Spain rocked by 4 seperate bombs by Terrorist Group Etta

Bottom line: If you're a useful idiot, unwittingly doing the bidding of terrorists,
i.e., the way the Spanish people allowed the Madrid train bombings to affect their elections...it doesn't matter to those terrorists. Useful or not, you're still just another infidel to them, and you have just as big of a bullseye on your back as somebody who defies them.

 

i like spain, spain is awesome. but i feel terrible for them and the bad decisions they have made recently. we have a pretty terrible global problem on our hands (although it appears this particular blast was no big deal) and only our guns and bombs and the spread of free capitalist democracies can fix it.

 

This goes to show that George Bush is on the right track and that the way the Democrats deal with this stuff is just not right.
They better do some evaluations of their policies or they are doomed to lose in 08 unless terrorism disappears from the face of the earth before then.

They need to evaluate their ideas and thinking about what should be done to fight terrorism, treating it like a criminal action don't cut it.
Thats why Americans died in the USA and overseas during the Clinton Administration.

Can you say Blackhawk Down?
The weaker you look the more they will attack you and show NO MERCY.

 

I do not believe that the Spanish people

went into the polling booth to appease the terrorists, but they might as well have, since that became the general perception. I'm sure Al Qaeda shared that perception.

Aznar had been seen as the candidate best suited to fight terrorism, and the immediate media analysis following the Madrid bombings was that his party would benefit from the national outrage. But there was some sort of bizarre backlash when he erroneously blamed Basque separatists without much evidence, and then was forced to retract that accusation to blame Al Qaeda. So while he was still the anti-terrorism candidate in the public eye, he was also the dishonest one. (Maybe Spain has higher standards for her presidents.)

At any rate, the effect was the same: they allowed the event to change the outcome of the election.

 

I really don't think Aznar was dishonest. I think he jumped to conclusions. When I first heard about the Madrid train bomb, I too immediately suspected ETA, not Al-Qaida. It took a few days to get that sorted out.

At the time, the election in Spain was so tight that any event such as that could swing it one way or another. And enough people in Spain freaked out that they decided "peace at any price" was the way to go. The Socialists only beat the PP 50-48 %, I believe.

 

Quite true. But why don't you tell the whole story, Red?

Pres. Bush sent Marines into Somalia on a HUMANITARIAN AID mission. Once they withdrew, the warlords in the region began fighting amongst themselves and confiscating the supplies brought in by the Marines, using
them to starve the people into submission. That's when Bill Clinton sent in Delta Force and Army Rangers in a "peacekeeping" capacity...a gross misuse
of such military units, BTW.

In any event, if, as in a prior paragraph, you're going to state that
3,000 people died as a result of terrorism on George W. Bush's watch, you also have to acknowledge the fact that Mogadishu occurred on Bill Clinton's watch. Fair is fair.

 

Red,
What Gman said!

Oh btw, the democrats had NOTHING to do with the Madrid bombings.
It just proves my point on why the democrats policies are wrong, Kerry said himself
that we needed to get back to the days were terrorism is a nuisance.
He also said that we would have to pass the global test and go through the UN when the UN is the #1 problem we have outside of terrorism.
We could NEVER pass the global test since the UN, France, Germany, etc. were making
illegal deals with Saddam while Saddam was sponsering terrorists and paying suicide
bombers families.

I mean from Kerry and the democrats own mouths it sounds like they want to handle terrorism like the Clinton Administration did as a criminal action.

You say republicans don't fight more effective wars and the defense belongs to all of us, I challenge you to prove this but I doubt you can.
I'm not talking about Truman, JFK or anybody else going back in history.
I'm talking about Carter vs Reagan, Bush vs Clinton.
In recent history you won't find it.

Just like Kerrys voting record and the past election, democrats are soft on National Defense where Republicans are strong.
This is no secret or nothing new last I heard.