Is Bush indirectly responsible for the terrorism in Spain ?

[kentuck]

Yes, there was terrorism before Bush came to power. However, it was more or less contained under Clinton, even after the first WTC bombing. Bush came in and for the first 8 months simply ignored what was going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Clinton was working on that problem up to the day he left. Bush and Cheney and Powell were trying to make deals with the Taliban.

Then when 9/11 happened, Bush went and attacked Iraq, as if they were the ones that attacked us. This turned the entire Arab world against us and created terrorists that were not there before. He actually had the terrorists and Osama surrounded and contained in Afghanistan but he left just at the moment of victory to go after Saddam. How will history record that calamitous decision?

Then Spain decides that they can be bought for the right price and allies itself with Bush in his war against Iraq. Now they are victims of their own monstrous terrorist attack. So, is it proper to ask if Bush has created more terrorism than he has destroyed? And some might ask, has he started WWIII?

[Zomby Woof]

1. I largely think so

Invading Iraq under the pretenses that he did created ripe conditions for succeeding generations of would-be terrorists to arise. No matter who is responsible for the attack in Spain - sympathizers of Al-Qaeda or the like, it IS connected to Iraq and other U.S. policies abroad. Aznar's complicity with Bush against the will of the Spanish people has yielded awful fruit.

Stopping or changing U.S. policy won't be enough, but even less effective will be continuing the reactive cycle of tit for tat. A combination of the two - changing policy and ending the vicious cycle of retaliation from ALL sides - is the only path to peace and security.

[UTUSN]

2. "Indirectly"????

Oh, "indirectly" as in subordinates carrying out Manager's agenda without Manager leaving fingerprints.

AZAR went against 90+% of his population's wishes, against his figurehead king's unprecedented public wishes, and against his population's spiritual leader (el Papa)'s wishes in pursuing the illegal war. AZNAR said he would not run for re-election----OR WILL HE? How about Shrub telling the little fella you don't need VOTES, you just need an incident.

[el_gato]

7. state sponsored terror is the most common type of terror

[orwell]

3. Blame Game

We don't even know who is responsible yet and may never find out.

O

[fob]

4. bush* is directly responsible for 9-11 and his reaction to that

which has increased terror activities worldwide.

How can I say bush* is directly responsible for 9-11?

Do you remember in the debates when he kept insisting(lying) Clinton/Gore had worn down our military, and his (lying) quote about "If asked, there are 3 Divisions that would have to say 'Not ready to report for duty, Sir'".

bush* said these lies and then on 9-11, guess what? Every line of defense was apparently "Not ready for duty".

bush* also talked up(lied) recession during the campaign and during December and guess what, Greenspan took the cue and started jacking up interest rates until the economy started to get slower and s l o w e r, and then on his watch what did he get, Recession!

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

5. Could be. Kevin Bacon too.

He's out in 8 months at any rate.

[Intelsucks]

6. Your logic would assume that 9-11 was to be the last terrorist attack

against anyone, anywhere. I don't believe that is the case, even for a moment.

[kentuck]

9. No....

I am simply suggesting that terrorism has increased in volume and hatred since 9/11 and that Bush has not done a good job at fighting terrorism. I do not think terrorism will instantly cease once a Democrat is elected.

[Intelsucks]

10. I don't think it (terrorism) can ever be stopped by anyone

so-called Al-Qaeda spokesmen have claimed that any and all nations that supported or helped the United States would immediately become targets, so they all pretty much knew what they were getting into beforehand. Frankly, I cannot believe that London has not been hit yet.

We will probably be living under constant threats for the rest of our lives, unfortunately. :-(

[Zero Gravitas]

8. depends

on who did it and why.

[carolinayellowdog]

11. If he had focused on Al Qaeda instead of Iraq...

how much less likely would this attack be? Until we know that AQ was responsible, it's just speculation. But I think the huge investment of personnel and $ that went to an illegal invasion of Iraq could have been put to better use against Al Qaeda.

[kentuck]

12. That is the question that needs to be asked....

How much terrorism would we have right now if we had continued the job in Afghanistan and had captured Osama bin Laden, instead of going after Saddam Hussein and antagonizing the whole Arab world? How big of a blunder will this be by historical standards?