March 15, 2004
SPANISH ELECTION POSTSCRIPT
John at Iberian Notes:
Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will be the next Prime Minister, and one of the first things he will do is pull Spain out of the Coalition. Spain will join the Paris-Berlin axis. I assume Spanish troops will soon be leaving Iraq.
A victory for appeasement. A victory for cowardice. The Spanish people demonstrated today that they have no courage.
Golan from HispaLibertas:
What a sad day for this country. I am out of here.
Franco Alemán from HispaLibertas:
From now on, the bad guys know they can win, and how to do it.
The Corner’s Rod Dreher:
The election results are terrible news. It shows that the Europeans are willing to be cowed by terror into voting for appeasers. Message to terrorists: commit terrorism on the eve of elections, say you're doing it to punish the government for standing by the United States, and you can drive a wedge between Western allies.
Mr Anzar loudly leapt to the conclusion it was ETA, at the very onset of the investigation. Evidence soon mounted that this was done by al-Qaida sympathisers, starting with public announcements from the terrorists themselves. Aznar simply couldn't hide it all, much as he tried at the beginning; when the arrests finally did come, they came too late. Aznar is guilty of manipulating a tragedy for political advantage. And if I may say so, he did it in the most clumsy manner I have seen in years.
How would I know from way over here, but I guess voters figured the former government's policy on the war on terror wasn't going real well.
I wonder whether the ruling Conservatives' insistence on blaming ETA even in the face of evidence pointing to Islamofascists also contributed to their defeat. In any case, it's a damned shame that terrorists can have an impact on the election and can help bring in the side they apparently wanted.
Terrorists have succeeded in toppling the Spanish government ... The Spanish electorate has made a very shorsighted and cowardly decision, and the world may suffer as a result.
I really fear we'll see an attack on the scale of 9/11 in the United States before the Presidential election. If the people of the West are going to blame their leaders for terror instead of the people actually committing the attacks, why wouldn't Al-Qaida try it again?
Via email, from Iraq-based US soldier Diggs:
I'm sorry to see that the civilians have surrendered so easily; the Spanish soldiers I have met over here seem to be made of much sterner stuff.
Yes, I'm worried. Yes, I think that Al Qaeda will consider this a victory to be imitated. But I still have confidence in our own intelligence services, and in our military. Naivete? Perhaps. I prefer to call it optimism.
The government's rush to the judgement (seen as politically more favorable) that ETA was responsible was criticised by many, and contrasted with the refusal of the Socialist leadership to score political points.
The saddest upshot is that a socialist regime in Spain will make it so much easier for the next terrorist attack. And there will be one. Remember, it was only a few weeks ago that a committed anti-terrorist government foiled a bomb attack by Basque terrorists. Reckon they won't try again, now that it will be that much easier?
Aaron at FreeWillBlog:
Congratulations to Spain for saying "yes" to mass murder. You've successfully delivered your message that murdering hundreds of innocents is an acceptable way to achieve your political goals. The content of Spanish discourse is now totally subject to the will of Islamic radicalism. "Do as we wish you to do, vote as we wish you to vote, and speak as we wish you to speak, or we'll kill your family."
The Left is now the messenger boy of Islamofascism.
If the appeasement brigade really do believe that the war to depose Saddam is and was utterly unconnected with the war against al Qaeda, then why on earth would al Qaeda respond by targeting Spain? If the two issues are completely unrelated, why has al Qaeda made the connection?
Christopher Sheil, again:
Al-Qaeda has obviously been having a major influence on politics and elections since at least s11. What seems new about Spain is that this influence has now resulted in a swing to the left.
Andrew Norton from Catallaxy Files:
An attack in Australia just prior to the 2004 federal election would make a lot of sense to Al Qaeda strategists. It isn't clear that they have the capacity to carry out such an attack. But the rationale for it is a lot clearer than it was a week ago.
A supposed member of al-Qaeda, in a video message claiming responsibility for the Madrid attacks:
You love life and we love death.
More quotes to come. Meanwhile, AP reports:
Posted by Tim Blair at March 15, 2004 11:20 AMOne of the three Moroccans arrested in the Madrid train bombings was a follower of a suspected al-Qaida member jailed in Spain for allegedly helping plan the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, according to court documents reviewed by The Associated Press. It was the latest suggestion that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist group may have been involved in the bombings.
A Sept. 17, 2003 indictment calls Jamal Zougam — arrested in Thursday's attacks — a "follower" of Imad Yarkas, the alleged leader of Spain's al-Qaida cell who was jailed for allegedly helping plan the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. Yarkas, whose alias is Abu Dahdah, remains in Spanish custody.
A perfect demonstration.
" A vote for the left is a vote for terrorism."
A question and an observation:
The question: apart from their skepticism towards the Iraq invasion (which we all know now had nothing to do with terrorism), what is there to suggest that the Socialists are indifferent to Islamic terror?
The observation: the reporting I've seen suggests that it was not the fact of the bombing per se that shifted public opinion, but the government's attempts to manipulate it for electoral advantage.
In which case, we - and the fight against terror - would all be better off if that's a lesson that catches on around the world.
Which makes it ironic that the first instinct of these blowhards is to try even harder to play wedge politics with terrorism!
Posted by: Mork at March 15, 2004 at 11:40 AMMork, Iraq had everything to do with terrorism. Or rather, the root cause. Which we know to be bad government. Until the Middle East is populated with representative governments, with protection of basic human rights, the social factors that contribute to terrorism will flourish. Alas for Spain, Aznar didn't make a good enough case for this. Or that Spain will be a target no matter what.
Posted by: FH at March 15, 2004 at 11:43 AMIn other news, the new Spanish government has changed the name of the country to Al-Andalus.
Posted by: madne0 at March 15, 2004 at 11:48 AMMork,
You’ve run this line earlier, and you’ve been corrected. Repetition wrecks threads. No more, or deletions happen.
Posted by: tim at March 15, 2004 at 11:50 AMMork -
What a truly bizarre assertion, as if the Socialists weren't playing "wedge politics" with terrorism by flashmobbing the PP HQ yesterday? I think it's fair comment to say the Socialists were pushing the Al Quaida meme with less scruple than the outgoing Government, who if anything were guilty of virtually thinking out loud. ETA had a long history of targeting civilians and bombing public transport; and there is no reason not to believe that either ETA or a splinter group decided to up the stakes, and required foreign help. (The IRA is a pretty good role model in this regard.)
By any objective measure, there is no conclusive evidence who was responsible - and it's amusing that the left now think wonky intelligence is perfectly OK.
Posted by: Craig Ranapia (Other Pundit) at March 15, 2004 at 11:51 AMFH - that's superficially plausible, except for the following:
- the U.S. can't keep invading countries to install democratic regimes - with so many resources that will be tied up in Iraq for years, it doesn't have the military capability, nor does it have any longer the international credibility to create alliances ... so Iraq is where this will end; and
- invading Iraq acually impeded the fight against Al Qaeda. Why is it that only now is the U.S. launching a major offensive to capture Bin Laden? Don't you see that a necessary corollory of that is that up until now, the U.S. has not been doing all it can to capture him and his cronies? And where did the units now being positioned for the offensive come from?
Meanwhile, through the same lack of resources, Afghanistan is returning to an anarchic state where the Taliban and Al Qaeda run free. And nuclear proliferation continues more or less unchecked ... Pakistan, Russia and North Korea have been running a veritable proliferators' bazaar, while thousands of U.S. agents have been running around Iraq looking for weapons that never existed.
Posted by: Mork at March 15, 2004 at 11:53 AMMork, I don't know much about the Socialist Party in Spain - and if that's what you're referring to, I can't speak to it. In the US, at least, the left - the small 's' socialists - are indeed indifferent to terrorism, at least to the extent that their shadenfreude permits it.
Posted by: Farmer Joe at March 15, 2004 at 11:54 AMThis is one of the most worrying things I have seen in a long time. I'm relatively safe where I live, but I have family in the UK and elsewhere and this cowardly capitulation puts them in harm's way.
