Tim Blair

Recall that the exchange the United States made with Kruschev to get the missiles out of Cuba was to remove our Jupiter missiles from Turkey, but only long after we nearly came to a nuclear exchange about them.

Now, the Jupiters were well obsolete by 1963 and scheduled for decomissioning, but once the Russians demanded that as a bargaining chip -- we had to absolutely, flatly refuse to do so, and we seriously discussed bombing Cuba flat before we ever got back to talking Turkey-based missiles.

Ultimately, we worked it out so we removed them in 1964 or 1965, so we could have an out, but the point was we couldn't be seen to give them up under duress or else the Soviets would not have taken us seriously in, say, 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. And that would have been a serious business indeed if the Soviets didn't take us seriously then.

As the new PM of Spain made the removal of the troops (a platform before the 3-11 bombing) appear to be the quid pro quo for the bombing, the Spainards are going to spend years -- decades, perhaps -- making the world take them seriously when it comes to bargaining for their strategic interests.

checkmate. game to the moors

Nonsense. How the fuck is it spineless to continue doing what you were going to do anyway in the face of terrorists?

As long as Zapatero doesn't cave into this threat, he's acting consistently and hasn't let the terrorists change his actions.

Note to Spain: We told you so!

That said, I don't think there is much of a chance Spain will withdraw from Afghanistan.

But the big question is: would the islamofascists keep trying to attack Spain if it hadn't won a concession the first time? Nobody can know for sure, but the Spanish people should ask themselves this question, and think long and hard before answering.

John B., as Jan points out, it's a "game" of perceptions. Whether Spain's new government had previously intended to a withdrawal or not, if the terrorists see B causing A, so to speak, it will encourage them to go for more.

I could list a number of groovy things the US has done for Muslims over the last two decades including going to war to defend them but it would never impress the hardcore fanatics bent on our destruction.

Spain has pulled it's own Mogidishu and will continue to pay the price for years to come.

john b - Sure, Zapatero hasn't flip-flopped, he was and is an appeaser.

But Spain, as a nation, changed her plans and policy because of a terrorist attack. So [cliche] the terrorists have won [/cliche] and they're not likely to stop trying to win again and again.

Jan,

I followed your link and you make interesting points in your blog. Can I point you to a couple posts for more background? First to this post that I also wrote here, at Tim's, with information on intel documents declassified by Aznar govt.

Second, to a post at Roger Simon's blog where I make some comments on why an ETA authorship would have sunk the Socialist party for decades (hint: not because Aznar's PP was perceived as harder towards ETA, but because of PSOE's internal policies and coalitions in some Spanish regions with ETA-friendly parties), and why as soon as the first AQ clue appeared, the PSOE and friendly media immediately started spinning furiously.

The same guys who were saying "we must be united; we mustn't use this atrocity in a partisan way for the coming election because we must look at the big picture" when it looked like it had been ETA (because EVERYBODY thought it was ETA at first, not only Aznar, and this is why Aznar critics said these things at first), started to use the atrocity in a partisan way from the very moment that Aznar gov't mentioned the first AQ clue (on a press conference at 8.30 pm of the same 3-11).

They even invented a suicide bomber in gruesome detail (shaven body, 3 sets of underwear, saying they had 3 official anonymous sources) or a second tape in Arabic, and accusing Aznar gov't of covering it up. Of course, neither was true, but it allowed to trumpet the 'Aznar lied' mantra which was absorbed by the population which were in the middle of a very stressing moment, and who had been receiving for a couple years the Socialist-friendly media bias, including once and again the message that Aznar had been lying all along on several key issues (including the whole Iraq/WMD thing).

