MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn "in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said Sunday.

 

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said his defense minister-designate, Jose Bono, was ordered to make the arrangements as soon as he had been sworn into office with the rest of the new Cabinet on Sunday.

 

Zapatero had previously said that he would bring Spanish troops home by June 30 unless the United Nations assumed political and military control in Iraq.

 

Zapatero said there were "no apparent indications" that there would be a U.N. resolution meeting his requirements by the end of June.

 

The announcement came a day after Zapatero assumed office from Jose Maria Aznar, who supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year.

 

"I gave the order to do everything necessary to bring the Spanish troops stationed in Iraq home in the shortest time possible and with the greatest security guarantees," Zapatero said Sunday in a statement broadcast on national television.

 

The Spanish contingent is based near the Iraqi city of Najaf, where an uprising led by Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr began two weeks ago. They are part of a Polish-led multinational brigade based in southern Iraq.

 

The decision to pull them out of the country was Zapatero's first since taking power, having won an upset victory over Aznar's conservative Popular Party in last month's parliamentary elections.

 

It is an abrupt reversal of Aznar's policy, which had been to stand firmly by the Bush administration in the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

 

The 43-year-old prime minister was elected just three days after the deadly March 11 Madrid train bombings that killed 190 people and wounded 1,800 -- attacks blamed on Islamic terrorists.

 

The al Qaeda terrorist network had threatened Spain publicly for its support of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, and Spain's National Court has charged 18 people, including 14 Moroccans, in the bombings.

 

In Washington, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said Zapatero "jumped the gun" by not waiting to see what steps the United States and the United Nations will take in coming weeks.

 

"I hope al Qaeda does not misinterpret this, and I hope it's temporary and the Spaniards will be back," Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, told CNN.

 

"If they are not willing to stay in Iraq, they could prove that they're still with us in the war on terrorism by sending those Spanish troops to Afghanistan. We need their help there."

 

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said: "We will work with our coalition partners in Iraq and the Spanish government, and we expect they will implement their decision in a coordinated, responsible and orderly manner."

 

Zapatero said Spain would continue to participate in other international peace and security missions.

 

Spain has 125 troops in Afghanistan, and Zapatero's aides have said he is willing to double that number. He said Spain continues to support the democratic reconstruction of Iraq and will work with the United Nations and European Union toward that end.

 

He said those measures would be in accord with international law -- an apparent reference to his oft-stated position that the U.S.-led war was not.

 

Zapatero's comments came in a statement from the prime minister's official residence and office, his first such broadcast as prime minister. He took no questions from reporters.

 

In other Iraq developments, U.S. troop deaths in Iraq reached 700, with 504 killed in combat, on Sunday as the military added 11 American casualties to the war's death toll. (Full story)

 

Pope John Paul II called on Iraqi kidnappers Sunday to show "humanity" and free their hostages, including U.S. Army Pfc. Keith Matthew Maupin, 20, a reservist from Batavia, Ohio. (Full story)

 

Bush's blind cowboy mentality approach to fighting the "war on terror" and not making this a global front against clear and present threats will now make a rough situtation in Iraq just a little tougher. Spain now joins the ranks of India, Russia, and other major nations which refuse to activley particpate unless this is done through the UN and not Bush's my way or the highway mentality. Btw, dont automatically blame this on the election of a new ideological government. They arent saying no action in Iraq. They are saying go through the UN.

 

This is another example of why Bush, despite what some people have flat out convinced themselves, has bungled up global solidarity against terrorism by the Iraqi conflict that looks less and less justified everyday and less and less stable everyday. This is another example of why Bush isnt always right and well, actually doing a pretty bad job.

 

Too bad some people are so blind to any policy Bush takes as being the only measure possible to attaining international security. To some people, after 9/11, Bush could have said invade Canada and kill all Blue Jays fans to attain international security and people would staunchly been behind him. Any critiism against this or alternative methods are described as either unpatriotic or being what the terrorists want. (Why do you like terrorists? Do you like terror? I dont like terror) Is it possible that Mr. God on Earth Bush just might be doing this wrong? Is it possible that acting in self interest and on very general principle of "beating the bad guys" needs a little more thought? Not for some people.

 

He convinced people invading Iraq was the right thing. People followed. He convinced peopel to tell the UN to f*** off. People followed. He convinced people that any alternatives were foolish and supported terrorism. People followed. Now he is failing and countries realize that international solidarity is the answer and not the world according to GWB. Will some people continue to follow? Of course.

 

Spain's withdrawal continues to show why Bush is not doing a good job in foreign affairs. Spain is not saying no to helping in Iraq. They are saying we will only go where there is strong international solidarity-where the UN mandates such. You see after 9/11, the world was together. The world was going to help us end these terrorist threats. But Bush screwed that up. He said to hell with international solidarity. It was Bush's way and no other way. To people who prefer swift and blind action, this is preferred over using one's brain. Now Bush is stuck in between a rock and a hardplace. His my way or the highway mentality has cost him support in Iraq(like Spain) and things are already rough as it is. But people will continue to follow. Hell remember all other nations are "selfish and wimps" while Bush is strong and wise.

 

Perhaps John Kerry's suggestions would be better suited? Oh wait, thats what Bush is trying now by considering grovelling back to the UN. But its so hard isnt it?

We lost all of our gained good will after 9/11 with this invasion. For what?

Couple this with the murder of Ranisi(sp?) and even more insurgents will head to Iraq. We are creating a hot bed of terrorism that did not exist pre-invasion. The Palestinians believe Bush gave the OK for this assasination or else Israel would not have attempted it.

To get rid of a threat for which there is little substanative evidence actually existed. But some people will follow general principles of "this guy doesnt like us so he must be a threat" mentality.

 

As the war planning progressed, on December 21, 2002, Tenet and his top deputy, John McLaughlin, went to the White House to brief Bush and Cheney on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Woodward reports.

 

The president, unimpressed by the presentation of satellite photographs and intercepts, pressed Tenet and McLaughlin, saying their information would not "convince Joe Public" and asking Tenet, "This is the best we've got?" Woodward reports.

 

According to Woodward, Tenet reassured the president that "it's a slam dunk case" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

 

In his CBS interview, Woodward said he "asked the president about this, and he said it was very important to have the CIA director, 'slam-dunk' is as I interpreted it, a sure thing, guaranteed."

 

About two weeks later, shortly after New Year's Day 2003, Bush -- frustrated with unfruitful U.N. weapons inspections -- made up his mind to go to war after consulting with Rice, according to Woodward.

 

She urged him to act on his stated threat to take military action if Saddam did not provide a full accounting of his weapons of mass destruction, Woodward reports.

 

"If you're going to carry out coercive diplomacy, you have to live with that decision," Rice is quoted as telling Bush.

 

On "Face The Nation" Sunday, Rice insisted that Bush's conversation with her in January did not amount to a decision to go to war, which she said wasn't made until March when military strikes were ordered.

 

"Part of the relationship between a national security adviser and a president is that the president, in a sense, kind of thinks out loud, if I could put it that way," she said.

 

"And the president was getting somewhat frustrated with the way that the inspections were going."

 

 

Powell's skepticism

Two days after the meeting with Bandar, on January 13, Bush met with Powell in the Oval Office to inform his chief diplomat that he had decided to go to war.

 

"You know you're going to be owning this place?" Powell is reported as telling Bush, cautioning him that the United States would be assuming the responsibility for the postwar situation.

 

Bush told Powell that he understood the ramifications, Woodward said.

 

Despite his reservations about the policy, Powell told the president he would support him, deciding that it would be "an unthinkable act of disloyalty" to both Bush and U.S. troops to walk away at that point, according to Woodward.

 

In February, Powell appeared before the U.N. Security Council to make the U.S. case that war was necessary to enforce U.N. resolutions and disarm Saddam's regime.

 

The secretary has subsequently said his testimony was based on information that in retrospect appears not to have been "solid."

 

In her interview with "Face The Nation," Rice disputed the suggestion that Powell was kept less in the loop than the Saudi ambassador.

 

She said again that the decision to go to war did not take place until March, well after Bush had informed Powell of his intentions and after his U.N. presentation.

