Hackery

I agree, pogge: that was an extremely cheap shot from Dimanno, although I'd say that Marcus Gee manages to do even worse in this a.m.'s G&M -- slandering the Spanish is the opening hook for his column. Like Dimanno, he is more interested in his own propaganda than in what actually happened in either Madrid or London.

Like the Spanish, the majority of the British people were opposed to the invasion of Iraq before it happened and they remain so. The cowardice would reside in allowing these attacks to shake one's political principles and resolve. The Spanish didn't do that, and I expect that the British will not either.

Marcus Gee is the worst journalist in Canada who is still deserving of that name.

Aznar lost because he tried to shift blame for the bombing away from his government by pointing at ETA. Regardless, most Spaniards who intended on voting for Aznar (for economic reasons, which trumped Iraq) did so anyway. What brought him down was voters intending to vote for other leftist parties voted instead for Zapetero. This shows in the electoral results. For example, the unsual share of the Communist vote went down dramatically.

Regardless of his election pledges Zapetero was looking for a way to gracefully pull out of Iraq. Unfortunately for him the Bush administration turned up the rhetoric. Instead of dealing with Spain's new government they decided to lecture it.

Then, according to reports in El Pais and El Mondo, the Spanish commanders in Najaf started to recieve orders to attack el Sadr and his Badar corps. They had just completed a study which examined this very possibility and found it too dangerous. In one instance they were ordered to shell a hospital. Instead the Spanish commanders sent Ecuadorian and Spanish commandos to take the hospital, which they did. This caused a rift with the US officials in overall command.

It was only after he started recieving complaints from his commanders in Iraq about American heavy-handedness, arrogance and bad policy did Zapetero make the decision to fufill his election promise.

For the record, the US eventually had to back off el Sadar.

Those are the facts. Something Marcus Gee is completly ignorant of.

Ah, Rosie D. She can always be counted on to say something stupid. I won't even bother commenting on Gee.

Gee has repeatedly misrepresented the facts when it is convenient for him to do so. One egregious example was his claim that Saddam Hussein was the only leader in history to use chemical weapons.

Gee is a liar.

He was also, last I checked, the chair of the Globe's editorial board.

Er.. How is he smearing previous victims? I missed that. Did I read it in Spanish, or some other language.

If you mean Gee, I can't answer. I'm not a Globe subscriber. If you mean DiManno, she essentially called the Spanish cowards. That would include the victims who weren't actually killed in the Madrid bombings.

I can see why you'd say that, but the interpretation does not follow in my mind. Yes, Dimanno is suggesting Spanish cowardice, and there was, there is still is. Many in Spain say as much. But that is not about the victims; it's about their government. We need to keep things in the appropriate perspective, it seems to me, so as not to get caught up in the political rhetoric.

We need to keep things in the appropriate perspective, it seems to me, so as not to get caught up in the political rhetoric.

It seems to me you're contradicting yourself:

Yes, Dimanno is suggesting Spanish cowardice, and there was, there is still is.

It's OK for you to call those who disagree cowards but the rest of us should keep things in perspective? Try taking your own advice.

Boy, you get snippy rather quickly, and now you have distracted from the secondary point. The suggestion of cowardice is likely directed to the Spanish government. That was the point. You see how important it is to keep perspective.

If we return to the entry point, I see no insult to victims. On that, we disagree, which is fine.
I don't always agree with what you write, and I still read it because it offers another point of view. I didn't post a comment to get into a contest with you, much less over matters that are peripheral to the initial point. Just wanted to say that I don't see it. Sorry if my comments have raised your blood pressure.

Civitatenis, is it a common trait of the Blogging Tories to just completely skip over the counter-arguments people present against their viewpoint?

Let me review for you the points Pogge was making as to why the Spanish - be they the people or the government - were NOT cowards:
---------
A majority of the Spanish population were opposed to their country's involvement in the war in Iraq before the Madrid bombings. Current Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero had made it clear that if he won, he intended to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. He said that before the Madrid bombings. And outgoing Prime Minister Aznar managed to screw up his own chances for re-election by playing politics with the bombings. He incurred the wrath of the Spanish electorate by lying to them, by insisting that the crimes were committed by Basque terrorists and even pressuring the media to stick to the party line and not report otherwise.
----

Now then, instead of trying to skirt the issue... try addressing the points made above and explain to us all why these points listed by Pogge dont prove there was no cowardice involved with the Spanish, but a combination of the promised platform of the Socialists and the wrath of the Spanish electorate at Aznar for misleading them.

What Scott said.

And it seems to me that claiming I got snippy is another way of avoiding the point I made. My blood pressure is fine and that wasn't snippy. I don't get snippy; I get pissed. And if I was pissed, you'd know it.

This is senseless:

Who ultimately started this mess we're in?

Who invaded a soverign nation, a fellow member of the UN, without provocation?

Who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, only to admit they lied so they could invade them without looking like the complete assholes they actually are?

Who invaded Iraq, guns ablaze, killing civilian women, children and men, because the room-temperature-IQ individuals who sign up for the army are racist fucks who think everyone there is just another "dirty sand-nigger"?

Who holds the bill for the weapons of mass destruction sold to them initially?

Let's start blaming the ones responsible instead of the poor innocent people who are just reacting out of fear. Fear that was thrust upon them with complete disregard for the UN and what it stands for.

The United States are responsible for all this mess the world is in. Including the Balinese, Spanish, and British incidents.

Napoleon has his Waterloo, it's only a matter of time until the US finds theirs.

WHY DOES THE STAR LET HER WRITE?!?!?!?!

Probably they let her write to bethe token neo-con right winger at the paper ;)

If you dont like what she has to say... I've included at Progressive Bloggers in my diary on the same topic an email link to the Toronto Star Editor (letters to the Editor) where you can register your objections.

PS - I can attest to seeing when Pogge is really P.O'ed.. that was nowhere near it.

;-)

I sent a letter to the Star's editor in April expressing my disappointment that the Star published RDM's column entitled, "In fight over life, Schiavo has blood on his hands." If that column wasn't libelous, it was pretty damn close.

From my letter to Giles Gerson: "I'm not going to begin to address the inaccuracies in the article, which can be readily identified by reading the legal opinions and decisions--all of which have supported Mr. Schiavo's position. I will mention the deceptive and misleading sentence, 'numerous neuroligists have given conflicting evidence' as an example of writing that, if not deliberately deceptive, shows a sad lack of willingness to engage in the most cursory research.

In fact, seven board-certified neurologists testified *under oath* that Ms Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. The dissenting doctor promotes hyperbaric oxygen treatments, not exactly an example of a practitioner at the pinnancle of the neurological profession. *This is why all of the legal judgements have ruled in favour of Mr. Shiavo."

Anyway, I told Mr. Gerson that I had forwarded the column to George Felos, the lawyer for Michael Schiavo. I apologized in my letter to Mr. Felos for wasting his time with the rantings of a second-rate city beat columnist when there were more egregious examples of inflammatory behaviour by the various print and television media, but I was tired of media of all types and descriptions using their positions to come perilously close to accusing private citizens of murder.

dimanno, gee, wente, coyne, simpson [jeff], corcoran, ... there is no reason to read these people folks.

dimanno exists to engender "controversy" (with about as much intelligence as the office bigot does) and that's it. if she's too stupid to know that she's the Star's freakshow that's her problem.

DiManno set the bar pretty low recently with her piece on the Pride Parade. Nothing like a reporter claiming to be "horny" at the parade, and we're supposed to take her seriously now?