Friday and, specially Saturday, the day before the election when law forbids any political propaganda in the media, were a magnificent example of an agit-prop campaign that would have made Trotsky proud: under the disguise of news, the opposition-friendly media (which are the biggest and most popular) feed false news, covered on live TV and radio the 'spontaneous' demonstrations surrounding PP's headquarters so that people could know where to go, interviewed one opposition politician after another in which they demanded the resignation of the government (THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION!), said that the election results wouldnt be legitimate unless there was an urgent meeting of the Parliament IN FULL on Saturday night (obviously impossible), hinted that the gov't was in a secret meeting with the King and top military officials debating whether to impose martial law and with hold the elections (!!). They were inflaming public opinion in a very dangerous way and, of course, even though there was no meeting of the parliament in full, they don't have any problem with the legitimacy of the results since they won.

Of course, this has not been explained by correspondents of the foreign media in Spain. They have repeated their 'buddies' version.

No Matter how much lipstick Zapatero slaps on it....It still a monkey with it arms in the air. Terrorist and their supports don't care about his positions before 3/11 . They want to show, the arab world, that they caused Spain to pull out of Iraq.

John B,
"Why would it be spineless?" Because what Zapatero was going to do before 3-11 was equally spineless as what he committed to do after his election. Campaigning to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq is what the terrorists also campaigned for. Big bombs, election, and now Zapatero can make good on his promise. And he didn't disappoint. You're right that his actions are "consistent", but fail to factor in how they are consistent with terrorists' wishes.

As the radicals rejoice in the street at a Bush Coalition defeat, the Islamists make more demands and more bombs to show who's in charge. Do you really think it matters whether Zapatero accedes to the new demands? Big picture- he's politically committed to reigning in Spanish support of the US Middle East efforts. And still will have to suffer terrorist bombs they'll keep throwing his way because they see him and his supporters as soft. And as retreaters.

Even not pulling out of Afghanistan is a passive stance at best and wouldn't make Zapatero look more resolute in the terrorists' eyes. It's all how they perceive the situation

Thanks for pointers and comments, Franco Alemán. It is tragic the socialists got away with playing politics in the election, and amazingly managed to get people to accept that Aznar was the one really having done the same. Extremists have no shame and no restraints. They play hardball. That may well be the real reason Aznar lost the election.

The has been an explosion in Madrid again.

On next week’s episode of “The Spanish Appeasement Game” – Muslims demand reparations from being expelled in 1492, or else they will blow up trains!

Re: perfectsense

Actually, they'll accept nothing less than the restoration of Islamic rule on the Iberian Peninsula. Afterall, it used to be an Islamic state.

As we speak, there are more "martyrs for the cause" in Spain. Despite the anti-Bush government. And Al Qaeda is calling for stepped-up violence against Jews in Great Britain and France (despite, at least, Chirac's anti-Bush government). There are current threats to Italy, Poland, Greece, Germany and Belgium (hint: three of which are not Bush allied)

Does Europe not see that "the cause" against them has little to do with alignment with Bush's WOT and more to do with their being open, Western societies? Did 9-11 happen because of Bush's WOT, Afghanistan and Iraq? Of course not, that's the cart before the horse. But that's when it began for us- with a catastrophic attack out of the blue.

When will most of Europe see that it is a battleground of Islamists' choosing and that policework alone will not ensure any peace and security at home and that anti-Bush policy is rather defeatist?

"How the fuck is it spineless to continue doing what you were going to do anyway in the face of terrorists?"

My god, what is it like on the left's home planet?

I was planning to force my wife into slavery and stoning my neighbors, but since I was doing that even before the Caliphate Restoration, no one can call me spineless.

BigFire:

You gave away the plot for the cliff-hanging season finale!

Now, the Jupiters were well obsolete by 1963 and scheduled for decomissioning

I had heard the missiles in Turkey were made out of plastic.

"I had heard the missiles in Turkey were made out of plastic."

And you could tell by the look in her eye's that Condalezza didn't know what nuclear missiles were.

I don't see any point in changing policy just because conditions change.

Oh, *Nucular* weapons, why didn't you say so Mr Clarke?

