The crime in Spain
: Damn them. The death toll is up to 173. Terrorism is everyone’s problem.
: A reader just sent me a link to the PDF of El Pais‘ amazing coverage.
42 responses to “The crime in Spain”
-
Gut feeling…if this was the ETA, they had help. Four bombs went off, three more didn’t.
-
I pray to God that this was not the ETA. Even though they have definitely caused death and destruction in the past this seems to go beyond their limits. I always figured they had a legitimate cause say as the IRA but the old approach of bombs just isnt the way to go. There are political means. This is just devastating and I want to go there to teach english.
-
Re: Brian
There were 13 explosives, packed in backpacks. 10 went off, and the police detonated the other 3. Given the rather specific type of explosive used, it is almost certain that ETA did this. -
Crime? Crime? Perhaps the offenders will be served with papers?
This is war. -
BigFire:
That means it could be anywhere from six to thirteen or more people pulling this off. That type of coordination only means someone with a good logistics team. It might have been ETA but I don’t think they could have pulled something like this without significant help. -
I was on a Manhattan A train a couple of days ago and overheard a converstation by two 20-something girls.
One asks the question ‘why is Bush spending all our money for a War on Terrorism that does not exist’
I wanted to ask her if she had seen two large holes in the ground located at the lower tip of Manhattan but, I was so disgusted with the conversation I instead moved to another car.
My guess is that many people in New York do not feel that terrorism is a problem, as this was not the first time I have heard such thoughts coming out of the mouths of New Yorker’s.
I cannot help but feel that the NY Times is doing grave damage in promoting it’s socially bias agenda. After all, New Yorker’s forgot all about the 1993 WTC bombing in no time at all. -
susan,
I live and work in Manhattan. The place is full of loopy limousine liberals, and college-age nutjobs. But there are also plenty of people who haven’t forgotten that we’re at war. It’s a substantial minority, but unfortunately, it is a minority.
But you shouldn’t take the opinions of 20-something NYC girls as having much value. There is not a subset of the population more deluded than that. -
Susan, did you ever see the HBO movie ‘Path to Paradise: The Untold Story of the World Trade Center Bombing’ (1997)? Check IMDB for viewers comments. I can recall seeing this re-broadcast on HBO just days before 9/11. At the end of this film is this graphic: a chilling statement from Ramzi Yousef (at his trial): “Next time we’ll bring them both down.”
Where is Clinton’s culpability? The film details, step by step, the story of federal incompetence. Serious abrogation of duty. Oh, wait, it happened on Clinton’s watch. Teflon time. Not his fault. Yet everything in the world, not just in the US, is Bush’s fault. (QED: Dean, Kerry, Hillary, et al.)
That NYers would be so unserious about terrorism is incredible. Grow up NY…it’s more than left/right politics. (Vide: Spain’s bombings.) It’s about an international war against democracy. Period. Spain, an adult country, isn’t nattering on about who is to blame, left or right Spanish politicians; the Spanish people are blaming the perpetrators! How mature. Quelle surprise! -
Terrorism is everyone’s problem
No, they’re a law enforcement problem for the courts….at least if you vote for Kerry. -
You know, the War on Terrorism is all well and good as a metaphor, but y’all seem well past the edge of actively denigrating the efforts and contributions of laws, courts, and law enforcers. I wonder if I’m alone in finding that frivolous and disgusting. Guess what? The “war” on terror is not a literal war in which you can use the military alone to engage formations of the enemy. You need the cops, the law, and the courts. And you need to adjust your attitude and start respecting what these people do for you 24 hours of every day.
-
You know, the War on Terrorism is all well and good as a metaphor, but y’all seem well past the edge of actively denigrating the efforts and contributions of laws, courts, and law enforcers. I wonder if I’m alone in finding that frivolous and disgusting. Guess what? The “war” on terror is not a literal war in which you can use the military alone to engage formations of the enemy. You need the cops, the law, and the courts. And you need to adjust your attitude and start respecting what these people do for you 24 hours of every day.
I don’t see it denigrated. But the fact is that the military aspect is probably the most proactive and important part of it, yet that is the aspect that Kerry seems inclined to ignore. Nobody has denegrated the law enforcement appararatus in this country. And it’s insulting that you would attack us thusly. Or in the words of Kerry “don’t attack my patriotism” -
Right on Doctor- I am one of the many who feel that this “war” will only be won when we get everyone to respect those institutions, and we dont do that by tearing down the best set of them (ours) in the world.
The reason I put war in quotation marks, and why the 20 something girls may have been touching on (wasn’t there so I dont know) is that many feel that we are not pursueing a War on terror (invading western Pakistan, ect). Yes we have pursued a war on Iraq – but I think most would now agree that there was no Iraq-AQ link. And we are busy dropping the ball in Afganistan. I wont feel that we are at war until we are asked to sacrifice as a country (which we certainly are not being asked to do- unless you are a reservist) and we start bringing the War to the terrorists- ie Saudi et al.
