AQ influencing Spain's elections http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040314/D81ABCUO0.html It appears that Al-Queda has influenced the election results in Spain. I fear that this will only lead to more such 3/11 type violence now that AQ sees how easily they can affect the democratic process. The results also seem to show that Spaniards are are as clueless as to the lack of a connection between AQ & Saddam as Americans are.
I'm looking forward to those on the ground correcting me if what I've read and heard (mainly BBC coverage) is wrong. It seems that the voter turnout is 61%, a much higher number than usual, and higher than four years ago by 7.1%. It also seems that the Socialist Party (offering Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero as a Prime Ministerial candidate), which was behind by about 5% to the conservative Popular Party (offering Mariano Rajoy as PM Aznar's hand-picked successor), has gained as those of the upwards of 80% of the population who apparently told Aznar not to go into Iraq without clear UN approval have, in the wake of these bombings, come out in droves to challenge the current government again overthe seeming issues surrounding all of this (ETA, Al-Q) Opinion here in the UK (among those who will bother to call/text/e-mail the BBC) seems to be challenging the Spanish people in terms of saying that by voting out the government (if indeed they are doing that), they are dancing to the bomber's tune... Again, those in Spain, or with contacts in Spain, can give us better information...this just gets the discussion started. AP article here. AP/Newsday look at the candidates here. Wash. Post article here.
I will inform you gladly: 79.54% votes counted. PSOE 43% PP 37% It seems many ex-PP voters are really scared now and weren't before; anyway, 90% told Aznar not to get involved, so he got it deserved... Myself, I had decided to cast a blank vote time ago, but I dislike many things PP means, too. (Edited to actualize data)
Al Qaeda has succeeded in intimidating the Spanish people into replacing Aznar's government with one that will be much more open to appeasing terrorist groups. A black day for Spain and for the democratic world, and a major victory for the Islamic fundamentalist movement.
BBC Five Live is submitting that the PSOE is declaring victory and that Aznar will hold a press conference within the hour... dmar, BBC is also arguing that the conclusion that AQ dictated the election is simplistic; that Aznar has been beloved, for the most part, for his economic policies, and despised, for the most part, for his foreign policy, in particular his support of invading Iraq without a specific UN resolution. Is that your sense as well? In addition, they found it ironic that the British Labour Party had a much better relationship with the center-right PP and Aznar than with the PSOE, who, at the highest levels, dislike Blair (but I guess now will have to work with him).
First of all, we don't know for certain who did it. History and arrests prior to 11-M point to ETA; other clues and post-11-M arrests point to AQ or some other Islamist group. (I'm on the record in the big Spain bombing thread saying that what little I know about the whole thing, I'd guess ETA before AQ. Even now. But I'm nowhere near an expert.) Putting that aside, you sound like someone who is prepping for some major defense of Dubya if there's another attack in the US. If there is another attack in the US, part of the blame for that attack may be placed at the hands of the people who moved intelligence resources from AQ to Iraq two years ago whether it happens in November or tomorrow. Maybe the Admin won't be blamed by the voters for the attack, and they will agree that Dubya still has the best plan to counter terrorism. Either way, voters will still decide, and that's one of the differences between Western society and the one that AQ wants to impose. AQ is irrevelant to democracy -- they have their own destructive agenda and will use whatever means, including possibly the calendar, to carry it out. The only questions that matter to voters are (1) could it have been prevented beforehand?, and (2) is there a legitimate plan to prevent it in the future? If Spanish voters decide today that the Socialists provide better answers to this than the Conservatives, that's democracy. I wouldn't expect the Socialists to be any easier on the bombers than the ruling party would be, and I highly doubt that Spaniards expect them to be. Besides all that, the Conservatives got a big jump in pre-election polls right after the bombing, when everyone assumed it was ETA who did it. As they started to get evidence that it wasn't ETA, the government continued to say that they thought it "probably was" ETA. Even this morning, the day of the elections, they were downplaying the arrests of the Moroccans and Indians. We don't know for certain if AQ was playing politics; we know with more certainty that Aznar's people were.