"At least three suspects in the Madrid railway bombings blew themselves up Saturday as police prepared to storm their apartment. One special forces agent was killed in the explosion and 15 police officers were wounded."

Damnit. Now we'll NEVER know if they were the true perpetrators.

We know what the weather is like on the lef't home planet. KoS broadcast it over the last few days. We've always been at war with Oceania.

And you could tell by the look in her eye's that Condalezza didn't know what nuclear missiles were.

Nah, the look in her eyes told her she didn't know turkeys. Now Clarke, he knew turkeys. If only the administration had listened to him: the turkey would have been real! You see, that was the Clinton plan all along...so what if it didn't seem to be working in his term, it was specifically timed to go *blam* in the year 2000.

Peacenik conventional wisdom would say that killing Yassin would bring (more) war, while Spain dealing with "root causes" would bring peace. Instead, it seems to be the other way around. (Knock wood that nothing happens to either country)

The latest 'alleged' terrorist that blew themselves up prior to arrest it seems were from these terrorist cells that although aligned to AQ work as lone cells. But I'm sure one thing they have in common are spiritual leaders. Take them out.

Seems like the latest anti-US protests in Iraq are being directed against the spanish troops. I guess their an easy target.

I meant "they're" not their

Damnit. Now we'll NEVER know if they were the true perpetrators.

The tightly-wound turbans should have held together enough gristle and bone samples to do a DNA match.

Howard ignored Afghan plea: Rudd.

If Rudd thinks we should have kept troops longer in Afghanistan, are there any prizes what he'd really think about Iraq if he weren't spinning for Latham?

(I'm not sure whether withdrawing troops from Afghanistan was the right move, but I feel at least it wasn't done to appease terrorists. Any other views on this news article?)

There were shots fired in Najaf after the Spanish were fired upon by supporters of the wacko Sadr. I hear that he has openly allied himself with Hamas and Hezbellah. What a guy. His people have also been harassing locals that refuse pretend it is the 7th century, even going so far as to threaten rape against women not wearing veils.

I am beginning to wonder about a connection. All of a sudden Spain seems to be in the thick of it.

Here's a column about Oz's "Religion of Peace" conversion crew:

ASIO keep watch on 60
By Lincoln Wright
April 4, 2004

AUSTRALIA'S anti-terror spies have about 60 people on their watchlist, including a core of 20 people they believe are capable of mass violence.

The exact size of Australia's terrorist watchlist is a secret in the world of counter-terrorism.

But sources told the Sunday Herald Sun that ASIO and the Australian Federal Police are monitoring 60 "persons of interest".

ASIO specifically focuses on those people who have trained with al-Qaida in Afghanistan and other terrorist groups.

"There are almost certainly others about whom we are not aware," an ASIO report said.

Christ, if I had my way every last one of these bastards would be interned, Gitmo style.
I'd be inclined to put entire Australian Islamic communities in similar facilites (like their refo mates), or outright deport them back to whatever backward shithole which used to own them.
They (Islamic tea towel heads) wanted desperately to come to AUSTRALIA.
Now they're going out of their way to bring about a South Pacific calliphate.
No thanks. FOAD.

Bernard Lewis, probably the most distinguished Islamic scholar, put it best:

"They hate us for our virtues, not our
vices"

It's not our support for Mubarak or the Shah or the House of Saud that angers them. Those are their excuses. They hate us for our freedoms, our liberties.

Of course, what we consider our virtues - our pluralism, our religious tolerance that enables people to worship one God, many Gods or no God, our understanding that we cannot impose the "right way of living" on people - are all considered vices by them. And to them, these vices must be destroyed. Not only from within, but from without.

SMG

Spain was bombed first for having troops in an Islamic nation, now for not withdrawing them fast enought; I can't guess the next reason they are bombed, but once you let yourself be a victim, always a victim.

