Across the blogosphere opinions about what led Spanish voters to change course and elect the PSOE party rather than the previously sure-thing Popular party are missing one essential message that Spaniards are saying again and again: they voted against Aznar & Co because they lied…because despite contrary evidence, and apparently for political purposes, they tried to pin in on ETA.
As Spanish reader Emilio wrote
Most people in Spain agree that if the government had gone easier on the blame game right after the attacks and not had an orgy of “ETA did it” accusations, they would still be in power. As a result of this coverup (national TV, which is government controlled, for instance, did not interrupt the Saturday evening movie with the special broadcast by the Interior Ministry regarding the purported Al-Qaeda tape), swing voters decided to vote against the Popular Party. And despite reports, it wasn’t as clear-cut as it appears. The Popular Party received 94% of the vote it received in 2000, so the margins were only affected by a limited yet powerful minority.
It wasn’t a new-found alliance with the terrorists or whatever other rubbish the hawks are drudging up. It was a nation saying that when our lives are on the line the very least you owe us is the truth. Need it be said that this should seem obivious?
“It wasn’t a new-found alliance with the terrorists or whatever other rubbish the hawks are drudging up. It was a nation saying that when our lives are on the line the very least you owe us is the truth. Need it be said that this should seem obivious?”
Classic intentions vs. actions fallacy. Spanish intentions have very little to do with why this is an Al Qaeda victory. It is a victory for them because IN THE ARAB WORLD they can now credibly claim to have played kingmaker in a Western power with just one set of bombs. It plays into the Western ‘glass-jaw’ theory which the Arab world loves so much. It got a change in foreign policy that Al Qaeda wanted. It shows lukewarm supporters that they are still powerful. It cautions those who might oppose them against relying too much on the West. Al Qaeda cares about three ordered facts.
1. The party with a foreign policy they did not like was ahead before the bombings.
2. They killed 200 civilians.
3. The party with a foreign policy they do like won a few days later.
Even if there was no causation between these, Al Qaeda conspiracy theorists would be able to spin this into a win. Since there is causation between the three, this is a real win for Al Qaeda especially in dealing with the Arab world.
finally, some sense being spoken here. The democracy of Spain has sung! And this song will be sung again in November, loud and clear. The lying and manipulation of our democratic governments must stop.
As far as some of the nutso arguments about this being a vote for Bin Laden, where was everyone screaming about how horrible we were when Bush pulled us out of Saudi Arabia? Did Bush give Bin Laden a pass then? The only pass being given was the conservatives to their president.
Also, if one wants intelligent postings on the subject, there will be no better today than Josh Marshall’s at TalkingPointsMemo.com
“3. The party with a foreign policy they do like won a few days later.”
Sebastian, do you have any evidence for this? The liking bit, not the winning bit.
I don’t understand the question sidereal. Al Qaeda has been talking for almost a year about the need to get Western interlopers out of Iraq. PP wouldn’t have removed them. The current winner has already announced their intentions. What further proof could be available? Do the Socialists support some other foreign policy proposals that would scare Al Qaeda? I haven’t heard of them.
“The party with a foreign policy they do like won a few days later.”
I’m entirely sure that al Queda does not like the Socialist Party foreign or domestic policy. It doesn’t say anything about imposing Sharia law on the world, does it? Restoring the Caliphate? No? Then they assuredly don’t like it.
Phil wrote:
So far the only head of State (1) who seems to be publicly supporting John Kerry would seem to be Kim Ill Jung. Perhaps he’s hoping with another Democrat in office, he’d be able to strike the same sweetheart deal he did with the last two.
TW
(1) Jean-Bertrand Aristide (further evidence you should never trust anyone who goes by a hyphenated name) no longer counts.
The democracy of Spain has sung! And this song will be sung again in November, loud and clear. The lying and manipulation of our democratic governments must stop.
Yes, if there’s one thing that Socialism has a proud history of, it’s being untainted by lying and manipulation.
“Yes, if there’s one thing that Socialism has a proud history of, it’s being untainted by lying and manipulation.”
