2000 Presidential Election Debate

[Diplomat]

From the 2000 Presidential Election Debate:

LEHRER: New question.

How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally.

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.


Discuss.


-Diplomat

[Dynasty]

In the autumn of 1941, a signifcant majority of Americans believed that we should not be involved in the wars being fought overseas by other nations.

Events change people's opinions. Good Presidents are willing to change too rather than cling to old ideas.

[andyfox]

FDR felt that the essence of good leadership was to try things, rather than settle for things as they are. If what you try doesn't work, though, he suggested trying something else, rather than clinging to the failed first idea.

[paland]

The leadership of the USA is a very terrible regime. It will go down in history as a very black mark on this nation. The shame of it all.

I can honestly say this about the top of the Bush Administration. "What a bunch of retards!"

[jdl22]

They always argue that he was saying this before September 11 and that everything has changed now but I disagree. What he was saying was actually good imo and it even works with the idea that terrorists want to kill us all. If only he could follow his own advice (actually it's fairly unlikely that he came up with these lines).

To me this is the most interesting line:

[ QUOTE ]
And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm...

[Diplomat]

That's the line that struck me as being the oddest as well. That, and the nation-building stuff.

-Diplomat

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Events change people's opinions. Good Presidents are willing to change too rather than cling to old ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, except that the idea for invading Iraq and building a democracy there wasn't formulated post 9-11 in the administration. That was the justification for the current foreign policy, not the trigger for a new set of ideas.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
FDR felt that the essence of good leadership was to try things, rather than settle for things as they are. If what you try doesn't work, though, he suggested trying something else, rather than clinging to the failed first idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure we're all glad that FDR didn't decide the war against either Germany or Japan was a failure after after some catastrophic loss of American life.

We're probably also almost as glad that Truman didn't decided the Marshall Plan was a failure after it failed to achieve immediate results.

Why are people so impatient about Iraq? Did you expect it to be completely peaceful and an economic juggernaut in just one year?

[elwoodblues]

I don't know, why were we so impatient with the UN weapons inspectors?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, why were we so impatient with the UN weapons inspectors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Patience wears out after twelve years.

[paland]

Dynasty, what is it that you love about Bush? I mean, it isn't that he is smart or anything. He's just another bumbling idiot.

Some people will hang on to any losing hand. They just don't know when to fold. I mean, even Charles Manson had followers after the fact.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

See, the problem with the "Bush is an idiot" argument against the war is that it's irrelevant.

I completely agree that Bush is an idiot (I believe Kerry and Clinton are idiots as well). I also 100% support the war.

I do not see that my understanding that we must fight the Islamist push to send the world into a new Dark Ages should be impacted by my feelings about whatever Republicrat idiot is in the White House.

This has been an unsolicited opinion by a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party who is less than pleased with the LP position on the war.

[andyfox]

FDR and Truman's policies made sense. Bush's does not. Japan attacked the United States. Iraq did not. Germany was armed to the teeth and bent on world conquest. Iraq was defanged and not bent on world conquest.

I expected Bush to listen to the governmental and non-governmental agencies who told him what we could expect in post-war Iraq and what we could do to make things better. Instead he ignored them. That's why things are such a mess.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
FDR and Truman's policies made sense. Bush's does not. Japan attacked the United States. Iraq did not. Germany was armed to the teeth and bent on world conquest. Iraq was defanged and not bent on world conquest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You already know the arguements for going to war with Iraq. Do you really need me to repeat them simply because you don't agree with them?

[ QUOTE ]
I expected Bush to listen to the governmental and non-governmental agencies who told him what we could expect in post-war Iraq and what we could do to make things better. Instead he ignored them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you assume he didn't listen and ignored them? There is a difference between not listening and making a decision which you don't like. For every "expert" who didn't want to go into Iraq, there was easily another "expert" who thought we should. I see no reason to believe that Bush didn't listened to both sides of the arguement (Rumsfeld and Powell?). He simply chose the path he chose. That's what Presidents are elected to do.

[andyfox]

No, of course I don't need you to repeat them. Facts are facts. FDR declared war on the country that attacked us. Bush declared war on a country that did not attack us. Bush attacked that country.

I haven't simply assumed Bush didn't listen and ignored facts. I have heard what the military has said, most recently today, about Rumsfeld's stubbornness. And see the James Fallows article in Atlantic Monthly, which I have cited here before, about the administration ignoring planning for post-war Iraq, in large part because such planning was seen as anti-war.

Indeed, presidents are elected to make decisions, to choose advice and ignore it as they see best for the country. This president has made terrible decisions about Iraq. I supported his initial decision to attack Afghanistan, where bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was based, given sanctuary by the Taliban.

And I see plenty of reason to assume Bush didn't listen to both sides of the argument. Most of his key advisors had been calling for war on Iraq for years, long before 9/11. The fatuous connection between Iraq and 9/11 posited by the administration bears witness to a bent for war on Iraq whatever the facts might have shown. Paul O'Neill's obeservations (among others) back up this interpretation.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
FDR declared war on the country that attacked us. Bush declared war on a country that did not attack us. Bush attacked that country.

[/ QUOTE ]

During World War II, the American military attacked and occurpied quite a few countries that were not called Germany, Japan, or Italy. In North Africa, in the Pacific, and in western Europe, quite a few governments fell that weren't interested in American (or British/Canadian) occupation.

We attacked because that's where the enemy was. The war on terrorism is very much the same. Just like the enemies of WWII weren't found only in Berlin and Tokyo, the enemies in this war aren't only found in western Afghanistan and eastern Pakistan.

[Greg J]

I actually feel a lot more confident in a post like this than one based on poker -- since I actually study this stuff.

The notion of using troops for force but being reluctant to use them for nation building was a messed up answer then, and the sad thing is he's proving it now. If you use force you have AN OBLIGATION to "nation build."

The notion that we can go into a country, overthrow its govt, and leave a fully functioning democracy in a short amount of time is either being totally disengenuious (on behalf of those who know better), and just being niave and/or stupid.

Good examples of nation building: Japand and W Germany after WW2. Bad example: Afghanistan after the Mujhahadeen beat the Soviets.

The question is, which way are we going? Agree or disagree with the invasion (I strongly disagreed, but that isnt the issue anymore), if the United States abandons Iraq (like I think Bush wants to) and leaves it for the rest of the world to clean up, then Iraq will be a breeding ground for more lunatics who want to kill us.

1) Double the troops on the ground.
2) Stop using this war as a shameless excuse for corporate welfare. Hire the Iraqis to drive the trucks -- to hire Americans and ship them over is not only stupid but insulting. No wonder those poor shmucks are getting ambushed.
3) (Related to 2) HAve a MArshall Plan for Iraq. MAke sure there is at least job per family! I don't care how much it runs up the deficit -- to paraphrase powell: we break it, we buy it. That mean YOU, Mr John Q. Tax Paying Poker Player! This is a democracy, which means YOU allowed this idiot to be elected, and look what he did. And in fairness, so did I. 60% unemployment does not make for a stable situation -- people with jobs don't don't tend to pick up guns and fight as much.

We have a moral obligation at this point to fix the mess, which will take at least a decade. Not that this will ever happen. But hey, we've got the oil fields secure!

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
quite a few governments fell that weren't interested in American (or British/Canadian) occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Vichy France? By and large, if we occupied countries during World War II, they were countries in which we were displacing the Axis powers. The "governments" that fell were puppets, and so naturally they weren't interested in American occupation.

[ QUOTE ]
Just like the enemies of WWII weren't found only in Berlin and Tokyo, the enemies in this war aren't only found in western Afghanistan and eastern Pakistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the optimal solution is to invade the country or that the situations are remotely similar. The governments of countries harboring terrorists are not puppets of Al-Qaeda.

[nicky g]

"I do not see that my understanding that we must fight the Islamist push to send the world into a new Dark Ages should be impacted by my feelings about whatever Republicrat idiot is in the White House."

Kurn, I almost always like your posts whether I agree with them or not, and you seem like a very intelligent guy. But the one area I think you're off on is when you conflate any sort of Middle Eastern bad guys or movements you oppose with "Islamism". The last thing Saddam was was an Islamist. You've done the same with Palestinians, suggesting that all opposition to the occupation is in the name of returning to medieval Islam (sorry if those weren't your exact words). Well that may be true of Hamas but it isn't true of other groups or most Palestinians (acknowledging that doesn't mean you have to support them). As you know I was against the war, but there were plenty of other arguments for it without having to resorting to tarring every Arab movement or government, good or bad, with the same brush. Saddam was a bad guy and was not an Islamist; indeed he actively persecuted Islamists, Sunni and Shia, throughout his reign. He also aggressively modernised Iraq at the start of his rule, albeit in a brutal Stalinist-type fashion. Saying the war was in the name of opposing dark age Islamism isn;'t going to get any informed opponent of the war to listen to any case for it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Most of his key advisors had been calling for war on Iraq for years, long before 9/11.