Hey Andrew, at least you're still a capitalist if you charge for her "services." So, no worries! :-) Thanks for the laugh

The Belmont Club comments made in March under The Dark Night of Spirit looks rather prescient. This blog is so damned good, I find myself going back and re-reading some of the pieces.

Yes, the leftist cave-in in Spain is exposing the entire European left for the disaster that it is. The Spanish election might have been a blessing in disguise.

The latest from Belmont Club http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
"To the residents of Najaf, many of whom are unaware that the Spanish contingent has been ordered home by incoming Prime Minister Zapatero, their imminent departure will be perceived as flight in the face of an Islamic attack. Forces led by a Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr led a demonstration on the Spanish base and opened fire on it, killing four Salvadorans and wounding 9 others. Fourteen Iraqis were killed and 130 wounded in the return".
Classic terrorist technique,make the opposition look as if it is responding to terrorist agression.It gives support to those against the war, allows loud choruses of "We told you so", boosts recruitment,and gives political credibilty to organisations with no real power.
All terrorism is a con trick,terrorirst have nothing to bargain with other than to refrain from killing you.It is called a protection racket.

ABC radio news - American Broadcasting Corp. out of NY is really pathetic.

The suspects died in an explosion.

I started yelling at the radio.
]

No, you asshat terrorists blew themselves up not to be captured.

I want people to know that the gutless and self-pitying Nathan Newman, friend of Ramsey Clark, has been deleting posts that refer to the obits of the 4 men murdered in Iraq (you know: the men that the definitionally challenged Mr Newman calls "mercenaries"). I think that the sensitive Mr Newman gets more exercised about people who take down "Vote Union" fliers in the break room at Wal-Mart than he does about the gruesome murder of 4 innocent individuals.

I want people to know that the gutless and self-pitying Nathan Newman, friend of Ramsey Clark, has been deleting posts that refer to the obits of the 4 men murdered in Iraq (you know: the men that the definitionally challenged Mr Newman calls "mercenaries"). I think that the sensitive Mr Newman gets more exercised about people who take down "Vote Union" fliers in the break room at Wal-Mart than he does about the gruesome murder of 4 innocent individuals.

sounds to me like the current spanish govt, who were ultimately elected by the people of spain who by large majority didn't want to be involved in iraq before the invasion, need extra men back home not off protecting foreign citizens. That is what a defence force is for, to defend one's citizens from open attack.

You're right that the Spaniards will need the soldiers at home, because nothing they do will appease the terrorists until Spain is once again Al-Andalus. And after a craven act of bad faith by the Spanish Socialists there won't be any American troops coming to help the Spaniards, now will there? For the first time in sixty years we are about to see how Olde Europe can defend itself without relying on the protection of the US.

Contrapunctus:

You said

"...were ultimately elected by the people of spain who by large majority didn't want to be involved in iraq before the invasion..."

And then "...need extra men back home not off protecting foreign citizens. That is what a defence force is for, to defend one's citizens from open attack."

First, no one really knows which way the Spanish electorate might have voted before the terrorist bombings just before the elections. The assumption in this thread is that the terrorists influenced the elections in the timing of their attack. This assumption is supported by credible evidence, some direct, some circumstantial. Apparently, you assume otherwise.

Second, a purely defensive military is a contradiction in terms -- or it is a military more suited to police work than military operations. How so? Consider: You have a fire in your house; you know this because you can smell the smoke and feel the heat. If you wait until the fire comes to you, you are probably dead, certainly injured. If you react immediately, call the fire department, evacuate, whip out the fire extinguisher, etc, you have a chance of surviving the situation.

The situation is similar for a military. One military axiom is that you never react to enemy actions, you make them react to your actions. Seize the initiative, and put them on the run.

So your statement, That is what a defence force is for, to defend one's citizens from open attack, is a naive one. It's better to carry the war to the enemy, than fight from your back yard.