You could comfortably insert ‘government’ or ‘humanity’ for Socialism, which makes the original post even less unlikely.
And one should examine the circumstances under which the Socialists lost power 8 years ago before one touts their forthrightness.
Sebastian:
What Gary said. I had a long response, but his is better. I agree that Al Qaeda wants Spain out of Iraq, and now it looks like that’s going to happen. That is a far cry, however, from saying Al Qaeda ‘likes’ their foreign policy.
The past actions of the Socialists relating to ETA should be very informative regarding how much they ‘like’ terrorism.
OT, this AP article about the mutation of Al Qaeda seems apropos of this morning’s discussion.
Let’s hear all about the horrible Spanish Socialist Party. Funny how they are the same party that ushered Spain into Nato in the ’80’s.
Concerning Kerry and foreign leaders, doesn’t it stand to reason if the populations of scores of countries worldwide don’t agree with us that their leaders wouldn’t also if they are representative of their electorates?
And if Cheney is demanding Kerry give him names, I hope Kerry responds by demanding the names of those attending the Energy meetings and also the names of the Plame leakers. Cheney seems to like demanding names, just not giving any himself.
Kerry doesn’t have to name shit.
wilfred, check out my recent comment on the Say What? thread.
All RIGHT. Enough with the swearing, everybody. People read this blog at their jobs.
As many on the left would have us believe, there is absolutely no linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq. Yet the videotape found in the trash bin claims that Spain is being punished by al Qaeda for Spain’s involvement in the war in Iraq. OK partisans, what is it? Is there a linkage or are al Qaeda operatives extremely opportunistic? If the later, then the resounding defeat of the PP can only be seen as a win for the terrorists (their eyes). If the former, well…
trees – forest…
Bains, you’re a year out of date.
You also might want to consider the various meanings of “propaganda”.
Edward’s point of view is the correct. In Spain, the previous polls said that, although Popular Party could wins, the secret intention of the people was to be a change in the government.
When they respond to the question “who do you THINK that will be the winner of the election?” the most people’s answer was Rajoy (the PP’s candidate).
But when the question was “what do you WANT to be the winner?”, mosts answers was Zapatero (Socialist candidate)
Why? The people wants the change, there were a lot of errors in the PP’s policy, not only in the foreign policy, but in domestic one.
The stupid behaviour in the last weekend of the PP’s politicians was “la gota que colmo el vaso” (the drop that fulfilled the glass)
Greetings from Madrid (you forgive for my english)
Your English is so much better than my Spanish Javier…thanks for your comments.
The question that seems to be causing the most disagreement in the US is whether the terrorist attack changed the way people voted in Spain.
Some people think it represents a new threat to the world, in that if the terrorists think they can change governments by attacking shortly before an election, we will see more attacks then. Other say what happened in Spain was not a change in opinion, but rather a change in who decided to vote at the last moment…and that this change was not due to the attack but rather the government’s response to the attack.
Do you have any opinions about that?
The question that seems to be causing the most disagreement in the US is whether the terrorist attack changed the way people voted in Spain.
I, for one, am not concerned so much with whether the attack changed the way people voted, as I am for the thinking behind the change. Assuming that some change occurred, that is.
And I’m not really all that concerned with the reason, either. Spain’s elections are really none of our business.
Not sure I understand Slarti.
The lesson I’m taking away from the election in Spain is that if the government had been up front with the voters, they’d have won the election. That transcends the threat, the attack, and the change, in my opinion.
The option is to suggest that regardless of what the government says or does, we must vote in a way that supports the current government…that any other vote will be interpreted (by some at least) as aligning with the terrorists.
The lesson I’m taking away from the election in Spain is that if the government had been up front with the voters, they’d have won the election. That transcends the threat, the attack, and the change, in my opinion.
This in no way disagrees with what I said. All I meant was, there’s a tendency for some to look on the rejection of the PP government as a terrorist-appeasement response, and that I don’t think that’s a supportable position.