I want the Saudi, Syrian and Iranian regimes gone in twelve month's time otherwise we're in big trouble. Quite apart from anything, the Spanish people might be blaming the PP right now, but another few attacks like this and people in Europe will wake up. I can see pogroms ahead. By 2050 the Muslim population of Western continental Europe will be one of two figures: 50% or 0%. Failure to stamp out Islamofascism makes the latter figure overwhelmingly more likely. Here's a thought experiment: imagine if a prototype of the Stern Gang had killed 200 Germans in a bombing in 1936.
We have an election coming up and the enemy just learned that terrorism can defeat the democratic process.
This is going to be a long war.
I guess we can be relieved that the Socialists didn't get an all-out majority. There's still the slim hope that the Populists can pull together calmer heads in the minor parties and forge a government.
But it's not likely, I imagine.
Posted by: Jason at March 15, 2004 at 12:00 PMSo Mork, since there are so many problems out there, we should just do nothing? And no, just because we are launching an offensive to get Bin Laden now does not mean we have not being doing enough to get him up 'til now. We now have a pretty good idea where he is - that's why the offensive is being launched.
Posted by: aaron at March 15, 2004 at 12:06 PMAaron - it's pretty simple. We should put the highest priority on the biggest danger. In my view, it's pretty clear that the biggest danger we face is Al Qaeda - you remember those guys ... they're the ones that have actually attacked us, on multiple occasions.
The liberation of Iraq was undoubtedly good for the Iraqi people. But there's no evidence that it made us any safer.
In fact, it seems likely that the reverse is the case: it drew resources and distracted attention away from the more pressing need to dismantle Al Qaeda and related Islamisist terror groups.
Posted by: Mork at March 15, 2004 at 12:14 PMI seriously doubt that you're right about that, Mork, given the effect Saddam's removal is having on the region and how it directly relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict which might as well be the epicenter of all Islamic terrorism.
I don't think the students in Iran and reformers in Syria would be fighting so hard for their own freedoms if they didn't know we were next door.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 15, 2004 at 12:25 PMExcept, Mork, above you argue about Russia, North Korea, and Pakistan being greater dangers than Al Qaeda. I also doubt that Afghanistan is slipping into anarchy, as you claim. I suspect that if it were, we would see more negative news articles about it, if nothing else.
I strongly suspect that you, or at least many others, would strongly oppose action against anywhere, always finding the greater threat somewhere else.
Liberating Iraq took away a source of funds for at least some Islamist terror groups, such as Hamas, in any case. And Al Qaeda was apparently very annoyed about the invasion.
Posted by: John Thacker at March 15, 2004 at 12:28 PMSo, Mork, you don't believe that draining the swamp will get rid of the alligators, eh?
Terrorists need bases, financial and technical support and room to move. Deny them those and their mission is made incomparably harder.
Saying "why not go after Al Qaeda instead of invading their support base" is just myopic. And simplistic.
I'd love to be wrong on that, Sortelli.
But the student restlessness in Iran preceeded Iraq, and doesn't seem to me to be likely to result in regime change in the short term (although I'd say that reform or revolution in the medium term is almost inevitable).
I haven't seen any evidence of meaningful reform in Syria, though I haven't looked very hard, either.
Nor can I see any impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If it were going to have an impact, I would have expected it to come in the form of a greater willingess of the Israeli government to make concessions, because a security threat had been removed. But that hasn't happened.
Posted by: Mork at March 15, 2004 at 12:34 PMThis was a win for al Qaeda. I don't see how to spin it any other way. They wanted to change government in Spain and they succeeded. You can bet now that they'll do it again.
I'm afraid that Europe is descending into appeasement again as it did in the 1930s. They'll hold conferences on terrorism, maybe pass a resolution in the UN, and arrest a terrorist or two every so often. And then hunker down for the next hit which will inevitably come now that the terrorists know that they can get their way.
Posted by: Randal Robinson at March 15, 2004 at 12:35 PMI don't think Israel could possibly be expected to make concessions as long as Arafat is in charge, but Saddam's removal undermines Arafat. And if Arafat can't get any concessions out of Israel, he's in even bigger trouble. If the Palestinians can get rid of him and start changing course (and actually do something to hold up the most basic of expectations ever placed upon them, like not killing Israelis) then we might see a response from Israel.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 15, 2004 at 12:39 PMJohn - not at all. I am not remotely a pacifist, nor an anti-American, and I enthusiastically support the use of ALL aspects of American power to eliminate terrorism. But Iraq was a third order threat, that the U.S. dealt with as if it was the most pressing problem that the west faced.
Which is great if you're an Iraqi, but not so good if you're an American, Australian or Spaniard.
Keith - what evidence is there that Iraq was a significant centre of Al Qaeda operations?
There's probably more Al Qaeda in Iraq right now than there has ever been before.
Posted by: Mork at March 15, 2004 at 12:41 PMSortelli - I don't see how Saddam's removal makes much difference to Arafat's position.
Again, I'd love to be wrong.
Posted by: Mork at March 15, 2004 at 12:42 PMI don't see how Iraq has "drained our resources". It's a different type of war, but creates many synergies. How do you propose to better use those resources to fight al Quaeda?
We are using our strengths to attack their weaknesses directly and indirectly.
Posted by: aaron at March 15, 2004 at 12:44 PMBut the student restlessness in Iran preceeded Iraq, and doesn't seem to me to be likely to result in regime change in the short term (although I'd say that reform or revolution in the medium term is almost inevitable).
Our presence in Iraq is definitely having an effect there, though. That's why the mullahs want Kerry in charge next year because then they think they won't have to worry about the 3rd ID charging in when they start cracking down on the students. The reformers in Iran are just plain rooting for us in Iraq and they want to see it happen for themselves. If our actions there help them to establish a democracy in Iran faster, think of how that's going to affect terrorisism at large. They'll have a neighbor to share notes with on writing a constitution and setting up their own government.
God willing we won't have to invade Iran, or if we do, that we'll be facing a weakened and unpopular regime like we did in Iraq. I'd love to see that domino fall. It's not a gaurantee, but it can't be said that removing Hussein has no effect.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 15, 2004 at 12:50 PMMork, how about this: Saddam Hussein was paying Palestinians large amounts of money to become suicide bombers. Remember that? This source of income is now unavailable to Arafat's contingent of potential 'sploders. Or is that something you don't consider "much of a difference"?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 15, 2004 at 12:52 PMCould we please put a stopper in all this loose talk about "cowardice"? The Spanish people have made a big mistake, yes, but bear in mind how little time they've had to react to the bombings-- all the more so because of their odd law banning politicking on the day before the election. If the US had had to hold a national election on Sept. 14, 2001, who knows what might have happened?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at March 15, 2004 at 12:52 PMThere's probably more Al Qaeda in Iraq right now than there has ever been before.
I'm with you on that. And I think it's good, they don't have popular support in Iraq. It was terribly convienient of them to go running into the sights of our distracted solidiers.
As for Arafat, Saddam paid public bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That support is gone now.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 15, 2004 at 12:54 PMSortelli - that's all well and good, but isn't it clear to pretty much everyone (including the Mullahs) that the events in Iraq have pretty much ended any prospect of further invasions? The U.S. can't do it militarily, the Adminstration can't do it politically, and no-one else is going to offer to help.
As for Saddam's payments to the families of suicide bombers - I'll grant you that. I do wonder, though, how many of them did it for the money? But I can't pretend to have the faintest understand of the motives of these people.
Posted by: Mork at March 15, 2004 at 01:01 PMSeems to me effective western style representative democracy is the greatest threat to terrorism and we're moving it into their backyard.
Posted by: aaron at March 15, 2004 at 01:01 PMIt seems as the Government was seen in Spain as manipulating the attack by insisting the attack was by ETA , which would favout them, and not AQ, which would favour the Socialists.
People voted against this. It is stretching a long string to say the Spanish have been cow towed by terrorists.
Posted by: Homer Paxton at March 15, 2004 at 01:07 PMMork- I've gotta go back to work, but I think I saw something once about a bomber who did, in fact, do it for the money and I will look it up later. I don't think that's a big reason, and they're still doing it, but taking away the support matters.
