Election Outcome Will Not Affect Spain's Commitment to Fight Terrorism

[WillyT]

Says Powell

<snip>

Secretary of State Colin Powell says he does not think the defeat of Spain's pro-U.S. Popular Party in Sunday's elections will mean any lessening of that country's commitment to fight terrorism. The winning Socialists had made Spain's contribution of 1,300 troops to Iraq an election issue.

Mr. Powell says he has not been able to fully analyze the Spanish election results and whether last Thursday's devastating terrorist attacks in the Madrid area had anything to do with the outcome.

<snip>

Link: http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=D281521B-3CD0-4BB8-B62EEDEC14EAB91D

Powell has gone completely around the bend, no???

:grr::shrug::grr:

[Coventina]

1. Er, how does Powell know this?

:shrug:

Sounds like wishful thinking / damage control to me.

[NV1962]

2. Actually, he's upping the ante

What he says is “We can't believe that the newly elected Spanish Government is going to turn its back on the fight of terrorism, where we have stood together and supported each other.”

Hence priming the stage for Zapatero to demonstrate which way he'll go: he's diplomatically challenging / daring Zapatero to come out openly and “dis” the Bush administration, hence placing the ball in Zapatero's court.

That's a fairly usual diplomatic modus operandi: in the face of an adverse development, turn the table and place the initiative on "the other side."

Knowing what Zapatero had said before (that he'd pursue / maintain the "cordial relations" with the US Gov't) Powell essentially signals "don't be a fool and create a row neither of us can afford."

He's not insane, just a well-briefed diplomat doing his job.

It's more interesting what the RNC proxy attack dogs will do and say; if O'Reilly is echoed by them, there's trouble ahead, Powell's "challenge" notwithstanding.

I suspect that (through Powell) Bush is exerting pressure to dampen the otherwise expected assaults on Zapatero.

[Bandit]

5. This something we have to nip in the bud

The War in Iraq is not the war on terrorism. It is an illegal war on a soveirgn nation for purposes not yet determined. It was planned and discussed long before 9-11 happened. We can not let them get away with this bogus all in one war to justify every Fascist need. It is a War on Iraq. Not a war on terrorism but it is creating terrorism that would never have been. I doubt Spain would ever have been bombed if not for us attacking Iraq.

[NV1962]

7. Spain's new position on Iraq is a separate issue, an accepted loss

Zapatero has made it clear that, unless there's a clear UN mandate, the 1,500 Spanish troops will be pulled out of Iraq before June 30.

This essentially presses Bush to seek that UN mandate, which he really, really needs to partly substitute the overly stretched US armed forces with UN mandated international troops.

In essence, that puts Bush in a tight spot: he'll have to make the June 30 deadline stick - while enlisting broad international support for the "after game" in Iraq.

The subtle sparring by Powell about the "war on terrorism" goes beyond Iraq - for Bush, it's salvaging an image of "international authority" as well as covering Blair's hide.

That's why I see Powell's statement as a bid borne from weakness - a call to save his boss' face.

[54anickel]

11. So then is the "not been able to fully analyze the Spanish election

results" a subtle threat that the elections might not be considered legit, and the US will treat Spain as another Haiti, or Venezuela, or any other democratically elected government that Shrub happens to dislike?

[NV1962]

13. No, that's just buying Zapatero some response time

It's akin to "I haven't paid attention to whatever unfriendly things about Bush you may have said during the campaign, but let's start all over mkay?"

[Leilani]

3. A Long Time Ago & Far Away

I used to admire Powell; I thought he was a straight shooter, & 1 of the few moderate voices left in the Repub party.

But his complete capitulation to Bush on all things, has really ruined whatever integrity he once had.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. I don't think he had much to begin with.

My Lai and Iran-COntra anyone?

[WillyT]

9. I'm Embarrassed To Admit It, But Me Too !!!

Wasn't he the one who raised the bar for the U.S. going to war after Vietnam? Public support, exit strategey, and all that?

He's obviously bought into the "9\11 Changed Everything" protocol.

What a friggin disappointment... to say the LEAST!!!

:grr:

[rocktivity]

4. Well, duh, Colin

As the Spanish always knew and the Americans are just finding out, the Iraqi invasion had NOTHING to do with fighting terrorism!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Lindacooks]

6. You got it!

eom

[rfkrocks]

10. Powell is in a state of shock

he had respect from most on the left as well as the right-he appeared reluctant to use force-seemed to challenge the neocons-now he is just like your crazy uncle-i think he literally sold his soul when he went to the UN and said according to news week "this is Bull sh--"He knew the Intel was crap and he is a soldier-to support this war-i can't even come up with any rationale for it-he sent fellow soldiers to deaths which don't make us safer. the ultimate denial of the Powell doctrine is he supported a war where we have no exit strategy-he actually supported a military occupation of an Arab country by a mostly Christian nation. why did he do it? he tried to undue the historic blunder in Vietnam and then he gave a new generation of soldiers the burden of Iraq.

[WillyT]

12. Guess This (See Link), Puts The Lie To Powell's Assertion !!!

New Spanish leader threatens to pull out of Iraq
Socialist calls occupation a ‘disaster,’ sets deadline for U.N. control

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4522638/

Course, Powell could say that pulling out of Iraq is not pulling out support for the War On Terra.... Or could he???

:shrug::wtf::shrug: