Talking point disabled: Spain Elections

[a_random_joel]

Man, I love logic...

Check it out.

Talking Point #1: Iraq war is justified because we are fighting the terrorists "over there", not "over here."

Talking Point #2: The terrorists seek to disrupt our elections like they did in the Madrid bombings.

Now, setting aside for the moment the post hoc fallacy of the Madrid bombing argument.

And also setting aside the logic that the terrorists are still capable of planning attacks here (and certainly intent on doing so) regardless of our actions in Iraq.

Can everyone see how these two talking points directly contradict each other?

[zagszman]

1. spanish elections

no. you make no sense.

[a_random_joel]

2. Hmmm.

Let me get some crayons.

The Administration and their surrogates push the following idea:

The terrorists attacked Madrid (a city in Spain) with the purpose of affecting the elections there. Now, supposedly, a new terror threat exists here with terrorists seeking a similar outcome.

While the Administration and their surrogates simultaneously defend the Iraq war as a necessary and justified action because:

It is better to fight terrorists on their turf rather then fighting them over here.

So... If the Iraq battle was engaged to keep the terrorists from attacking outside of that sphere, how come they are now planning attacks here? How did they achieve attacks in Spain?

In other words...

The Administration has no idea what they are talking about, directly contradicts itself and the Iraq war has not made us safer.

Get it?

[NoodleBoy]

3. from what I remember...

polls from before the Madrid bombing showed the incumbent (I forget his name) losing by a large enough margin, and Spanish support for the war not that large either, so basically the election would have gone that way without the bombing.

[a_random_joel]

4. Exactly right... that is what I meant by the post hoc fallacy...

that I referenced in the initial post.

Not only was the war unpopular enough with the people (hmmm... democracy... noble concept, eh?) that the incumbent was in trouble, but the way the government botched the investigation by initially reporting that it was the work of Basque Seperatists WITH NO EVIDENCE, that pissed off much of the electorate.

But my point is bigger than this...

I am talking about a direct contradiction between two Republican talking points.

[Hoping4Change]

5. There is a contradiction but you make a serious error.

Everyone expected Aznar to be re-elected. The only reason he wasn't is that he LIED about the bombing, trying to pin it on ETA and his close ties to Bush. These facts mobilized the youth who normally are politically uninvolved.

What the repukes are doing that is worse than contradicting themselves is giving AQ a propaganda victory by insisting AQ successfully altered an election. IMO the stinking repukes are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.:mad:


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC16Aa03.html


"The surprise defeat of the conservative Popular Party in Spain's general election has sent political shock waves surging around the planet.

The night before the election, noisy demonstrations broke out around the Popular Party's headquarters in Madrid, with thousands of angry youths shouting that the government was lying to the public.

Spanish pollsters say a high turnout by young voters appears to have turned the election around at the last moment."

[Manix]

6. You hit the nail right on the head. Even the mainstream media in the US

is spreading this misinformation about what really happened in Spain.

[a_random_joel]

9. I addressed that in the post above

"trying to pin it on ETA and his close ties to Bush. These facts mobilized the youth who normally are politically uninvolved."

I didn't say ETA; I said Basque seperatists - same thing.

I am still pissed off that they would try and pass these two talking points off that directly contradict each other.

[UTUSN]

7. Debunking Needed: "TheSpanish Election"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1983580

[Salviati]

8. My question re: Spanish elections...

if thesetrends continue, and Kerry pulls and stays ahead of bush, then if 'the terrorists' attack us here in order to 'influance' our elections, what is the goal they are trying to achieve? It seems if 'the terrorists' want Kerry in the white house, and he's leading, then they should leave well enough alone.

OTOH if there is an attack to purportedly influance the elections while Kerry is in the lead, it must surely mean that the attackers want bush in the white house.

[UTUSN]

10. What Dave Said, "The (mal-)administration has said

they don't want terrorists to influence the election. No, they want the GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA to influence the election.

[truthspeaker]

11. "America is safer!"

I get your point. America is safer, but we have to be extra-vigilant about terrorist attacks. Freedom is slavery. War is peace.