The Spanish contingent in Iraq is around a brigade, maybe less. Call it 3000 soldiers. How do you think those soldiers would be deployed in Spain? Are they to act a border guards, police officers, or what? Would 3000 troops back in Spain made a difference in stopping the Madrid attacks?

Put another way.....would you want to have your military patrolling your neighborhood, looking for terrorists?

Hmmmm. Spanish military troops on the streets? Busting down doors and patrolling alleys and highways? Walking the rail lines and searching every transit car?

Battle-hardened battalions roaming the countryside and stabbing pitchforks into haysticks? Tanks rolling through villas and over their jardines?

Armed forces openly at war in Zapatero's Espana? It's a thought, I guess

I'm interested in what the terrorists want. From the latest news reports, it looks like it was the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, rather than The Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, which previously claimed responsibility. What are they after? Just blowing up as many Spaniards as possible? Return of Spain to Islamic rule? Granted, trying to figure out what terrorists want is often a fools' errand, but I'm trying to see if there's a method to their madness.

I'm also worried about whether the apparent success in altering the Spanish elections--and I don't know that effect was real, but neither do the terrorists--will encourage others to try the same thing elsewhere, including the US. I did some blogging of my own about this.

c:

Hmmmm. Spanish military troops on the streets? Busting down doors and patrolling alleys and highways? Walking the rail lines and searching every transit car?

Battle-hardened battalions roaming the countryside and stabbing pitchforks into haysticks? Tanks rolling through villas and over their jardines?

Sounds like the Spanish Civil War. One would think that picture is a bad one in Spain.

JeffS

Someone had suggested that all Spanish troops should be pulled out of Iraq to "defend" the Spanish homeland. I agree with you that the prospect is unsettling, probably untenable, and certainly a blow to the proud international efforts Spain has thus far contributed to the Coalition.

Troops on the street in Madrid would be a fairly eerie sight

c:

It's similar to the argument that the US military should defend our borders, and help internally with the war on terrorism.

We don't have the need for that. The military is for foreign intervention. That's why we have law enforcement agencies here. I don't think the average Spanaird thinks any different.

JeffS
You're singing to the choir! Tell it to Contrapunctus. If his name is any indication, though, you have a job ahead of you

That might be what they're hoping we don't think.

c:

He can read it here even if it isn't addressed to him. If he doesn't, he isn't reading the posts, he's looking for attention, and probably searches for his name.

And we'll find out, won't we?

Ummmm . . . Zapatero hasn't said anything about withdrawing the Spanish troops currently in Afghanistan, has he?

In other words, he's still happy to use the Spanish military to go after the actual terrorists.

The only reason the war party is upset about Zapatero is because he is publicly demonstrating that he doesn't believe their premise about Iraq being part of the war on terror.

Everything else is just the usual combination of nauseating piety and reckless spin.

BTW - Andrew (post 1), the Kennedy administration DID agree to remove the missiles from Turkey.

Historical fact. Sorry.

So you know better then Robert McNamara. Andrews recollection of "Historical fact" is closer then yours.

Gazza,

Leave Mork alone. Facts might turn him to dust.

Anita: "I meant 'they're' not 'their'"

Homophonophobe.

murph

LOL! No topping that.

Gary - did you actually read what you linked to. At the bottom, MacNamara said:

So the president agreed, and he told Bobby to tell Dobrynin that we agreed to pledge we would not invade Cuba in return for Khrushchev taking Soviet missiles out of Cuba. And, in addition, Dobrynin could tell Khrushchev that unilaterally – not part of an agreement, but unilaterally -- we were going to take the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey and replace them, in effect, by Polaris submarines off the coast of Turkey. So that was the deal. It was not an agreement; it was a statement of unilateral action.

If you do a bit more digging, you'll also find online the text of Robert Kennedy's memo to the President reporting on the meeting with Dobrynin, in which confirms that he told Dobrynin that Dobrynin could convey the assurance to Khrushchev.

