Comments on “Madrid: Good News, Bad News”

1. Thanks for the link, Josh.

   Paul Jané on March 15th, 2004 at 12:37 am

2. While your premise for this article is intrigueing, I think the al-Qaeda assumption that attacking before the general election to get a Democrat elected would be a foolish presumption. Another attack ala 9/11 or the Madrid bombings would bring a harsh response from the US —no matter who is president. Remember that Clinton sent troops several places overseas (Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, etc) for humanitarian reasons, so its safe to say that Dems would react violently to another attack on US soil.

   capt.taco on March 16th, 2004 at 10:47 am

3. Rob, I agree that it’d be a foolish presumption on al-Qaeda’s part to think an attack would get Kerry elected. The political environment here is vastly different from over there. But given that Rodriguez raised the French white flag over his country’s efforts in Iraq within 24 hours of his election, it’s hard to see how this won’t encourage them to try a potential election-changing attack again, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere (Australia?).

   And I’m not convinced that Democrats would “react violently” to another attack on U.S. soil. It didn’t happen after the ‘93 WTC bombing, they’re more beholden to the hard-left (MoveOn.org/ANSWER) now than they were with Clinton and the DLC types in power, and Kerry says he views anti-terrorism efforts as primarily a law enforcement matter.

   Josh on March 16th, 2004 at 11:51 am

4. “Remember that Clinton sent troops several places overseas (Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, etc) for humanitarian reasons, so its safe to say that Dems would react violently to another attack on US soil.”

   I have to agree with Josh. You’ll notice that all those are purely humanitarian. Many on the left seem to think that no military action should take place by the US, unless we have no real national interest in the matter (basically: no oil, no national security either), or unless the UN tells us to. Responses to attacks during recent democratic presidencies have tended toward “half-hearted.” (half-@$$3d?)

   Sorry if you think I’m trolling. But is sure seems to be true, given the evidence.

   Ach on March 17th, 2004 at 9:45 pm

5. Did Clinton not bomb Iraq for virtually the entirety of his second term? There was no humanitarian interest there, so Ach I think you need to consider all of the facts “evidence” before you paint democrats. (Josh and I tend to prefer conservative/liberal markings, since Democrat/Republican are so blurred in relation to actual political sentiment. e.g., I’d vote for John McCain over Kerry in a heartbeat, eventhough he’s republican)

   And before you go on about bombing Iraq as a “half-@$$3d” response, consider that perhaps Clinton’s response was proportionate, in both the eyes of our military and our world allies. The U.N. mandate that Bush used to justify the invasion liberation of Iraq came long after Clinton left office. Of course if you’re an imperialist and feel that the only good diplomacy is military action, then I’m sure every president since Teddy was half-hearted in your mind.

   As for the ‘93 WTC bombings, it was the bombing of al-Qaeda training camps and the increase intelligence priority they recieved after the bombing that led to the mountain of intelligence that appeared after the 2001 version of the WTC attack. Again, a proportionate response and the fruits of the response aided in the current success of the war on terror. If recognizing that we are the lone super-power in the world and using that power responsibly is “half-@$$3d”, then well I guess I’m a half-@$$3d kind of person too since I value responsibility in leadership. (isn’t that a marquee quality of leadership that republicans conservatives run on every election year?)

   capt.taco on March 23rd, 2004 at 10:51 am

6. There is so much wrong with your response that I don’t know where to begin. I’ll point to this (doubtlessly biased, but there’s an awful lot of truth in there) article which covers much of what Clinton did with regards to terrorism & the middle east.

   Front Page Mag Article (warning: long!)

   That said, I accept the rebuke as per “Josh and I tend to prefer conservative/liberal markings, since Democrat/Republican are so blurred in relation to actual political sentiment. e.g., I’d vote for John McCain over Kerry in a heartbeat, eventhough he’s republican”. I’m guilty of being imprecise on the matter & often use Democrat & liberal interchangably. Truly there are many liberal Republicans & many, er, a couple conservative Democrats. ;-)

   Ach on March 28th, 2004 at 10:12 pm