Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (5549)	3/17/2004 4:42:15 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Didn't 9-11 win 2002 election for Bush? Uh, AS, hate to tell you this bud, but Bush didn't run for anything in the 2002 elections. Time to get a new calendar.

To: American Spirit who wrote (5549)	3/17/2004 8:26:44 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Terror and Democracy The bombers "voted," and Aznar's party lost in Spain. opinionjournal.com REVIEW & OUTLOOK Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST So, in their wisdom, Spanish voters ousted the ruling Popular Party on Sunday and elected the Socialists. Only three days after 10 bombs killed 200 in Madrid, this exercise in free choice shows the difference between terror and democracy. But there's also no denying that the world's terrorists will take away a different, and more dangerous, lesson from the Spanish vote: That by murdering innocents they were able to topple one of the pillars of the Western anti-terror alliance. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party, which brought prosperity in eight years of rule and forged a strong bond with the U.S., had seemed headed for victory before Thursday's attacks. We aren't among those who think the Spanish have repudiated everything Mr. Aznar stood for. A switch of only a few percentage points determined the outcome, and in the wake of Thursday's violence a public outpouring in favor of saying "enough!" is perhaps understandable. A similar wave of fear swept the U.S. after September 11--until it could be tempered by leadership and shaped into a new national resolve. The Socialists were thus able to exploit the bombings by arguing that somehow they were caused by Mr. Aznar's alliance with America. "Thank You Aznar for al Qaeda Terror," read a banner at a rally in Barcelona. The Socialists were helped by the tactical mistake of the Aznar government in insisting that the bombers had been from the Basque ETA, even as evidence built that Islamists linked to al Qaeda may have been responsible. The Socialists cynically cried "coverup" without any evidence, but the charge played amid Spanish grief. The temptation will be to over-interpret all of this as a sign of general anti-terror fatigue in the West. Certainly the terrorists will see it that way, helped along by Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. In a radio interview yesterday, Mr. Zapatero declared that the 1,300 Spanish soldiers serving in Iraq will now "obviously" be called home. "The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation is a disaster," he said. So the terrorists will conclude that, with an investment of only a dozen backpack bombs, they were able to rout a major power. They are sure to try the same thing elsewhere in Europe, and almost certainly between now and the November elections in the U.S. We doubt that an America that has already endured 9/11 would react as the Spanish have, but now is the time for President Bush to begin preparing the public for the worst. The illusion that it is possible to purchase peace with appeasement or neutrality is always powerful in any war. The burden of self-defense is expensive and painful. The British preferred Chamberlain to Churchill in the late 1930s, while millions marched in Europe in 1982 against Ronald Reagan's deployment of nuclear missiles to deter the Soviet Union. Mr. Aznar has good historical company. We also believe he will be vindicated by history just as those earlier leaders were. In a world of open borders, no democracy can protect itself from terror simply by declaring itself a non-combatant. Mr. Zapatero may blame the Iraq war for the bombings, but the Islamic group that claimed credit said in its videotape that "This is a response to the crimes that you have committed in the world and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan." Well before Iraq, French engineers were killed in Karachi and German tourists butchered in Tunisia. Islamic terrorism had planted deep roots in Europe long before 9/11. Al Qaeda operatives wanted to blow up the Christmas market in Strasbourg. The September 11 plot was hatched in Europe, and Mohammed Atta, a Hamburg resident, finalized his plans in Spain. Soon after, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama's number two, denounced "the tragedy of al-Andalus"--the reconquest of Spain by Christians, completed in 1492--making clear that the enemy is all of Western society. Mr. Zapatero may soon discover that terrorism will not vanish simply because he has won an election. If the Basque ETA has made common cause with some al Qaeda offshoots, he will have no political choice but to be as hawkish as Mr. Aznar. His government also has obligations. Poland's left-wing government, whose 2,300 soldiers work alongside the Spaniards in Iraq, yesterday called on Mr. Zapatero to honor his country's commitments. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is about taking the battle to the terrorists so that we have fewer attacks on our airlines and railways at home. In Iraq especially, Spanish soldiers are helping drain the terror swamp by building a democracy at its Middle East source. To his own and his country's great credit, Mr. Aznar was far-sighted enough to see that if this effort succeeds the entire world will benefit. The emotional wave that elected Mr. Zapatero will soon fade, but the wisdom about terrorism that motivated Mr. Aznar will remain.

