The defeat of Spain's right-wing government, days after that country's worst ever terror attack, has deprived the Bush regime of an important European ally. The Socialists' unexpected victory was widely attributed to voter reaction to Thursday's train bombings in Madrid, which killed 201 people. Analysts said many voters believed the government's decision to support an illegal and unjustified war had made Spain more of a target than it otherwise would have been. More importantly, Spanish voters were outraged by the their government's dishonest, politically motivated insistence that Basque separatists were behind the bombings. It has since emerged that the government knew the attacks were the work of al-Qaida, but instructed officials to blame ETA guerrillas.

Alarm bells are ringing in several Western capitals, as governments begin to worry about the political consequences of collaborating with Bush’s Iraq War. Elections are due later this year in several other countries in Europe and Asia that supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Like the outgoing Spanish conservatives, the governments of Britain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and Japan all supported the war. They did so in defiance of the strong anti-war opposition of 70-90 percent of their populations. All face elections of some type this year. We have just seen regime change in Spain, who will be next?

This topic is so hot that at least one thread has been closed down. Here's one that has survived so far...

IN a word, Shrub!!!

This is sounding so eerily like Europe of the 1930's, when the masses just didn't want to get involved in what was eventually to be the Nazi threat. It was no wonder why Neville was praised when he returned from kissing Hitler's ass.

Somehow, I wouldn't doubt it if Uncle Adolph is laughing right now.

Appeasement does not work. Europe will learn this again--the hard way.

Spain Pulls Troops, Al-Qaeda Calls Truce

CAIRO (Reuters) - A group claiming to have links with al-Qaeda said on Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, a pan-Arab newspaper said.

In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations.

"Because of this decision, the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories ... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq," the statement said.

"And we repeat this to all the brigades present in European lands: Stop all operations."

An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as al-Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the U.S.-led Iraq war.

In a shock election result three days after the Madrid bombs, Spain voted in the Socialist party, which has since said it will probably withdraw its troops from Iraq.

"The Spanish people ... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said.

WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States. "Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.

The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

Where do you come up with this stuff? The "masses" in a number of countries WERE opposed to the Nazi threat. Tory Neville, like many members of the GOP of that era, didn't think AH was going to be too much of a problem. Joe Kennedy, like two of the Mitford girls, found him charming. (FDR had enough and brought him back). Prescott Bush even made some money with the Führer's government. But then the right wing parties in Germany, along with the Catholic Center party, allowed him to seize power in the first place. They thought they could "control" the assassin. And the rest is history...can't blame either Chamberlain or the disastrous 1933 pseudo-elections in Germany, as you are wont, on the Left.

And the Nazi monster's name was "Adolf." But then, are you saying Osama is AH? Weren't you claiming Saddam held that distinction? So then who's supposed to represented murderous arch-Commie Stalin? He was a friend for a while, you know...maybe Saddam, who had socialistic tendencies. OK.

The right just won in Greece--is Greece supporting W? Nope. The radical Greek right and left cannot stand the U.S.A. And I sincerely hope that the US has convinced Greece that extreme security measures at the Olympic Games are ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE!

Nobody is going to topple Berlusconi in Italy, not the judges, not the opposition--he basically runs the country like his personal plaything (he owns most of the media--same difference). Who else sided with W? Poland? Kwasniewski--I think that's his name--isn't going to fall. Romania? Hungary? Didn't a right-wing government win there last fall?

Among the anti-W types: The corruption scandal in France may topple its right-wing government, but then rightist Chirac doesn't get along with rightist W, and France opposed the war. Blair leads a moderate government, though his party once was the Socialist party of Britain. He's not falling. Putin...he just seized, I mean, was re-elected and controls everything too--and he's no Berlusconi, just an ex-KGB head.

So really, Spain is an isolated case. Is there ANY ONE of these countries--and I haven't mentioned the Socialists in Germany, or the rightists in Austria--who are going to let Islamic terrorism run amok in their borders at this point? I doubt it. All of them realize the dangers--and this would include other EU members like the Czech Republic, Ireland, Portugal, etc. No one wants another Madrid or their own 9/11, or even the nationalist versions of Islamism France has dealt with for over a decade.

There's always Australia, but then Howard has managed to hang on. Pakistan's ex-dictator has done the same--he's hanging on by a wing and a prayer, and the radical Islamists haven't taken over. Japan--wouldn't Al Qaeda stick out there like a sequoia?--and doesn't the Liberal Democratic party stay in office no matter what? Who does that leave: Saudi Arabia? They're already trying to cover their butts and deal with the mess they've bred.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I have to agree with Fantomas on this, Spain is an isolated case. The rest of the "Coalition of the Billing" is firmly in place mostly due to local politics.

The election in Spain did turn as a result of the terrorist attack - not as resentment at the government for supporting Mush - but because Officials initially blamed Basque insurgents. Spaniards, like many free people, don't like it when their government lies to them and voted accordingly.

Mush should take note that when Leaders lie, sometimes people get mad and vote them out.

I'm a little surprised that Zapatero hasn't tried to tone down the impression (wide-spread here) that his government's reaction to terrorism is one of appeasement. Spain pulling its troops out of Iraq is exactly what al Qaeda wanted them to do, and for Spain to do it now, just as the perpetrators of the attack call a "truce" against Spain for doing so does look like appeasement. The truth is Spanish Socialists campaigned on pulling out of Iraq well before the terrorist attack - but this message is getting lost in the media. And Zapatero's own comments have helped to form the impression that he doesn't like Dumahu - unfortunately that comes across as not liking America.

One additional sad thing about this attack - it actually helps Mush here. It further reinforces the impression that to be strong confronting terrorists and not be a European appeaser, Americans should vote for the bomb first ask questions later cowboy from Texas rather than the French speaking New England aristocrat.

