I usually like Calpundit, but he's full of crap today!

2)Evidence has also been piling up that it really was al-Qaeda behind the bombings, not ETA. So another possibility is that the voters (or at least some of them) were upset that Aznar's support for the Iraq war was responsible for al-Qaeda targeting Spain, which seems to be the theme of this Washington Post story. This would be a considerable victory for al-Qaeda and would reflect very poorly indeed on the Spanish electorate. It also doesn't smell right to me.

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003490.html

Now that's a nice right wing talking point!

is all these idiots going on without any evidence or attempt to actually talk to Spaniards to see why they voted the way they did.

Is there some poll I missed where Spaniards said, Yes we want to reward the terrorists?

Seems to me that from what I've heard, that is, from what people in Spain are actually saying, they voted the way they did because their government lied to them, their government dragged their country into a war despite the wishes of a huge majority of the population, because their government is supporting the disastrous US foreign policy and "president"...

and they view the manipulation of information by the Aznar govt. after the terror attacks as the most significant factor in the upset (and most of them called the result "unexpected").

Spanish television reported that turnout was up particularly in the area near the Atocha attack, and that that area leans Socialist. Since there is no voter registration (you have to show your national identity card), it is easy to decide to vote at the last minute.

...that was crammed full of stuff that would be incredibly incriminating against Al Qaeda and that was left conveniently where Spanish authorities would find it? Sounds like the rental cars conveniently left behind by the alleged 911 hijackers that had all kinds of information in the trunk, doesn't it?

Professionals capable of carrying out raids of the magnitude of 911 and Spain tend not to leave anything behind unless they want it to be found.

I betcha a gazillion bucks that the poodle had a fitful night of sleep.. We all know that dubya slept OK because he's oblivious...

I don't agree with it outright, but I think it is pretty dangerous if Al Qaeda or any group thinks that they can influence elections through acts like this.

On the flip side I think Calpundit is off the mark in that it could be a matter of also them being made because in addition to the other leaders support of Iraq, they failed to do anything to prevent this bombing.

I think that not looking at all sides and possibilities in this is naive and shortsighted. I won't fully back what Calpundit is saying but I don't think that it's out of line completely to look at it the way he did and wonder aloud what the ramifications are. I would go so far as to say it's a "victory for the terrorists" but it can have broader implications than the ones we may be willing or able to look at.

Is everything Bush does in the American public interest only by accident, as everything Bush does is in his and his oil buddies interest first?

If something restores freedom - as in the election of Socialists in Spain - does the fact that terrorists hated the prior conservative leader mean that the public has made the wrong choice?

I wouldn't reduce it to " a victory for the terrorists" but if a group bound by no country and no laws and no possibility of oversight or surveillance thinks they can affect elections and politics through acts like this, I"m at least willing to entertain the global ramifications of what that means. I don't have the answers, but I'm also not willing to shut out looking at something that big. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't do anything differently. But to deny that there are ramifications from it, simply because we want to bash bush is more reductionist than I like to be when thinking about things. And yeah, I do think it's a little different than what our politicians (corrupt as they may be) will do to win and/or influence the election.

look, the islamofascists need to have right wing governments in the west to keep the conflict going.

There's nothing better for Al Qaeda than having right wingers running the show in the US and in W. Europe. Their overreactions, their view that the way to resolve any problem is to bomb it to hell, is exactly what the islamofascists need.

They are codependent, they need each other in a symbiotic way.

So if there was a desire to affect the elections, it is just as likely that they were trying to empower the right. I guess they thought spaniards would respond the way most Americans did, crowding around their "leader" and crying for him to save them...

include reasons to vote one way or another.

In this instance a bombing from terrorists in a European country resulted in an election a week later where the existing government people were ousted.

Hypothetically, if that same thing happened here, I think it goes without saying that the existing government people would win in a landslide.

It's just ridiculous that this is the case, but why is this the case and what impact would it have one way or another on how terrorists respond is not something I think any of us can quantify.

the media in this country don't know any more how to be real journalists.

They'll just become lap dogs, licking Bush's butt, rather than asking the hard questions, questioning the BS that would be coming out of the White House, etc.

I think it would be more attributable to just good old fashioned american stubbornness. Nobody is going to tell us what to do or influence us!!! Just like I knew a lot of people who were against the iraq war but who at the same time were pissed at France. Not because what France was saying or doing was "wrong" but just because they didn't want any other country telling us what we should or shouldn't do.

I don't think that has to do with the media as much as just this macho sense of resolve a lot of americans have.

There was a movie a while back about a CIA "fundraiser" - the CIA causing a disaster in the US so as to increase their budget - that made me angry because the CIA that I know are good folks and would not do that - or go along with such an idea.

But the neo-con's around Bush are not good people - and I wonder how desperate Rove may get. At the moment these are just questions that an unlimited Justice or commission or Senate/House inquiry could answer - but all I see are limits being added to limits to such inquiries - so I wonder.

As to quantify either the terrorist expected plan/response, or the US citizen voting response, is indeed impossible.

But one can anticipate that the US media will, as it pushes hard for a GOP win, add such event to the reasons why one should vote for the GOP.

And "good old fashioned american stubbornness" is indeed to be anticipated! :-)

There are several questions that need answering. Before the bombs went off polls suggested that the conservatives would retain power. In the event they did not.

1) Did the conservatives lose power because somebody blew up those trains?

2) Did the conservatives lose because they lied about who blew up the trains?

What is unarguable is that Aznar took his country to war against the wishes of his people. If Al Quaeda have retaliated it is entirely unsurprising that he be blamed. However, it does set a dangerous precedent.

Terrorists do exist. They cannot be allowed to dictate to democracies. However, they will not be bludgeoned into extinction.

Did the lying by the Aznar government about the evidence found move 6% of the population in their vote?
Were the people who were against the war and had not intended to vote mobilized by the bombings?
Were the polls just wrong and his party would have gone down to defeat anyway?

This was hardly a stunning defeat to that party. They are still the second largest party in the legislature.

So, even if their idiotic "victory for the terrorists" nonsense had any truth, wouldn't it be a victory for the ETA?

Like Chamberlain in his day, the appeasers, probably a minority in Spain, tilted the electorate to a pacifist role. I think a lot of the world would rather have the U.S. go it alone in the War on Terrorism if it will bring 'peace in time.'

The majority of intelligent people in this world KNOW that Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism. That's what the people of the world object to.

Virtually every country in the world assists the U.S. in the real war on terrorism. Your comment is bullshit unsupported by any fact.

right... i mean if you buy into this talking point that is.

i think the some of the elite do and are scared.

reminds me of the general who said 'we would DEMAND martial(military) law' if there was a wmd terror attack ANYWHERE in the world.

I think he is right on the mark... i just wonder if the regular folk will go along, spain is just increasing their doubts as well apparantly.

:shrug:

peace

Calpundit explicitly states "it doesn't smell right to me". He rejects this argument and argues that Aznar's duplicity on the ETA was the main reason for the shift. If you go to Calpundit link you can see for yourself.

Calpundit is right. It would be lame to say "They attacked us because we attacked Iraq, so we should pull out of Iraq and now they'll leave us alone." That's bullshit and most Spaniards aren't that stupid. They voted out the PP because their lying arrogance had finally crossed the line.

My own take on the election is on my blog
http://blog.monkeymask.net/

UPDATE: In comments, lots of people are asking why I think #2 would be a victory for al-Qaeda. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

The goal of terrorism is to affect public opinion and to scare people into not opposing the terrorists' aims. If (if!) the Spanish electorate was punishing Aznar solely because they perceived his actions as being anti-terrorist enough to provoke an al-Qaeda attack, the terrorists have accomplished their goal: the Spanish public has shown that if they are attacked they will vote against a politician who strongly opposed the terrorists.

Remember, this is all about perceptions and it's all hypothetical. But if (if!) it's true it gives al-Qaeda reason to think that they can affect elections simply by committing a terrorist attack. Sounds like a victory to me.