Open letter to Spain's voters: Where is the courage of 1937?

I'm not too keen on terror, though I notice it is a resort of people without armies, which brings up that armies often go to wars, a fair portion of which I am not all gungho about. Be that as it may, I am not for terror either.

What ever happened to neighbors working things out? Ah well, perhaps that has always been the last to happen, except in microcosm - I think it has happened a lot there, in microcosm-ville.

Spanish voters seem pretty alert to me.

A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but no airforce.

Funny, Steve, and very apt.

I read this morning about Rumsfeld wanting to bomb Iraq on 9-11 and 10-11. When told by his own advisers that there was no link between Bin Laden and al-Quaida on the one hand and Iraq, Rummy said it didn't matter, there were plenty good targets in Iraq.

Looks like most of the writers of those articles ^^^ up above somewhere ^^^ have not been in Spain recently.

On Wednesday, I got a call from a friend who returned from Spain on Sunday. He was there (on a golf course, being a good Scotsman) during the bombings, and left on the day of the election. He said you couldn't have figured out which way the election was going to go, right up to the time of the election - the polls were close, wobbling back and forth almost daily - but he said he could tell that most Spanish people (that he met) were plenty peeved about the involvement of the government in Iraq before the bombings. He didn't think the bombings really swayed too many people, other than getting some out to vote, who might not have voted otherwise. I think I'll believe what Jack told me about this, above anyone who hasn't been in Spain over the past months.

Beth
Beth, I've heard that most Spaniards were pissed at their government's attempts to blame the Basques when they knew al Qaeda was responsible for the bombing.

BBB

It was the Spanish people who added insult to their own injury. They may have had good reason for their actions, but their is no question ill will come of it. You'd have to be blind not to see that. (I'd write "blind or a liberal" but in the way I mean "blind" here, they are the same thing.)

So, you think, the Spaniards have been blind, when they reacted to cheating of their government, which happened AFTER the attack?

Yes, I think they were foolhardy, played right into the hands of the terrorists, did an injustice to themselves and an injury to the world, and were blind to the obvious repercussions of their choices.

How about a take on this from someone other than blind cheerleaders for Bush and the rest of the Neo-Imperialists

A VOTE FOR HONESTY
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040405&s=loewenberg

Neo - Am I to assume that anyone who doesn't hate Bush is a blind cheerleader for him? Is someone still a "blind cheerleader" even if they have complaints about Bush? In other words, other than defining those who disagree with you such that you don't have to consider their point of view on its merits, what's your point?

I've written it before and I'll write it again: To those who hate Bush, anyone who doesn't hate Bush loves Bush. In reality, there are myriad positions along the scale of opinion. (But then the hate-Bush crowd aren't big fans of reality, as I've also noted before.)

Thanks for these great words, Scrat!

ick

Some new developments.
Perhaps Spain's voters helped changed the pattern of post-war Iraq:


Official: Allies Open to U.N. Iraq Debate
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 25, 2004


Filed at 11:11 a.m. ET

MADRID, Spain (AP) -- The incoming prime minister's push for a U.N. vote on the occupation in Iraq, which may allow him to keep Spanish troops in the country, got a boost during a series of meetings with foreign leaders, an official from his party said.

France, Britain and the United States indicated they were willing to consider a U.N. debate and possibly a resolution about Iraq, said Miguel Angel Moratinos, who is expected to be named as foreign minister under Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Advertisement


Rodriguez Zapatero, who has called the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq a disaster, has pledged to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq by June 30 if the United Nations doesn't take control of the occupation.

The incoming leader on Wednesday met with French President Jacques Chirac, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller, whose troops control the southern Iraq zone where Spain's 1,300 are deployed.

``Everyone who spoke with Zapatero left with a clear idea: the Security Council must attempt to approve a new resolution that gives legitimacy and legality to the presence of foreign troops in Iraq so they stop being occupiers,'' the newspaper El Pais said in an editorial Thursday.

El Mundo's front-page headline stated, ``Powell offers Zapatero a U.N. resolution so he doesn't withdraw the troops in Iraq.''

The foreign leaders were in Spain for the state funeral of the 190 people killed when 10 bombs ripped apart commuter trains in Madrid in the country's worst terror attack. Islamic militants are the prime suspects in the March 11 attack.

The Socialists scored an unexpected election victory three days later over the Popular Party of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whom some Spaniards blame for courting terrorists' wrath by supporting the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

Rodriguez Zapatero told his visitors he was determined to withdraw peacekeeping troops by June 30 unless the United Nations takes control of the occupation, said Moratinos, who attended all meetings with the incoming prime minister.

Rodriguez Zapatero did not talk with reporters following the talks.

Chirac and Schroeder -- whose countries opposed the invasion to oust Saddam Hussein -- were very supportive of Zapatero's views, including the U.N. debate on Iraq, Moratinos said.

Blair acknowledged differences within the EU over Iraq later Wednesday at a news conference in Lisbon, Portugal.

``Of course there is a disagreement over the issue of Iraq with Mr. Zapatero,'' he said. ``That is all known. But I think that everybody accepts that whatever their position is on the war in Iraq, the essential thing now is to help the Iraqi people. I hope we can find common grounds there.''