This is where you and I disagree. I always felt GHW Bush screwed up when he listened to Powell instead of Schwartzkopf in the first Gulf War. From that point on, I always felt that we had to take on Iraq. To me it's always been a case of when rather than if. My biggest problem with the war in Iraq was we waited too long.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I understand that Saddam (as well as the Baathist regime in Syria) are not Islamist themselves. They do, however, share some of the goals (or at least give lip-service to those goals) of the Islamists. Not the least of those goals is the annihilation of the Jewish people.

I also am very sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians, but unlike you, I feel that they have been treated far worse by their arab "brethren" than by the Israelis.

My occaisional rants aside, I freely admit that the problems with terrorism, at least at the micro level, are far more complex than simply being an overarching "Islamist scourge." However, on the macro level, that threat, as an undertone, is very real.

My discomfort here in the US with the prominance of the fundamentalist Christian movement only fuels my fear of the same backwards-looking philosophy either specifically practiced or tacitly accepted by most governments of predominantly Muslim countries.

Whether the end result of our inaction is a powerful entity opposed to western liberalism (in the truest libertarian, mercantile sense of the word) based upon Shari'a or Stalinism is semantic to the people who must live under such regimes.

Is Spain any safer now that ETA sees that their electorate may make choices out of fear? Would England be better off if the IRA made a similar inference?

Maybe the connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq is very thin, but my gut says its still there. And I don't usually support big government moves.

[nicky g]

Thanks for your considered reply. My I dind't really want to argue teh usual issues again, rather to point out that you were conflating a lot of things with your references to Islamism. I'm glad you do recognise the various distinctions but I think you should extend that to not designating non-or anti-Islamist groups/powers as Islamist. On some specific points:

"I understand that Saddam (as well as the Baathist regime in Syria) are not Islamist themselves. They do, however, share some of the goals (or at least give lip-service to those goals) of the Islamists."

There's an element of truth in that - they both are anti-Western and anti-Israeli, although Saddam was not anti-Western by inclination but in response to the reaction to his invasion of Kuwait - but they also share many mutually contradictory goals, which are much mroe important to both of them. Militant Islamists are effectively at war with autocrat secular states. Saddam was much more concerned with maintaining his grip on power than fighting imperialists or Zionists or what have you, and most Arab autocrats are much more worried about repressing dissent, including Islamist dissent, than taking on the US. Most anti-Western (and pro-Western for that matter) Arab regimes use anti-Western rhetoric simply as a tool to distract their populations from the regime's own failings; none of them have any serious intention or ability of threatening the US. Their goal is to survive politically. The same isn't true of al-Qaeda - but that's another distinction between the two.

"Not the least of those goals is the annihilation of the Jewish people."

I don't think that's really true. There is a massive amount of antisemitism on both sides, and many would obviously like to see the elimination of the state of Israel, sure. But if Saddam for example really wanted to eliminate the Jewish people, he might have started with the small Iraqi Jewish community; after all there was absolutely nothing stopping him for killing every last one of them.

"I also am very sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians, but unlike you, I feel that they have been treated far worse by their Arab "brethren" than by the Israelis."

I don't really want to get into this here. My main point was that not all anti-Israeli militancy is motivated by Islamic fundamentalism. I agree that many Arab regimes have treated the Palestinians appallingly. I don't think they're the main culprit or that their actions excuse mistreatment at the hands of Israel.

"My occasional rants aside, I freely admit that the problems with terrorism, at least at the micro level, are far more complex than simply being an overarching "Islamist scourge." However, on the macro level, that threat, as an undertone, is very real."