As for Iran, they just watched the Bush Administration bully around the UN and do what it wanted to do anyway. They're fully aware that there's a strong voice in America and the international community that they can count on to protect them, but since they're not the sorts who listen to their own people either they will take the ability of the US to strike them militarily seriously even if it isn't something we currently want to do or can easily do.
Hey, maybe the crazy conspiracy loons who say that Bush is going to become Supreme Christian Oil Overlord are helping us out in freaking out Iran. ;)
Posted by: Sortelli at March 15, 2004 at 01:08 PMMork postulates that Aznar and the PP lost because they hedged on identifying the murderers behind the Madrid attack.
And yet...had Aznar pounded the podium on March 11 and shouted that al Qaeda and a potential Islamist Fifth Column had perpetrated this atrocity, Mork and all his terror apologist buddies would be screaming 'racism', 'profiling', 'rush to judgement' just as they did on September 11.
So the Aznar government took two whole days trying to investigate and ascertain claims and non-claims (ETA) of responsibility.
Reuters still claims that al Qaeda is merely the group that the US 'blames' for 9/11.
"Why do they hate us?" Because of the contemptable cowardice of Mork and the majority of Spanish voters today!
Mork, you're a partisan hack and you've posted here long enough for any regular reader to suss that. You fool no one.
Demanding concessions from Israel and not Arafat sound like appeasement to me,Mork. You may get replies from people that think you capable of considering there opinion, but they will learn soon enough that you have no intention of reciprocating.
Posted by: Gary at March 15, 2004 at 01:11 PMFor Mork and anyone else who might be wondering what Iraq has to do with the war on terror, there is this:
(1) knocking off Saddam leads to ...
(2) Quaddaffi (or however you spell that) losing his nerve and
(3) blowing the Iranians' and Pakistanis' programs
(4) which led to Khan's Kut-Rate Proliferation Mart being exposed and shut down
(5) which left Musharraf's ass exposed big-time
(6) ... causing him to drop a dime on bin Laden
http://www.econopundit.com/archive/2004_03_01_econopundit_archive.html#107822949637606423
If we do infact capture bin Laden in this new offensive, it will have been a direct result of the liberation of Iraq.
Posted by: Tim Shell at March 15, 2004 at 01:14 PMOr a direct result of knowing where he was all along, and not pulling him out until it would do the most political good.
But hey, I am for Afghanastan regaining the number one position as heroin producer. All countries need an export after all.
Posted by: IXLNXS at March 15, 2004 at 01:19 PMHey, not every government lost their election!
From Yahoo
Putin wins Russian election
Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed victory after easily winning a second term in elections with more than 69 per cent of the vote, according to partial official results, confirming widespread expectations of a commanding victory.
With 49.7 per cent of precincts accounted for, Putin had 69.3 per cent of the vote in Sunday's election, the Central Election Commission said. The partial results were backed up by an exit poll by the non-governmental Public Opinion Foundation, which surveyed 120,000 voters at 1,200 polling stations and concluded Putin had won 69 per cent.
Posted by: Quentin George at March 15, 2004 at 01:22 PMBut hey, I am for Afghanastan regaining the number one position as heroin producer. All countries need an export after all.
Where is "Afghanastan"? I'm not familiar with the place. Is it near Inidia or Chena or Pukiston?
Posted by: Quentin George at March 15, 2004 at 01:23 PMSo the answer given was wrong on the first day, and corrected the next. For for that the entire government consists of liars and needs to be punished, the consequences be damned. Sheesh! And we Americans are accused of wanting instant gratification.
IXLNXS--
At least a junkie has a choice (up to a point) in whether to kill himself/herself with heroin.
Victims of terror have no such choice. Therefore, I would much rather heroin or marijuana or whatever come out of Afghanistan than trained and indoctrinated mass murderers.
Yeah, it's the lesser of two evils but it is less evil.
Posted by: JDB at March 15, 2004 at 01:34 PMMarijuana and opium are evil? Funny, I didn't think plants had motives.
Posted by: jean-luc bidet at March 15, 2004 at 01:51 PMSortelli - that's all well and good, but isn't it clear to pretty much everyone (including the Mullahs) that the events in Iraq have pretty much ended any prospect of further invasions?
The U.S. can't do it militarily
Well, yeah, they can.
The U.S. military is currently stretched only from the perspective of it being a peacetime force. If America was on a war footing, it would be fielding probably ten to fifteen times as many troops, and the majority of them would be on active duty outside the U.S.
the Adminstration can't do it politically, and no-one else is going to offer to help.
And whose fault is that?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 15, 2004 at 01:54 PM"Victims of terror have no such choice."
And the opposite victims of war do?
Whereas you must understand I am all for killing every man woman and child of Islamic belief, I deny half measures. Quit saying they are terrorist and recognize that this for them is war.
What would/will you do should you find your government opressive and other countries exploiting you and your land? Take it on the chin? Fight back? If you choose fight back, How? How can small countries and smaller individuals fight back against the global consequences occuring? Take it on the chin I would guess.
"Where is "Afghanastan"? I'm not familiar with the place. Is it near Inidia or Chena or Pukiston?"
If it was up your butt you'd know. Or not you hamster poofter.
Posted by: IXLNXS at March 15, 2004 at 02:01 PMFor the Spanish Electorate
(To be sung to the tune of "Onward, Christian Soldiers"
Backwards, Spanish heroes!
Squirming from the war,
so psychopaths and tyrants
can murder millions more.
Backwards, Spanish heroes!
(Someone might get hurt!)
Grovel to the maniacs,
faces in the dirt.
Backwards, Spanish heroes!
Let the trumpet sound!
Crawl away from danger,
bellies to the ground.
Backwards, Spanish heroes!
Turn about and flee.
When you meet with evil
just hand it victory.
Backwards Spajnish heroes!
Make a stand? No thanks!
Crawl into a funk-hole
And please don't help the Yanks!
Backwards, Spanish heroes!
Best not wake the powers.
Forget the dead of Israel.
Forget the New York towers.
Backwards, Spanish heroes!
Back in fear and dread!
Spit on your own heritage,
And spit on your own dead.
Backwards, Spanish heroes!
Things will all be fine.
Forget your homes and families
Are still all in line.
Backwards, Spanish heroes!
The craven life is best.
Ride off into the sunset,
The sunset of the West.
_____________________
Posted by: Hal at March 15, 2004 at 02:03 PMOr a direct result of knowing where he was all along, and not pulling him out until it would do the most political good.
I am reminded of the Scrapple face article "Bush Delaying Bin Laden Capture News Until His Approval Ratings 'Really Tank'" Maybe IXLKAJSLKDJAS really is a bad leftist parody. Leave the jokes to the funny people, dude!
I've been googling around and I can't find the article I mentioned about a suicide bomber doing it to get money for their family. Either way, it's not a primary motivation but I think the lack of payouts is making a difference. So will further attention to any other finacial support Arafat gets, and on this, at least, even Kerry seems to be on board for now.
Hal, geez, I take it that you're not a proponent of the democratic process?
Posted by: Michael at March 15, 2004 at 02:20 PMOr a direct result of knowing where he was all along, and not pulling him out until it would do the most political good.
Not that ridiculous canard again... Seems the LLL thinks it has Bush in a pickle: if he fails to produce bin Laden before the election, they have "proof" that the War on Terror is a miserable failure; however, should Binnie's carcass show up, they'll shreak "Fraud! He had him all along!!!"
If it was up your butt you'd know. Or not you hamster poofter.Ooh! Whatever shall we do after that stinging retort? Posted by: Spiny Norman at March 15, 2004 at 02:28 PM
TB should update his excerpt from John Quiggin. The rest of you should go here to find out why.
Posted by: warbo at March 15, 2004 at 02:48 PMIf it was up your butt you'd know. Or not you hamster poofter.
Spiny Norman that was directed at me! So I should have the right to respond.
Err...on second thought? Why bother? I might have to use words larger than three syllables and thus confuse the poor boy.
What is a hamster poofter? A homosexual hamster? How dare you! Equal rites for homosexual rodents everywhere! Next you'll be telling them they can't get married. Sheesh.
Posted by: Quentin George at March 15, 2004 at 02:53 PMYou doubt people know where Osama is?
