perfidy

Howard Dean has blamed the Madrid bombings on President Bush.

Nedra Pickler, Associated Press, 3/17/2004

WASHINGTON -- Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said yesterday that President Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq appears to have contributed to the bombing deaths of 201 people in Spain.

I guess it's too much of a stretch to blame the bombings on, you know, the terrorists who planted the bombs. Rank Jackassery. Kerry's people rapidly backpedaled from the claim, made on a conference call organized by the Kerry campaign. Asked about the comment on his campaign plane Wednesday, Kerry said, "It's not our position." Well gee, that's good.

Dean clarified his comment last night, saying belatedly that there is no justification for terrorism and called the Madrid bombing, "a despicable act." If that's the case, why blame it on Bush in the first place?

Check this out. A very good read.

You can argue all you like about the lack of WMD, and all the attendant bullshit surrounding them - but the United States has clearly performed a good and noble act in liberating Iraq. We have eliminated a tyranny, we have freed a people.

The antiwar position can dance all it likes, but when it comes down to it, if you didn’t want the war you wanted Saddam to remain in power. The left used to criticize the right (correctly, in some cases) for support of dictators. Now, the left's kneejerk opposition to anything that the US does is support for islamofascism, and for police states that oppress their own people.

When the US does something stupid or cruel, all thinking people should oppose it. But when the United States moves to eliminate tyranny, to liberate millions, we should be applauding, not waving forty year old signs and wearing giant puppet heads.

Further, the perfect is the enemy of the good. No human endeavor is perfect. To scream that the sky is falling (quagmire!) everytime something goes wrong is frankly retarded. Criticism is good, when it is intended to correct. We have made mistakes in Iraq, but we have also corrected them. We improve. But much of the criticism aimed at US actions in Iraq seems to have the goal of ending, not improving. At convincing the American public that Iraq is a disaster zone (quagmire!) where American soldiers are being killed to no good purpose.

It pisses me off.

Johno's last post, Is Tehran Burning? raises some important questions. And not just regarding the remarkable silence of the major media outlets on events in Iran, Syria, and public opinion in Iraq. But first, the media issue:

Consider that our political leadership has committed the United States to a wide-ranging war on terror - not just those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but terrorists in general and the nations that support them. Is the media so blinkered that they cannot perceive that this means that several other countries are crucial to the success of this endeavor? We know that America has adopted a policy of change in the Middle East (and elsewhere) and we named the initial targets - Iraq, Iran and North Korea. To be sure, there is extensive and largely negative coverage of the war in Iraq, but that story is so obvious that even the media knows to cover it.

Why nothing on Iran except for occasional stories about Iran's nuclear program? It is well known in the blogosphere that the Iranian people are deeply unhappy with their government, and that there have been huge protests, and now violent unrest. You'd think that someone at CNN would make the connection between the libervasion of Iraq and the hopes and actions of the Democracy Movement in Iran, or at the very least scratch their heads and ask questions.

Nothing on Syria. Little on the violence in Saudi Arabia. The rationale behind Qaddafi's flip obscured. Nothing on death camps and misery in North Korea. Little of substance on the nature of the new Iraqi constitution. (Clueless had a great piece on that recently. These are important stories in their own right, but they are double plus important in relation to the big story, America's (and 33 other nations) war on terror. This failure in reporting is stupendous, monumental and nearly incomprehensible. It is also a big reason why some people don't get what's going on. The war on terror is a big thing, with big goals. If people don't realize, because they are never told, that the invasion in Iraq has resulted in the dismantling of Libya's WMD programs, and is a large factor in the push for democracy in Iran, why would they support it, when all they see is dead American soldiers in Iraq?

We have had many successes in the war so far. The recent bombings in Madrid were a dire setback. But the media refuses to cover the war as it actually exists.

Another issue is raised in a comment on the Michael Totten post that Johno linked:

How screwed up is it, by the way, that the most irrationally exuberant folks for Iranian liberty are at The National Review?!!!

What a weird and twisted thing the political spectrum has become these days. The Party of Kissinger and Buckley under the Bush Administration is, in the recent words of George Will, serving out Woodrow Wilson's third term.

In terms of party politics and history, something pretty monumental may be going on here. The Democratic Party from the days of Wilson up through the days of LBJ was clearly the Party of anti-isolationism. Vietnam shook this interventionist streak to the core but I always conceived of it as being a temporary thing. But I'm really not so certain, anymore. Maybe it's just the poor luck of not having a Democrat in the White House when 9/11 happened but you gotta admit, the Democrats are closer today to being an anti-war party than they've ever been.