 

"The secretary of state was privy to all of the conversations with the president, all of the briefings for the president. They were in almost daily contact about what was going on at the United Nations," she said.

 

"It's just not the proper impression that somehow Prince Bandar was in the know in a way that Secretary Powell was not. ... [He]had been privy to all of this. He knew what the war plan was."

 

 

What else did it cost us? Possible efforts in Afghanistan. Rumors are that they took money earmarked for rebuilding that nation and sent it to Iraq. Now we have most of our rescources there and Afghanistan is not exactly a safe nation.

 

In the book, Woodward reports that on November 21, 2001 -- about three months after the September 11 attacks and shortly after the Taliban regime crumbled in Afghanistan -- Bush took Rumsfeld aside, ordered him to develop a war plan for Iraq and told him to keep it secret.

 

Eight months later, in late July 2002, the president approved spending $700 million for Iraq war planning, which was taken from a supplemental appropriation for the war in Afghanistan, according to Woodward.

 

Diverting money appropriated by Congress for one purpose to another use was legally questionable, the author told CBS.

 

Rice said she had not read Woodward's book and could not comment on the specific report.

 

She said on CBS's "Face The Nation" that it was possible money could have been transferred within the Defense Department or within U.S. Central Command, which was in charge of both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.

 

She also said any resource shift did not affect the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.

 

"I will tell you that resources were not taken from Afghanistan. Whatever we needed to do in Afghanistan, we did in Afghanistan," she said.

 

"The secretary of defense manages the appropriation that he is given from Congress. ... I am quite certain [he]would propose to the president things that he believes are inside his purview to do with the allocation he gets from Congress

I find it hard to believe Bush has this much power...can he really just decide "hey lets go to war." Im curious as to how the whole power structure of the White House works as far as decision making.

 

 

 

I am ANGRY!!! VERY ANGRY!!!

I am a secular leftist! But I am angry!!!!

Can you imagine what do other millions of right winged religious people feel????

I can’t even concentrate and know if my words will make any sense!!

 

The hate and anger of the Arab people today is unbelievable!!!, Palestinians Iraqis Jordanians Egyptians Syrians … the hate against Bush and his administration is huge now… enormous … ENORMOUS!!!!!!

Everyone believes that Bush is giving the green light for Sharon to kill their leaders, and everyone thinks that Iraq, Falluja, Najaf and every other city would face the same Palestinian destiny if they didn’t fight Against the American army now …. They would be put under siege and assassinated one by one by the American helicopters!!!

Everyone thinks that it is better to start fighting from now!!!

Everyone is full of HATE!!!

EVEN ME!!!?

 

Folks, this is from a democracy-activist, a westernized Iraqi, a pro-American Iraqi. If Raed is PO?d, then you can imagine how Salam Pax is feeling.

Couple this with the murder of Ranisi(sp?) and even more insurgents will head to Iraq. We are creating a hot bed of terrorism that did not exist pre-invasion. The Palestinians believe Bush gave the OK for this assasination or else Israel would not have attempted it.

 

The whole region is chaos now. Its so frustrating. Man do I hope Kerry can win this election.

I also just started reading articles from aljazeera.com to balance out the pro-US press at home...interesting stuff. Truly amazing how our opinions, biases, etc are shaped by the media and we dont even realize it. People think they know what they know, but they only spew forth what they hear on CNN or Fox News. Its so hard to know whats right. :confused

Couple this with the murder of Ranisi(sp?) and even more insurgents will head to Iraq. We are creating a hot bed of terrorism that did not exist pre-invasion. The Palestinians believe Bush gave the OK for this assasination or else Israel would not have attempted it.

 

The whole region is chaos now. Its so frustrating. Man do I hope Kerry can win this election. Whats happening in Iraq is forcing me to consider changing my mind on Nader. Potential side effects of this conflict could be extended war and maybe even a draft. f*** that.

If Kerry doesn't win....we're all royally screwed.

War does not determine who is right, war only determines who is left.

 

America could have easily won in Vietnam, and can very easily win in Iraq. If, of course, you don't mind killing your enemy to the point of near annihilation.

 

Do you think the Allies would have tried to surgically remove Adolph Hitler from Berlin, and then leave a few divisions around to quell the insurgent NAZI forces? It's ridiculous. If you want to win a war, you have to kill the enemy.