Didn't you do your homoework?
osama has a kidney condition. Near fatal unless he gets dyalysis, or however it's spelled for you grammer fags, but checking into medical supplies to strange places would find him quickly. As you said, "I" am a half wit. If I can put two things together I would suppose the many agencies of many countries could as well.
"UNLESS", they didn't want to.
Posted by: IXLNXS at March 15, 2004 at 03:00 PMMichael: I don't know about Hal, but I'm a huge fan of the democratic process. I think it was perfectly successful here, and did exactly what it was supposed to do: In this case, reveal the stunning cowardice festering among the Spanish electorate.
Just because it's the will of majority doesn't mean they're doing the right thing. We can respect their decision and still think they're idiots for making it.
Posted by: Aaron at March 15, 2004 at 03:04 PMI am all for democracy. I can, however, hold an opinion about voters - and other people.
Posted by: Hal at March 15, 2004 at 03:15 PMI've had the pleasure of shutting up one gloating Saddamite by typing two words: East Timor. The left-ist Government of New Zealand might not have supported the War in Iraq, but they were quite happy to splash East Timor footage all over their election ads in 2002.
As far as Osama bin Laden and Jemaah Islamia are concerned anyone who had a hand in the liberation of East Timor (including the UN) is on the "crusader" shit list too. And we've got a general election due next year - and a major public transport hub a few hundred meters from Parliament.
Posted by: Craig Ranapia (Other Pundit) at March 15, 2004 at 03:27 PMYes, Mork, we can certainly all agree that terrorists will not cross international borders. It's in their code. Since not, we must have them cornered in Afganistan still. Or maybe Packistan? Where are they, Mork? Where have you limited them to?
Posted by: Joe Peden at March 15, 2004 at 03:30 PMSo, the brave Ixlnxs narrows down the whereabouts of Osama to wherever peritoneal dialysis can be perfomed, that is , in his home. Osama must be there.
Posted by: Joe Peden at March 15, 2004 at 03:39 PM"osama has a kidney condition. Near fatal unless he gets dyalysis, or however it's spelled for you grammer fags, but checking into medical supplies to strange places would find him quickly."
Hey! I just googled up an order for a dyalysis machine that's being shipped to "Cave in Pakistan", it was signed by "I am Not Osama, Honest". It was paid for with soda tabs! I've called the CIA and given them this useful information and I expect to receive a Congressional Medal of Honor shortly.
Just a friendly reminder, IXLLKJASD: Everytime your fingers touch the keyboard you make yourself look stupider and stupider.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 15, 2004 at 03:40 PMLook. If you want to martyr a group. Give them meaning to Muslims throughout the world. Declare them as the enemy against Democracy. Fine.
Nuke the bastards. Anything less is a waste of personel. Anything less creates more martyrs and more cildren brought up believing bombs on the chest are good.
The middle east will not be solved with less.
Scart?
Posted by: IXLNXS at March 15, 2004 at 03:51 PMPerhaps the people of Spain, rather than being cowardly appeasers, simply think it might be time to try another way. (On account of the way we're going today is just no way at all).
Or would you prefer we march off to drape a flag on the head of some other newly toppled irrelevant statue? If, so which random tinpot dictator would you nominate for said statue ceremony?
Rhetorical question.
Posted by: Nemesis at March 15, 2004 at 03:55 PMThe left always deride "American exceptionism". Today, we know we are exceptional. When we were attacked, we fought back. When the Euros were attacked, they put their tails between their legs and whimpered.
Posted by: ic at March 15, 2004 at 04:01 PM"I really fear we'll see an attack on the scale of 9/11 in the United States before the Presidential election. If the people of the West are going to blame their leaders for terror instead of the people actually committing the attacks, why wouldn't Al-Qaida try it again?
If we do see such an attack, I don't believe it will result in Bush's losing the election. All the horror and anger that have been there since 9/11 will come right to the surface again and people will want someone like a Bush to carry the war to the enemy. This time, people here will have no patience with prescision bombing if it puts US lives at risk.
The majority of the US citizens have been in favor with the way Pres. Bush has prosecuted the war. Another terrorist attack will cement that favor. I am a bit concerned about what my fellow Americans will be urging Bush to do, if we get attacked again.
We are partially ready for another attack. Most of us have considered another attack against us on American soil is inevitable. If such an attack comes before our presidential elections, I wonder what Kerry will say?
Posted by: Chris Josephson at March 15, 2004 at 04:04 PMThe war in Iraq has facilitated the net closing around Osama. The key here is the active co-operation of Pakistan.
In tiny little words, then: U.S. topples Saddam. Ghaddafi wets pants, rolls over to U.S. Reveals Pakistani nuclear supermarket. This gives U.S. leverage over Musharraf. Who then starts rolling up AQ & friends in Wazoostan. And playing anvil to the U.S. hammer. Simplisme!
By the way, dialysis can be maintained indefinitely by using disposable, single use only equipment.
Whilst in power last time, the PSOE implemented a policy of social reforms combined with a liberal and capìtalist economic policy, as well as the entrance of Spain into NATO (1986) and supported for the United States in the Gulf War (1991).
Some victory for the terrorists.
1. Stress emotion over logic.
2. Demonize the enemy.
3. Promise a war that will make the world safe for democracy.
Shut up. Fall in line. Follow the great leader.
Posted by: IXLNXS at March 15, 2004 at 04:27 PMGrunter, do you have any sources to back up that hypothetical chain of events? I mean credible, independent analysis.
Obviously, I doubt that that's what has happened, but I'm prepared to acknowledge you're right if you can give me some evidence rather than just string together a list of apparently unrelated occurences.
Posted by: warbo at March 15, 2004 at 04:36 PMWorbo - this and Tim Shell's post above are probably based on Sy Hersh's article in the New Yorker from 2 issues ago, which does indeed touch on relationships between all those developments.
The article is well worth reading.
But the summary above pretty much inverts the conclusions of the piece.
Posted by: Mork at March 15, 2004 at 04:46 PMCongratulations to the islamocunts. As for appeasement. If it is so effective you would have thought opening the first new mosque in 500 years would count for something with the camel botherers. http://www.charleston.net/stories/071103/wor_11mosque.shtml.. No?
Posted by: Joejr at March 15, 2004 at 05:02 PMNemesis
"time to try another way"
You mean pre-911 and that worked well didn't it.
sarcastic answer
wardo/Mork play ignorance of events and end up just plane ignorant.
Posted by: Gary at March 15, 2004 at 05:04 PMIt seems that Spain is now becoming the new European bogey.
I can smell some anglo hairy chestiness around some of the comments. The USA brave - strong protecting the world and the Spain elections only confirm what we suspected: That Europeans are spineless and cowards and have no guts against terrorism.
I think maybe people who are quick to criticise Europeans when they do not whole heartedly endorse the current policies of the Bush administration should look at Europe's history. Europe has gone through two devastating world wars (and admittedly the USA has saved Europe's ass in both of them). Unlike the USA (and Australia) millions of civilians were killed in bombing raids, reprisals etc. Spain itself went through one of the worst civil wars in living memory which resulted in a dictatorship which lasted into the 1970's.
It is reasonable to see that Europeans are reticent to be dragged into any conflict that they see has no relevance to them. A great proportion of the population sees that the USA has only to blame itself for the anger of extremist loopy murdering islamists terrorists (a view that I disagree with BTW). Only when Europeans will realise that this mob are against all the liberal values of the west than there may be a shift of opinion.
However I would put forward the opinion that before we start to talk about 'eurocowards' remember the context of war in that continent
Posted by: Guido at March 15, 2004 at 05:05 PMIXLNXS
I lived and worked with a number of people from the Mideast. Lovely people and good friends who are saddled with nasty, corrupt governments that feature some of the worst human rights in the world today. It seems to me you are happy to have these people continue to exist in miserable conditions just as long as no Western government does anything to change the rotten, corrupt, human rights abusing regimes that exist in the region.
As far as the Saudi's, Syrian's, North Korean's, and Iranian's, why haven't we done anything about them? Give it time, that big military presence in Iraq does two things. First it puts pressure on the axis of evil governments second, it gives the oppressed citizens in the rotten states surrounding Iraq a sense of hope for the future.