But it's not in any way a single threat; not even on a macro level. Saying it is is comparable to a hypothetical Asian nation looking at a range of feuding, mutually opposed fascist, royalist, fundamentalist Christian, anti-Asian terrorist, and communist groups in Europe and worrying about an overarching fundamentalist Christian threat to Asian values. And in the Middle Eastern case, autocrats such as Saddam have never shown any real interest in threatening the West (Western interesst, perhaps, but on their own turf). There was never any Ba'athist desire to export its revolution to Europe or the US and there was no real Iraqi terrorism against the West. So I don't see how even in a broader sense you can conflate the two.

"Whether the end result of our inaction is a powerful entity opposed to western liberalism (in the truest libertarian, mercantile sense of the word) based upon Shari'a or Stalinism is semantic to the people who must live under such regimes."

Do you mean Ba'athist Iraq by a "poweful entitiy"? OK I agree that whether it was Islamist or secular made little difference to the sufferings of its own people, but I though we were arguing on the basis of a threat to the West, of an attempt to turn the world back to the dark ages? My point wasn't that Saddam was OK because he wasn't in league with Islamists, but simply that he wasn't inleague with Islamists.

It is al Qaeda that is represents the terrorist threat to the US. Autocratic regimes represent a threat to their own people. Now there are good arguments for taking on both of them, but they;re separate arguments.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't want to rehash our differences here either. We can do that in person sometime in a casino bar over a few dozen pints. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I will add that the best argument against the war in Iraq might be that an unstable Iraq might be ripe for a Shiite takeover, and nothing would be worse for the west than a greater Shiite state of Iran-Iraq in such a strategic location.

[nicky g]

OK, I didn't really either. I tried to get out but they sucked me back in. Those pints sound good. There is an outside chance I will be in Foxwoods sometime this summer, so who knows... Mmm. I'm off for a pint.

[Greg J]

We have put ourselves in a situation where pretty much anything we do will have bad consequences. This is what happens when you listen to war-hawks who want to play GI Joe and invade with as few troops as possible -- like Rumsfeld wanted and got -- or invade with an overwhelming force that would quash resistance and lead to a quicker and prbably less bloody victory -- as Powell wanted and didnt get.

I was against the invasion, but that is moot. Invade the right way or dont invade at all. We sent in just enough troops to overthrow the regime and secure the oil fields, which is really all we wanted to do. If we had tripled the number of troops we used to invade, then the country would be more secure now. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld want to go play war, while Powell knew the cost of human life. We are seeing the cost of inept leadership right now, but the people of Iraq are paying for it.

[Greg J]

I feel compelled to correct you -- being a scholar of European public opinion. This is a common misconcpetion, but I think it's also pretty important that people get this right.

The Spanish people DID NOT -- repeat: DID NOT vote against the incumbant (centre right) Popular Party and vote in the Socialist out of fear becuase of the bombing of 3/11 that killed 200 people just before the general elections.

The reaction that the people had was not against the policy of Anzar and the PP to support American and the invasion of Iraq, but against the actions of the PP following the bombing. The govt of Spain asserted from the get-go that the attack was the work of ETA. First this is not ETA's MO -- they are more IRA style: taking out visable political figures and the like.

When the evidence came out that it was not ETA, but rather Islamist terrorists, the govt stuck to its guns. I think this was more a tactical error, but it was percieved as trying to capitalize on the event to gain votes. This REALLY pissed off the people of Spain. The Socialists on the other hand did not try to politicize the issue -- they took the higher road. The people of Spain behaved like you would expect -- they punished the PP and the opposition Socialist party got a near majority, and are now in coalition with another leftist party.

The people of Spain are very angry about 3/11, jsut as we were about 9/11. Spainiards are not so fundamentally different that they would have a differnt reaction of cowering. They want to kick ass!

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that this was cowardice. This is a spin that much of our own media has put on the situation in Spain -- and it is dead wrong.

I'm not trying to single you out Kurn, but i think this is an important point. You are not the first to make this mistake

[MMMMMM]

You and some others call it a "mistake" but I think it is dead-on analysis. And even if you were right, the terrorists took the results to mean that they now have the power to influence major elections through well-timed horrific attacks. In fact, they even crowed about this shortly after the election results. Nice going Spain--not.

[MMMMMM]

A pint sounds marvelous right about now, Nicky, since summer seems officially to have arrived today. Here's to one of the nicest and most sincere guys on the forum, even if we do differ on politics a lot. If you head down to Foxwoods later this summer feel free to PM me; maybe I'll drag myself away from this infernal machine for an afternoon and meet up with you. I only live about 8 miles away you know, though I rarely go to FW anymore and I'm sometimes out of town. Cheers.

