March 22, 2004

SPAIN LATEST

The Command Post has a translation of the intelligence documents declassified last Friday by the Spanish government (originals in Spanish, pdf version).

The papers prove that the initial allegation that ETA was the likely author of the attacks was not only supported by the consensus of Spain's intel community (and foreign terrorism experts), but that the Interior minister and other officials supplied all relevant information to the public as soon as new clues emerged, including the possible implication of the al-Qaeda network.

Other updates:

• NPR radio presents a short interview with Victor de la Serna (3-minute audio) of the Madrid newspaper El Mundo about the relevance of the declassified papers.

• Don't miss this translation (by John Chappell from Iberian Notes) of an article by Borja Gracia, Spanish political analyst, debunking accusations that Aznar's government misled the country about this, and how its opponents, with an agit-prop campaign in the PSOE-linked media, spun their way to the ballots.

• Another don't-miss: this superb column by André Glucksmann, the French liberal philosopher (no, serious, go read it. It's worth every pixel).

• The results from absentee ballots (cast up to March 7 -- four days prior to the terrorist attacks, and which historically lean slightly to the left) give the Popular Party a sweeping 13-point lead over the Socialist party who finally took the victory (link is in Spanish; nothing found in English).

[Posted by Franco Alemán from HispaLibertas]

UPDATE: Link to NPR interview with V. de la Serna corrected. Note: it's a real audio download; the text page seems to have disappeared. Thanks to commenter Douglas for the alert.

Posted by Tim Blair at March 22, 2004 02:33 AM
Comments

Oh, well. Too bad this information didn't come out the day before the bombing. That would have prevented the idea from taking permanent hold in impressionable little heads that the previous ruling party knew all along that it wasn't ETA. But it's stuck there forever now. Cursed rules of space & time!

Posted by: Brian Jones at March 22, 2004 at 03:10 AM

The Glucksmann article is EXCELLENT. This fellow is able to write AND think. One of many key points:

As soon as the news broke, every single Spaniard--backed by 20 years of bloody memories--including the Socialist winner Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and even a majority of Basques, were inclined to follow the ETA trail. Within 48 hours, the police, the intelligence services, the press and the ministers rectified their initial assumptions.

I really had been inclined to think that Aznar muffed it politically, though I still had regarded Aznar’s conduct as merely providing an EXCUSE to swing voters to vote against his party.
I had thought that his slant gave the opposition their excuse & opportunity to jump all over him & rush the swing voters into voting against his party. But apparently Aznar’s “slant” was not a politicization but simply the common view of Spaniards.

Posted by: ForNow at March 22, 2004 at 03:26 AM

De la Serna interview actually avaialble here.

Posted by: Douglas at March 22, 2004 at 08:51 AM

And here's a terrific overview of the entire matter that puts the events into a larger perspective.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11732-2004Mar20.html

Jim Hoagland. Very good foreign policy analyst. He's pro-Iraq war, pro-interventionist but with circumspection.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at March 22, 2004 at 09:04 AM

Great material, Tim. It confirmes what I have maintained from the start.

Another thought: Maybe the message the Spanish sent is even more dangerous than first expected. Spain has been unwilling to appease ETA, the familiar threat, but people want the government to give in to al-Qaeda's demands. Obviously, the lesson learned by home-grown European terrorists is that they are mere amateurs. Killing a policeman here or a journalist there is no longer good enough. Only ruthless mass carnage helps to bring about capitulation from the weak European states. When will the first non-Islamist group learn this lesson?

Posted by: Jan Haugland at March 22, 2004 at 10:05 AM

As I read Glucksman's piece, I kept thinking about how Americans or, I hope, Australians would have reacted to an attack like the one in Madrid. I think it would be like that NYC Fireman telling bin Laden he could "kiss my royal Irish a__!" I think of my countrymen and yours as like those English archers displaying their fingers to the French after Agincourt. If that story isn't true, it ought to be.

But when you see something like the vote in Spain by people who must have heard about Guernica, it makes you wonder how much of the spirit that built western civilization is still alive.

There is still hope, however. The points Glucksman makes have occurred to a lot of European political leaders. Let's just hope they don't expect the EU or the UN, both apt acronyms, to protect them.

Posted by: AST at March 22, 2004 at 10:21 AM

"Mad is the European who thinks himself immune to terror for having opposed Saddam's overthrow".

Since when have statements of the bleeding obvious been treated with such slavish respect? This is pathetic, unthinking drivel. Let me turn this around a little:

"Show me the European who thinks himself immune to terror for having opposed Saddam's overthrow."

And I will show you a fool, if you can find such a person. A fool for believing in some vague connection between entirely unrelated sutuations.