James Pinkerton has it right in Salon:

Dang i thought Archie Bunker was leaving the PnR... sheesh.

CUBA #1!!!!! YEAH MAN!

Learn to read. Your belch on Cuba is up to your usual standards; I note you abstained from the original thread. Gutless.

[ March 19, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Polish President Says Misled About Iraq
First hint of criticism about war from Poland
Associated Press – March 19, 2004

WARSAW, Poland – Poland, which has about 2,400 troops in Iraq and was a strong supporter of the U.S.-led invasion, was "misled" about the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, its president said Thursday.

The remarks by President Aleksander Kwasniewski to a small group of European reporters were his first hint of criticism about war in Iraq.

Earlier in the day, Kwasniewski said Poland may start withdrawing its troops from Iraq early next year, months earlier than the previously stated date of mid-2005.

Naturally, one may protest the reasons for the war action in Iraq. I personally think that today, Iraq without Saddam Hussein is a truly better Iraq than with Saddam Hussein," Kwasniewski told the European reporters.

"But naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction," he said, according to a transcript released by the presidential press office.

Comments follow criticism from Spain
Those comments came days after Spain’s new government, taking power in the wake of the Madrid bombings with their apparent link to Islamic extremists, said it would pull its troops from Iraq by June 30 unless the United Nations takes over.

"Everything suggests that pullout from Iraq may be possible after the stabilization mission is crowned with success and, in my assessment soon, it may be the start of 2005," Kwasniewski told RMF-FM radio.

Poland commands a 9,500-strong multinational force in south-central Iraq that includes the Spaniards.

He noted that Iraq now has an interim constitution and said it should soon have an interim government that will allow current forces to be replaced by peacekeepers.

He insisted, however, that Poland was staying the course in Iraq and would not bow to terror.

"We are facing the same threat as Spain," Kwasniewski said, but he stressed that "terrorism must be combated, also with force."

******************************

How long will it be before the Poles come to their senses and join the Spanish in exiting Iraq?

I agree with everything the PM-elect has said about the war, but yes, I too was struck by the tone & directness of his criticism of the war & of Bush & Blair. Other countries also refused to support W's bogus adventure, but we never would have heard this kind of language coming from Jean Chrétien or even Gerhard Schroeder. How dare Mr. Zapatero speak to his own electorate rather than placate the U.S. media & the smear-&-spin machine!

But the point is that it's obvious that Mr. Zapatero hasn't much familiarity with the politics of image, American-style. With near unanimity the U.S. punditocracy has already slotted him into the role of "gutless appeasing coward". Might as well go ahead & paint the umbrella in his hand. Now the challenge for Rove is to link him & his view to the Democratic Party & John Kerry, no difficult task considering that Zapatero stated point-blank, on-record, that he wants John Kerry to win. It does give me pause to imagine the ways this would be presented in the American media & used by the Bushies for purposes of smear.

But still, my first thoughts when reading his comments were "right on!". The war in Iraq has been a disaster. It has increased rather than decreased terrorist attacks. It was based on lies & fabricated intelligence. In a democracy there has to be accountability. (Does anyone care to lay odds on Bush "engaging in some self-criticism", as the Spanish PM-elect has advised?) The truth always finds a way to come out, & it is truly joyous to watch the "coalition" crumble & the Bush project in Iraq collapse under the weight of all the delusions, lies & deceit.

[ March 19, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

I, for one, plan on voting against Bush whether or not there is another attack on US soil (God help us). I think there are ample arguments for such a vote:

- I was going to do so anyway b/c I think his domestic policies favor the wealthy and connected and his foreign policy isolates us from allies we occasionally need

and in the event of another attack:
- why have we suffered yet another intelligence failure?
- we trusted you with a few of our civil liberties (Patriot Act), yet you failed to protect us, etc...

Regime Change in Italy Next?

ROME, Mar 20 (IPS) - Spain and Italy saw some of the biggest demonstrations Saturday marking one year since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Some 40,000 marched in Seville, while a protest in Rome drew at least 350,000. Aside from Britain, Spain and Italy were the two European governments most closely tied to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Italy also saw a massive turnout of protesters. About 250,000 came out to demonstrate in Rome, according to local authorities, although organizers said the number was closer to two million.

That led to questions about Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Is he headed in the same direction as former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar? If Italians could have voted Saturday, few would bet it could be otherwise.

Like Aznar, Berlusconi was an enthusiast supporter of the invasion of Iraq led by U.S. President George W. Bush. Like the recently defeated Aznar, he took the decision to support the war in the face of overwhelming opposition from his own people. A year ago the anti-war demonstrations in Rome were the biggest in the world, with more than two million taking to the streets.

This time the anti-war protest in Rome was fed by the involvement of more than 2,000 civil society organizations. Hundreds of special trains and buses from all over Italy began to arrive in Rome from early in the morning. The demonstration began an hour ahead of time because there was no space left for more demonstrations coming in.

The rally in Rome, like hundreds of others around the world, was more than a protest over the invasion of Iraq, or over the continuing occupation of it. Demonstrators here wanted "the end of all wars".

Demonstrators in Italy who had produced the famous rainbow coloured peace flags last year carried peace banners this year, and Palestinian and Kurdish flags.

"This is an expression of solidarity with the Iraqi people and with the victims of all wars," Flavio Lotti, a member of the 'Stop the War' committee which organised the rally told media representatives.

Four 'peace caravans' have been touring Italy since the beginning of this month to drum up support against war.

Italy has paid a price for its participation in the occupation of Iraq. A bomb blast killed 17 Italian soldiers in Nassiriya Nov. 12 last year. The big demonstration Saturday could be indication that Berlusconi will pay a political price for supporting the war.