[Greg J]

Al queda can beelive what they want, and it is indeed tragic that they now think they have the power to change elections, but if you beleive that this was cowardice on the part of the SPanish people -- well you just could not be more wrong if you tried.

[jdl22]

You seem to be implying that the Spanish people should have elected in a party who had sent their nation into a war supported by fewer than 10% of the population just so that the terrorists wouldn't have feel they had won.

In this case the Spanish people can't win in your eyes: the way they voted allowed the terrorists to win because they brought about a government against the war (which represents the vast majority of Spaniards), if they do what you wish and vote in a government that does not represent the people to affect the mentality of terrorists then clearly the terrorists have affected the election. Seems like they're screwed either way.

[MMMMMM]

Shortly before the Madrid bombing the polls showed the incumbent party with a healthy lead. Then came the bombing and the Islamist threat and all that evaporated. Draw your own conclusions.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Shortly before the Madrid bombing the polls showed the incumbent party with a healthy lead. Then came the bombing and the Islamist threat and all that evaporated. Draw your own conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]
My conclusion is that the Democrats have learned from the Spanish result, and are now actively encouraging the terrorists to attack us, in hopes that Democrats can win in the next election.

[elwoodblues]

I was just at a meeting of the world left (thank you Dennis Prager for letting others know of the existence of our group) and this is exactly what we discussed. Senator Mark Dayton is in on it. He has strategically placed thousands of Target stores throughout the country that the terrorists can aim at. It really is a perfect plan...unfortunately, I think you might be on to us and we might have to adjust our plans. Score another one for GWB in the war against terrorism!

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
My conclusion is that the Democrats have learned from the Spanish result, and are now actively encouraging the terrorists to attack us, in hopes that Democrats can win in the next election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, you have more intelligence than your detractors give you credit for.

[Greg J]

"Shortly before the Madrid bombing the polls showed the incumbent party with a healthy lead. Then came the bombing and the Islamist threat and all that evaporated. Draw your own conclusions."


This just really illustrates what is a willful misinterpretation of the facts. Temporal placement does not denote itself causality.

People who want to beleive that the Spanish people are whining and cowardly will probably beleive that no matter what. Plus I know the polls quite well... I've devoted my life to them, and know how to interpret them.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I didn't mean to suggest that the Spanish population as a whole are cowardly. I've spent enough time in Spain to like and respect the people there. I also think that Aznar was on shaky ground before 3/11 and all it took was a small number of fence-sitters to jump off and vote for the opposition to effect the outcome. I try to keep up on events in Spain by reading El Pais and ABC at least once per week, but I don't always succeed.

My concern wasn't about the electorate's motivations, but the inference that terrorists might make from the result.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Democrats have learned from the Spanish result, and are now actively encouraging the terrorists to attack us

This is just plain stupid.

[Greg J]

Fair enough Kurn -- I actually share that concern. I think it is unfortunate that some Islamist wackos will interpret this the way many in out own media have: that the people of western democracies can be scared into voting the way terrorists want them to.

I just wanted to illustrate that the results of that election were not a result of the attacks themselves, but the Anzar govt's reaction to them.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Greg

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm only 45 minutes from Foxwoods. Poker there, of course, but I much prefer Mohegan for socializing.

[Greg J]

i didnt even understand it

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[CORed]

Some valid points.

I'm actually quite pessimistic at this point that staying in Iraq will accomplish anything other than getting more Americans killed. I think we now have so little credibility that no government that we try to put in place, democraticly elected or otherwise, has much chance of surviving. However, I think we have to try. Getting the UN or NATO involved might help on the credibility issue. In order to do this, though, we will have to give up some control, which I don't think this administration is prepared to do. I'm not conviced that we can do it alone now. I also believe that we will have little chance of getting cooperation from others as long as Bush remains in office. He was in such a hurry to go to war that he

Hiring Iraqui's to do as much of the work as possible is a very good idea. This would jump start their economy. I'm not sure the skills are available in all cases, but I'm sure a lot of the work that's being done by Americans now could be done by Iraqui's and at much lower cost than bringing Americans over. Certainly Iraqis could be used to drive trucks and operate heavy equipment, or there may well be enough who already have those skills. It would probably be cheaper to train Iraqis, if Iraqis with the necessary skills are not available, than to pay the kind of salaries necesary to get Americans to go there.