But thanks for playing.

Mork

Yes I did read it and expected you to grab that. Next time you accuse some one of distorting the "context" Ill remember this as you being full of shit. Evan that last bit supported Andrews recollection so your little gotcha mist.

Huh?

Been drinking again, Gary?

Home alone again Mork.

Gary, I'm not interested in your domestic arrangements.

And your "more digging" didn't turn up anything new to what was already stated in the first link. So, or you did was blow smoke(a practice your good at).

C'mon Gary, don't be deliberately obtuse, you've got plenty of the other kind to go around.

The Administration assured the Soviets that the Turkish missiles would be removed before the Soviets agreed to remove the Cuban missiles.

Everything else is spin.

"agree" was part of your original gotcha to Andrew. So changing it to "assured" dosnt help you. The second last paragraph supports Andrews recollection no mater how your anal retentive little mind spins it.

"So with the reasons I mentioned, neither the Turks nor NATO wanted them out, so action had not been taken to get them out. But in this critical meeting in the president’s office when that small group of six or seven of us were present -- we all agreed that they were a pile of junk militarily and we should get them out of there, but because of the way in which action to remove them under the threat of Soviet pressure – the way in which that would be interpreted as weakness by the Turks and by NATO, we could not make it part of the agreement."

Hmmmm ... Gary quoting Robert MacNamara: two doses of self-delusion for the price of one!

Here, by the way, is an extract from Dobrynin's cable reporting on his meeting with Robert Kennedy:

"And what about Turkey?" I asked R. Kennedy.

"If that is the only obstacle to achieving the regulation I mentioned earlier, then the president doesn't see any unsurmountable difficulties in resolving this issue," replied R. Kennedy. "The greatest difficulty for the president is the public discussion of the issue of Turkey. Formally the deployment of missile bases in Turkey was done by a special decision of the NATO Council. To announce now a unilateral decision by the president of the USA to withdraw missile bases from Turkey-this would damage the entire structure of NATO and the US position as the leader of NATO, where, as the Soviet government knows very well, there are many arguments. In short, if such a decision were announced now it would seriously tear apart NATO."

"However, President Kennedy is ready to come to agree on that question with N.S. Khrushchev, too. I think that in order to withdraw these bases from Turkey," R. Kennedy said, "we need 4-5 months. This is the minimal amount of time necessary for the US government to do this, taking into account the procedures that exist within the NATO framework. On the whole Turkey issue," R. Kennedy added, "if Premier N.S. Khrushchev agrees with what I've said, we can continue to exchange opinions between him and the president, using him, R. Kennedy and the Soviet ambassador. "However, the president can't say anything public in this regard about Turkey," R. Kennedy said again. R. Kennedy then warned that his comments about Turkey are extremely confidential; besides him and his brother, only 2-3 people know about it in Washington.

Interesting Kennedy-Kruschev history. Zapatero's campaign promise (now post-election) to withdraw troops from Iraq doesn't seem really analygous to any concessions made to diffuse the Cuban Missile crisis. One was a tense stand-off between two nuclear superpowers during the Cold War. The other is only a matter of a Coalition ally 'going soft' on being part of reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Zapatero is not "blinking" in the face of possible annihilation by a nuclearized opponent. He's just a garden-variety Socialist who detests a Republican Prez and projection of American power.

Problem is, and maybe this is Andrew's point, the Islamist terrorists are, at the very least, interpreting Zapatero's very public campaign to pull-out of Iraq as recognition of their anti-Iraq and anti-American agenda, making this a 'win' for them. Then no doubt there are cells of radicalized militants who detect a Spanish 'blink' and a 'cut and run' attitude, no matter how Zapatero's supporters spin it. A 'win' again.

Public perception, even greater than back room deals or a nuanced reality, is a blunt tool that policy makers should use rather than be bludgeoned with. During the Missile Crisis Kennedy's team was careful not to appear concessionary in world opinion, no matter how the deal went down.