To: American Spirit who wrote (5549)	3/17/2004 8:32:52 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Kerry and Spain The U.S. loses an ally, and the Senator has little to say. opinionjournal.com Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST John Kerry could well be the next President of the United States. How his administration would fight the war on terror--especially in Iraq--is therefore of paramount importance to voters as they decide between him and George W. Bush next November. Yet this would-be-leader of the free world has yet to tell Americans how he'd manage the war--other than that he wants the United Nations more involved, somehow. Mr. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, and even though he opposed the $87 billion to finish the job he insists the U.S. can't afford to "cut and run." That's nice to hear, but voters want to know if he means it. A golden opportunity to show that he does occurred this weekend with the Spanish election results. Spain is a key U.S. ally in Iraq, yet the incoming Spanish Prime Minister says he'll withdraw his country's forces there by June 30--just in time for the sensitive handover to Iraqi control. The loss of 1,300 Spanish troops is a major setback for U.S. policy. Even worse, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has spent two days claiming that U.S.-British policy was built on "lies," that the occupation has been a "disaster," and that his goal is to shift Madrid's allegiance back toward France and Germany. All of this is a splendid chance for Mr. Kerry to step up and defend American interests. At the very least, he might call Mr. Zapatero's remarks unfortunate. He could express sympathy for the Spanish people but go on to say that all Americans, no matter what their party and differences on strategy, stand united in fighting terrorism and won't be stampeded by threats. He might also note that the war on terror will require help from all nations and urge Mr. Zapatero to reconsider his intention to separate Spain from the U.S. Alas, so far these are all might-have-saids. Here is what Mr. Kerry did say about Spain in a speech Monday to a firefighters union. We quote in full: "I think this Administration has it backwards. President Bush says we can't afford to fund homeland security. I say we can't afford not to. When it comes to protecting America from terrorism, this Administration is big on bluster and short on action. But as we saw again last week in Spain--real action is what we need. The Bush Administration is tinkering while the clock on homeland security is ticking. And we don't have a moment to waste." Mr. Kerry then renewed his call for the federal government to hire 100,000 new firefighters. That's it. That's the sole reference in the speech to what is arguably the largest setback in the war on terror since 9/11. Instead of addressing the issues at stake in Iraq, his instinct was to dodge them. Instead of conviction, there was the whiff of opportunism. Senator Kerry placed Spanish events not in the context of U.S. foreign policy but of American homeland security--as if the main lesson of Madrid is that we must better protect our railways. Can't some sober Democrats out there get their candidate to do any better than this? Not only for the good of the country but for his own political sake. If Senator Kerry does become President, he won't find it easier to succeed in Iraq if our allies have cut and run. And while Spain may be able to move down on the list of al Qaeda targets, the U.S. will always be target one. A President Kerry would hardly want terrorists concluding that they can determine the outcome of democratic elections with a few well-placed bombs. In purely political terms, Mr. Kerry needs to start sounding more like a leader if he wants any chance to win. The latest New York Times/CBS poll found that just 33% of respondents have confidence in Mr. Kerry's ability "to deal wisely with an international crisis," compared with 53% for Mr. Bush. Asked whether the candidate "is likely to protect the country from a terrorist attack," 61% said "yes" for Mr. Kerry while 78% believed Mr. Bush would do so. Mr. Kerry has a big image problem on national security. If he wants voters to trust him with the White House, Mr. Kerry will have to do more than say the right thing about fighting terror. He will have to show that he recognizes U.S. interests and is willing to fight for them. The flap this week over Mr. Kerry's invocation of support from foreign "leaders" is so damaging mainly because it suggests the Senator puts his own electoral prospects above those interests. Spain can afford a leader who exploits a wartime setback for political gain; the world's only superpower cannot.

To: American Spirit who wrote (5549)	3/17/2004 8:36:57 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Tanks for the Memories Next to John Kerry, Michael Dukakis was a hawk. opinionjournal.com Wall Street Journal BY BRENDAN MINITER Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST John Kerry is right about one thing: He's no Michael Dukakis. A look at the record shows that in his bid for the White House in 1988, Massachusetts' then-governor ran to Mr. Kerry's right on national defense. Mr. Kerry has not repudiated his opposition to the weapon systems Mr. Dukakis promised to support. Everyone remembers the pathetic image of Mr. Dukakis riding around in a tank while wearing a goofy helmet. But few remember why he staged that photo-op in the first place. Mr. Dukakis was fighting to overcome the impression that he had what Henry Kissinger called a "visceral, negative" attitude toward the military--a fatal problem for a Cold War presidential candidate. Being part of the Democratic Party was a hindrance. Many Democrats spent much of the 1980s fighting for the nuclear-freeze movement. Mr. Kerry joined the movement in 1982, during his successful campaign to become Mr. Dukakis's lieutenant governor, and he used many of its appendage groups in Massachusetts when he sought an open Senate seat in 1984. These were the intellectuals behind the rabble in the streets who protested things like deploying nuclear missiles to Turkey to counter the Soviets SS-23s. But they did much more than oppose building or deploying nukes. They believed so strongly in "mutually assured destruction"--neither side would start a nuclear war if it was clear neither side could win such a war--that they also opposed just about any weapon system that would give America a tactical advantage over the Soviets. That's why President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (which opponents derided as "star wars") was so vehemently opposed. And it's why Mr. Kerry and others voted against funding Trident II submarine launchers, stealth bombers and even the M1 Abrams Tank. Mr. Dukakis understood the political reality that he had to close his party's credibility gap on defense without alienating politicians like Mr. Kerry. So he tried to have his cake and eat it too. Mr. Dukakis promised to cut funding for SDI but not to kill the program altogether. He also offered qualified support to the Trident II and stealth bomber projects as well as to consider ways to get around his budget concerns regarding Midgetman missile launchers. But the bulk of his military program called for spending more money on "traditional" military hardware. He wanted more tanks, not more nukes. To pull off this feat, Mr. Dukakis drew close to "Defense Democrats" like Rep. Les Aspin and Sen. Sam Nunn, then chairmen of the Armed Services Committees in their respective chambers. He wanted to show that he wasn't the equivocating "liberal," Vice President George Bush said he was, but in fact had the support of hawks within his party. On Sept. 11, 1988, a group of Defense Democrats made a public show of meeting Mr. Dukakis to press him on, among other things, dropping the "ifs" and "buts" when voicing support for stealth bombers and Trident II missiles. After the meeting they publicly proclaimed him to be sound on defense. The next day Mr. Dukakis went into the tank for the famous photo. The voters understood that Mr. Dukakis wasn't really a hawk, and he became a laughingstock for trying to convince them otherwise. On Election Day Mr. Bush trounced him. Now that defense is again central to the presidential campaign, Mr. Kerry will have to explain why voters should trust him to combat terrorism when, in the face of the Soviet threat, he favored an even weaker military than Mr. Dukakis did. Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.