Doubling the troops on the ground may well be necessary, but that will likely require reviving the draft. As I understand it, we really don't have the troops necessary to maintain the current levels much longer. I don't know whether we can recruit enough volunteers. Reviving the draft might well cause unrest in people of draft age, much as it did in Vietnam. We may have run out of other options though.
A lot of the problem in Iraq seems to be incompetent leadership. I get the impression that nobody in a position of authority there has the slightest idea what they are doing. The latest outrages of prisoner abuse seem to be symptomatic of this. (At least I hope this wasn't policy made at high levels. I'm not 100% certain that it wasn't.)

IMO, to paraphrase Michael Dukakis (ugh!) from a previous election, "This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." I don't have a lot of confidence in John Kerry, and in a more typical election, I would not vote for him, but I believe that George W. Bush has demonstrated that he is dangerously incompetent and completely unfit to be president. Giving him another four years in office is simply something we can't afford to do.

Another issue: If we want to invade and occupy foreign coutries, we can't have tax cuts. Wars and occupations are a lot more expensive than the entitlement programs that Republicans (rightly, IMO, in many cases) so vehemently oppose. Sometimes war is unavoidable and necessary. I don't believe that was the case for Iraq. However, if we are going to fight a war, we need to pay for it. Trying to fight a war and cut taxes, or embark on massive new spending programs (as LBJ did during the Vietnam war) is a recipe for economic disaster. Deficits now are probably unavoidable, but we do not need to compound the problem by cutting taxes in wartime.

[jdl22]

The Spanish government led by the Partido Popular of Aznar refused to accept that the bombings were clearly not a result of ETA and had no similarity with ETA bombings except that there were bombs involved. As such they proved totally inept in investigating and defending the Spanish people. After the election things turned around.

Draw your own conclusions.

[MMMMMM]

Yeah, like THAT mattered to them more than the threat.

Besides, the investigation was just getting underway so criticizing the incumbent party too strongly for their stated presumptions would not be all that valid at that point anyway.

[MMMMMM]

So what do you think of the strategy of appeasement...overall, that is, as relates to European history? Do you think the Spanish might have learned anything applicable from history?

[MMMMMM]

Good choice. Even the air at Foxwoods seems never fresh.

[Greg J]

Spot on analysis! The only thing I would add to that is the appearance of the PP trying to politicize the event, which I'm not sure they actively tried to do. It sure did look that way.

I think if Anzar and his govt had not fumbled this whole situation they would have easily retained power. There would have been a rally effect and they probably would have done better than the polls were predicting.

[Greg J]

you are getting the facts wrong. The investigation had was suggesting it was not ETA very soon after the bombing.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Spot on analysis! The only thing I would add to that is the appearance of the PP trying to politicize the event, which I'm not sure they actively tried to do. It sure did look that way.

I think if Anzar and his govt had not fumbled this whole situation they would have easily retained power. There would have been a rally effect and they probably would have done better than the polls were predicting.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you are saying the Spanish electorate thought the political fumble more important than the Islamist threat--so much so that it warranted a reversal of course from the "rally" effect. That then means the Spanish electorate, if not appeasement-minded, certainly appears to have their priorities out of whack.

[MMMMMM]

The point I'm trying to make was that any early speculations or assignments of likely culpability should not be great cause for blame; nor should a bit of politicking weigh nearly as heavily as actual Islamist blackmail and mass murder.

Sounds like the electorate took their cue from the French prior to WWII;-)

As for a Socialist being elected--hasn't the EU seen enough damage to economies already from socialism? Why do the Europeans never seem to learn from history? Appeasement never works; socialist economies are sluggish and grow slowly; when will they ever learn? Is not over half a century more than ample time to digest the lessons of history??

[Greg J]

you seem to be determined to think about this a certain way.

If god forbid a terrorist attack happend a few days before a major election in this country, and the Bush Administration immediately blamed our own domestic terrorists -- white supremisists in Montana. Except all the evidence pointed to Islamic fundamentalists. They administration reasserted it was domestic terrorists, but more and more evidence came out against that, and the govt just kept refusing to accept it was not a domestic terrorist group...