"It is reasonable to see that Europeans are reticent to be dragged into any conflict that they see has no relevance to them."
Yes, but they have absolutely no problem with dragging US into their conflicts which! For 90 freakin' years!
Posted by: Susan at March 15, 2004 at 05:15 PMIt seems mean and petty to snipe at the Spanish for the choice they made in the election, so soon after the Madrid bombings. How many of the people making these comments were actually following the Spanish elections before the bombings? It could be that the reasons held by Spaniards for electing the socialists had nothing to do with the bombings.
On the other hand, if the Spaniards did choose to 'unelect' the Aznar government because of the bombings/involvement in the Iraq war, etc, it is understandable. Two days on from a national tragedy - many may have made an emotional, rather than reasoned choice.
At any rate, let's just sit back and see how things develop in Spain. Hey, it's what we armchair commentators do best!
Mork: don't suppose you've got a link for that article? I'm about to enter the witching hour (getting kids to bed) and won't have time to hunt around for myself (in other words, just lazy).
Thanks for the pointer anyway.
Posted by: warbo at March 15, 2004 at 05:30 PM"The U.S. can't do it militarily
Well, yeah, they can."
Especially after they get the Iraqi Army and Police Force fully trained and taking over some of the functions the troops are performing now. Which is in progress.
Posted by: Yehudit at March 15, 2004 at 05:43 PM"axis of evil governments"
I don't know which is funnier. That you said it, or that you meant it.
Posted by: IXLNXS at March 15, 2004 at 05:45 PMinvading Iraq acually impeded the fight against Al Qaeda. Why is it that only now is the U.S. launching a major offensive to capture Bin Laden? Don't you see that a necessary corollory of that is that up until now, the U.S. has not been doing all it can to capture him and his cronies? And where did the units now being positioned for the offensive come from?Other people have answered this, but I'm going to put in my 2 cents. Yes "invading Iraq actually impeded the fight against Al Qaeda"
What invading Iraq did is force al Qaeda to carry out operations where it wouldn't have attacked and against those it would not have attacked. In other words, they had to spend resources that would have been used else where.
Many of the people killed by al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas and the other terrorists (as if there's really a difference) in the last two years are not American, but Iraqi, Afghani, Saudi, Pakistani and other Muslims - or Jewish people. You can include the Spanish now. Each attack, while can psychologically work in their favor, it can also backfire on them and stiffen resolve against them.
If the French and Germans think they are immune to al Qaeda's wrath - they're kidding themselves. The French and Germans are helping to fight the War on Terror even though they weren't in Iraq. So considering the precedence set by the Spaniards - cowering to terrorism - the terrorist will use more terrorism in an attempt to stop the War on Terror.
On a side note - I have to give it to the Iraqis, they've suffered a lot more than the Spanish, yet they seem a whole lot braver than the Spanish.
Kudos' to the Iraqi people, but I bet there is going to be a certain percentage of Spaniards that will wake up in the near future with the realization they made a huge mistake. I only hope that the British, Polish and Italians don't vote out of fear and make the same mistake as the Spanish.
As for America not doing all it could to find bin Laden ... your reading of the whole situation is wrong. Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban are aided in part by elements in the Pakistani police and military, so we had to take the time to gain the necessary intelligence to prove to Musharraf that al Qaeda was getting help on the ground in Pakistan and from the Pakistani army before Musharraf would crack down, and while doing that we had to prevent al Qaeda from getting foot-hold anywhere else!.
I seriously doubt that you're right about that, Mork, given the effect Saddam's removal is having on the region and how it directly relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict which might as well be the epicenter of all Islamic terrorism.You're exactly right!
Libya is an excellent example.
Some like to play down the significance, but the timing of Qadhafi's weapons agreement with the United States and Britain, suggests that after Sept. 11th Qadhafi was smart enough to see the writing on the wall, but as soon as he saw we were serious about Iraq he knew it was time to get on America's good side.
Don't you agree?
It's interesting that you mention the epicenter of terrorism ... in chess it's advantageous to control the center of the board and geographically speaking Iraq is somewhat the epicenter of the Middle East. A large part of the international travel in the Middle East from the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa to Afghanistan was through Iraq and then Iran or Pakistan. The only thing about Pakistan is that a person en route to Afghanistan through Pakistan, would first have to take a boat or plane to Pakistan, then travel by land to Afghanistan.
American forces in Iraq are impeding the movement of people to Afghanistan. Now that Musharraf is stepping up to the plate, this is effectively a thee front battle now. There are American forces in Iraq drawing resources towards Iraq and denying bin Laden re-enforcements in Afghanistan/Pakistan - Musharraf in Pakistan disrupting things through Pakistan, and American forces in Afghanistan .
Musharraf is doing as good a job as he can, but he has political considerations; we all understood that from the very beginning.
John - not at all. I am not remotely a pacifist, nor an anti-American, and I enthusiastically support the use of ALL aspects of American power to eliminate terrorism. But Iraq was a third order threat, that the U.S. dealt with as if it was the most pressing problem that the west faced.Saddam was the next most significant threat in the Middle East to Osama bin Laden!!!
To say 'next most significant' implies a reduction in threat severity as compared to bin Laden, but that's really not the case at all. Saddam routinely had his forces fire on American aircraft flying in the no-fly-zone, but since the planes carried anti-radiation missiles the Iraq SAMs were easily defeated. Iraq absolutely had the resources to be a threat of profound significance.
Saddam Hussein was an admitted enemy of America in a region of the world where the concept "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is always in favor. Saddam supported terrorism, and al Qaeda and Iraq seemed had the beginnings of a more hospitable relationship. The appeasement crowd is so blinded by partisanship that they refuse to see this fact.
Terrorists need bases, financial and technical support and room to move. Deny them those and their mission is made incomparably harder.
Saying "why not go after Al Qaeda instead of invading their support base" is just myopic. And simplistic.Exactly! Right on the money! So salient it MUST be repeated again!!!
Terrorists need bases, financial and technical support and room to move!
Terrorists need bases, financial and technical support and room to move!
Terrorists need bases, financial and technical support and room to move!
Osama bin Laden needs all the help he can get. It's very difficult to operate without a state sponsor, and by ousting Saddam Hussein, we're denied al Qaeda a very likely partner in this war. All bin Laden needed to do was reach out to Saddam and he most certainly would have given some support as long as it fit into Saddams agenda.
Sortelli - that's all well and good, but isn't it clear to pretty much everyone (including the Mullahs) that the events in Iraq have pretty much ended any prospect of further invasions? The U.S. can't do it militarily, the Adminstration can't do it politically, and no-one else is going to offer to help.This is absolute hogwash. If the United States needed to take on Iran, the Air Force and Navy Fight/Bombers - plus ship/sub based cruise missiles - would thoroughly destroy Iran with one loss of American life. As for politically, all that's needed is something sufficiently heinous to galvanize opinions. Posted by: Dwayne at March 15, 2004 at 05:51 PM
Warbo - it's not up on the New Yorker website yet (though it probably will be in a week or two). Keep an eye on this page:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/previous/?040322frprsp_previous1
It was in the March 8 issue.
Posted by: Mork at March 15, 2004 at 05:51 PMWarbo, my "hypothetical chain of events" was a sequential list of headlines, no more. Please pay attention to the news, these are very serious events- my frivolous style notwithstanding. Rantburg is my favorite WOT site, for your further research if you wish. Disregard their frivolous style, too.
Two minor points- Ghadaffi told Berlusconi he would do whatever the Americans wanted. They frightened him.
Musharraf, I should have said, is in a pincer- between the US and AQ, who has penetrated his security and nearly killed him twice recently. He may not have a lot of wriggle room but he is moving against AQ to a useful extent. Time will tell.
Its now 2.56 am here (NYC) and I have to go to bed.
can we have a vote to ban the leftie thread hijackers? i have to listen to their repetitive crap on the ABC and SBS and read it in the Sydney Morning Herald. Now they push their fucked up world views on one of my favourite websites.. ban 'INXZLGERBILLOVER' 'PORK' 'HOMO PAXTON' NOW!