Granted, they're not running George McGovern but even in 1972 there was a large contingent of "Cold War" hawkish Democrats in Congress. I can't think of a single Democrat in Congress today that is both a bona-fide liberal and a bona-fide hawk. The Scoop Jackson wing of the Party is officially dead and The New Republic increasingly reads like a journal out of time.

As you look back through history you have to recognize that the Democratic Party of 1934 had more in common with the Republican Party of 1864 than the Democratic Party during that same time. The parties had profoundly flip-flopped in 70 years. Another 70 years later I'm wondering if the same thing isn't happening, again.

Obviously, I don't think its so strange that movement conservatives are gung ho for liberty. That is one of the greatest contributions of the neocons to conservatism - the move beyond mere anticommunism to a policy of active support of liberty. The pursuit of realpolitik is not well suited for a republic. But idealism can have pragmatic benefits. The spread of liberty - political and economic - has clear benefits for the security and prosperity of the United States. Further, it's the right and moral position to take.

From the perspective of that commenter, we have the odd situation of conservatives pushing for liberation, and liberals coddling dictators. We no longer have any need for coddling dictators. During the cold war, resisting the spread of communism was arguably more important than fostering democracy right then. And I think it was. And in many cases, those nations that did not go commie eventually became democracies anyway. South Korea, Taiwan and Chile are examples of this. But now, without the threat of communism, we need to work to support democracy movements, especially in the Middle East.

And Iran should be our first target. At the very least, we should be giving cell phones, computers, printers, advice and public support to the Iranians who are opposed to the theocratic government. If need be, we should think about arms and military support. Iraq is one model for spreading democracy, and seems to be working relatively well. Iran gives us an opportunity to use another model, and one that might have more applicability around the world.

[wik] Thanks to Loyal Reader Mapgirl for pointing out that I mistook an entire nation for one of my favorite foods. Now corrected. However, Mapgirl should be aware that spell check only chimes in when you misspell a word, not when you use an inappropriate, but correctly spelled word. Like she did: “you should turn of any spellchecking feature.” Bricks/glass houses yadayadayada.

According to this CNN article, Poland's NATO Ambassador Jerzy M. Nowak said, "If it is necessary, we will continue leading the multinational division. We are prepared for that even if Spain is not able to fulfil its promise." Poland has led the multinational division of over 9000 troops from 24 nations since last September. Spain was scheduled to take over in July of this year.

My respect for the Poles has grown immensely over the last year or two. They get it, they realize what oppression and terror are, and the need to fight it. Polish PM Leszek Miller told a news conference:

"Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorists attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right (to pursue attacks)."

Damn straight.

Link fromThe Smallest Minority via a post on Hell in a Handbasket, which I went to because he left a comment on Murdoc's Blog, which I just blogrolled. Ain't technology grand?

Today is my dad's birthday. So wish the elder buckethead a happy birthday between your relief at passing through the Ides of March unscathed and your anticipation for drunken excess on the Feast Day of St. Patrick.

Coincidently (or not...) Murdoc Online is celebrating his first blogoversary today. Keep up the good work! Murdoc has had some excellent stuff in the past especially in the realm of military affairs, and we are confident that he hasn't run out of good thinks to think. So confident, in fact, that I'm adding him to the blogroll. Cheers!

I saw that title, and knew instantly that it was written by ol' Ted Dalrymple, that polyanna prison doctor from Manchester.

A fun read, though, as always.

Reading around the wondrous interweb, I have found a few interesting bits on the Madrid Bombings and the subsequent victory of the socialists.

Mark Steyn offers this:

For the non-complacent, the question is fast becoming whether "civilised society" in much of Europe is already too "undermined". Last Friday, for a brief moment, it looked as if a few brave editorialists on the Continent finally grasped that global terrorism is a real threat to Europe, and not just a Bush racket. But even then they weren't proposing that the Continent should rise up and prosecute the war, only that they be less snippy in their carping from the sidelines as America gets on with it. Spain was Washington's principal Continental ally, and what does that boil down to in practice? 1,300 troops. That's fewer than what the New Hampshire National Guard is contributing.

Its disturbing to that even our allies are not exactly chipping in for the big win. Remind me, why do we bother trying to get the support and help of the "world community" when it's still us holding the bag and paying the tab?