3 days later you are in a voting booth. Yes, that overcomes a rally effect!

[Greg J]

I'm sorry -- but you obviously know little about the EU or European governments, all of which are in the process of freeing up thier economies to more capitalistic policies. If you have opinions about socialism, fine. It is not the most effective economy -- I will agree with you one that. But european countries are not socialist. Even the "socialist" parties (in germany, UK, all over) have supported market reforms over the past decade. THAT IS WHAT THE EU IS ABOUT: market reforms!

Having a position is one thing, but making up facts to support your own arguments does not foster good debate.

[MMMMMM]

The government did not say it was certainly ETA, only that they thought it was probably ETA. The Islamic terrorist blackmail and mass murders should weigh FAR more heavily than that.

[MMMMMM]

Well, Zapatero is of the Socialist Party--right or wrong?

[nicky g]

M,
If i make it there, you'll be one of the first to know. Enjoy the good weather.
All the best,
NG.

[nicky g]

Yeah I figured you couldn't be too far being in Rhode Island. I've not been to either yet, although one of my wife's best friends lives within 5 mins of Mohegan, and some other good friend in Boston. That's why I think I might make it there this summer. In purely poker terms I'd rather go back to the Borgata, but apparently that's "not an option" /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

But european countries are not socialist.

No offense, but what do you call France? besides, some of us here think the US is already too socialist.

[nicky g]

"No offense, but what do you call France?"

France is a mixed economy like most others. It has more state control in certain areas than the states, but it's not a socialist economy. It's "more" socialist than the US, but supply and demand is the arbiter of price in many, probably most, of its markets.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Well, to me, a mixed economy *is* socialism. May not be the accepted definition in econ and poly-sci circles, but it is in libertarian circles. But that's yet another topic for discussion over drinks in front of the waterfall at Mohegan.

[nicky g]

Indeed /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. My grasp of economics is poor but I am trying hard to teach myself. Currently reading a freshman econ textbook. It's looking almost certain that I'll be in Boston at least this summer (found cheap flights this morning) so CT here I come, let's hope. Woo!

[ACPlayer]

Is that how long it will be before patience runs out and we pull the troops out of Iraq, proclaim victory and let the poor sots pick up the little pieces of their lives.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
You already know the arguements for going to war with Iraq. Do you really need me to repeat them simply because you don't agree with them?



[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so what is the reason du jour for going to war. The official reason has changed every few weeks. Is there any leader in the administration/congress who has consistently held the same position on why we went to war? The reasons have all been spin.

[frizzfreeling]

You already know the arguements for going to war with Iraq. Do you really need me to repeat them simply because you don't agree with them?

Uhh... Weapons of Mass Destruction, which weren't found. Ties between Alkeida and Saddam's regime, which are unfounded to date. Please don't tell me that WMD was not the reason that we went to war, as I hear so many say now. All I ever heard from the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq was WMD, WMD, and on and on about WMD. It wasn't until afterwards, when the WMD never showed up, that we started hearing about "human rights violations" by Saddam's regime. Although I agree that the human rights issue is VERY important, it was not the reason Bush chose to invade, to the dismay of the vast majority of the world.

[frizzfreeling]

Dynasty,
You and many here also forget (or dont know), that the U.S in WWII did not enter the war in europe until Germany declared war on us. The decision was not FDR's. Hitler made it easy by declaring war on the U.S. following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor even though he was not obliged to under the axis pact. Dubya, on the other hand, chose to invade a country that had to that point posed no discernable threat to the United States.

[frizzfreeling]

During World War II, the American military attacked and occurpied quite a few countries that were not called Germany, Japan, or Italy. In North Africa, in the Pacific, and in western Europe, quite a few governments fell that weren't interested in American (or British/Canadian) occupation.

Ok, im game...what countries were these? The landings in Tunisia, Morocco, and Algiers were welcomed by the populations due to the fact that the Axis powers were quickly sweeping over North Africa. The battles to remove Rommel from Libya and Egypt were also welcomed as a liberation, not a takeover. How about Sicily? The only forces opposing the Allies there were Axis forces, not sicilian, who once again welcomed Allied forces. What countries exactly are you talking about that we "attacked" without general consent from either governments in exile or the general population when a government was obliterated by the Axis conquest?