Spain Succumbs

[billvon 3,120]

>Now this I gotta read about...where did you hear this?

Hmm. I could post nothing, in which case you'd claim it was all made up, or I could post the article so you can poo-poo it. I suppose I'll post it so that others can read it; you can poo-poo it to your heart's content in any case.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

----------------------------------
But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador (on their decision to go to war with Iraq.)

”Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, ‘Top secret. No foreign.’ No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this,” says Woodward.

“They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, ‘So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?’ And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following: ‘Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.’"

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, “I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn’t enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. “Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, ‘Their message is my message,’” says Woodward.

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.

[PhillyKev 0]

And another thing, this argument just goes to show that we cannot win the "war on terrorism".

What are the possible outcomes to the terrorist attacks on Spain.

Aznar wins the election and keeps his troops in Iraq.
-This is viewed by some as not addressing the terrorist attacks at home. A win for AQ.

Zapatero wins the election and changes his policy on Iraq.
-This is viewed by some as terrorist attacks modifying a leaders policy. A win for AQ.

Zapatero wins and sticks with his original plans to pull out of Iraq but increase the fight against terrorism.
-This is viewed by some as him giving into terrorist demands. A win for AQ.

Terrorism doesn't have to do with infrastructure, or strategic geography, or any other traditional meausre of the success of war. It is all about perception, fear, and uncertainty. A terrorist attack will ALWAYS bring about those things regardless of the response. They have no losing moves to make. We have no end game. It really is a freakin' dilemna to put it mildly.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Thank you. That's exactly what I've been trying to convay. They aren't giving into terrorists. They are modifying their tactics and goals. Their new leader had planned to do so all along. He is following through with his vision of what the right thing to do is DESPITE the terrorist attacks. I think that shows strength, resolve and conviction on his part. Not appeasement.

I'm not quite with you. I'm saying that even if Spain is copitulating to the terrorists, they also have every right to do that if that's what they think is right for them.

Me? I don't know if they are going through with a plan or appeasing. But that's not important, all I do know is they also have a sovereign right to pursue what's right as they define it. As does the US. Even if I disagree with the specific actions. I'm not thrilled with the response, my culture says that if we planned to get out and then got attacked, I'd change my original plan and stay in. (But them some wackos would then accuse Haliburton of the train bombing......just to keep Spain in the mix {theme from x-files playing in the background here})

So the original plan for Spain is not what's important, the important part is - in light of the terrible attack, what is the reason for getting out - is it strength to stick to the plan, or is it sticking to the plan as appeasement. We don't know, so pick a side and argue it.

I like to think that allies/friends such as Spain have good character and hope it is your reasoning rather than appeasement - but don't expect the rest of the coalition countries that are in it to be appreciative of the finer nuances as they are left with less support for something they believed in enough to send their citizens. {{EDIT - and who cares what the terrorists think, they would claim a complete defeat as a victory, so this is no different}}

And per the last GWB speech, we are grateful for each and every nation of the coalition for their contributions of any size (despite the left wing reporter's bitter attitude to the relative size of the troops sent). So I suspect that we are grateful for Spain's contribution even if it is reduced now.

But I do agree that this thread could get even more silly if we just applied ourselves.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Now this I gotta read about...where did you hear this?

Hmm. I could post nothing, in which case you'd claim it was all made up, or I could post the article so you can poo-poo it. I suppose I'll post it so that others can read it; you can poo-poo it to your heart's content in any case.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

----------------------------------
...everything quoted...

I'm not going to poo-poo it...yet. I missed 60 minutes. Interesting read.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gravitymaster 0]

In the interest of fair and balanced reporting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117446,00.html

The statement, in Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's new book about the run-up to war, is "simply not, not right," Rice said.

[billvon 3,120]

>"simply not, not right," Rice said.

Rice is getting less and less credible every day.

"We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network." Rice, 4/8/2004

"No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration." Rice, 3/22/04

"On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use . . . a hijacked airplane as a missile." Rice, 5/16/02

In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon . . . USA Today, 4/18/04

[TheAnvil 0]

Hmm...Saudi Arabia cutting oil prices...due to shipping and refining, when would that affect the price at the pumps, would you think?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,120]

>due to shipping and refining, when would that affect the price at the
>pumps, would you think?

If prices were based on cost of crude and processing, three to six months. Since they are more based on oil futures, the initial effect would be almost immediate, with the reduced raw-materials cost kicking in a little later.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

A monarchy, in all its forms, does not have any ties to democracy

I think many Americans do not understand which role the monarchy plays in most western countries where it still exists. The constitutional roles vary with the UK monarchy probably having the strongest formal powers, but if you investigate the issue you will find that modern monarchies only hold ceremonial roles and no real power regarding legislation what so ever. In certain cases their roles are defined even as a kind of “trustee” of democracy by only interfering if there is a constitutional crisis. Spain is a good example. The only time the Spanish King interfered in politics was when some military tried to overthrow the democratically elected government some 20 years ago.

The power to legislate and run the country are in the hand of the elected parliaments in these countries – not the monarch. The Monarch might sign the laws but that is purely ceremonial and if they started to interfere in politics the constitution in those countries would be quickly changed to a republic.

The only “un-democratic” issue in those countries with a monarchy is that the ceremonial head of state is not elected. It has however no practical influence on the democratic process (decision making). You will find that the huge majority of people in (nearly all) of those monarchies want to keep them in place because they like the tradition and history of it. If they don’t, they can change their constitution and convert to a republic if they want to (which will happen in Australia at some stage). The crux is that you don’t have an un-democratic system just because you still have a King or Queen. In some countries the mornarchy has actually helped stabilising the democratic system (eg. Spain and Belgium). I actually think that many Americans would love to have a Royal family – or they would not be so obsessed with the British Royal family….

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.