Terrorist Success in Spain? No! Just Bush "terminological inexactitudes"

 

Terrorist Success in Spain? No!

Just Bush "terminological inexactitudes"

The Bush Campaign is trying to Spin Zapateria's election win as a Victory for the Terrorists, but Spanish Troop Withdrawal Was a Major Campaign Plank Long Before the Terrorist Attack.  

 

Our morning television on Tuesday brought us two reports of events for which our sympathy was sought - and given.   Quite obviously these mourners deserve the sympathy of every decent human being.   First we saw the sadness of the relatives of the dead following the terrorist attacks in Madrid and secondly the demonstration in Washington D.C. by the relatives of those members of the U.S.A. armed forces who had died in the invasion of Iraq or later during the occupation of that country.

 

In quite a different register, we saw and heard the joy throughout Europe at the fall of the Aznar government in Spain, accused by all as being in the pockets of the Bush regime against the wishes of its own people.

 

What will stay with us is the fundamental dignity of the relatives who demonstrated with such restraint before the Walter Reed Military Hospital and then moved on to the White House, in contrast to the obvious threat represented by the mounted "Storm Troopers" who were keeping a close eye on them.   Some of those present were also carrying placards calling for more information about, and better treatment of, those service personnel who had been seriously wounded in Iraq.   It was explained that many of them are being treated in that Hospital.   Our hearts go out to them all, just as they do to the mourners in Spain.

 

On the other hand, we all know that Mr Zapatera had made the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq one of the essential planks of his electoral campaign long before the attacks on the Madrid commuter trains.   Yesterday evening we were told that the Bush regime is now trying to pretend that Mr Zapatera's policy is a reaction to the terrorist attacks, and is thus a cowardly surrender to terrorism.   This untruth flies in the face of easily checked facts, and represents a new low in electoral falsehood.

 

We should remember the famous expression used by Winston Churchill, to avoid the total ban in the British House of Commons on accusing any other Member of resorting to lies.   He described the false statements in question as "terminological inexactitudes".   This expression fits so many of the statements made by Mr George W. Bush and Mr Anthony Blair, and their respective backers and supporters, in the build-up to their invasion of Iraq.   We must also remember that this invasion was carried out in direct contradiction to the clearly expressed wishes of the United Nations.

 

We in most of Europe (so delightfully described by your arch-diplomat, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, as "Old Europe") hope that your voters will not forget the thousands of victims of the Bush regime's unbridled greed, and, closest to you, those serving in your own armed forces who have fallen or been wounded in this illegal war.   Almost one year ago, on the day when we heard that the invasion had started, I was travelling in a car with two English businessmen to act as their interpreter, and they expressed the view that the whole problem would be over in a few months.   They then asked me how long I thought the new "war" would last.   My reply was that, being optimistic, it might end within twenty-five years, and subsequent events have not led me to change my mind.   The invasion was, and remains, a total disaster, which could have been avoided by working in cooperation with the rest of the world.

 

This is not to deny the obvious fact that Saddam Hussein was a very nasty criminal dictator, but this argument does not seem to prevent the Bush regime from remaining in close contact with other equally unpleasant rulers, especially in the Near and Middle East and in other countries in America.   We are also very well aware that various agencies of the U.S.A. government are working tirelessly to undermine democratically elected governments around the world, with the most notable at the moment being the support being given to opposition mobs in Venezuela.

 

Not every democratically elected government deserves our support, but our opposition to them should remain within reasonable bounds, and should show some respect for the genuine wishes of the people in question.   On the other hand, we are on safer ground when we oppose those, such as Mr Bush himself, who have come to power through means other than those which the world generally accepts as being democratic.

 

I always send my best wishes to the good people of the U.S.A., and will never forget the extremely disturbing statement made by Mr Bush, after announcing his "Crusade" against an ill-defined enemy (taken by most of the world, by inference, to mean every single Muslim) that "all who are not for us are against us".   My immediate reaction was to say to my wife and others "it is interesting to learn that I am against them", at a time when we were all expressing our deep sympathy for all who were so tragically bereaved on 11th September 2001.   We could never recognise ourselves in Mr Bush's "us", since it is so far removed from our collective concepts of decency and democracy.

 

We obviously welcome the return of Spain to the European fold, and hope that the poor deluded people of Poland will soon be able to join us, leaving Mr Blair, Mr Berlusconi and the Dutch and Danish governments as Mr Bush's sole remaining allies on our continent.   We also still hope that your powerful, and potentially very great, country will soon rejoin us in promoting freedom and democracy and rejecting hatred and tyranny.