How cool is it that the people of Spain reacted to the terrorist attacks in Madrid by firing their right-wing government? And that the new government plans to bring the country's troops home? Let's do that here! Unfortunately we have to wait eight months before we can get rid of George Bush Jr., whose crappy leadership the Spanish have also implicitly rejected. Or maybe we don't--for the crime of lying us into war with the wrong country (and general all around corruption), how about impeaching the perpetrator? To get an idea of how bad things are over in Iraq--our tax dollars at work--please read Robert Fisk's one year recap. Here's the plan: send Bush back to the Midland Racquet Club, then pressure Kerry to end the occupation post haste. After paying reparations, we'll only be out a few hundred billion for our little adventure.
I love the result as well as you do, but it raises a few worries, the biggest being that a well timed terrorist act can serve as a direct political player in any democracy. The outgoing Spanish government tried to cynically turn it into their advantage with their quick declaration of ETA responsibility, fortunately the ruse was seen as transparent by their citizens.
However, their voter turnout was reported to be 77% which points to a counter argument that people who would generally just give the Spanish Socialist party the benefit of their lip service were mobilized to actually vote.
I can recall my lazy-assed youth where I spouted the rhetoric but got out to the polling booth with great infrequency. That changed when I watched news reports of the first free elections held in South Africa at the end of apartheid. I was so ashamed of myself.
I guess my stock answer to the giving in to terrorism argument is "We didn't do it because the terrorists made us; we did it because it was right." Us common folk sometimes have more sense than our leaders, and Spain's people were about 80% opposed to Bush's Folly from the get-go. And speaking of doing the right thing, I see that Honduras is following Spain's lead and has announced it's pulling its troops out of Iraq. Yay! Another black eye for Team Bush! I just love watching things not go his way. The Coalition will have to hire more mercenaries in the short run, but eventually American troops will be too vulnerable and he'll have to bring them home.
That's one thing that disturbs me about Kerry already. He's making speeches about the need to properly arm and equip our troops. I know that's because it's where Bush is vulnerable (stories about dads sending their sons Kevlar vests, etc.) but it also sounds like nascent support for a long, hard occupation. I can think of a lot easier and cheaper way to "protect the troops."
I don't think that the debate should be about giving in or not giving into terrorism. (the ever-expanding list of "things we should be able to do...or the terrorists have won" became fodder for cartoonists a long time ago)
I think the point I want to make is that you can count on the fact that political strategists are, at this very moment, obsessively pondering all sorts of advantageous rhetorical responses in the event of another domestic attack on the US, close the presidential election. It's a type of contingency planning that has nothing to do with civic disaster response, and probably gets better funding than the fire stations do. I believe that there is currently a very cynical, internal debate buzzing in all the political think tanks. (I get a kick out of that term: think tank . Like a barrel of monkeys.) Will political entities learn from the Spanish example that lies will infuriate and mobilize a populace? or will they continue with the current model of disseminating the same lie from a variety of sources in a far more sophisticated manner. It is something to watch carefully.
Agreed. This subject scares me silly, being in the New York metro area. The Republicans want the Convention to be here to capitalize on the misery of the last disaster, while their actions abroad increase the likelihood that something will happen again in NYC. I guess they're gambling that it won't happen during the actual Convention. And in that light, Tom DeLay's plan to have all the power-networking happening on a big luxury cruiser in the Hudson (overruled apparently) takes on especially sinister significance. Evacuate the elite and leave the locals for some telegenic choking in the "black w1nd." That sounds awful, but we're talking about some awful people here.