Posted by: sum gai at March 15, 2004 at 06:00 PMcan we have a vote to ban the leftie thread hijackers? i have to listen to their repetitive crap on the ABC and SBS and read it in the Sydney Morning Herald. Now they push their fucked up world views on one of my favourite websites.. ban 'INXZLGERBILLOVER' 'PORK' 'HOMO PAXTON' NOW!Absolutely not. We need their words here for everyone to see, so that logical arguments can be contrasted with the typical illogical Leftist arguments. Posted by: Dwayne at March 15, 2004 at 06:12 PM
IXLNXS wrote:
osama has a kidney condition. Near fatal unless he gets dyalysis, or however it's spelled for you grammer fags,
I reply:
It's spelt "dialysis", you illiterate fuck-tard. Can all us right-wing "grammar" fags send queer daggers to the dumb breeder? Share the love...
On the plus side, at least we will have a way to compare the effects of Bush's hardline stance to that of the Spanish Socialists, who have repeatedly said they will no longer support the war on terror.
In the coming months, what happens in Spain will be directly comparable to what will happen in America if Kerry is elected.
I suspect that alone will be the best political advertisement we could ever hope for.
Background on a wider European problem. They aren't breeding at even replacement rate. They have decided to die out.
Asia Times - Radical Islam Can Win
Posted by: Fred Boness at March 15, 2004 at 06:44 PMLibya's capitulation was also likely due to more direct pressure from Bush and Blair if not entirely due to the Iraq war. We, with the help of others, nabbed a shipment of WMB components on the way to Libya right before Qaddafi caved. Qaddafi's owning up to the downing of Pan Am flight 103 was going to be enough to remove UN sanctions, but separate US sanctions were going to stay unless Qaddafi did more.
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/fleverett/20040123.htm
Even disregarding what the Italian Prime Minister says Qaddafi told him about being scared of the US, to believe that Saddam's fall was totally unrelated to Libya's cooperation on WMD takes a HUGE set of blinders.
Imagine a world where we did not invade Iraq, where we continued to inspect, inspect, inspect and inspect some more while Saddam pretended to comply with the international community. Why would Qaddafi believe for a moment that he'd need to be 100% open on his own WMD programs if he didn't watch Saddam get crushed over the mere suspicion that he had weapons? Qaddafi could just as easily kept up the same facade, knowing that there wouldn't be enough international pressure to use military force against leaders who "might" be pursuing illegal weapons, whether or not they had any.
And even if he DID open up anyway, it would still have been a direct result of American foreign policy, started by Clinton and exercised by Bush with international cooperation.
From Libya we learned of Pakistan's WMD distribution, which gave us something to hold under Musharraf's nose. He does have to walk a tightrope between internal forces in his country that don't want to work with us and his desire to stay on our good side, Pakistan's involvement in WMD proliferation put him in a bad spot with us and he's got to make up for it. If he stops the proliferation and helps us nail Osama we're better off for it. And we don't even need to invade Pakistan to do it, fancy that! Crazy American Cowboy Diplomacy!
Posted by: Sortelli at March 15, 2004 at 07:16 PMI think people are getting a little hysterical. The new government in Spain will have to come down on local islamists like a ton of bricks anyway.
One thing though, expect the pre-election bombing to become a standard tactic of AQ. I'm voting for Johnny but I'm taking a taxi to the poll, that's for sure.
Posted by: Amos at March 15, 2004 at 07:34 PMI'm voting for JohnnyAs with suckers - there's an idiot born every minute. Posted by: Dwayne at March 15, 2004 at 07:37 PM
José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero is pulling Spain's troops out of Iraq by June 30th.
Spain to pull troops out of Iraq after poll upset
Posted by: Fred Boness at March 15, 2004 at 07:41 PMGrunter: thanks for responding in the reasonable way you did. I'll try to look into this a bit more. Hope you got a good night's rest.
Mork: again, thanks for the tip.
Posted by: warbo at March 15, 2004 at 07:44 PMDwayne, knock it off.If you vote for John Kerry, you are an idiot. Posted by: Dwayne at March 15, 2004 at 07:51 PM
John Howard, not John Kerry you idiot. This is an Australian blog you know
Posted by: Amos at March 15, 2004 at 07:55 PMOh ... you're absolutely correct, of course. I apologize.
But aren't proper names in order, considering we are dealing with a global environment?
Posted by: Dwayne at March 15, 2004 at 08:23 PMWhat was the male/female breakdown of the Spanish vote? I'd be curious.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at March 15, 2004 at 08:25 PMI mean, yeah, I'm just some stupid American, but I am welcome to visit - am I?
Posted by: Dwayne at March 15, 2004 at 08:25 PMDwayne, your sentiment was right.
Australian the blog may be in origin, but readership is another thing.
So, others, be clear. It's not hard.
Posted by: ilibcc at March 15, 2004 at 08:34 PMGee, living in another European country full of wimpering cowards, this result has really made me feel great. The Spanish voters have just placed a big "Please kill more of us! We will eagerly give in to all demands!" sign on our backs.
Thanks alot, Pedro.
Now it is our turn. WE ARE SURE THEY'LL BOMB ITALIANS TOO, and the other europeans committed against dictators. Now they've demonstrated terrorism usefulness. A new bloody era is open.
We have to thanks accademic, information and media monopoly of leftists, moulding public opinions . They're terrorists in the same way Al-Qayda and talibans.
And not one word on this site yet about the fact the incoming Spanish "socialist" Government actually has a stronger track record of working with the US and killing terrorists than the outgoing Anzar (lost in dirty real estate development deals) admistration, under whose watch, 200+ PEOPLE GOT KILLED IN MADRID, AND MANY MORE MAIMED.
I do not await a coherent response. But I do understand I could be censored/cut around here.
Since the Madrid attack was more political than military and has succeeded, expect similar attacks on other weak European allies to peel them off the coalition. My guess would be Italy, Poland, and then Britain and Australia.
It was reported that an Al Qaeda leader predicted that 2 or 3 attacks against the Spanish would be sufficient to split them from the coalition.
This gives a whole new meaning to the "Running of the Bulls". If I ever hear a reference to Spanish machismo again I'll, I'll... well I don't know what I'll do; laugh, puke, cry?
Posted by: Arty at March 16, 2004 at 12:22 AMI think Poland's reaction to attact would not be the same as Spain's. Poland has long bitter memories of others not standing up for them when attacked by an aggressor. I don't think anything can be read into this because of Spain's immediate reaction to the attacks.
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at March 16, 2004 at 12:31 AMNext target: Rome, Italy. Catholic Church and Berlusconi.
Posted by: Stacy at March 16, 2004 at 12:56 AMI've always loved the argument "We are not doing enough against Al Quida".
Does one expect the US and allied nations to send hundreds of thousands of troops into the mountains of Pakistan? Really? You think bin Laden and his brothers in death wouldn't hear them comming? Tanks would work great there! And if/when we capture Bin Laden, will global terroism stop? Ha!
The US gov't is not in the buisness of telling the general public exactly what kinds of forces we are using up in the mountains. I am ceratin the US Military and/or CIA have the worlds most sophisticated tracking equipment overhead of those mountains 24/7. They are also using small bands of highly trained special forces (Delta, Rangers, Snipers etc) who can lie in wait to strinke/gather intel silently.
Why scare the rats back into the mountain caves, with a few very loud divisions of Army infantry and tanks? Far more people would die from accidents and friendly fire there then in most flat battlefields. The last thing we need is to stir up Afghani nationalism to fight off an occupier (they are notorious for fighting off invaders). Right now, US forces, along with allies, have a small footprint in Afghanistan. They know we are there to hunt terrorists, and not control the country, so we get a pass.
The Allied nations against terroism could send a million people into those mountains and do far more harm than good. The US can kill a bunch of terrorists riding in a car, in a foreign land, from an unmanned drones being piloted by the CIA thousands of miles away; anyone arguing that Bush and co. are not "doing enough" clearly does not understand the phase of operations the Afghanistan/Pakistan mountain range is in.