Whether there’s some lessons there for our own politicians is a side issue. An important one, to be sure, but a side issue nonetheless.
And…looking on the lessons-learned aspect as if it outweighs the deaths of 200 people…I’m thinking that’s not precisely what you meant by That transcends the threat, the attack, and the change.
looking on the lessons-learned aspect as if it outweighs the deaths of 200 people…I’m thinking that’s not precisely what you meant by That transcends the threat, the attack, and the change.
You’re correct…that’s not what I meant.
“All RIGHT. Enough with the swearing, everybody. People read this blog at their jobs.”
This is obscure to me, Moe. Are you saying that there are a significant number of your readers who have bosses who might spot a Bad Word on their screen, and punish them, and therefore Bad Words should not be posted here? I’m not sure how else to read this, but that’s why I’m asking.
Are there, in fact, a large number of workplaces that punish workers who have Bad Words caught on their computer screens? Is there a cite for that?
This is a very interesting topic to me, because I’m a [CENSORED].
Edward Luttwak in The New York Times:
Even those who view the Iraq war as a strategic error for the United States — and I’m one of them — cannot take seriously the Zapateros of Europe, who seem bent on validating the crudest caricatures of “old European” cowardly decadence. It was an act of colossal irresponsibility for the Socialists and the Spanish news media to excoriate the Aznar government for asserting that ETA, the Basque separatist movement, was probably behind the attacks.
Were the Socialists certain Al Qaeda was involved? No, but saying so made it easier to convince voters that the bombs had been placed by Muslims angry that Spain had sided with the United States in the war — and that the only way to make things right would be to get out of Iraq.
Poor Mr. Luttwak – he gets the opportunity to write a Times op-ed, and he wastes it on a partisan argument exploded by facts publicly available in the Spanish (and now English-language) press.
There are some trenchant comments at Mark Kleiman’s blog:
Where is the Left-wing alternative to the hawkish/neocon model for fighting terror?
Noah Millman, with his characteristic fairness, puts things very well:
Here’s the terrible fact: we are not having a robust debate about how to fight the war on terror. We are having a mendacious debate about whether to fight the war on terror. This is partly the fault of the Iraq war’s supporters, who have generally been eager to confuse debate about strategy with debate about the will to win. I can’t tell you how many opinion pieces I read weekly that assume that there is no plausible dissent to the Administration’s left on any point of the conduct of the war; you can argue that Bush has been too easy on Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, but if you argue that the Iraq war was a mistake then you are either a fool or a traitor. I wish I would never read another such piece.
But it is more the fault of the opposition party. The Democrats tried to get through the 2002 elections by refusing to debate strategy in the war, preferring to agree with the Administration on everything and hope to take the issue off the table. The very fact that they considered such a thing to be possible is an index of their unseriousness; the war is not an “issue” it is the defining question of this decade and, likely, for some time after. Then, in the primary campaign, the candidates have, generally, preferred to carp and criticize rather than propose a strategy of their own. Instead of supporting everything, now they oppose everything. And no one is worse in this regard than John Kerry. The situation in Europe is similar. I am at a loss to tell you what the leaders of France or Germany, or the new leadership in Spain, plan to do about al Qaeda and the threat of Muslim terrorism. I don’t think they intend to do anything. For that matter, I’m at a loss to know what Michael Howard is planning to do about it; the Conservatives have been as willing to get to Blair’s left on the war as to his right, which is fine in and of itself but there’s no sense that their posturing adds up to anything more than posturing, looking for an opening for criticism, as opposed to a coherent strategy of their own. That is why we are having this mendacious debate: not about how to fight and where, but, implicitly or explicitly, about whether.
Mr. Cella, your argumentative tic of calling people who agree 1% with your opponents “characteristically fair” is especially offputting in this case. The fact is that the Europeans are fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and at home, and we should be grateful for their efforts. The main difference between the left and right on these matters is the Dept of Homeland Security (which Bush opposed [sensibly] and then cynically favored but underfunded), the Iraq war, to what extent it’s a good idea to alienate our allies on other matters, and energy independence. Basically, political questions plus the immensely murky issue of Iraq.