And how about: "Mad is the Australian who thinks he is fighting terror by supporting America's Adventure in Iraq". well, beyond mad, really.

The Spanish people just sacked their government for their abject failure to protect their citizens. It's nothing deeper than that. It's not about ETA, and it's certainly not any kind of capitulation. Just a punishment of those who failed in their duties. It's called democracy.

Viva Espana.


Posted by: The Nothing Man at March 22, 2004 at 11:18 AM

You really are the Nothing Man. Nothing you say is important, and you don't matter.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 22, 2004 at 12:28 PM

Trying to change the argument by convincing us that the other side doesn't exist is sophistry worthy of Nemesis and Mork. You're in good company, brave new troll!

Posted by: Sortelli at March 22, 2004 at 01:21 PM

Welcome TNM! Is that a Springsteen allusion I detect? Let me introduce you to Andrea. Careful - she's not house-trained.

For Sortelli: You didn't change your tune when the WMD didn't exist either, so I think we can safely mark you down as a lost cause. Hint - almost everything you believe is wrong.

No, really.

Posted by: Nemesis at March 22, 2004 at 01:41 PM

More on Glucksmann here

Posted by: Douglas at March 22, 2004 at 01:46 PM

I know this is totally unrelated but just thought some of you might like to know that Sheik Yassin, the 'spiritual leader of Hamas, just dropped into hell thanks to some Israeli testicular fortitude represented in the form of a missile hitting the King Cockroach's car. Thank G-d they finally did it. What a great day for western civilization!!!!

Posted by: Dead Ed at March 22, 2004 at 02:21 PM

The Nothing Man:

The Spanish people just sacked their government for their abject failure to protect their citizens. It's nothing deeper than that. It's not about ETA, and it's certainly not any kind of capitulation. Just a punishment of those who failed in their duties. It's called democracy.

So what are you going to call it when France or Germany are attacked? It's not like they can distance themselves much more from the U.S.

Posted by: david at March 22, 2004 at 02:47 PM

Really? I'm sure you can elaborate on that. Because you're, you know, a cowardly anonymous but intellectually honest troll. Right? So, tell me where I am wrong. Really.

Democracy has a chance in Iraq. Saddam is in custody. His sons are dead. We know that he has no WMD and will never get WMD. Saddam is no longer funding and supporting Palestinian terrorism. The UN Oil for Food scam is over. The EU is finally looking at money being sent to Arafat. Revolt and reform is brewing in Syria and Iran, emboldened by American presence in Iraq. Pakistan is not selling nukes anymore and is talking with India. Lybia is disarmed. Saddam did not succeed in creating a massive humantarian disaster on the scale predicted by war opponents. Bin Laden is in hiding. Terrorists are forced to change their targets and they are alienating fellow muslims. The Taliban is no longer in power. Al Qaeda ran into Iraq and was not greeted with open arms. France is still cooperating with us by forgiving Iraqi debt and participating in Haiti. Europe is questioning itself. These are results of Bush's aggressive foreign policy. There have been problems, but nothing that would be avoided by the softer alternatives offered by opposition candidates who cater to drooling reactionary anti-globalization morons. The biggest reason that we have not had more success is due to small but determined domestic opposition to any use of force or the "cultural imperialism" that comes in the form of telling muslims to stop oppressing women. God, how we alienate them!

I eagerly await your wisdom to come trickling down in the form of insults, dodges, excuses, and post-modern moral equivilence with a side of BUSHLIED. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!


It's also Andrea's house, Nem. Watch your step.

Posted by: Sortelli at March 22, 2004 at 02:49 PM

Sortelli - Look, pal. You started this, when you had a gratuitous go at me when I wasn't even involved in the discussion. My options were to respond or to appease. I'm not a believer in appeasement (as you'd know if you paid even the slightest attention to my postings) so my only choice is attack right back.

What is it with you people and the uninformed, unprovoked attacks on others - simply because they don't buy your line? Your primary tactic in debate is the insult, so expect to get back as good as you get. Your secondary tactic is to assign opinions to people that they do not hold, then to expect them to defend them.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to start afresh, and stop the unending personal insults, just let me know. Happy to reciprocate.

Andrea hates me. Presumably she could ban me if she wanted to. Perhaps it would be for the best.

Posted by: Nemesis at March 22, 2004 at 04:36 PM

Sortelli - Look, pal. You started this, when you had a gratuitous go at me when I wasn't even involved in the discussion. My options were to respond or to appease. I'm not a believer in appeasement (as you'd know if you paid even the slightest attention to my postings) so my only choice is attack right back.

Excuses!

What is it with you people and the uninformed, unprovoked attacks on others - simply because they don't buy your line?

Insults!