Well, PSOE was improving results each day before the polls, and there are just a lot of internal factors ro analyze besides this, but IMO Aznar has gathered just what he sowed. He was too an authoritarian president and he didn't listen to the majority of people.
Interesting; so the Spanish people, in the midst of their own mourning, lack the democracy, credibility and backbone of...who? Americans? Your arrogance is ASTOUNDING. I'm willing to submit that Anzar, on foreign policy, was already despised, and that the election was Spain's first opportunity to relfect that. BBC is submitted that NINETY PERCENT of Spain was against Aznar going to war. Period. That's ten percent higher than the number I quoted above. There's no data here submitting that Spain's people are pro-AQ, or were even against the invasion of Iraq in principle. They're vote seems to be about means to Spanish ends. We American citizens seem to have forgotten that, and are all about means. To submit that 3/11 should not have affected anyone's perceptions in Spain is to say that 9/11 should not have affected yours. Mooncalf thinking, IOW. Have you been to Spain? Do you know anyone Spanish? If so, what are their opinions? 'Cause your opinion is, in fact, retarded.
It is simplistic, indeed. See, the country supported his hard line against ETA, but never understood the Iraq thing. Also, recently he was being accused of using ETA's victims to support his policy -much as Bush recently- and no other political force in the parliament save for minoritar CC could stand him. In many ways this was a personal thing against him. Yeah, and we too see Blair too close to PP-ism, he even treated Rajoy preferently to Zapatero.
I add: had it been ETA, PP would have had the majority without doubt. They kney it, and it seems they entertained the thought of withdrawing information or better, they insisted too much in the ETA way...
What if anything has PSOE been saying about how exactly their policies (domestic and foreign) will differ? I understand that they will pull troops out of Iraq, but is there a timeline? I can't read Spanish, and thus rely on English media for translation...
(All this response is based on the evidence that AQ had something to do with "11-M".) Alex, your post, with all due respect, is absolute, complete, 110% bullcrap. It's a fair election, millions voted, and somebody won and somebody lost. There will be a peaceful transition of power. By that account, Islamic fundamentalists who wish for a worldwide theocracy lose today, not win. Did the Socialists get a bump from the bombing? Perhaps, I don't really know, but as I said here the voters just have to ask whether or not this was preventable, and who would be better-served in the future to prevent such attacks. They seem to have chosen the Socialists based in large part on the answers to these questions. That's democracy for you, not appeasement. And if the Socialists go easy on whoever did this, they will most certainly be thrown out of office at the next opportunity. Here, we are about to have an entire re-election campaign built around fear. And if a Democrat was in the White House right before an election and Al Qaeda bombed us, Republicans would be blaming the Dems left and right for not protecting America sufficiently to stop it. In fact, Republicans are still blaming Clinton for 9/11. Somehow that's more democratic than what happened in Spain today?
That's very interesting. Domestic terrorism = support the party that has been successful domestically. International terrorism = bring down the party that has failed in reflecting the nation's will internationally. Even if its the same party. I think that that level of seeming political nuance is bereft in American politics, partly due to our systems, party due to our information/media, partly due to our self-delusions...
Press Conference: PP rep (Int. Minister) speaking now (translated) on Five Live: "...congratulations to the Socialist Party in winning this election; we will help with the transition in any way possible...we have always wanted strong government...with this adverse result, we must put on a strong face and concede victory to the PSOE..."
Well, Mel, Aznar's gov. has been very successful against ETA; in 2003 they killed just 3 people. Aznar was nearly killed by a bombing and he was obsessed with terrorism. On the other hand, Spain always had good relations with the Arab countries (Spain was moorish territory in the middle ages and Morocco is our southern neighbour) and Germany and France had always been allies. France was specially an ally against ETA. Anyway, until this pro-Bush move of Aznar, we Spaniards were somewhat uninterested in foreign politics. Other issue: PP won the 200 polls thanks to leftist abstention and to a more centered policy; since 2000, he abandoned political center towards right and as such, he had to lose votes. But anyway, the bombings had its effect.
