The Spain election results could hurt the Dems. repug spin will be that

[milkyway]

al Qaeda decided the Spanish election. Al Qaeda wanted the supposed soft-on-terror Socialists and got it with the Madrid attacks. repugs will relentlessly hammer home the idea that Kerry is al Qaeda's choice in November. And if there is an al Qaeda attack on the U.S., the repugs will even have the nerve to blame Kerry--al Qaeda is trying to influence the elections and get Kerry elected.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

1. But this atrocity is indicative of a FAILURE of the War on Terra

Obviously, the Spanish involvement in Iraq and the policies and intelligence failures of the "Coalition" have lead to the deaths of 200 innocent Spaniards. I would say the Coalition has egg on their face.

[Lindacooks]

2. Then we'll have to spin the other way

That chimpy and Aznar have put their countries in more danger by invading a country which was no threat.

And that chimpy and Aznar aren't doing a good job fighting terrorism or protecting us.

I think that the people of Spain have reacted very well to this, and are blaming the responsible parties.

[K8-EEE]

3. Yeah They Will Attempt To Spin ANYTHING To Their Advantage

We just have to un-spin it LOUDER!

[ewagner]

4. From another post

I see that FAUX is already trying to spin it that way.

[alcuno]

5. But the world is safer without Saddam Hussein?

The American people still see Iraq and the "war on terror" as two different things.

[Crachet2004]

6. Yeah, they will spin it, but it won't change the fact that Spain...

Threw the bums out-which is what we are going to do in November. Hard to argue with facts on the ground.

I think that the attempt at misdirection by the authorities is what caused the huge turnout, as much as anything...tried to pin it on the Basques.

If that had succeeded, there would have been conflict beyond what they have now, with the Basques, too. Maybe something you might call civil war. I would be pissed off too.

Of course 90%, at one time did'nt want to be in Iraq, anyway...and got ignored. Is'nt that something? 90%, and that twerp Aznar ignored them.

Every one of those 90% ought to get to kick him in the ass on his way out!

[jrthin]

7. I see you've been watching the FOX. n/t

eom

[rucky]

8. At least were safe from a "MIHOP" surprise in October

now we know that terrorist attacks are not good for the sitting administration.

[Mr.Green93]

12. if there is an attack here

there will never be another republican president or congress again.

[still_one]

9. Wrong

it was the failure of the bush policy NOT to pursue al Qaeda in Afganistan, and divert our resources to Iraq.

In addition, he effectively, did this unilaterly, except for token support from very few countries except UK

[pmbryant]

10. Ridiculous

The GOP is not so stupid as to try any such lame spin. If they do, it will be a sure sign of their desperation.

There is no way anything that happens in Spanish politics will affect the US elections.

--Peter

[peacetalksforall]

11. Keep your eye on the proof - the people spoke - they first spoke when

Aznar accepted the cabal payola to join the 'co lich in'. Then they spoke in the streets. Then they were motivated to vote when they hadn't planned on it (and these new votes could have gone either way), then they spoke when their new spokesperson previously or today said - Spain was pulling out. They only suffered 11 deaths on the back lines of the war and 200 in the country, but they are fast learners.

The people will speak here also...they may not march in the streets. We're scared or something - maybe it's rubber bullets, billy sticks, chemicals, unknowns of our police state.

[mourningdove92]

13. It doesn't matter what happens, the repugs are gonna spin

it their way. Twist and turn, convoluted logic. If the incumbent party had won, the repug spin would have been that Spain CHOSE to stand behind our "war on terror".

Hang on and grit your teeth. Its going to be nerve wracking between now and November. My other half walked in the house yesterday and caught me shouting at the TV...Newt was on, need I say more. I find myself doing that a lot lately.

[Zero Gravitas]

14. They will lie

Of course they will lie. People are starting to realize that Bush has never told the m the truth. The counter argument is that if we had concentrated on Al Qaeda instead of spending time, money and resources on invading Iraq this could have been avoided. Not making the situation worse is not the same as appeasement. It is Bush who has consistently played into Al Qaeda'a hands by his heavy handed foreign policy blundering.

[markses]

15. Counter Spin: The Spanish election was a huge Al-Qaeda loss

Here's how it works:

1) We assume al-Qaeda are rational actors. Indeed, the Republican spin assumes just that: Al-Qaeada has a set of strategies and goals, and uses force to implement its goals, based in part on precedent. The assumption here is that all rational actors consider precedent carefully when making decisions (i.e., rely on induction as a form of reasoning about action).

2) All recent precedent has shown that populations of Western/Westernized countries under terrorist threat behave more rather than less conservative. For evidence, we would show the rightward shift in the US immediately following September 11, the pro-government feeling in Australia immediately following the Bali bombings, and the general rightward leaning of the Israeli population as each intifada expanded its scope.

3) If al-Qaeda are rational actors, and precedents point to a rightward shift, then one should assume that the bombings were intended to produce a rightward shift in Spain, turning the PP's victory from slim to huge, thereby radicalizing the Spanish populace and furthering polarizing the EU. In fact, a leftward swing seems stupid given al-Qaeda's objectives of instigating an intensifying conflict between the West and Islam.