Distinguished Miltary Theorist Edward Luttwak has a fascinating article over at the Globe and Mail:

It is a matter of record that Osama bin Laden and other Islamists identified Spain as a priority target years before the Iraq war. Under Muslim law, no land conquered by Islam may legitimately come under non-Muslim rule. For the fanatics, Spain is still El Andalus, which must be reconquered for Islam by immigration and intimidation. So even if the bombs were placed by Islamists, the claim that Spain was only attacked because of Mr. Aznar's support for the Iraq war is utterly false.

Even if hard evidence were to be found that ETA was responsible after all, it would be too late: The Spanish political community has failed the test of terrorism — it has bowed down to the violence of the few, allowing them to dictate their will to the millions. There are bound to be serious consequences, because openly demonstrated weakness always invites further attack.

For one thing, Spain still rules the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the North African coast, which Islamists view as Christian colonies on Muslim soil. Having seen what bombs can do, they might well be tempted to see if a few more bombs can induce the Spanish to surrender the two enclaves. No democracy ever found safety in surrendering to aggressions, large or small.

Wretchard from the Belmont Club chimes in with Dark Night of Spirit. He offers some troublesome thoughts on the strategic implications of the realignment in Spain.

The appeasement which so amuses the French may not be so funny when played by the Spaniards. For Spain, in concert with America and France, shared the watch of North Africa. And since that is where many Al Qaeda have moved, as the Madrid train bombing carried out by North Africans proves, Europe will find their relative danger increased far more greatly than the Americans, who can comfortably lose the Spanish contingent in Iraq. The loss of a solid Spain, while an annoyance to America is a catastrophe for Europe. Iraq is far from America but Spain is close to France.

In the end, the very nature of the War on Terror ultimately means that Europe needs America more than America needs Europe. The global jihad means that attacks on Europe can be planned and launched from geographical locations far beyond the reach of their defense forces. That could be ignored while Europe remained convinced that it would not be targeted. But now the doubt grows. And if the contingency eventuates, neither France nor Spain have the mobility or the means to pursue their foes into the uttermost reaches of Central Asia, the deserts of Africa or the teeming stews of the Southwest Asia. That deficiency can only be addressed by a sustained program of European defense spending --- and it will not. Zapatero has cast away the very thing that he may need and which he can neither afford nor beg.

Eurosocialism, by hitching its wagon to the fortunes of militant Islam has put itself at it's mercy. That is the definition of surrender, whose fine print the Continent will soon be familiar with. A disarmed, politically correct and supine Eurosocialist society can only exist where other free men guard their borders. By dismissing the guardians and capitulating to the jihadis the Eurosocialists have struck at the very root of their own existence. Lenin once remarked that capitalists would sell him the noose he would use to hang them. But that was before Stalin poisoned him.

And this piece from Blogcritics

And regarding the Iraq accusations, does anyone notice the screaming, grand irony of al Qaeda claiming that their justification for mass murder in Spain is the Spanish government's support for the war in Iraq? I thought al Qaeda and Iraq had nothing to do with each other. I thought Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror.

I thought al Qaeda's excuse for blowing the shit out of thousands of innocent people around the world was to further the cause of extreme Islamic fundamentalism: the war in Iraq, from their perspective, only aided the cause of Islamic fundamentalism since Islamic fundmentalism, and any other kind of religious political expression, was ruthlessly supressed by Saddam. Al Qaeda should be damned cheerful about the removal of Saddam and should be thanking any country that helped make it so, not blowing up its trains.

Terrorists cannot be appeased, negotiated with, reasoned with, or have their attention deflected elsewhere as a matter of any governmental policy: the only appropriate governmental policy is direct confrontation, unambiguous condemnation and aggressive pursuit and elimination of terrorists and their accomplices and enablers. Anything else is giving in to fear and wishful thinking.

It is being reported on command post and elsewhere that there ahve been recent uprisings in both Syria and Iran, apparently inspired by the American libervasion of Iraq.

This Command Post, er, post talks about the 14 Syrian Kurds who were killed in rioting and clashes with Baathist security forces. The Free Arab Forum is reporting that there is a small but violent uprising in northern Iran, where demonstrators apparently took over the local security force headquarters.

These events are not being reported in any of the mainstream media. Over the last couple years, I can count on one hand the number of stories I've seen on the Democracy movement in Iran. This is important news, and we should be hearing more of it.

In this newhouse column, Lileks explains better than I can exactly what is wrong with John Kerry crowing about all the love he's getting from foriegn leaders.

"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," Kerry said in Florida.