But it all goes back to the rule of law- the only thing that is going to save us- so respect it. -
Nobody has denegrated the law enforcement appararatus in this country.
So, when I see people talking about law enforcement and courts as though they’re weak reeds that only a complete fool would rely on, I shouldn’t see that as denigrating them? “Crime? Crime? Perhaps the offenders will be served with papers?” That attempt to imply that there’s something limp-wristed and weak-kneed about arresting terrorists isn’t meant to denigrate law enforcement?
Well, it may not be intended that way. But that’s sure as heck the way it comes off.
the military aspect is probably the most proactive and important part of it
The military aspect is an important part of it — particularly when the terrorists are holed up in remote locations in foreign territories. (I actually would say it’s not the most “proactive” part of it — that honour goes to the intelligence services, whose insights are key to law enforcement efforts and without whom military action can’t be anything more than blundering. Out of curiosity — seen any signs from Bush about reforming American intelligence?)
Does Kerry seem “inclined to ignore” the military? Fully a quarter of his recent address on the topic is devoted to the military, including force increases. I think that accusation is bull. Whether or not you agree with what Kerry proposes is another matter, but you can’t honestly accuse him of being “inclined to ignore” the military.
(And if you’re about to parrot the “Kerry’s a flip-flopper” nonsense at me, give me a reason to believe anything Bush says given his own record of flip-flops and his inaction on the nuclear terror issue — an issue he was right to call important, but as with everything else, the rhetoric seems to have been just for show. -
The reason I put war in quotation marks, and why the 20 something girls may have been touching on (wasn’t there so I dont know) is that many feel that we are not pursueing a War on terror
That’s how I feel. What I’d like to see is a President in the White House who actually behaves as though he thinks the terrorism issue — every aspect of it — is serious and deserves attention. Bush hasn’t behaved that way AFAICS. -
Crime? Crime? Perhaps the offenders will be served with papers?” That attempt to imply that there’s something limp-wristed and weak-kneed about arresting terrorists isn’t meant to denigrate law enforcement?
FINE. GO SERVE Al QAEDA WITH PAPERS THEN….
(And if you’re about to parrot the “Kerry’s a flip-flopper” nonsense at me, give me a reason to believe anything Bush says given his own record of flip-flops and his inaction on the nuclear terror issue — an issue he was right to call important, but as with everything else, the rhetoric seems to have been just for show
It’s not rhetoric. Kerry IS a flip-flopper. Looks like you’ve drank the cool aid. As for Bush vs terrorism….you’re an idiot. Read a newspaper and see what he’s done. -
FINE. GO SERVE Al QAEDA WITH PAPERS THEN….
Oh, you’re quite right. Al Qaeda members shouldn’t be arrested if we have the opportunity? Right, because who needs intelligence and actual access to the organization that’s attacking you? That might actually leading to stopping terrorist attacks, and we can’t have that. After all, what we use all those spiffy colour-coded alerts for?
Thanks in any case for coming clean about your real attitude toward law enforcers.
Read a newspaper and see what he’s done.
I’ve read and linked a newspaper that says what he hasn’t done. (Yes, I know you’re probably one of those who thinks Iraq is the “front line in the war on terror,” but even then the nukes issue should be giving you pause.) Got a response to that that isn’t name-calling? -
yes, bush is not doing enough on the war on terror
he should have doubled (at least) the defence and intelligence budget and allowed them to take on any and all terrorist groups that could pose a threat to the us or its citizens
he also should have given free reign to all of our allies (israel, india) to eliminate all terrorists that they have problems with by any (ANY) means necessary
as to why the courts are ineffective: the resulting terrorist activity after the two WTC attacks was remarkably different… any idea why?
courts and police follow constitutions that assume innocence and require a great deal of preparation to target someone. they can’t go house to house when they feel like it, can’t search eveyone everywhere at will, can’t just start listening in on conversations
the military can
and up until recently, cia needed a presidential finding (nearly an act of congress) to kill someone
once you declare war, the gloves come off, the restrictions lift, and you can really start to kick ass an take names. sometimes its the same police and lawyers with no restrictions, sometimes its 101 airborne and the marines, but they are all enabled by a state of war to do what needs to be done
spain should declare war on the ETA and go after them. search all of basque house to house, kill the people that need killing, jail the fundraisers and the pols that support them, ideally put a few heads on pikes for display, and end this war before more innocents are killed
no quarter, no peace -
Hey Doc, so capturing then torturing info out of terrorists would be a good tactic, no ? As a former PCF crewmwmber (too young for Nam) I find Kerry’s labeling as war criminals, all of my former superiors, revolting.