 

Problem is, this time the enemy is much of the Iraqi population, if not in deed, then at least in thought. If Saddam had began marching his soldiers in Jordan and Kuwait and Turkey to invade, then maybe the Arab world could support the Allies.

 

Maybe Jim and Cliff know this, and still want to "win". But personally I don't see what the people of Iraq did to the United States to deserve to be defeated. Saddam wasn't Hitler, and the Iraqis aren't Nazis.

 

If you're not willing to defeat the enemy, you get what you have now. Not a quagmire, a debacle.

 

It makes me wonder; every day we hear about the one or two or ten Americans killed in combat. When do we ever hear about the one or two or ten Iraqi insurgents killed by the same? I'll bet statistics of Americans winning would really boost supprt for the war effort. So where is it?

 

How do you define victory if not by destroying the enemy? Can you imagine trying to build a school or a hospital or factory on Omaha Beach in 1944 before taking out the German's 352nd Infantry?

 

Iraq will never be rebuilt until the enemy is destroyed. I pity those whose job it is to destroy them.

Couple this with the murder of Ranisi(sp?) and even more insurgents will head to Iraq. We are creating a hot bed of terrorism that did not exist pre-invasion. The Palestinians believe Bush gave the OK for this assasination or else Israel would not have attempted it.

 

The whole region is chaos now. Its so frustrating. Man do I hope Kerry can win this election. Whats happening in Iraq is forcing me to consider changing my mind on Nader. Potential side effects of this conflict could be extended war and maybe even a draft. f*** that.

I hope Nader drops out or at least Kerry gets to him before its too late. If Nader affects this election, he might be strung up by some people. A lot of conservatives are encouraging him to run.

 

Bush has put some serious fear into some people minds. Im not talking conspiracy nuts either. If this man gets reelected, its going to flat out suck in my mind. The consequences will go beyond a draft. Individual rights will be more curtailed. Every necessary social program will gradually disappear. Enviromental maintanence will be no longer(spoke with an attorney with the EPA and she told me that that agency has pretty much been told not to investigate blatant enviromental destruction and that they have to go about doing it secretly). Gays will not only not be able to get married, but will have more rights encroached on. The presidency will become an even larger theocracy. He will engage in a mandate for very right wing policies at some major expenses. Roe v Wade will be gone. Just remember, we are also talking about the makeup of the Supreme Court. Right now its a balanced court. But if Bush gets his way, it will become a conservative mouthpiece.

 

Please dont vote Nader, especially if you live in Florida.

 

I also just started reading articles from aljazeera.com to balance out the pro-US press at home...interesting stuff. Truly amazing how our opinions, biases, etc are shaped by the media and we dont even realize it. People think they know what they know, but they only spew forth what they hear on CNN or Fox News. Its so hard to know whats right.

 

 

Youre right. Its extremley hard to get an objective perspective on whats happening, especially with the centralization of media that is occuring. Despite what some people say, its very difficlult to understand why people do what they do in that region.

 

People love to bash the NYtimes as being liberal but its not. Its a paper with a lot of integrity. Just because it isnt a mouthpiece for one party, it gets ripped on. Id reccomend reading stuff on www.nytimes.com.

If Kerry doesn't win....we're all royally screwed.

Youre unAmerican and unpatriotic!!

 

 

I read the Times 3 days a week when I bake at the bagel shop. Very well written paper and a bunch of their journalists go on to write decent to good books.

What a love-in. Kumbaya, y'all.

What a love-in. Kumbaya, y'all.

Ohhh you got me.

 

I have just been burned.

 

Ohh it hurts.

Come on, I made a valid point...Don't come up with some lame quip...without expecting me to laugh in your face.

 

Enough said.