...it's a telling remark. Sen. Kerry might be surprised to discover that foreign opinion doesn't concern your average NASCAR dad, who would prefer America to be strong and disliked than weak and beloved.

...On another level, though, Kerry's remark sounds pathetically naive. Why does he think the Unnamed Foreign Leaders like him best -- because they have America's best interests at heart? They want to mire the United States in the tarpit of the United Nations again, and Kerry looks like the man to wade right in.

The fact that Kerry would boast about this is almost beyond my comprehension. Why should we care what Chirac thinks about who occupies the office? And furthermore, why should we agree with his choice for us, given his behavior towards the US over the last couple years? Remarkable.

This last weekend, Spoons and Armed Liberal got married. Not to each other, though there's nothing wrong with that. A belated congratulations to both of them!

Rocket Jones has found a new toy. It allows you to do this:

[wik] As has been pointed out by loyal reader Norbizness, Bart made an error in his chalkboard writing assignment. I think its funnier this way, so I will make no effort to correct it.

Last Wednesday, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was coasting to another victory in the polls. Thursday saw the worst terrorist attack in Spanish history. The Spanish government immediately seized on the idea that the ETA must have perpetrated the attack, the Basque separatist terrorists who have plagued the Spanish for decades. However, several early indicators led many, myself included, to lean toward the proposition that it was the work of Al Qaida or one of its franchises. First, the scale of the attack – far beyond any previous ETA efforts. Second, the ETA almost always gives notice of an attack, usually shortly before – and there was no notification. Third, the MO was quite in line with previous Al Qaida efforts - elaborate planning that was obviously involved, ten bombs timed to go off nearly simultaneously, and using mass transit as the vehicle and target for the attack. The timing was also peculiar – exactly two and a half years after 9/11, and I heard that that is exactly nine hundred eleven days after the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC. (The math adds up. Maybe that’s being excessively numerological, but they go in for that kind of thing.

Of course, now we know about the five men arrested, and the van and the tape and the Koran. The letter that was delivered to the Arabic paper in London. It seems clear that Islamic fundamentalists are indeed responsible. Which posed an important question for Spanish voters. And one that I think that they have answered wrong.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Socialist who will become the new Spanish PM, has already declared that he will withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. Withdraw support from the war on terror. In short, join the axis of weasels. But what message does this send to the Terrorists? That the Spanish can be intimidated. Once you give in, once you flinch, the terrorists own you. You’re their bitch. Anytime that the Spanish do something that the terrorists don’t like, you can expect more bombs, not less. Spanish foreign policy will now center on the avoidance of terrorist attacks, which will mean placation, appeasement and kowtowing.

This is a huge defeat for civilization. While we can argue over what is the proper course and what exact methods and goals are appropriate, there is no question that we are fighting enemies of civilization. And those enemies just took out one of our allies as surely as if they had beaten them in a stand up battle.

When I first heard of the Madrid bombings, I said to Mrs. Buckethead that I hoped that some good might come of this evil, that Europe would realize that it is not just the United States that is fighting this war, but that it is a war that all the civilized nations must fight. I thought that perhaps it would be like Pearl Harbor was for Churchill – the moment he realized that the United States would enter the fight. I was wrong to hope that, it seems. The reaction has instead been a perception that had the Spanish not supported the US, they would not have been attacked. While I can see the logic of that view, it completely misses the larger picture.

To the Islamic terrorist, we are not the only Satan. Just the biggest one. Their fight is against the west, civilization, in general. Their fantasy ideology paints the Spanish and even the United States as crusaders, rehashing battles half a millennium in the past. (Battles that they mostly won, for chrissakes.) But Spain collectively decided that short-term safety is more important than fighting against terrorism and the delusional ideology behind it. They’re going to sit this one out.

I fear that should we have another large-scale attack here in the United States, there might be a similar reaction. But I don’t believe that another attack would convince the electorate to give up on the fight. I think if anything, another 9/11 would only strengthen our resolve. I pray that we don’t find out.

[wik] My coworker points out that even if the ETA was not involved in the bombing, we will likely see more bombs from them, not that they see that the electorate can be cowed by successful, horrific terrorist attacks.

[alsø wik] Mark Steyn makes many of the same points. But more clever like, damn him.

"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!" declared one "peace" protester in Spain. Or as Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty put it, somewhat less vividly: "If this turns out to be Islamic extremists . . . it is more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq."