4) Therefore, the Spanish people's decision to oust their rightwing government was NOT a vistory for al-Qaeda, but precisely the opposite of what they expected and desired.

QED ;-)

[jeanmarc]

16. Illegitimate war and poor strategy and the results of it....

This war was illegitimate in the first place. It had no support of Spain's people. The blowback from participating in this zero gain scenario is the terrorist bombings. If the war was legitimate, the Spanish people would not kowtow to Al-Queda. But since the rulers never listened in the first place, the people have a right to react this way. Terrorists attack weaknesses. Spain's weakness was participation in an illegitimate war.

This vote is not support for Al-Queda, but a repudiation of the policies of a government that did not listen to its people.

I find the bombers to be disgusting. I find Al-Queda to be disgusting. I find our participation in Iraq and the effects of it to be disgusting. Spain's people, as a rationale nation, are simply bowing out. "For who? For what?" That's the question they asked.

The war in Iraq gives greater power to Al-Queda. Saddam, however brutal, was not an ally of terrorism. Iran and Syria have been greater contributors to that cause. So we attack Iraq thanks to a blood feud, some oil, and a few neo-con cultist fantasies.

Spain has only 1300 troops or so in Iraq anyway. It's not a hugely irresponsible thing for them to withdraw immediately. It would be for us at this point because we need to get the UN in their under a new President. Someone needs to hold that glue together. Otherwise, the country will most certainly go to civil war and might with UN involvement anyway.

The policy in Iraq absolutely sickens me.

[Kucinich04]

17. What do you guys think?

If we assume that ‘Al-Qaeda’ are actually the pawns of the western global corporate elite (just for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, of course – no possible way they could be anything BUT who we have been told they are by our government, right?!?), then there are a number of interesting angles from which to view the attack in Spain (God rest those poor people’s souls – such a terrible, terrible shame, and I wish a slow and painful death to WHOMEVER is actually responsible. Such friggin scumbags!)

Anyways, the way I see it, any of the following could be true, based on the assumption above:
1) As it’s obvious that Aznar was the one favored by the corporate elite, the attack could have been intended to scare people into voting for him – and it just backfired terribly on account of the fact that the Spanish are not nearly as much of gullible, bloodthirsty dolts as Joe Sixpack …
2) As suggested in this thread, the attack was arranged as ammunition for the bush camp to undermine kerry (the ‘socialist’) and the Dems in November, by saying “Look, the terra-ists want ‘leftists’ to be in charge – a vote for Kerry is a vote for Osama!”. But I think the desire to have Aznar in power would’ve been stronger. I can’t see taking such a risk, and ending so many lives, for an end goal that may or may not work for them.
3) They simply wanted to see what the public’s reaction would be to a terror attack RIGHT BEFORE an election. I.E., ‘lets just do it and see which ‘side’ it helps out… just so we know’. Whilst the other reasons are horrible, this would have to take the cake for sheer evil. Again, though, the elite want Aznar in there, so …
4) The simply wanted to scare us Americans by reminding us that we might be next, as well as frightening Europeans into supporting their “war on terra” more.
5) The want to build an association in our minds between ‘war on iraq’ and ‘war on terra’, where really the connection is tenuous at best.
6) They want to end speculation once and for all that al-qaeda is really a puppet of the wealthy elite by creating a situation that provides a handy rebuttal to such speculation. I.E. “yeah, dumbass, al-qaeda is REALLY controlled by the CIA, THAT’S why they got the Socialists elected in Spain! Stupid Libs!”-kinda situation.
7) All of the above – they are not actually mutually-exclusive. The may have simply felt it was worth it to risk Aznar in order to accomplish all the other things listed here.

I’d been trying to reconcile a notion I’ve long entertained – the possibility that al-qaeda is not really who they’re being sold to us as, with the fact that the end result in Spain actually harmed the people who I speculate *might* actually control Al-qaeda. For awhile it did not compute. But after a couple days to ponder and read posts, I find myself still speculating about the real nature of this ‘Al-Qaeda’. Who knows, Aznar staying in power might not have really been as important to them as the other ‘positives’ listed here. One thing is for sure - it does seem to help bush one way or another when they stage their attacks, doesn’t it?

[CerealMurderer]

18. You are exactly right

The bombers just got the message that their terrorist actions get the results they desire. Sad. Very sad.

[pinkpops]

20. Not the first time the terrerists got what they wanted ...

After 9/11 The U.S. responded to the attacks by suspending freedoms, trampling the constitution.

[Old and In the Way]

21. No, that attack was planned to disrupt the election.

The "terrorists", whoever they might be, wanted the Spanish electorate to vote fear. They didn't. RW neocons lost. Bush is next.

[Mick Knox]

19. I think it clearly hurts Bu*..

It does show his shoe string "coalition" is tenuous at BEST... there is also no hope of the UN ever helping there IMO... B* did it.. and we will eat it all- by ourselves.