Zapatero can righteously stand by his policy to pull out of Iraq, and maybe he thinks he looks strong standing up to the US. But the money says Spain now looks like it has lost the political will for combat and that it would rather switch than fight. Spain now looks like they have knuckled under to a 'don't rock the boat' status quo policy in the Middle East rather than contribute to the heavy lifting necessary to transform a failed and strategically important region. Weak stuff.

Mork - Have you realized yet that you agree with what Andrew said? You're arguing nuance here. We told the Russians we'd remove the missiles, they let us do it under the cover of night.

The larger issue is covered nicely by c. Spain's withdrawal looks like a win for the Islamists, therefore it's a loss for the rest of us.

Thanks, Matt.
I forgot to add another problem of perception with Zapatero's policy: Important Spanish foreign policy decisions now look as if they will be subordinated to UN discretion. While Aznar showed sovereignty by choosing to join the US Coalition despite the UN Security Council's (and France's) intransigence, Zapatero insists that only the UN can give his troops cover for staying longer in Iraq. Aznar committed forces as the leader of Spain, but Zapatero will withdraw them unless the UN sanctions their presence.

So, much luck to Zapatero. He may never look like a US lackey, but like a compliant subject of the UN and also a bit like France's servant.
Under Aznar, Spain had been one of the masters at the table, but now may have to settle for meals in the kitchen

We seem to be arguing in circles Mork. Noting in the Dobrynin's cable contradicts what Andrew or McNamara said. And that was my point. Both Andrew and McNamara acknowledged the "quid pro quo". But the decision to remove the missiles was made before the Cuban crisis so it wasn't capitulation on the Americans part it was simply a superficial gesture to help Khrushchev internally and wasn't even useful as propaganda. So the "deal" as you put it was delayed not expedited by the Soviets.

"The Administration assured the Soviets that the Turkish missiles would be removed before the Soviets agreed to remove the Cuban missiles."

Not so, according to Prof Philip Zelikow "Khrushchev had already decided to capitulate" before the Dobrynin RFK meeting on the 27th.

Gary - we seem to have agreed on the facts. But this was Andrew's characterization:

Now, the Jupiters were well obsolete by 1963 and scheduled for decomissioning, but once the Russians demanded that as a bargaining chip -- we had to absolutely, flatly refuse to do so, and we seriously discussed bombing Cuba flat before we ever got back to talking Turkey-based missiles.

Ultimately, we worked it out so we removed them in 1964 or 1965, so we could have an out, but the point was we couldn't be seen to give them up under duress or else the Soviets would not have taken us seriously.

Now, the fact is that the United States did not "flatly refuse" to remove the missiles. On the contrary, the Adminstration assured the Soviets that the missiles would be removed. And while it is true that, for domestic political reasons and reasons of NATO solidarity, the Adminstration was reluctant to be seen publicly to have done this deal, the Soviets themselves were left in no doubt that the removal of the missiles would happen if the Cuban missiles were withdrawn.

Your point about Zelikow's finding is irrelevant: the Administration did not know what Krushchev's position was at the time it offered to remove the Turkish missiles.

That is contained in "Andrew's characterization" Mork

"Ultimately, we worked it out so we removed them in 1964 or 1965,"

You are to quick to sneer. When all Andrew did was a general overview as reference to the original topic.Certainly Dobrynin and Khrushchev didn't end up believing JFK was soft.

I'm sorry, guys, if you've been having fun, but the Mork Show is over for tonight. Once again he has hijacked a comments thread. Not on my dime.

Mork, you want unlimited bandwidth, get your own blog. There are lots of free services. You want more space to air your opinions here? Hit the Paypal link.

Having worked for Banco Santander and having many Spanish friends (and a few ex-chicas), all this makes me very, very sad. I just hope that they see the light before too many more of them are killed, and realise that they must stand up to those who try and intimidate them.