Even by your standards, that's a good one. I can just imagine Osama, sitting in his cave, thinking "whoopee, one group of Christian politicians have replaced another group of Christian politicians in a democratic election with a higher than expected turnout". In what way can you reasonably say that this is a "black day" for the democratic world??? The only complaint I would have is that maybe they should have postponed the election by a week, maybe a month, until the facts were more clear about what happened on Thursday morning in Madrid. Because obviously the arrests made and the evidence that came out last night did have an effect. Maybe this was not possible since it was so close to the election, but it does seem strange to press ahead so quickly in these circumstances. To give something of a parallel, Blair postponed the UK general election that he would have held in May 2001 by a month because of the FMD crisis in rural Britain in the Spring of that year.
interesting analysis of evolving BBC coverage; as they continue to report and update on this story, the lead as now morphed into, "...in a huge upset, and in the light of the bombings earlier in the week, the PP has lost the election to the socialists." The first two parts of that sentence have been added over the last hour. Its interesting to ponder who added that copy, and, specifically, why.
I think PP had this thing won until the bombing started pointing to AQ. It´s true what Dmar says about public opi********** being against the Iraq war at a 9 to 1 ratio. But after the war was fought it seemed much of the emotions subsided. When Spain lost the 11 lives in Iraq the population rallied behind the troops. To top it off, the lead in local elections last year gave PP a big boost as they did much better then expected. I´m not very confident in Zapatero´s ability to lead. He´s promised the moon to a lot of groups and they are going to expect him to deliver. Alex, what you said is not nearly as off the mark as Mel and Obie wants you to believe, but let´s give credit where credit is due. This was a fair election that was going to be close anyway. There is a very real possibility that PSOE would have won by the same margin anyway. Spaniards voted the same way we do, to direct their country to develop and process certain policies. Oh, Mel, what´s up with you linking to main-stream media.
That's a good question. Right now, PSOE governs in the autonomous region of Cataluña in coalition with ERC and IU, both radical left, but ERC entering the government of the country would be quite unpopular, since they are independentists. Other likely candidate is the catalan moderate right party CiU. But right now, I haven't a clue... What Qdog says about Zapa's leadership is true, IMo; that is why I voted blank. Anyway, PP got what deserved.
I have a strong faith (or perhaps hope) that the people of spain were not voting out of fear and were not allowing the terrorists to manipulate them. It is easy to reach the conclusion that the terrorists were able to manipulate the elections, when we compare the surprising results with the pre-terrorist-strike polls. However, it would be simplistic to do so. There are other factors to be considered. 1) The terrorist attacks inspired more Spanish people to vote. Many people may have decided to vote after the attacks, to prove to the terrorists that they were not daunted, and in support of the country's democracy. Unfortunately for the ruling party, the higher turnount benefited the Socialists. 2) The ruling party's quick anouncement that ETA was the primary suspect was, right or wrong, interpreted by many Spaniards as a cynical political manuever, and that may have caused some people to switch votes. 3) It is a legitimate issue for Spaniards to evaluate whether the policies of the ruling party were to blame for the terrorist act. Since most people in Spain were opposed to the alliance with the US, the terrorist act brought the issue to the front burner. I personally think Aznar did the right thing, but for Spaniards who opposed his actions, the terrorist attact could have been seen as a validation of their position. That doesn't mean necesarily that they were manipulated by the terrorists. So, I don't think we can blame the people of Spain for 'caving in to terrorists' based on the results of the election. But my fear is that the terrorists will reach this conclusion. If the videotape found is legitimate, it gives the reason for the attack as a 'punishment' for Spanish foreign policy. So it is easy to reach the conclusion that it was an attempt to manipulate the election. If the terrorists believe that they succeeded, it could encourage more such efforts in the future. My hope is that these attrocities will help all of us to stop looking at each other as enemies just because we may dissagree on some issues. We must recognize that there is a real war and there is a real enemy, and whatever our differences, we have to present a united front against these enemies if we are to defeat them. The terrorists should not be allowed to take confort in the fact that a change of government ocurrs in Spain or in any other country. I hope that the winning socialist party in Spain understands this and acts accordingly.