Analysis of Spain's elections [R]

I think he's got a point.

It's not like that there wasn't a precedent of the US overthrowing a democrative elected government they didn't like in history.

Remember, millions demonstrated on streets of Spain in the anti-war rallies in those days before the Iraq war.

 

To the Europeans here -- understand that what Alex and Ian are doing is playing toward the November US elections, not really commenting on Spanish politics because Americans don't really know or care one thing about Spanish politics. By saying "if you vote out Aznar's people then the terrorists have won,", they're really trying to set up the November election in the same light. The not-so-subtle story from the Bush camp so far is that Kerry will weaken the anti-civil-liberties Patriot Act, hence he is not as anti-terrorist as Bush, hence a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism.

This, from the supporters of the Administration that took soldiers away from fighting AQ in Afghanistan so that they could fight the Al Qaida... er, the WMD maker... er, the terrorists... er, the bad man in Iraq.

I don't know the extent to which foreign policy played a role in the Spanish elections prior to 11 March because, like almost every other American, I didn't know that there even was a Spanish election until somebody blew up your trains last week. But from what I read it doesn't appear that Spaniards are blaming Aznar for the bombings as much as they are holding him accountable for policies that may have led people to them. That's a major difference. And Ian, you're saying that we shouldn't hold our President accountable for his actions or else we'll be branded as pro-terrorist. You want a dictatorship, not a democracy. You and Al Qaida deserve each other.

 

I feel sorry for the people of Italy and Poland, both of whom are destined to be the next targets of the terrorists. The Spanish leftist appeasers have ensured that.

 

Woo hoo, I'm pumped for the Spanish-American War II

 

Like there's no difference between "I don't like the outcome of this election" and "this proves that the terrorists have won"?

 

No one has done more to appease terrorist groups than George W Bush. Al Qaeda are still free to do whatever they wish, whenever they wish, and the W hasn't taken real steps to curing the problem. His Saudi lobbyist (James Baker: address = White House) is making sure things go in favor of the terrorists.

 

I also hold the terrorists accountable for their actions, which is something you have not done in any of your posts. You have given the terrorists the benefit of the doubt in all of your statements and blamed Bush and Aznar for "leading" the terrorists to do these things. There is no excuse for blowing up trains of innocent civilians. The terrorists wanted to send a message to the Spaniards...go along with the US and this is what will happen to you. That's why they're called terrorists. For you to direct the blame anywhere except directly at the perpetrators of this heinous act is mind-boggling.

 

why do you assume they won't? Why do you also believe it was 'fear' that made them change their minds? Anyone seemingly willing to exploit a tragedy to get votes is not going to be popular.

It wasn't efforts to wipe out AQ that the Spanish were against, it was the war in Iraq. There were 101 suggestions as to why taking out Iraq was necessary, but "prevention of terrorism" barely makes it to 98 on the list in terms of credibility, just above "I don't like a leader who uses hair dye".

 

Neither statement has any bearing on whether a person supports democracy.

Frankly, I'm amazed at the way you're going after Ian. I'd think any rational person would be troubled about how a terrorist attack can have such an affect on an election.

 

Dude, you're like the only person on Earth who thinks the terrorists bombing an American ally 3 days before the election was a mere coincidence.

 

That´s right. So when Zapatero goes after terrorist in Spain, rather they be ETA, AQ, or any other group the message will be clear. Don´t think by reading one page you can tell how the book is going to finish. The incoming government has an 11 million strong mandate from the people and an extremely efficient police force well versed on weeding out terrorists.

I was hoping for a PP win as much as anyone. But I´m not the least bit worried about the effect this will have on AQ thinking they won something. They might right now, but it will be short lived.

 

So by your logic, I'm pro-terrorist, right? I'm sorry for not stating the obvious, jackass: Terrorists are bad people. Satisfied?

Find me one example of me "giving the terrorists the benefit of the doubt". One. Any one. And I will apologize. Otherwise, I'm calling you out as being a complete liar. You are so totally full of crap here that I am embarrassed for you. You're also following the Republican line here to a fault, which is completely shameless.

Again, find me one place on these boards where I give the terrorists any credit. Here's what I said earlier:

But from what I read it doesn't appear that Spaniards are blaming Aznar for the bombings as much as they are holding him accountable for policies that may have led people to them.

Am I giving the terrorists a free pass here? No. Terrorists are bad people. Only an idiot would disagree. Then again, only an asshole would equate the outcome of a democratic election in a Western European country with a "victory for terrorists". So I can reasonably conclude that you're still just an asshole.

 

Your stupidity is mind boggling. And this thread has Ian, who seems to think that a country failing to reelect a party who waged a hilariously unpopular war is a "victory for terrorism". I fear the world will be consumed by the black hole of stupidty this thread is producing.

 

Its not a coincidence. But do you really think Osama cares who's President of Spain???

 

From your posts:
First of all, we don't know for certain who did it.

