Russell Chapman wrote: > ritu wrote: > > So the Spaniards voted for the socialist party. How exactly > does that > > translate into a victory for terrorists? Zapatero has said that the > > struggle against terrorism would remain a top priority for Spain. > > Only a couple of days before the attack the popular party (or however > you say that in Spanish) was expected to be comfortably returned to > power, but after the attack, the voters seemed to be saying that they > felt the Popular Party's support for the US WAT had made them > a target, > and they chose the party which vocally opposed the US WAT.
True. But what the reports also say is that the voters were most disgusted with the incumbent party's handling of the investigations: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/03/15/grieving_spain_oust s_ruling_party/ ***** The Popular Party's surprising demise was the result of a punishing electorate, political analysts said, that lashed out at the way the government handled the investigation of the train bombings, accusing it of playing political games with the bloodiest atrocity in Spain since the 1936 civil war. The incumbents were seen as trying to gain a political advantage by blaming the attacks on the Basque separatist group, ETA -- which is on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations -- despite ETA's repeated denials and intelligence assessments that the attacks were more likely connected to Al Qaeda. "The government has been playing with information, manipulating us like [the late Spanish dictator Francisco] Franco used to do," said Pedro Munoz, 62, referring to what he said was the government's exaggeration of the threat in Iraq and the attempt by the government to paint ETA as the main suspect despite information that contradicted that. "No one wanted the war in Iraq, but Aznar didn't listen to the population. Then he lied to us about the train bombings, and that was too much. He paid the price for the lies," said Munoz, a retired car dealer, shouting over the cheering crowds last night at the Socialist Party headquarters. ****** > While it would have been more accurate for John to say it was > a loss to > the American anti-terrorist efforts than a win to Al-Queda, > one really > means the other in the long run. Um, not really. Depends on what you think of the current US tactics in this WAT. Let's say, Kerry wins the US Presidential elections. He is going to dramatically alter the US response to terrorism. Would that too count as a win for Al-Qaeda? I think it would have been accurate to say that this is bad news for Bush's version of war against terror but then relatively few people in the world would consider that a bad thing. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