Tell me if you were making billions off of Iraq would you want go in there and spend money to get rid of the people you are making money off of? Well France and Russia both were making immense amount of money off Sadaam Hussein and IRaq so they would never ever want to go in. We should have waited longer i will admit. but i have no doubt that one day sadaam woulda struck the United States, and personally I am glad to see him out of power

Tell me if you were making billions off of Iraq would you want go in there and spend money to get rid of the people you are making money off of? Well France and Russia both were making immense amount of money off Sadaam Hussein and IRaq so they would never ever want to go in. We should have waited longer i will admit. but i have no doubt that one day sadaam woulda struck the United States, and personally I am glad to see him out of power

We are not talking about France and Russia. We are talking about the UN. Of course they thought in self interest. But they wouldnt have gone so far as to veto a UN resolution for their own self interest...something we do all the time.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/politics...pagewanted=2&hp

 

In addition, many accounts of the planning for the first gulf war say that Mr. Cheney, then secretary of defense, opposed going to the United Nations or Congress for backing to remove Iraq from Kuwait, fearing that failure would weaken the first President Bush's administration's ability to go to war.

 

 

but i have no doubt that one day sadaam woulda struck the United States

Based on what? If its general sense of willingness to attack American and its interest, shouldnt we also strike at Saudi Arabia and North Korea and numerous other nations? There has to be substance.

 

We should have waited longer i will admit.

 

As is what I argue. Bush's blind cowboy mentality has led to chaos. International solidarity would have made this a lot easier.

 

 

 

But I guess I am just a hippy who hugs trees and sings "Kumbaya, y'all."

We lost all of our gained good will after 9/11 with this invasion. For what?

When we bombed afghanistan people were complaining about how we lost the "good will" from other nations since 9-11.

 

Europe has long disagreed with anything we do. Right or wrong.

Tell me if you were making billions off of Iraq would you want go in there and spend money to get rid of the people you are making money off of? Well France and Russia both were making immense amount of money off Sadaam Hussein and IRaq so they would never ever want to go in. We should have waited longer i will admit. but i have no doubt that one day sadaam woulda struck the United States, and personally I am glad to see him out of power

I have no doubt we will have a full blown war against China. Let's start one up now.

What a love-in. Kumbaya, y'all.

How do you delude yourself into thinking your not biased? I think you'd like to be non-partisan but at heart your as right(wing) as they come.

We lost all of our gained good will after 9/11 with this invasion. For what?

When we bombed afghanistan people were complaining about how we lost the "good will" from other nations since 9-11.

 

Europe has long disagreed with anything we do. Right or wrong. Probably because we don't care what the world has to say...isolationsim returns.

We lost all of our gained good will after 9/11 with this invasion.? For what?

When we bombed afghanistan people were complaining about how we lost the "good will" from other nations since 9-11.

 

Europe has long disagreed with anything we do. Right or wrong. Probably because we don't care what the world has to say...isolationsim returns. Isolationism? C/mon, get serious.

 

How do you delude yourself into thinking your not biased? I think you'd like to be non-partisan but at heart your as right(wing) as they come.

 

And claiming that there is the possibility of a draft (which will never happen) isn't biased at all? Your Henny-Penny claims of the sky is falling as further endorsing factors for Kerry is laughable.

 

Listen to yourselves for a sec.... You are seriously debating the merits of a Democratic candidate because of foreign policy?

Unilateral invasion, withdrawing from kyoto, world court, etc, etc, etc.

We lost all of our gained good will after 9/11 with this invasion.? For what?

When we bombed afghanistan people were complaining about how we lost the "good will" from other nations since 9-11.

 

Europe has long disagreed with anything we do. Right or wrong. Probably because we don't care what the world has to say...isolationsim returns. Isolation is not the word! We wouldn't be messing with people if we were isolationist!

 

I don't blame spain, what do they have to gain in Iraq at this point?

Unilateral invasion, withdrawing from kyoto, world court, etc, etc, etc.

sorry to keep scrutinizing everything you write man, but I do agree with your stance against needless unilateral invasion.

 

However, Kyoto can have negative effects on the environment and it hurts the world's economy.

 

Kyoto forces countries to move to using diesel fuel to lower CO2, but diesel releases a lot more soot. The result is that you trade CO emissions, where there is no evidence of them being capable of doing harm for known harmful diesel emissions.

 

The world court would of been a catastrophe, because individual american soldiers or politicians of ours, and ect go on foreign visits can be "easily" arrested for qar crimes, and I see that as against America's interests.