Only an idiot doesn't know for certain who did it. You are giving the terrorists the benefit of the doubt that they might not be involved.

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.

Here you go NOT giving the administration the benefit of the doubt on their strategy. Why are you kinder to the terrorists?

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.

Once again, giving the terrorists the benefit of the doubt but not Aznar's people. Wait, wasn't it just you that said you still don't know for sure if AQ was involved? Why, then, do you criticize Aznar for coming to the same cautious conclusion as you did?

 

Congratulations, America. You just won yourself your very own pre-election terrorist attack.I'm glad I didn't get that job in DC after all.

 

Dude, so, like, you've got Osama's phone number?

 

They care about weakening support for the USA and they care about appearing influential. It looks like they went 2 for 2.

 

Personally I find it pretty f'in scary that a terrorist organization may have swung the election in Spain and could do the same thing in America. It has nothing to do with right wing/left wing.

 

First of all, this entire concept is going to be played out writ large over the next eight months in the US. The GOP absolutely wants voters to believe that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorist appeasement. It is total bull crap, and it needs to be refuted every time it happens.

Second, there's this base assumption by Ian / Alex / etc. that Aznar's successors would be more effective on fighting terrorism than the Socialists, which has no basis in fact. We don't know that. Spaniards want justice, do they not? But perhaps justice doesn't have to come through bombing a country that had nothing to do with the bombing. If the Socialists don't pursue the bombers, they will deservedly be voted out of the next election. Democracy is great in that way.

Third, there's the insinuation that this was somehow a "victory" for terrorism and for Islamic extremism. It was a democratic election, and there will be a peaceful transition of power. How in the hell does this further the aims of Al Qaida?

By saying "congratulations, Spain, you've guaranteed that the US will get bombed before the election", the Republicans are setting up a no-lose situation for Dubya. If there are bombs, they can say that it's because Al Qaida really wants Kerry to win so a vote for Kerry is literally a vote for terrorism. If there aren't bombs, then Dubya did a spectacular job in stopping domestic terrorism. Regardless, it's always in Dubya's best interest to keep people a little bit scared, since fear will make voters more likely to keep the devil they know vs. the devil they don't.

I have tremendous trust in the Spanish electorate -- much more than Ian does. He deserves to be called out on this.

 

I think we are looking for a directness that is probably not there. If AQ had a list of targets that it was checking off, I doubt they would bomb trains in Spain to influence an election. Of course AQ wants some sort of effect but I doubt there is a big plan somewhere.

Even if more pacifist governments are the result of this phase of the WOT that doesn't mean all is lost. After Vietnam, the US and much of Europe went through a phase of more isolationist governments. In a way they helped cause the fall of the Soviet Union. The Sov plan was that the western governments would weaken. When Reagan, Thatcher, et. al. deployed short range missles in the face of the freeze movements, it told the Sovs that "the plan" wasn't coming fast enough. It was they that had to change.

All this to say that the WOT is a 100 year war and there will be ups and downs.

 

So Colin Powell is an idiot? Powell told "Fox News Sunday" it is "just premature to make a judgment. I don't think we know enough."

And I'm not giving any terrorists "the benefit of the doubt". That's like saying that I believed the bombs spontaneously materialized. Somebody did this, and somebody should pay. Who should pay for this act in partcular has yet to be determined with absolute certainty, or even a strong preponderance of the evidence. But not to worry -- Bush will probably bomb some random country that had nothing to do with it.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you believe Bush's line about how "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists". You fail to recognize that someone could even possibly see Bush's strategy as flawed and still be anti-terrorism.

The most interesting about this is that I said that the Bush Admin has not been as hard on terrorism as they could be, and you comprehended that as I'm "kinder" to the terrorists. That's fascinating comprehension.

On the day of the bombings the government absolutely blamed ETA before getting all the facts -- read here or here, for example. Even Powell said on Thursday that the US stood with Spain against "the evil of ETA terrorism." They were unequivocal on this. And, generally, the understanding was that if it was ETA, that helped the Socialists.

When it appeared that it may not be ETA, they quickly changed their tune -- not to "it was Al Qaida", or "it was probably Al Qaida" but instead to "it may have been ETA". They were forced to backpedal by the evidence, but they knew that an AQ bombing would be politically unpopular so they contined to kinda sorta blame ETA. They were playing politics.

 

Last time I checked, Kerry voted for the war.

I'm worried that a terrorist attack on the USA right before the election would affect the outcome in favor of Bush, which would also be troubling, but for different reasons (namely that Bush is such a horrible Prez that we can't afford four more years even if it pisses off AQ).

 

the only issue we should be concered about is national security. all other issues are relatively immaterial. the democrats can not be trusted to defend the security of this country.4 more years. the liberals simply will not admit that islamic terrorism is a threat to our existence. they would rather promote midnight basketball, queer marriage and other liberal frivolities. liberals are inherently frivolous people.