By "other allies", he means you – yes, you, reading this on the bus to work in Australia. You may not have supported the war, or ever voted for John Howard, but you're now a target. In other words, this is "blowback". This is what you get when you side with the swaggering Texas gunslinger and his neocon Zionist sidekicks.

Good stuff, read the whole thing.

The Donald Sensing post that we were talking about back on Perfidy's Gay Marriage Day is now a polished article on the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Page. It makes just as much sense now as it did then.

Ishkur has replaced his old and busted internet guide to electronica with a new and enslickened version. It made even me, a mid thirties blues and americana entusiast, long for the days when I used to go to the raves back in Ohio, before they got all corporate and shit. 
 

Murdoc has posed an interesting question:

There's been a lot of talk about how we might know where Osama is and how there might be a big operation along the Pakistan border soon. There's also been a lot of talk about how the capture of OBL might be "managed" by the Bush administration for maximum political effect. I get the feeling that whenever he's caught, there's going to be a general outcry of "politicization."

So I'm taking a poll to attempt to determine what window is available to
capture OBL without appearing to have staged it.

Whether the capture will have appeared to be politicized will depend on two things. One, the party affilation of the beholder, and the backstory behind the capture. For some, no matter when bin Laden is captured, it will be a nefarious Rove-orchestrated plot designed to seduce the befuddled masses away from the clearly superior Democratic candidate.
Others might think so if there is any indication that the intelligence services and armed forces had knowledge of his whereabouts for a significant length of time befoe the apprehension. How long "significant" is will again likely depend on party affiliation.

Absent that kind of information, I think most people will assume that we just caught him. The only capture date after which a majority of the public would wonder if it had been stage managed would be in the month before the election. Indeed, it might almost be better to intentionally capture him after the election.

So I voted for Oct 1; but for many on the left, it will be anytime after right now.

In any event, go over there and cast your vote.

While that word was invented by the Germans to describe the pleasure they experienced in observing the misfortunes of teh French, I think that many Americans have shared that pleasure in hearing that Martha Stewart has been found guilty of obstructing justice and lying to the government about why she unloaded her ImClone stock just before the price plummeted. Me, I will miss her warm presence on the airwaves, and her helpful tips which might (if I applied myself diligently) make me almost as good as her.

I wonder what tips she could come up with for celebrating a fine and gracious prison Christmas when constrained by a nine by nine cell.

Researchers at the University of California at Berkely have developed working, strength-enhancing exoskeletons. The device fits over the legs, and allows the 'pilot' to carry both the weight of the exoskeleton and aseventy pound backpack as if the whole thing weighed only five pounds.

The device's success where many others have failed is apparently in the software that the system uses to effectively cooperate with the human wearer. The researchers say that there next goal is to increase the capacity of the system, and to work on miniaturizing the engine and other components.

One of the biggest problems facing the Army today is the weight of all the gear that they have to carry. If soldiers can carry 120 pounds of gear like it was a fanny pack with a camera and water bottle, that will kick ass. Or more to the point, they will kick ass. Soldiers can be better armored, carry more ammo, and yet still have the endurance to fight at the end of the march.

Powered armor is clearly right around the corner. And giant fighting robots can't be far behind.

[wik] This link might actually work, and gives you more links to more information as well.

Some have been complaining about the delays in the adoption of the Iraqi constitution. Der Kommissar has an interesting take on the events surrounding the adoption of another country's constitution.

The recent announcement that NASA scientists have concluded that surface of Mars - at least where the opportunity rover is exploring - was once a wet place has space enthusiasts rather excited. For those who don't see why this is a good thing, nevermind. It's a space thing and you wouldn't understand.

Just kidding. The fact that at least one place on Mars was certifiably wet has many implications. It means that there was once another place in the solar system that was habitable. This does not by any means guarantee that there was at any point life on Mars, but by studying the geological history of Mars, we can learn things that we could never learn by studying the Earth alone. Science moves much faster when researchers have two things to compare. We will learn from Mars how life didn't evolve under conditions similar to those on Earth, and from this learn more about how it did on Earth. We can learn about climate, and how it goes wrong. (Maybe Mars was hit by global warming? The sky is falling!)

Also, the fact that there was once surface water raises the big question, "Where is it now?" If this water is bound up in the rocks, or in subsurface permafrost or ice deposits, that means that we could potentially get at it, and use it for human settlements or even for terraforming.

And besides, it's just plain cool to imagine what Mars might have looked like with oceans and seas. Like this:

A view down the Valles Marineris.

Or imagine sailing on these seas:

Or sailing up to the very base of the tallest mountain in the Solar System: