughtful and gave well-reasoned answers. The interview was much better than the Meet the Press interview of a few months ago.

Since I had missed the beginning, I decided to go to the NBC site to see if the video was available. As I watched the video, I also read the transcript. Although it was not my intent, this allowed me to see what had been edited out of the video. I was not surprised to see that whole questions and answers had not been used in the video. However, I was surprised to see that important portions from the middle of some of the President’s answers had been deleted out, in some cases removing points that helped the President present his side to the American people. Viewers of the video would have had no idea that the answers were shortened unless they had read along with the transcript as I had.

I have posted the transcript from the interview below and I have bolded the portions that were not shown in the video. I have also interspersed some of my thoughts as well.

Tom Brokaw: “Mr. President, in the last week or so, you have been comparing World War II with the time that we’re going through now. And a lot of people wonder whether that’s really an apt comparison. After all, Germany had occupied most of Europe. Japan was determined to take over most of Asia.”President Bush: “Right.”

Brokaw: “It was a whole different order of magnitude in World War II.”

Bush: “Exactly what my speech said. I said there were similarities to World War II. And the fight we have today is unique in many ways. The similarities were when we were attacked in an unprovoked fashion in World War II and on September the 11, 2001.

“Another similarity is that there are people who have got this kind of distorted sense of the world, trying to impose their will. Fascism on the one hand, and fanaticism on the other. But I also made it clear, this is a different kind of war. And it’s a different kind of war, because you’re right. In World War II, there was armies and invasions and pill boxes overlooking, you know, the beaches of Normandy.

“And this war that we’re fighting, there’s fanatics who hide in cities and caves and kill innocent people. Both armies, or both the movements, were trying to dispirit the free world.

“But I also said in the speech, it’s very important that Americans understand this, that we can win the war on terror like we won the war against communism and like we won the war against fascism, by being tough and strong and spreading freedom. And that’s what also the speech said.”

Brokaw: “One of your predecessors, who was the commander-in-chief during the time of World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was well known for his canny ability to hold the alliance together and to be patient and planned. D-Day was not easy.”

Bush: “Right.”

Brokaw: “A lot of people wanted to rush it. Some people say that’s the difference between then and now. They planned, they took their time. Then when they were ready, they went. In Iraq, we rushed it.

Bush: “Well, I, you know, it’s hard to say we rushed it, because there was a great military victory going into Baghdad. I mean, it was well planned and well thought out.”

Brokaw: “But with the planning afterward.”

Bush: “Well, that’s — it’s been it’s been different in some ways than expected, obviously. And there was been some successes we didn’t expect. I can remember sitting in the White House talking with friends and allies and planners about whether or not the oil supply would be disrupted, which would’ve been catastrophic for the Iraqi people. It wasn’t.

“Or whether or not there’d be mass starvation, or whether or not there’d be, you know, great movements of people, refugee flows, none of which happened. What did happen was, the quick victory enabled some of Saddam’s loyalists to meld into the population to fight another day. And that’s what we’re doing now. But you know, look. I now, whether you say we rushed it and therefore didn’t have a strong coalition, we had a strong coalition.”

Brokaw: “No, I’m talking about the planning that was—“

Bush: “Well, it’s– look. I think if you were to—“

Brokaw: “Is that a fair criticism?”

Bush: “I think it’s fair to say that, you know, that the enemy didn’t lay down its arms like we had hoped.”

Brokaw: “And you were not greeted as liberators like Vice President Cheney said that you would be.”

Bush: “Well, I think we’ve been — let me just — I think we’ve been thanked by the people of Iraq. And I think you’ll hear more of that from people like Prime Minister Alawi and the foreign minister, who both have repeatedly, ‘Thank you for what you’ve done, and by the way, help us.’

“It’s not easy work to take a country from tyranny to a free society. And we’d been there a little over a year. And it’s– you might recall if you’re looking for parallels in World War II, it took about four years to get an active reconstruction effort going.

“And in my speech that you referred to, I make– pointed out that in the immediate aftermath of World War II, there was a– the Soviet Union exploded a bomb, that China went communist. It was a question of whether or not the Greek government would go communist.

“The reconstruction effort was halting at best. The marshal plan hadn’t been started. And I– my only point is, these are difficult assignments. It was a difficult assignment then. It’s a difficult assignment now. And what America must do is understand the consequences of getting it right. And the consequences of getting right is that a free society in the Middle East is going to help change the country, change the countries in the Middle East and make us more secure and the world more peaceful.”

That whole middle section giving a historical context of the difficulties of reconstruction was edited right out. The average viewer had no idea that the President’s answer was more detailed than what was presented.

Brokaw: “When you were talking about what we’re engaged in now, in the context of World War II at the Air Force Academy in the commencement address, you refer other the ruthless and treacherous surprise attack on America that we went through during our time. But that wasn’t Iraq, that was al-Qaida.”Bush: “Right. But– no question about it. But I also went on to say that part of winning the war on terror is to deal with regimes that harbor terrorists, that feed terrorists. And there’s no question that Saddam Hussein did that.

“He had Zarkawai in his midst. He had Abu Nadal. He’s been paying families of suiciders to attack Israel. He had also posed a threat with weapons, and he used them.

“And the whole world, in analyzing Iraq, thought that Saddam Hussein was a danger and should disarm. And that’s why we got a unanimous declaration out the United Nations’s Security Council. So, Iraq is a part of the war on terror. No question it was al-Qaeda that attacked us. But it’s also no question that the Taliban harbored al-Qaida.

“And that’s why we removed the Taliban out of Afghanistan. In other words, part of the war on terror is not only go after al-Qaida, to go after those who sponsor them, provide them safe haven, and as well as to spread freedom. That’s the long-term hope for winning the war, this war that we’re now in.

References to Zarqawi and Abu Nadal are completely removed even though they are examples of a terrorist connection in Iraq. This is important information that needs to be repeated to the American people but is filtered right out of the President’s message. Don’t tell me that those two sentences were edited out for time constraints either, as they were very short.

Brokaw: “You’re here in France for this great feeling, especially in Normandy, for the Americans as a result of what they did 60 years ago.“But throughout Europe, even your friends will say big-time American businessmen, who are over here a lot, they’ve never seen anti-Americanism so high or the personal feelings against you so high as well. Is that important for you to remedy?”

Bush: “You know, look. It’s important for people to know what –that I’ve got a future, that I believe in a future that’s peaceful based upon liberty. And I remember my predecessor who’s life we mourn, Ronald Reagan, they felt the same way about him.

“Tom, that doesn’t mean a fella like me should change my beliefs. I’m not going to. I’m not trying to be popular. What I’m trying to do is what I think is right. And what is right is to fight terror.

“And what is right is to spread freedom. And what is right, to stand on the — is to stand on the values that my country and our country upholds. And I will continue to do so. In the meantime, I work hard to build alliances. And you know, we’ve got good relations with countries in Europe. And the countries in Europe like Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, have been strong supporters of our mutual policies.”

Brokaw: “As you know, I saw President Chirac late last week. And he is determined to find more common ground with the United States about Iraq. But at the same time, he also said we shouldn’t try to impose our values on another country. And when I asked him about the World War II comparison, he said, ‘You know, war is never appropriate resolution to conflict. Wars always leave scars.’

“Is that the essence of the difference between the United States and Europe these days, that we’re more inclined to use war as an instrument, and the Europeans are less inclined?”

Bush: “I think that’s an unfair characterization. War is the last resort. Now, if the British say ‘more inclined,’ it kind of sounds like we’re anxious to use—“

Brokaw: “No, I don’t mean that. But the—“

Bush: “You know, I’m not. It’s the last resort. On the other hand, we are at war. In other words, I think what you should be asking is, if I might be so bold—“

Brokaw: “Go ahead.”

Bush: “–is am I willing to use the military in a time of war? And the answer is absolutely. We are at war. And maybe some might not see us at war. But I clearly see a war, and I see a danger for America. And I feel it’s my solemn obligation to wage that war. And perhaps, that’s where some of the anxiety comes forth.

“Maybe some in Europe don’t see us at a time of war. I have– I recognize that the enemy declared war on us. And I will continue to wage that war using all the assets of the United States and continuing to rally other nations to join in that war.”

Brokaw: “And conversely, do you think that the Europeans are being unrealistic about the real nature of the war on terror?”

Bush: “You know, I — that’s up to the pundits and the scribes to figure out. My job is to continue to rally them, is to say, ‘Look. We are at war. And we’re in danger. We’re in danger in America of another attack.

“I mean, one of the worst things that happened in my judgment was, is that the al-Qaida killed innocent people in Spain, and the al-Qaida leadership think that they affected the outcome of the election. And—“

Brokaw: “Don’t you think they did?”

Bush: “Well, no question they affected the election. Whether or not they affected the outcome is another question. But I do– it’s not what I think. It’s what they think is what worries me. It worries me that the al-Qaida leadership says, ‘Well, we may be able to affect the election of the United States. We may be able to, you know, change the outcome of democracy by killing.’ And, you know, it’s a dangerous period for the free world. And I spend time explaining that to people.

Brokaw: “As you know, military people in the field especially, are always concerned about whether they have support at home.”

Bush: “Yeah.”

Brokaw: “And there’s been a marked deterioration in the support for the war in Iraq. Also in your recent speeches, you have talked about World War II in terms of the sacrifices that the American people have made.

“Many people believe that you ought to be asking more of the American people at home to sacrifice more so that they feel more connected to what’s going on the—“

Bush: “What does that mean, sacrifice more?”

Brokaw: “Well, like in World War II for example, they rationed gasoline. They gave up their meat supplies. You don’t have to go that far. But there’s a great sense, I think, that there’s a disconnect between what American military people are doing overseas and what Americans are doing at home.”

Bush: “Yeah. I, you know, I—“

Brokaw: “You not agree with that?”

Bush: “I– no, I don’t. I am– and first of all, Americans have been sacrificing. Our economy hadn’t been as strong as it should be. And there’s people that hadn’t been working. Fortunately, our economy is now strong and it’s getting stronger. Job report has been very robust recently, which is positive news. In other words, people are getting back to work. The country is going to be strong economically, which means we’re more able to be able to afford keeping our troops overseas. I think that what’s really important for the American people is to understand that the long-term consequences of a free Iraq will be very important for the peace of the world and security of America. And that is my main responsibility, is to explain to people why soldiers are sacrificing in Iraq. And my judgment is that the American people understand that.

“Now, it’s easy to say things aren’t going so well when you’re seeing pictures of, you know, a horrible humiliation of Iraqi prisoners on TV. But as a free Iraq begins to emerge and the people begin to see leadership say, ‘We appreciate America, thank you for your sacrifices, we will be a free country,’ I think you’ll see the American people begin to connect the sacrifice there in the theater to the long-term objectives of this government.”

Make sure you hide that strong jobs report Tom!

Brokaw: “And what about the role of the American military after June 30? Will we have to get permission from the new Iraqi government to engage in operations, or have we worked out some kind of a—“Bush: “We have worked out an agreement with them. And there was an exchange of letters, which basically says that one, we’re invited to be there, and that’s important. A government that’s sovereign ought to be allowed to say whether or not there ought to be a coalition or foreign troops on their soil to help them.

“And secondly, our commanders will work out an agreement with an Iraqi chain of command as to how to operate on different situations. But one thing the American people need to know is that if our troops are over in harm’s way, they will defend themselves. We’re not going to have to seek permission for our troops to defend themselves from people trying to inflict harm on them.”

Brokaw: “And we’ll have fewer people there in six months, or more?”

Bush: “You’re always trying to get me to put down artificial timetables. The definition—“

Brokaw: “Well, you pick the timetable.”

