[NYCFarmboy]

Triumph of Hope
President Bush's re-election gives the free world a second chance.

BY JOSE MARIA AZNAR
Sunday, November 7, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

Hope has triumphed.

I know that some may be surprised to read this, but I am convinced of the fact.

Hope has triumphed, and with it the confidence of the American people in the values and principles on which our shared civilization on both sides of the Atlantic is based. George W. Bush decided to respond to totalitarian terrorist attacks with a return to basic principles. He could have chosen appeasement. He could have opted for mere rhetoric. He decided not to do so. He decided to oppose brutality with steadfast conviction. Now a wide majority of his people has backed this policy. It has confirmed that there is hope in our way of life, a form of hope that derives its strength from its essential convictions, a hope that is manifested in the desire to defend freedom above all else.

Many took for granted that Mr. Bush would be defeated. They were wrong. The mistake committed by those who create caricatures is that they believe that normal people are going to substitute reality with caricature. The American people have decided that the best option is to offer a new mandate to Mr. Bush. If not, the achievement of these elections would be inexplicable: an extensive margin between the two candidates, in favor of President Bush, in favor of the popular vote; an increase in the number of his senators; a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives. Mr. Bush has managed to consolidate a movement that has been emerging for some years. He has managed to consolidate a natural conservative majority in his country.

George W. Bush has not only had to face the enemies of democracy but also stand up to a front of rejection made up of various different groups, a veritable negative coalition whose only unifying principle was to ensure that he was defeated. Some observers believed that the majority would now pronounce itself to be against the decision to go to Afghanistan and Iraq in order to prevent the terrorist threat from rising. The temptation of comfort and convenience is a powerful one. Our democracies are not especially well prepared for the idea that they are under threat. They are not well prepared to combat an enemy that is as diffuse as it is daring and lethal.

Following the atrocities of September 11, President Bush did not allow himself to be swept away by an understandable sense of rage. I know him well and I know what I am talking about. Afghanistan was a strategic objective in the war on terror, not an act of vengeance. Iraq has served the same purpose.

Mr. Bush's international strategy includes an active policy in favor of peace throughout the most dangerous region on Earth: the Middle East. He has promoted greater political openness and economic liberalization, not to mention values such as religious respect and tolerance. The status quo of a region that has become a hotbed for terrorists and fanatics is no longer acceptable. Far-reaching change is required. And this is what he is pursuing with his initiative for the Greater Middle East. I would say that it is the only option and hope for millions of human beings who are today lost in a climate of desperation and hatred. It is also the only option for our long-term security. This entire policy has been widely backed by the American people.

I believe that Mr. Bush's re-election ushers in a period of hope for the international community. Leaders all around the world can also play their part in defending our democracies and way of life. We have another four years before us, and Western leaders can now join the allied effort to build a safer and freer world. It is true, primitive anti-American feeling and unfounded hostility will make things more difficult for those leaders who have flirted with these tendencies. But the world is now presented with a clear opportunity.

Over the last few months we have witnessed numerous attempts to introduce and exploit issues that have the greatest capacity to create divisions. Power has been abused, and a damaging sense of polarization has set in. Hatred has been promoted in the place of understanding. Unity has been replaced with division. It is comforting to see that this strategy has simply mobilized many more millions of Americans, millions of Americans who went to the polls in order to do exactly the opposite. They have voted for a policy based on principles. They have voted for a sincere policy, for a leadership based on convictions. This policy does not shy away from unpleasant realities, but faces up to them, because it knows that this is the only way of overcoming them. This is the lesson that we can all learn: Attempts to create division can be opposed with a policy based on principles. And this policy can be a triumphant one.

Mr. Aznar is Spain's former prime minister.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005864

[AKcrab]

I guess this explains why he's the former spanish prime minister?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I guess this explains why he's the former spanish prime minister?

Yes..the people of Spain chose to bow down to Bin Laden...

The people of the United States of America chose not to.

[effgee]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Yes..the people of Spain chose to bow down to Bin Laden... The people of the United States of America chose not to.

When you forget to include the part of the story where Aznar got his dishonest behind fired by the Spanish (in large part) because he attempted to deceive them by initially blaming the terror attack on the ETA, is it because you don't know, forgot or left it out on purpose?

Just wondering.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Yes..the people of Spain chose to bow down to Bin Laden...

The people of the United States of America chose not to.

Look! A comment made without knowing almost anything about the reasons that led to Aznar's government to lose the elections back in March.

We have had to deal with terrorism for quite a long time, as ETA's actions spawn for over 30 years. More than 800 people have been slaughtered by them. And we have been fighting thoroughly against an enemy about whom you know little or nothing, achieveing a lot in spite of the lack of international support. We have had to cope with the irrationality of other governments (yours included) that would not consider them as what they are (terrorists) but would only call them "a separatist group". Therefore making it extremely difficult for us to get them included in intelligence files on international grounds. Most of this fight, we have fought it alone. Only recently help (your government's in a great part) has been received.

No one -- I repeat no one -- has bowed down to Bin Laden in the last elections; much less, the spanish people. We haven't bowed down to any other terrorist group before, and we haven't done so now. When you assert that, you show very little respect for the victims of terrorism; and even worse, you seem to do so simply because you apparently dislike the new government, which, after all, was decided by the people and for the people.

Now, back to the causes of Aznar's defeat, let me make a simple summary, so you can make more informed comments in the future.

1st.� Long before the election was held, we had -- in part due to bad decissions made by the government -- one of the worsts ecological catastrophes in our history, because a boat which carried petroleum sank in front of Galicia's coast.

2nd.� Aznar's government had made several poor decisions regarding the Vasc country and the rest of historic territories, and their desire for greater autonomy. The former goverment, passed a law which in effect perverted our criminal law to be used as a political tool.

3rd.� The government didn't do as Rudy Giuliani in NY, and gave little to none, or at least not enough information durgin the hours after the bombings. Even though the President should had addressed the nation, only the equivalent of your Secretary of State did so. Many people felt they didn't care enough. And they insisted on blaming ETA even after there was solid evidence the main perpetrators had been Al-Qaida's jihadists.

4th.� The government decided to help Bush in Iraq in spite of the opposition of roughly a 90 per cent of the spanish people. They even went further and used a legally questionable technique that consisted on calling it humanitarian aid, in order to avoid the passing that decision through the Congress and Senate (that, in other case, should had agred on it beforehand).

5th.� The equivalent of your Secretary of Defense, made several poor decissions (or is at the very least accountable for them) that led to the death of several military men because they flew in a Yakovlev that hadn't got the right security measures and crashed.

6th.� Should you had seen the polls before and after the election, you would know that most people had already made up their minds and that the bombings had a very limited impact on the election results.

These are just a few; there are many more items. If you would like, I can give you many more, and a lot mor of info, though most of it is in spanish.

But, seriously, please, the next time you want to spew vitriol about other people and their actions, at least, try to get your facts straight.

Edited for typos and clarity

[CreepingDeth]

Too bad the Spanish have no spine for fighting and gave in.

I guess OBL doesn't like former Islamic countries to prosper. Then again, he doesn't want any Muslim nation to prosper given his ideologies.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:


Too bad the Spanish have no spine for fighting and gave in.

I guess OBL doesn't like former Islamic countries to prosper. Then again, he doesn't want any Muslim nation to prosper given his ideologies.

Would you please read what I wrote "supra" before repeating those stupid things?

TIA