Your primary tactic in debate is the insult, so expect to get back as good as you get. Your secondary tactic is to assign opinions to people that they do not hold, then to expect them to defend them.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to start afresh, and stop the unending personal insults, just let me know. Happy to reciprocate.

Dodges!

Come on! Where's the BUSHLIED? Where's the moral equivilence? The preachy screed about the War Between Good and Evil? You can't possibly be the real Nemesis!

Don't take the high ground now, it's too late. I gave you a long list of things I believed that must be wrong (hint, you said that) and not a single point from you to address them, just some mewling about how Andrea hates you. I can't imagine why! You have a long history of popping into threads and saying "Yeah, but what Tim's talking about isn't important. The real issue is BushHaliburtonWMD!" "Of course Michael Moore is a fat liar, he must get it from his leaders!" Ringing a bell here?

The reason no one addresses you seriously is because you do not deserve it. Get a blog for your talking points instead of trying to hijack threads here or start discussing things like a responsible adult and you will be treated like one. By me anyway, I can't speak for the rest of the frothy death beasts.

Posted by: Sortelli at March 22, 2004 at 04:56 PM

S - If you can find one single comment ever, anywhere, anytime by me about Halliburton, I will buy you lunch. No, really. I have never, ever, bought the oil line. You're making it up. You assume I would because that fits your mental image, but you're wrong.

I own up to the Moore comment (tho' I never, ever said he was fat). And I stand by any observations I have made regarding the absence of WMD. It's a big hole for your side, and I won't permit you to simply rule it out of bounds.

But Andrea does appear to hate me. That's not a whine, it's just an observation. I take it as a small sign that I must be doing something right, though I confess it's not difficult to provoke her, so I can't take too much credit.

Posted by: Nemesis at March 22, 2004 at 05:19 PM

Waaaaaaaaaaa!!! Andrea hates me

Posted by: Nemesissy at March 22, 2004 at 05:23 PM

I'll take your word on Haliburton, N, but understand the moment you start talking about a lying Bush Administration that's the territory you're coming out of. If Bush did not lie to start a war for oil, can you elaborate on what you think his motive for that lie was?

Power hungry imperialism? Distraction from the (rebounding) economy? Racism? The Jooooooooooos?

Frankly, it's all the same ridiculous camp the moment you buy the BUSHLIED idea, because the moment you claim that Bush knew Saddam had no WMD and built a false case anyway, you've gone from "We need to examine our intellegence gathering" to "Conspiracy!!!! New World Order!"

The WMD were important solely because of the UN Security Council. In order to justify a pre-emptive strike, they wanted evidence that Saddam presented an "imminent" threat. The Bush Administration argued that imminence doesn't matter anymore but built a case on WMD anyway to try and win the support of the UNSC to pressure Saddam out of power. Our game was for regime change from the beginning, and Saddam's refusal to openly cooperate with International Law on things like disarmament was the lever. It didn't matter in the end because certain countries with veto power had interests both in keeping Saddam in power and in looking like the friend of the Arab world.

We got what was really important, a Saddam-free Iraq. That he actually had no WMD stockpiles is a surprise to all, but I have no problem with the Coalition's effort to push the WMD issue given it's relevance to gaining the UN's blessing. If we had disarmed Iraq and not gotten rid of Saddam, THEN I would be disappointed in the results.

Posted by: Sortelli at March 22, 2004 at 05:47 PM

My two-penn'orth, Tim: it doesn't matter. The Spanish people, despite Aznar's general popularity (and his courage), were dead set against Spanish involvement in the liberation of Iraq from tyranny. They will carry that moral stain for all time. I don't care if an electorate splits 55/45 in favour of a milksop version of Thatcherism, if it splits 90/10 in favour of featherbedding the Arab world's Joe Stalin. Fuck the Spanish. They've made their (Procrustean) bed, now they can lie on it.

Posted by: David Gillies at March 22, 2004 at 06:33 PM

Damn, what a baby you are, Nemmie. FWIW, I don't hate you -- I save that for people I consider my equals. The feeling I have for you is better described as "contempt mixed with pity." Just so's you know.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 22, 2004 at 08:39 PM

The problem with certain folks on this thread (you know who you are) is that they don't believe that someone's (opposite) opinion can be anything more than the product of a public education and a propensitiy to express oneself on the internet instead of a good old-fashioned Letter to the Editor (i.e. unlikely ever to be published, and for good reason).

The Nothing Man's bizarre and frightening analyses of the outcome of the Spanish election is just such an observation...better left in an unstamped envelope on top of the fridge, slated for re-reading at some point in the future with an associated flushing of the cheeks at the childlike simplicity of the original thought.

Posted by: James at March 23, 2004 at 02:54 PM