Bush: “I’m not going to pick a timetable. But I will tell you that our mission is to train and stand up Iraqi forces that are efficient and capable, as quickly as possible, thereby taking the pressure off coalition forces.

“And, you know, we– in April, the, you know, surge of violence in April taught us a pretty good lesson, that not– that there needs to be a chain of command. The Iraqi people, who have decided to defend their country and themselves in harm’s way, need to understand they’re not fighting for America. They’re fighting for themselves. And there needs to be a robust training, continued training, which we’re doing, all of which I think will lead to the Iraqis better being able to defend themselves, at which time we’ll then assess the troop levels needed to complete the mission.”

You mean we learned some lessons in April that will be used going forward. This administration doesn’t learn things, edit that right out.

And Iraqis fighting for their country against terrorists. This doesn’t fit with our doom and gloom civil war stories! Axe that footage!

Brokaw: “Are you worried that in the next nine months or so before the election, that one faction in Iraq will try to become dominant, and especially since we have a constitution in Iraq now that says minority rights?”Bush: “Yeah.”

Brokaw: “What happens then?”

Bush: “You mean if that constitution is laid aside?”

Brokaw: “Yes.”

Bush: “I would hope it wouldn’t be. I would hope that the Iraqi citizenry realizes the importance of recognizing the rights of all people within their country.

“We, you know, this fellow Alawi has made the right– sent the right signals thus far, that he believes there ought to be a constitution which recognizes the right for people to worship freely. And the election process hopefully will yield a co– an assembly that agrees with that.”

These were whole questions and answers that were edited out. I don’t have a problem with that as they don’t change the meaning of any of Bush’s answers.

Brokaw: “Ahmed Chalabi has been a principal figure from the beginning of the war in Iraq. He has now been identified as a suspect in a spy case involving Iran. His funding has been cut off.“A lot of people are saying, ‘I told you so.’ On the other hand, his admirers are saying he’s a victim of a CIA vendetta. Which is it?”

Bush: “The FBI is investigating the allegations. And we’ll find out soon. And there’s very– they are serious allegations, that somebody might have passed on sensitive information to this man who then shared it with the foreign government.

“And if that’s the truth, then justice should be done to the person that passed on secrets. Mr. Chalabi’s not a U.S. citizen.”

Brokaw: “If you’re a member of the American public, and you’re looking at what’s going on in Iraq with Americans being killed almost every day by this continuing insurgency, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and George Tenet, the director of the CIA, has quit in the middle of this war, and Ahkmed Chalabi, who was a principal source of information to the United States now has been removed, and he is under investigation, would you as an ordinary citizen out there in America say, ‘Man, I don’t know what’s going on here, but I don’t like it at all?’”

Bush: “If I didn’t see a positive end, I would be thinking that. Whereas if all I thought was happening is– was that there was, you know, civil war — perhaps civil war … And I would be saying, you know, what’s going on here? On the other hand, the American people are beginning to see that there is a positive end.

“And the end is a free Iraq. And the American people have got to understand that part of winning the war on terror is to encourage the habits of liberty in parts of the world that need the habits of liberty. I mean, winning the war on terror requires more than just doing in al-Qaida, which we are actively doing, by the way. We’re searching and finding.

“But it also means installing governments that don’t necessarily look like America. They won’t look like America, but that our government that has embraced the habits of freedom in places like Afghanistan and in Iraq, which will in turn, strengthen places like Pakistan and Turkey.”

“These are vital missions, Tom. Because they’re– these are the countries that represent the beginnings of massive change in the greater Middle East. Now, I agree. Some won’t think that’s possible. I do. But had we taken that tack, by the way, that’s, you know, a country can’t be a democratic country after World War II, it’s very conceivable that Japan would not have been our close ally today. Other words, there were some cynics and pessimists that said well, Japan can’t possibly be a free society because of the nature of the people.

“Fortunately, some of our forefathers refused to buy into that. And now, Japan is one of our strongest allies in keeping the peace. I think 60 years from now, people are going to look back and say, “Thank goodness America stood the line and worked for democracy in Iraq, which served as a catalyst for change in the greater Middle East, which is now a more peaceful place than it would’ve been.’

“The other ambition of the terrorist is to drive us out of the greater Middle East so that they can have not only safe haven, but perhaps controlled government that have got past the energy resources and/or weapons, which would be a grave danger to America. And it’s why it’s important that we complete this mission, and I’m confident we will.”

The terrorists want to drive us out of the Middle East to cut off our oil supply and get their hands on more weapons. That’s not important, the American people don’t need to hear that.

Brokaw: “On June 30, will more resources be shifted to Afghanistan where we have a much smaller force than we do in Iraq, where a lot of people believe that the threat is at least as great, because Osama bin Laden is still there and al-Qaida’s hiding out?”Bush: “Look… our commanders think it necessary to accomplish the military mission. That’s how I run the operation.

“I say to our commanders, ‘Do you have enough? We expect you to find the remnants of al-Qaida and Taliban in the far-reaches of Afghanistan. Do you have enough troop levels to do that — enough troops to do that?’ And the answer is yes, we do. If they need more, we provide more.”

Brokaw: “During World War II, FDR had the draft. He could summon as many men and women as he needed to serve in the armed forces.”

Bush: “Right.”

Brokaw: “Some people are beginning to believe that the United States is going to need the draft again, because we’re putting such a strain not only on a regular military, but also on the reserve forces and on the National Guard. As you do your projections, do you think that the draft will ever return to America?”

Bush: “No.”

Brokaw: “Think it’s a bad idea?“

Bush: “I do. I think the volunteer force is necessary and been the model of efficiency.”

More full questions and answers not used. Not a big deal although I wish they had used the question about the draft. The American people need to hear that the President has no intention of reinstating the draft. It is some Democrats that keep pushing it in Congress.

Brokaw: “Mr. President, behind you are the crosses of the American cemetery and the Stars of David, of the people who fell. And not this in this beach, but in the ensuing battles of World War II.“Sixty years from now, do you think another American president will go to a cemetery to honor those who fell in Iraq, with the same sense of sacrifice and pride in what went on?”

Bush: “I do. I do. And I hope America never forgets those who sacrificed war for security and freedom, whether it be here or elsewhere around the world. This memorial ceremony today is really important. Because a great generation is—”

Brokaw: “’Going to a new horizon,’ as you put it?”

Bush: “–going to a new horizon. And we should never forget what they’ve done here. I hope America will always honor their sacrifice. And at the same time, I hope they’ll always honor the sacrifice of the soldiers who are fighting for our security today. We are at war in America. Different kind of war. It looks different. Some days it doesn’t seem like we’re at war. But we are at war. And it’s a war we will win if we’re strong and persevere and steadfast, and honor those who have sacrificed by completing the job.”

A little bit was edited out of that answer but I don’t think it affected the meaning.

Brokaw: “Let me ask you about President Reagan.Bush: “Yeah.

Brokaw: “The Bush family’s been involved in politics for a long, long time. But in many ways, President Reagan was a patron of the Bush family in politics as well. Because your dad became his vice president, then ran for president, certainly helped you as you ran for governor of Texas. What is your best memory of Ronald Reagan the politician and the man?”

Bush: “You know, I remember I’d just gotten out of college in ‘68 and I went to a Reagan rally in Jacksonville, Fla. He was campaigning for Ed Gurney, who was running for the United States Senate.

“And I remember how electrified the crowd became when Ronald Reagan just walked in the room. There was something unbelievably charismatic about him. And people loved to be in his presence. And they– and how calm he was, and relaxed. He was a very relaxed person. He didn’t take himself so seriously that he got kind of bunched up in his airs. An impressive figure, particularly for, you know, a guy fresh out of college in 1968. He impressed me a lot.

“And I remember the stories my dad would tell of his great sense of humor. He had a wonderful Irish sense of humor. Keep people off-guard by being humble and funny. He’ll be sorely missed. He was a great president, Tom.”

Brokaw: “Your father said Ronald Reagan taught us that we could disagree without being disagreeable.”

Bush: “Yeah.”

Brokaw: “Do you think that there is too much disagreeable in American politics today?”

Bush: “I’m trying to elevate the debate as best I can. But it’s pretty rough right now. And I’ve read a lot of history… that American politics has been rough. I remember the year of the pamphleteering, when people would write all kinds of stuff, without any without any sense of propriety.

“And seems like we may be– some of that may be happening these days. People just write down whatever they want, whether it’s truthful or not… And, you know, look, politics is a rough business. But my job is to– I think my job as the president, is to try to elevate the debate out of the muck, focus our country’s attention on where we need to go and what we need to do as a nation to make ourselves more secure and make the world more peaceful and free.”

Brokaw: “There’s been such good feeling between the United States and the French for the past several days here in Normandy. And it is a reminder of the sacrifices of the Americans, the British, the Canadians, to liberate Europe.

“But once the memory of this fades away, you think we’ll go back to the old confrontation between America and those principals used to be our European allies like the French and the Germans?”

Bush: “Yeah, you know, I think you tend to define the whole relationship based upon the difference of opinion in Iraq. But we’re working in Afghanistan together. We’re working in Haiti together. We spend a lot of time talking about Africa and how to keep the peace there.

“There are– we’re on the proliferation security initiative together. We’re working on AIDS. I mean, there’s a lot of things we’re working with the French on in a cooperative way, and to make the world a better place.

“No question we had a difference of opinion on Iraq. Not on the first Security Council [resolution that] passed unanimously that said to Saddam Hussein, ‘You’re a dangerous man, disarm, prove it, or else you’ll face serious consequences.’ It was the disagreement over… do you ever say serious consequences and then not do anything about it. My attitude is that when America speaks, when it says something, it better mean it. So, when we said serious consequences, I meant serious consequences. But no, I think relations are good. And we are working together on a number of fronts.”

Brokaw: “Thank you, Mr. President.”

Bush: “Tom.”

Brokaw: “You think of yourself as a Ronald Reagan Republican?”

Bush: “Think of myself as a George W. Republican, different era.”

More full questions and answers were removed here, probably for time constraints.

The end of the video also has an interview with the First Lady that is not included in this transcript.

Just keep all of this in mind the next time you are watching an interview on TV. It doesn’t surprise me that this happens, but one would think that the President talking about war and peace would get a little more leeway in having his whole answers presented to the American people. Especially since these same elites in the media will be the first to complain that the President doesn’t answer their questions often enough.

Update: Just a quick note to say thank you to the many blogs who are linking to this post. While I certainly enjoy the surge in traffic, I am more happy that I am able to get this information out to the public.

To my new visitors, I hope you will take a look around some of my other posts and bookmark me if you like what you see. Thanks for visiting the site!

Terror Group Warns Spain on U.S. Support

An Islamic group that claims responsibility for the Madrid bombings says it will turn Spain “into an inferno” unless the country halts its support for the United States and withdraws its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan…The letter gave Spain until Sunday, April 4, to fulfill its demands of ending support for the United States and withdrawing troops from both countries.

“If these demands are not met, we will declare war on you and … convert your country into an inferno and your blood will flow like rivers,” the letter said.

So lets review the timeline here:

• 3/11 Madrid train bombings kill 191 people and wound 1800 more.
• 3/14 Spain votes for “Peace in our Time” and elects a Socialist government that vows to remove it’s troops from Iraq. Spain’s new leader says the war was based on lies and the occupation is a disaster.
• 3/17 Al Qaeda group offers truce to Spain if it pulls it’s troops out of Iraq.
• 3/18 Prime Minister-elect José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero describes the U.S. occupation of Iraq as “a fiasco” and suggests American voters should follow the example set by Spain and change their leadership by supporting Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in November.
• 4/2 Another bomb is found on a high speed train track outside Madrid.
• 4/3 3 Bombing Suspects blow themselves up when surrounded by police killing one police officer and leveling the building they were in.
• 4/5 Spain receives a letter from an Al Qaeda group demanding they pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan or Spain will be turned into an inferno.

Looks like that appeasement strategy isn’t working out so well for Spain. Will they take the next step and pull out of Afghanistan also? If they do, what will Al Qaeda demand next? This is why appeasement will not work. Once the terrorists see that their demands are being met, they will threaten more violence and make more demands. In the case of Spain, they will not be happy until it is reclaimed as a Muslim state.

Here is some of Vice President Cheney’s speech from yesterday (via Opinion Journal)

…In one of Sen. Kerry’s recent observations about foreign policy, he informed his listeners that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners he’s been spending time with. Sen. Kerry said that he has met with foreign leaders, and I quote, “who can’t go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, ‘You’ve got to win this, you’ve got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,’ things like that.”A few days ago in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Sen. Kerry directly who these foreign leaders are. Sen. Kerry said, “That’s none of your business.” But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election–not unnamed foreign leaders.

Sen. Kerry’s voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let’s begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Sen. Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of “shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden.” Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a “strong coalition,” and a model to be followed.

Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The senator from Massachusetts said, “Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.” He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have ” greater consequence.” In 1998, Sen. Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Sen. Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands.

A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Sen. Kerry’s record, would assume that Sen. Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, “one of the antiwar candidates.” He replied, “I am.” He now says he was voting only to “threaten the use of force,” not actually to use force.

Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Sen. Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait.

Sen. Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a “golden age of American diplomacy.” He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America’s actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition–allies and friends of the United States–Sen. Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Sen. Kerry calls these countries, quote, “window dressing.” They are, in his words, “a coalition of the coerced and the bribed.”

Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Sen. Kerry describe Great Britain–coerced, or bribed? Or Italy–which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf–was Italy’s contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Sen. Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America’s objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Sen. Kerry’s characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom.

Sen. Kerry has also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the material support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the senator that last November, at the president’s request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan–providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87-12. Sen. Kerry voted “no.” I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Sen. Kerry said, quote, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” It’s a true fact.

On national security, the senator has shown at least one measure of consistency. Over the years, he has repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military. He voted against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He has also been a reliable vote against military pay increases–opposing them no fewer than 12 times.

Many of these very weapons systems have been used by our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are proving to be valuable assets in the war on terror. In his defense, of course, Sen. Kerry has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. Recently he said, and I quote, “I don’t want to use that terminology.” In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. As we have seen, however, that approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they are at war with us–and are comfortable using that terminology…

Via Seattle Times:

Prime Minister-elect José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero yesterday described the U.S. occupation of Iraq as “a fiasco” and suggested American voters should follow the example set by Spain and change their leadership by supporting Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in November.

“I said during the campaign I hoped Spain and the Spaniards would be ahead of the Americans for once,” Zapatero said in an interview on Onda Cero radio. “First we win here, we change this government, and then the Americans will do it, if things continue as they are in Kerry’s favor.”

Apparently Zapatero doesn’t know how miserable Bush could make things for him. He certainly won’t be getting any favors from us anytime soon. And if he wants Kerry to have any chance of winning, the best thing he could do is shut up. Americans will not go vote for Kerry because a socialist european leader says we should. In reality his comments are more likely to push voters back towards Bush.

Maureen Dowd shows her ignorance once again:

The Republicans prefer to paint our old ally as craven rather than accept the Spanish people’s judgment — which most had held since before the war — that the Iraq takeover had nothing to do with the war on terror.

Just one question for Maureen. If the “Iraq takeover had nothing to do with the war on terror”, then why would Al Qaeda want to take revenge on Spain? These people want to have it both ways. In their twisted world, the invasion of Iraq pissed off Al Qaeda even though invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Huh?