To say the debate is whether to fight terror is stupid and offensive.
“Then, in the primary campaign, the candidates have, generally, preferred to carp and criticize rather than propose a strategy of their own. Instead of supporting everything, now they oppose everything.”
I know this is Millman’s argument and not yours, Paul, but I still have to point out that this is simply untrue. Yes, there’s an egregious amount of criticism and carping, but that’s simply politics for challengers against incumbents, and it doesn’t preclude articulating foreign policy as well.
It took me 8 seconds of googling to find a Kerry speech with very specific points about how to conduct the War on Terror. Of course you can disagree with them. But what we do not hear is disagreement. What we hear is a vast denial of their very existence. From the partisans on the left, because they’re more interested in red meat to go after Bush. . and especially from the partisans on the right, because Kerry having a foreign policy doesn’t fit with their ‘unserious’ narrative and preconceptions.
And as long as that is true, of course it sounds like we’re arguing ‘whether’, because the opponents refuse to acknowledge your argument.
Add to that the substantial contingent which believes that the War only exists if we conduct regular foreign invasions, and this mendacious debate is pretty much all we have.
Sidereal:
Millman makes some of thos exact points: “This is partly the fault of the Iraq war’s supporters, who have generally been eager to confuse debate about strategy with debate about the will to win. I can’t tell you how many opinion pieces I read weekly that assume that there is no plausible dissent to the Administration’s left on any point of the conduct of the war; you can argue that Bush has been too easy on Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, but if you argue that the Iraq war was a mistake then you are either a fool or a traitor. I wish I would never read another such piece.”
Actually I was wrong – there are people on the left wondering whether to fight:
Yglesias and Krugman, for example.
They argue that we aren’t fighting and should start.
“Millman makes some of those exact points”
Certainly. However, that doesn’t prevent his later characterization from being untrue, as I laid out. The fact that Millman himself offers lucid reasons for why this misconception exists before going on to support the misconception is all the more aggravating. You also had no concerns about leading off with the misconception, before the Millman quote.
To be clear, I’m not trying to rise to Kerry’s defense. I don’t like Kerry. I’m trying to help drive a stake into this ridiculous argument.
rilkefan – you lost me on the tardiness quip.
Propaganda works well, as long as it has some fact as a basis, and until the issuer is forced to contridict it.
We are told that the primary reason for the Socialist win was Aznar’s mis-handling of the bombing blame. This may very well be true – and is entirely besides the point. I find it interesting that some of those pleased with the recent Spanish elections are squirming to deny that anyone could view the PP’s lose as an al Qaeda win. (Anyone includes at a minimum al Qaeda and its supporters.) And in attempting this line of argument, they are forced to expose falsehoods in previous arguments.
Politics has become increasingly tactical – must win this fight – and unfortunately, stragic thinking is an early casuality…
” Are you saying that there are a significant number of your readers who have bosses who might spot a Bad Word on their screen, and punish them, and therefore Bad Words should not be posted here?”
If we define ‘significant number’ as ‘me, at the very least’, then the answer is yes. 🙂
Gotta disagree Sidereal, When Sen. Kerry isn’t berating the Bush admin, he’s mostly laying out what he would do to defend against, and clean up after terrorists. And while “winning the battle of ideas” is commendable, cleaning up the breeding grounds is far more important. Other than offering the panecea of Better International Cooperation, where does he set forth the actual steps he plans to take combat the of terrorism if elected?
We are told that the primary reason for the Socialist win was Aznar’s mis-handling of the bombing blame. This may very well be true – and is entirely besides the point. I find it interesting that some of those pleased with the recent Spanish elections are squirming to deny that anyone could view the PP’s lose as an al Qaeda win. (Anyone includes at a minimum al Qaeda and its supporters.) And in attempting this line of argument, they are forced to expose falsehoods in previous arguments.
This, of course, is partly a reaction to sentences like ‘voting on their knees’ and ‘nation of cowards’ which are appearing on a lot of the big pro-war blogs.