-
You American idiots crack me up. It’s funny to see the first few comments trying to insinuate it’s of course those swarthy brown Muslims who must be behind all this carnage–after the ETA is a white terrorist operation, a cuddly kind of terrorism, like the IRA’s or the Israelis!
-
search all of basque house to house, kill the people that need killing, jail the fundraisers and the pols that support them, ideally put a few heads on pikes for display, and end this war before more innocents are killed
Ah, the West Bank Approach — that’ll work wonders. (How many innocent Israelis and Palestinians dead in four years of al-Aqsa, again?) And yeah, why shouldn’t the Spanish government make martyrs of the ETA and midwife a popular support for them that doesn’t currently exist in Basque country? That’s really bright.
Though I never get tired of the manly chest-beating of armchair warriors, anyone serious about combating terrorist threats should be learning from the successes and failures of struggles against organizations like Sendero Luminoso.
Hey Doc, so capturing then torturing info out of terrorists would be a good tactic, no ?
Oh sure, because torture always leads to reliable information.
Has it ever occurred to you that it’s possible to fight terrorism effectively without actively destroying the society of laws you’re supposed to be protecting? Do you have the courage to try that route? -
I find Kerry’s labeling as war criminals, all of my former superiors, revolting.
I find the labelling of 150 honorably discharged veterans as liars revolting. -
Yo Dr. Slack, calm down pal. I can ONLY speak for myself, but the military part of the equation is the most important. We have to either take them out where they live and breathe, or transform their save havens so they don’t have a base to stage out of/regroup.
Of course we need the cops and other first responders, but the point I want to make is better to take the fight to them, rather than have it over here.
Cool out -
Has it ever occurred to you that it’s possible to fight terrorism effectively without actively destroying the society of laws you’re supposed to be protecting? Do you have the courage to try that route
do I smell a Patriot Act rant? -
the military part of the equation is the most important.
To me, effective intelligence is a necessary predcursor to effective military action, especially when you’re talking about terrorism. I’m worried that America is fatally weak on the first part of that equation, and I don’t see Bush doing anything about it.
better to take the fight to them, rather than have it over here.
Fair enough, no-one’s denying it should be a global effort. But on that score, too, the Bush agenda leaves me pretty freaked out. They burned so much cred getting into Iraq — which doesn’t appear to be a major al-Qaeda hangout, if we believe the Zarqawi letter — that getting cooperation out of key foreign players (like Russia, and on this see the article I linked earlier on nuclear terror) is going to be a lot harder. Especially with Bush at the helm, whom nobody really trusts.
do I smell a Patriot Act rant?
Everything that needs to be said on that score has pretty much already been said. I suspect it’s not long for this world in any case, and that’s fine by me. Maybe it will give way to some rational anti-terror measures. -
“I think there has been an exaggeration,” Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism.
John Effen Kerry – Supreme Leader of the September 10th Movement (aka The Ostrich Brigade). -
>Crime? Crime? Perhaps the offenders will be served with papers?
This is war.
Does that mean the US will be invading Spain soon? -
“I think there has been an exaggeration,” Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism.
Gotta love out-of-context quotes from the Moonie Times. Of course, the “exaggeration” Kerry was referring during the Iowa debates was about the Iraq threat, not terrorism more generally.
Here’s an idea, though. Instead of looking for a President who’s perpetually living September 12th and trading on the day before, how about a President who’s living in 2004? Just a thought. -
Talk about rattling some cages. No doubt, my little quip about “serving papers” has annoyed people who might quietly prefer that the war on terror not have a military component.
Alone, the statement doesn’t suggest that police investigation be cut out of the process, nor does it suggest that an invasion of Spain is necessary. Nor does it suggest that a society must revoke its commitment to its fundamental laws and values. Those suggesting such things are introducing a straw-man argument designed to attack the underlying foundation: that this IS a war, that military action MUST be taken, and that this cannot be resolved like a “Law and Order” episode.
For me, there are no second chances on this issue. And unfortunately, I have yet to be convinced that any Democrat other than Joe Lieberman remotely consideres the Terror War an issue of primary importance. -
So, ETA is denying responsibility for the blasts. Apparently, CNN has reported that Madrid is on the lookout for al Qaeda connections, though I haven’t heard it directly yet.
Alone, the statement doesn’t suggest that police investigation be cut out of the process, nor does it suggest that an invasion of Spain is necessary.
Nor does suggesting that the War on Terror should rely on intelligence and law enforcement resources suggest that military action should be ruled out, or that the conflict can be “resolved like a Law and Order episode.” What were you saying about strawmen?
I have yet to be convinced that any Democrat other than Joe Lieberman remotely consideres the Terror War an issue of primary importance.
Unfortunately, I have yet to be convinced that Bush remotely considers the Terror War as an issue of primary importance. Kerry has much more coherent and relevant anti-terrorism proposals on the table than anything I’ve seen from Bush. -
Exageration of terrorism from Iraq…OK.