Posted by: mateo_g at March 16, 2004 at 01:20 AMToo bad the Spanish became spooked and will pull out of Iraq. The terrorists won in Spain.
Speculation on local radio this AM about what would happen if something similar happens a few days before the US election. I think any terrorist action on US soil would cause Bush to win by a landslide.
The only way to stop the terrorists is to send armed forces to get them and dry up all supplies of monies, etc.. No support.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at March 16, 2004 at 01:26 AMDoes anybody know the dates of major elections around the world?
I know the US elections in Nov of course but how about Britain, France, Poland, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Saudi Arabia (ha ha just kidding), Czech Republic, Germany, etc?
Posted by: Junkyard God at March 16, 2004 at 01:43 AMThe new Spanish prime minister declares their participation in Iraq as a big mistake, noting the withdrawal of Spanish troops after winning an election they had been assured of losing PRIOR to a major terrorist attack via Al-Quaida/ETA. Not to spin an unnecessary conspiracy theory, but is it possible the Socialist party adherents could be accomplices in planning, timing, and allowing such an attack? Has anyone else mentioned this possibility?
Posted by: Matt in France at March 16, 2004 at 02:01 AMJust a couple of comments from "coward" Spain:
1. First, PSOE's victory was not only caused by an appeasement attitude shared by a large majority in the Spanish population. Polls suggested PSOE's vote was getting closer to PP's by the moment. In fact, published polls may have been totally wrong: their method for estimating future votes can turn an obvious advantage into disadvantage (for instance, a Gallup poll on February stated that 26.9% wanted to vote for the PSOE and only 21.6% for PP; after "cooking" the data, as is said here in Spain, Gallup's forecast was... 24.3% for PSOE and 30.4% for PP).
I mean, there was already a momentum favoring the PSOE, and it is not clear that this had much to do with the Iraq war.
My hunch is that both parties were very close and that the perception of a certain part of the electorate of the 11-M assassinations just tipped the balance. Please rembember that, at least, the PP has managed to retain 9.6 million votes (37.6% of the total, down from 44.5% in 2000).
2. There may be cowardice behind many of the voters to PSOE (and many other parties, mostly on the left or nationalists) but there may be also a naïve understanding of politics and international relations, as if countries, cultures or civilizations could "choose" their enemies. Well (as Julien Freund remembered us some decades ago), they can't. That is something we Spaniards will have to learn with much suffering.
This naïve understanding of politics may or may not be fostered by political parties to their advantage. It's easy to see what the PSOE has done.
3. Be it cowardice or naïvete, I agree with many of the posters that the signal to the terrorists is loud and clear: you can get what you want by force or by threat of it. And our new prime minister in pectore, Rodríguez Zapatero, has just made it pristine. I am afraid our "local" terrorist group, ETA, will also take notice.
More on Osama's dialysis from instapundit:
BIN LADEN AS VAMPIRE:
Cutoff from his needed dialysis treatments, Bin Laden has turned to a dark and monstrous method for maintaining life. Osama Bin Laden no longer has access to first rate medical treatments to flush his unclean blood, as he once did, and he now requires twice daily transfusions to keep him alive. It is reported, however, that his chronic condition will continue to worsen through winter, and that by spring he will, most certainly, require at least daily blood exchanges to cling to life.
"Dr. Atiq, an army surgeon who runs the Dasht-e Qala field hospital -- a dirty canvas tent surrounded by mud walls -- says he has examined the bodies of civilians and prisoners of war who had died after Taliban doctors removed large quantities of blood from their bodies. This brutal method of execution serves the dual purpose of killing government foes while keeping hospitals stocked with the blood needed to...." ...KEEP BIN LADEN ALIVE.
SHUDDER .......
More on Osama's dialysis from instapundit:
BIN LADEN AS VAMPIRE:
Cutoff from his needed dialysis treatments, Bin Laden has turned to a dark and monstrous method for maintaining life. Osama Bin Laden no longer has access to first rate medical treatments to flush his unclean blood, as he once did, and he now requires twice daily transfusions to keep him alive. It is reported, however, that his chronic condition will continue to worsen through winter, and that by spring he will, most certainly, require at least daily blood exchanges to cling to life.
"Dr. Atiq, an army surgeon who runs the Dasht-e Qala field hospital -- a dirty canvas tent surrounded by mud walls -- says he has examined the bodies of civilians and prisoners of war who had died after Taliban doctors removed large quantities of blood from their bodies. This brutal method of execution serves the dual purpose of killing government foes while keeping hospitals stocked with the blood needed to...." ...KEEP BIN LADEN ALIVE.
SHUDDER .......
Sheesh some of you have some complicated theories about whay the US is now peparing for an offensive against the Taliban/AQ hide outs in the mountains is because of one very easy to understand factor.
In the winter it snows a loit in those mountains making them much harder to attack but also harder to escape from. Come spring time this snow melts (yes amazing isnt it!) then come the kerblamo!! 10 dead jihadis all in a row.
Posted by: Dead Ed at March 16, 2004 at 02:47 AMThe U.S. made Iraq a terrorist issue. The Madrid attack would not have occured without the Iraq War.
Posted by: Pablo at March 16, 2004 at 03:37 AMPablo, I doubt that. I'm sure they've been in planning for a while. Spain's involvement in Iraq mostly affected the timing and made it a greater strategic target.
Posted by: aaron at March 16, 2004 at 04:25 AMFor those who know their history, what' about coining the word "spanization" or "going spanish".
Good news: i ve heard that poles have no intention of "going spanish"
Posted by: frenchfregoli at March 16, 2004 at 05:16 AMPablo-
Spain has been on AQ's list since way before Iraq, before 9/11. Remember, 500 years ago Spain was home to Arab/Islam culture. AQ is fighting a 1300 year war - it never ended, it started before the Crusades. I know you thnk the Crusades were terrible, but they were a defensive war to address the expansion of the Muslem state. If you think Iraq is what this is about you need to read up on your history.
Posted by: JEM at March 16, 2004 at 05:36 AMThanks for the history lesson JEM! I didn't know AQ has been around since 1000 CE. The crusades were a defensive war! Conservatives are more delusional than a I thought.
Posted by: Pablo at March 16, 2004 at 07:18 AMI'm sure the argument is now going round in circles but it appears the attacks were not about Iraq:
'Mr Fergus said al-Qaida hit Spain because Madrid terrorism police were instrumental in shutting down terror cells in Italy, Germany and London after al-Qaida's European organiser, Abu Dahdah, was arrested, with other Madrid cell members, in November 2001.'
Posted by: ilibcc at March 16, 2004 at 09:48 AMThe new Spanish prime minister declares their participation in Iraq as a big mistake, noting the withdrawal of Spanish troops after winning an election they had been assured of losing PRIOR to a major terrorist attack via Al-Quaida/ETA. Not to spin an unnecessary conspiracy theory, but is it possible the Socialist party adherents could be accomplices in planning, timing, and allowing such an attack? Has anyone else mentioned this possibility?
Posted by: Matt in France at March 16, 2004 at 02:01 AM
In my opinion ... yes!
I think many socialist are like many environmentalists, animal-rights activists or any other over zealous activist types - many operate with the principle of "the ends justify the means." This has lead to property damage in the minor cases or bodily harm in the more extreme cases.
So, yeah ... I think that it's more than plausible and possible that the Socialists groups around the world would enter into a conspiracy with Islamists in an attempt to stop America.
Posted by: Dwayne at March 16, 2004 at 10:53 AMHello, all!
Just a couple of thoughts from the northern hemisphere....
1. I don't view the Spanish voters as cowards. Temporarily insane, maybe. Possibly stupid. Certainly emotional. But not cowards. Bill Clinton took the White House from President Bush in an upset election. We were certainly crazy to vote Slick Willy into office (TWICE, for Gods sake!), but we did survive the experience, able to wup terrorist asses and their clandestine supporters here and there after 9/11 (with the able help of others, such as the Aussies -- thanks!). I don't agree with their choice, but I don't live in Spain.