A State Department official said last week that one possibility might be a separate U.N. command to oversee international forces, while U.S. troops retain their own command structure.

The daily El Pais reported Tuesday that Rodriguez Zapatero intends to increase the Spanish contingent in Afghanistan by 125 soldiers to offset criticism of his decision to withdraw from Iraq.

However, Julian Lacalle, a spokesman for Rodriguez Zapatero, declined to confirm or deny that report.

Aznar and Rodriguez Zapatero were to meet Thursday at the prime minister's Moncloa office and residence for the first time since the election. The two were expected to coordinate Spain's position on European Union issues ahead of the EU summit -- Aznar's last as prime minister before he leaves office next month -- later Thursday.

As tempting as it may be, accusing the Spanish people of appeasement is unfair.

They had a mere several days to process the experience and implications of 3/11 before they were called upon to vote. The foolish PP provided them with a vent for their collective anger by playing fast and loose with the facts concerning who was to blame for the attack.

Perhaps if there were months or even weeks between the event and the election, a national debate might have transpired which allowed them to realize that by voting for the Socialists they were giving the terrorists their victory.

The fact of the matter is that prior to 3/11 Spanish polls had the PP winning comfortably. Clearly, Spain's involvement in Iraq was not going to defeat the PP. What changed? 3/11 and the PP's clumsy manipulation of the truth.

Undoubtedly some Spanish citizens voted out of fear and in the tradition of appeasement, but others voted in response to their government's dishonesty. No matter how they voted though, the terrorists were victorious. It's unfair to blame the Spanish people for this victory, but its a victory none-the-less.

The question now is whether or not the rest of Europe, which has to time to give the matter considered thought, will fall to appeasement or stand firm. Time will tell.

Maybe, just maybe, the Spanish electors acted by choosing a government that better represented their people? Maybe the "War Against Terror" was not No 1 on their agenda?

Maybe, but if so one would think that the pre-3/11 polls would have reflected this.

Instead there was a significant shift.

What took place during the time between the polls and the election?

Perhaps many people suddenly began to better appreciate the Socialists, and the election would have turned out the same if 3/11 never happened. Perhaps, but unlikely.

They did.



No there was not.



More people decided to vote.



You need to verify your facts. The Socialists did not gain much new support, the big differenc e was an increased turnout

No they didn't





Yes there was.

Anyone can play this game of ping pong. (Once they learn how to use quotes ;-) ).

Assuming you are right that an increased turnout was the primary reason for a Socialist victory, why did more people decide to vote? A sudden awakening to the merits of The Socialists or the impact of 3/11?

The results of the election did not mark a victory for the policies of the Socialists beyond their promise to bring the Spanish troops back from Iraq--the perfect (and I believe cynical) response to a nation reeling from a major terrorist attack and government manipulation of the facts.

Yes, but the ability to back up the statements with fact is less common. I'll cite a few from memory but if you don't believe them then so be it. I'll ahve to accespt that since I'm too lazy to provide references today.




Yes, Finn, they did. The polls prior to the attacks reflected the unpopularity of the government. The change in position, according to the exit polls was about a rate of 1%.

This means that only in 1% of the voters did the post 3/11 poll reflect a change from the one a week before the elections.

What eliminated the 3.4% (my memory raised a flag here but I think it's right) predicted lead was that 7% of the voters who showed up hadn't intended to do so.

The big change was in motivation to vote. The incumbents were very unpopular before the election insofar as foreign policy was concerned. The real change was in teh perceived importance of foreign policy.

Most were not going to vote on that basis and were going to stick to domestic issues. The attack highlighted the foreign policy they had already overwhelmingly considered flawed.

The big change was not in a change in regard to the position of the incumbents in foreign policy but simply a change in how important the Spaniards saw foreign policy and their motivation to vote.



1% (shift of position) is not a significant shift.

The only thing significant was motivating 7% of the population to vote when they hadn't planned to.



A sudden awakening to the importance of the foreign policy. Yes, it was the impact of 3/11 that highlighted to them that it does, in fact, effect them.

Earlier you painted in terms of "appeasement" or "stand firm".

This was stand firm. This was the impact of 3/11 waking 7% of the voters from lethargy to have their vote counted.



It's easy to say this, but the Socialists have just as hard a line on terrorism (as opposed to invading Iraq) as the incumbents.

American hawks like to portray it as a vote for a party that's soft on terrorism. But in doing so they simply conflate lacking support for America's adventurism in Iraq with being soft on terror in a myopic and self-serving manner based on ignorance of Spanish politics.

I am very happy that the US government demonstrates more maturity and has not fallen prey to the Monday morning quarterbacking (without knowing anything about the game except the score) that so many pundits did.

Monsieur Scrat schrieb:

"Neo - Am I to assume that anyone who doesn't hate Bush is a blind cheerleader for him? Is someone still a "blind cheerleader" even if they have complaints about Bush? "

Nah, that ain't it. "Am I to surmise" "or "am I to presume" is the Hebrew to English translation.

See how long it takes for this post to disappear, which is why I vanished from this website long ago <G>