*Abu Nidal
*Abu Abbas
*$25K to Palestinian Suicide Bombers
*Untold millions to terrorist organizations worldwide
*Funded Democratic staffers in the US Congress to spy for Iraq
No terrorist threat from Iraq? heh. -
Exageration of terrorism from Iraq…OK.
Yep. As in NO NUKES. As in NO WMD. As in NO AL-QAEDA LINK. As in NONE OF THE THREE PRIMARY REASONS GIVEN FOR WAR.
Nice shot at a subject change, though. -
Al-Qaeda appears to have claimed responsibility.
-
Dr. Slack,
You’re judging Kerry by his words, not his actions. The man is institutionally hostile towards military action and defense systems in general, as his voting record tells. Of course he’s trying to sound hawkish now, but his credibility on that matter is strained.
But to humor you, what proposals is Kerry more coherent on than Bush?
My greater purpose about mocking “serving papers” is to guard against a mentality that treats the Terror War as primarily a law-enforcement issue. Unfortunately, many people aren’t merely using the wrong semantics, but actively wish that the War would just go away and become another law-enforcement issue again. -
Hey Mustapha- your the idiot- ha
Wow that actually sort of felt good- if I was 3.
Broad minded you are not. I actually thought of the IRA as a possible helper (seeing as they have been sub contracting out alot of thier old operative – Columbia etc, since after years and years of talking and dipomacy there is real peace in Ireland now and not as much work for bomb makers). -
Hey Mustapha- I was wrong (see AP) – it was your (assumed) breathren- bummer huh?
-
You’re judging Kerry by his words, not his actions.
I’m judging Bush by his actions, which don’t match his words. If there’s a reasonable chance that Kerry will prove better, I’d take it.
The man is institutionally hostile towards military action and defense systems
Fred Kaplan has pretty much knocked this stuff out of the park:
“Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty. ”
He’s right.
But to humor you, what proposals is Kerry more coherent on than Bush?
Kerry’s recent address on national security is already linked up the thread. I’m aware of no similarly comprehensive discussion of the issue from Bush, and in any case Bush’s credibility is shot at this point. I don’t trust Kerry implicitly, but I trust George a whole lot less. -
Armed Liberal fisked the hell out that Kerry address. If you think it does the man justice, you’re wrong.
Kerry’s record:
In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion.Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_bills&docid=f:s1580is.txt.pdf)
In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion >From Defense.Only 27 other Senators voted with Kerry.
Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution – Defense Freeze. “Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training.” (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea)
In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:
Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills&docid=f:s1163is.txt.pdf)
Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including:
In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise.Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense. Republicans and Democrats successfully blocked the attempt to cut defense spending. (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Nay)
In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To Social Programs.Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea)
In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%.Only 21 other Senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated. (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea)
Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber.(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/18/89, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D 37-18, 9/18/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D 37-19, 7/1/94, Kerry Voted Yea)
Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense. (S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 10/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41; I 0-0, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay) -
More of Kerry’s defense record:
Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Promised Massive Defense Cuts.
“Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel … the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet.” (Brian C. Mooney, “Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One,” The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)
As we all know, these weapons systems were vital to US success in the Gulf War and also in the two campaigns of the Terror War in the recent battle of Iraq, and the battle of Afghanistan.
“[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might — the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.” (Brian C. Mooney, “Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One,” The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)
During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of “Jobs With Peace Campaign,” which sought to “develop public support for cutting the defense budget…”(“Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs,” The Associated Press, 6/3/88)
Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending.”On what he’ll do if he’s elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ‘bring a different kind of message to the president.’ He said he would vote against military appropriations.” (“Candidate’s For Congress Capture Campus In Andover,” Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72) -
Armed Liberal fisked the hell out that Kerry address. If you think it does the man justice, you’re wrong.
Guess I’ll have to take your word for that, won’t I? Or not.
Re: that huge chunk of Chewbacca Defense you just posted, I’d like a direction to your source documents before I look at it. (On first glance there’s at least one item there that speaks well of Kerry: he was a staunch opponent of the wasteful, cockamamie and irrelevant Missile Defense initiative. Good for him.) -
Kerry’s record on Intelligence:
1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry
introduced a bill that would -
Well, you don’t have to take my word for it. But you should consider Armed Liberal’s arguments, if you have any intellectual honesty at all.
As for the source documents, it is already indicated. “CQ #” refers to Congressional Quarterly vote numbers. It is a primary source for checking the votes of members of Congress. Senate bill #s are also mentioned, as primary sources. -
Does that mean the US will be invading Spain soon?
Robert, if my dog had access to a keyboard he wouldn’t embarass canines by a statement that lame. I’m really, really trying very hard to get your point. But, it would be better for you not to elaborate so we can get back on topic and put intergalactic misinformation behind us.