No one should have any illusions about Kerry as a "peace candidate." He's trying to out-macho Bush on defense, as exemplified by his call for the new government of Spain to reconsider the troop pullout. Disgusting. Jeffrey St. Clair says it well on the violent summer we have coming up.
|
How cool is it that the people of Spain reacted to the terrorist attacks in Madrid by firing their right-wing government? And that the new government plans to bring the country's troops home? Let's do that here! Unfortunately we have to wait eight months before we can get rid of George Bush Jr., whose crappy leadership the Spanish have also implicitly rejected. Or maybe we don't--for the crime of lying us into war with the wrong country (and general all around corruption), how about impeaching the perpetrator? To get an idea of how bad things are over in Iraq--our tax dollars at work--please read Robert Fisk's one year recap. Here's the plan: send Bush back to the Midland Racquet Club, then pressure Kerry to end the occupation post haste. After paying reparations, we'll only be out a few hundred billion for our little adventure.
- tom moody 3-15-2004 5:27 pm
I love the result as well as you do, but it raises a few worries, the biggest being that a well timed terrorist act can serve as a direct political player in any democracy. The outgoing Spanish government tried to cynically turn it into their advantage with their quick declaration of ETA responsibility, fortunately the ruse was seen as transparent by their citizens.
However, their voter turnout was reported to be 77% which points to a counter argument that people who would generally just give the Spanish Socialist party the benefit of their lip service were mobilized to actually vote.
I can recall my lazy-assed youth where I spouted the rhetoric but got out to the polling booth with great infrequency. That changed when I watched news reports of the first free elections held in South Africa at the end of apartheid. I was so ashamed of myself.
- LM (guest) 3-16-2004 12:32 am
I guess my stock answer to the giving in to terrorism argument is "We didn't do it because the terrorists made us; we did it because it was right." Us common folk sometimes have more sense than our leaders, and Spain's people were about 80% opposed to Bush's Folly from the get-go. And speaking of doing the right thing, I see that Honduras is following Spain's lead and has announced it's pulling its troops out of Iraq. Yay! Another black eye for Team Bush! I just love watching things not go his way. The Coalition will have to hire more mercenaries in the short run, but eventually American troops will be too vulnerable and he'll have to bring them home.
That's one thing that disturbs me about Kerry already. He's making speeches about the need to properly arm and equip our troops. I know that's because it's where Bush is vulnerable (stories about dads sending their sons Kevlar vests, etc.) but it also sounds like nascent support for a long, hard occupation. I can think of a lot easier and cheaper way to "protect the troops."
- tom moody 3-17-2004 4:30 am
I don't think that the debate should be about giving in or not giving into terrorism. (the ever-expanding list of "things we should be able to do...or the terrorists have won" became fodder for cartoonists a long time ago)
I think the point I want to make is that you can count on the fact that political strategists are, at this very moment, obsessively pondering all sorts of advantageous rhetorical responses in the event of another domestic attack on the US, close the presidential election. It's a type of contingency planning that has nothing to do with civic disaster response, and probably gets better funding than the fire stations do. I believe that there is currently a very cynical, internal debate buzzing in all the political think tanks. (I get a kick out of that term: think tank . Like a barrel of monkeys.) Will political entities learn from the Spanish example that lies will infuriate and mobilize a populace? or will they continue with the current model of disseminating the same lie from a variety of sources in a far more sophisticated manner. It is something to watch carefully.
- LM (guest) 3-17-2004 9:06 pm
Agreed. This subject scares me silly, being in the New York metro area. The Republicans want the Convention to be here to capitalize on the misery of the last disaster, while their actions abroad increase the likelihood that something will happen again in NYC. I guess they're gambling that it won't happen during the actual Convention. And in that light, Tom DeLay's plan to have all the power-networking happening on a big luxury cruiser in the Hudson (overruled apparently) takes on especially sinister significance. Evacuate the elite and leave the locals for some telegenic choking in the "black w1nd." That sounds awful, but we're talking about some awful people here.
- tom moody 3-17-2004 9:24 pm
No one should have any illusions about Kerry as a "peace candidate." He's trying to out-macho Bush on defense, as exemplified by his call for the new government of Spain to reconsider the troop pullout. Disgusting. Jeffrey St. Clair says it well on the violent summer we have coming up.
- tom moody 3-20-2004 4:16 am