2. Mork and IXLNXS are classic examples of "argument by sniping", specious arguments, and misdirection. I can see why Tim leaves them on this blog. I'm getting a strenuous refresher on debate techniques here. Both of those characters delight in refusing to accept facts, ignoring conclusions, equivocation, simple harrassment, and getting downright personal (although I have no idea what a "hamster poofter" is -- is that a rat passing gas?). Behavior like this is to be treasured as a rare commodity, suitable to train ourselves in the effective use of our organic BDS (Bullshit Detection System). Within reason, of course. Having bullshit thrown at you may be an exhilarating experience, but one does tire of discourse with a stone wall. Listening to the voice of rational opinion (be it for or against you) is more productive and satisfying way.
An excellent thread, by the way. I'm glad to see that not all of the inhabitants of our tired planet want to stick their head in the sand, and wait for a terrorist to kick 'em in the butt.
"The U.S. made Iraq a terrorist issue. The Madrid attack would not have occured without the Iraq War."
Well Pablo, if you are looking for root causes you can do better than that. Those attacks would not have occurred if those trains had not been built in the first place.
I'm Spanish. Before saying anything about a country whose citizens occupaid the streets last Friday by millions (11 millions, the quarter of our population) to stop terrorism. Before saying nothing about the democratic opinion of the 80% of the voters who massively went on Sunday. Before saying nothing about a country that has been suffering 30 years of terrorrism and has success fighting it. Before that, you should learn more about us, just because we have some experience. Don't be surprised we have jailed five suspects just in three days.
Anyway. Zapatero is going to retire our troops of Irak because he thinks Irak should be under the command of United Nations and not under US. This has nothing to do with the recent attacks, as he promised this weeks before the election.
About Al Qaida. If 3/11 is linked to 9/11, then Bush war on terrorism has been just a complete and total failure that his closer and weaker allied have paid: we, Spanish. I expect American people just vote accordingly.
Posted by: Víctor R. Ruiz at March 16, 2004 at 02:47 PMSorry, arriving to this discussion late.
First let me say that I think the Spaniards - even if it was not their intention to do so - have (I am hoping only temporarily) surrendered to the death cult.
Mork is, naturally enough, plying us with the newest New Yorker magazine/Savvy Democrat line. It's sophistry.
Go back and look: these are the same people who were against the liberation of Afghanistan ("we're just blowing up sand over there!" "we'll bury ourselves there" etc.). After that they adjusted their positions as if they had *always* been for the liberation of Afghanistan. And then came Iraq. They were against it. It would be "the greatest disaster in U.S. history" etc. etc. They were quiet for about three after after the fall of Baghdad and the obvious exhuberance of the Iraqi people. And then again, readjustment. Sophistry.
First it was "the antiquities.
Then it was "a quagmire."
Now it's "won't make us any safer."
People like Mork, despite professing to be serious in the war on Islamofascism, are anything but. He is serious about only one thing: his hatred for George W. Bush and the man's defeat at all costs. Everything else is secondary to that and the arguments adjust as world events change.
To answer a couple of his charges specifically:
Talk of "delays" in Afghanistan or any such speculation is profoundly ignorant. Check out the U.S. military blogs for the details of how and why things progress as they do in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with resources being diverted to Iraq and everything to do with terrain, tactics, overall strategy, and intelligence-service level work with various native tribes. Afghanistan is doing quite well, all things considered and will continue on the good path it is on.
Iraq is an extraordinary success in the war on Islamofascism. The war on the Death Cult. The cult not just of the suicide bomber but the cult of the shredder and the rape rooms. It's all part of the same sickness. The liberation of Iraq deprived the death cultists of a base, allies, money. But most importantly, MOST IMPORTANTLY: It gave the people of the Arab world hope.
Until the liberation of Iraq there was not one true Arab democracy. Now there is. When the war is over and we - God willing - win, all of them will be. Free. Democratic. Stable. And on their way to prosperity.
The process of the US and her allies killing and destroying terrorists goes hand in hand with the process of Muslims discovering freedom.
The Iraqis know this.
The Iranian students know this.
The Kurds in northern Syria know this.
Only the Socialists and their Democratic allies do not know this. Or perhaps they do but they are just cynical beyond anything we can allow ourselves to imagine, having seen people jumping from those towers, or laying on the pavement in the pavement in front of those trains.
A revolution has begun in the Arab and Muslim world.
There is an alternative to the Death Cult.
There is hope.
Posted by: Sergio at March 16, 2004 at 03:08 PMHey i got this quote from Zapatero's acceptance speech:
> I would like to thank all the campaign workers who worked so tirelessly, Manuel Rodriguez my chief of staff on the campaign, and my wife Maria. But most of all, I would like to thank al Qaeda for making this possible. It was looking really grim for us, but you helped us when it counted.
No, not really, but i hope in our anger it might make us laugh. Democracy died yesterday in Spain.
http://www.freespeech.com/archives/002247.html
Posted by: A.W. at March 16, 2004 at 06:00 PM"Anyway. Zapatero is going to retire our troops of Irak because he thinks Irak should be under the command of United Nations and not under US. This has nothing to do with the recent attacks, as he promised this weeks before the election."
Erm, yes, but he won the election because the Al Qaeda managed to bomb him into power. Congratulations!
Regards, Döbeln
-Stabil som fan!
Posted by: Döbeln at March 16, 2004 at 06:52 PMI've been reading articles all over the net about Spain but I still don't understand. Mass slaughter of innocent adults and children follows no line of reasoning - there is no cause and effect - other than the effect of reducing human beings to frightened pissing mice.
And who more than Spaniards are more experienced at living under a fear-dispensing thug and bully?
In 1936-37, when Franco knew the Republican opposition was a washed-up shambles, he consolidated his power by getting the names of every prominent Republican in every major village, town and city in Spain.
Then came the knocks on the doors.
About three years after Franco's death, I lived in the Triana neighborhood of Sevilla at the flat of an elderly, widowed landlady. She told me, wide-eyed and still in whispers, that at the end of the civil war Franco's henchmen canvassed the neighborhood. She could never forget the terrifying, bowel-watering knocks. Purposefully loud, they were a death sentence to the inhabitant(s) and a warning to the neighbors.
Of all the people of Europe I expected the Spanish to comprehend the nature of the monster attacking them.
This is the most misinformed blog I've read EVER about Spain. It's very easy to talk from Australia, US... people voted to kick PP from the government. The 11-M bombings was only another reason to do that. 90% of spaniards were AGAINST sending troops to Irak. And PP sent them.
To all the "experts"... have you ever heard about "chapapote" (Prestige natural disaster). Have you heard about the press public manipulation? Have you heard about the fact that PP LIED the country telling it was ETA and not Al-Qaeda? WHY DID THEM LIED ABOUT THIS??? Have you ever heard about "decretazo"? (changing education laws).
If you lived here, you would have seen the ARROGANT PP, the only-direction-government of PP (if you are not with PP, you are against Spain!!), the HATE against all some Provinces of Spain (Catalonia, Basque Country...)
As someone stated before, the polls were predicting a virtual draw BEFORE the bombings.
Don't forget that, the bombings were just ANOTHER reason to kick them out.
Diego
Posted by: Diego at March 16, 2004 at 07:18 PMHey, diego, if you call Catalonia and the Basque Country 'provinces of Spain', you're further down the road in hating them; not even the most intolerant and immobilist member of Aznar's party would have gone that far. Be careful or they'll vote you out, too!
For the record:
- Prestige, a natural disaster? do oil tankers grow in trees before they sink in the ocean, then?
- press manipulation? you're right, but not in the direction I guess you imply. it was the one coming from the dominant media conglomerate with ties to the Socialist party, whose guys must be still looking for the suicide bomber they said police had found -never retracted after having proven false-, or who were broadcasting the political slogans by the opposition and organizing these 'spontanous' demonstrations in front of PP's headquarters demanding to 'know the truth' about who did even on Saturday, when electoral laws forbid that. BTW, how come there's not a single one now? do you know the truth already?
- a lie that it was ETA and not al-Qaeda? Ask that to Mr Ibarretxe, the Basque regional head of government who at 9.30 am was THE FIRST to say (aprox 1 and a half hours after the mass murder), literally, "What a horror, what a horror, but ETA did it but remembe