Did the US bow to terrorism?

[FDRrocks]

This is a bit after its time but it's been bugging me.

People say that the terrorist attacks in Madrid were the only reason socialists got elected in Spain. Fake socialists, even.

I ask you, DU, did the US bow to terrorism in 1980? It seems that if the Spanish criteria were applied we did. The fact that the election of Reagan apparently flipped the switch to release the hostages practically proved this, he didn't even do anything. Practically, as I said. Maybe Iranian terrorists just loved Bedtime for Bonzo?

Reagan was elected b/c of Terrorism, if Socialists were elected for the same reason in Spain. In both cases, there weren't other circumstances.

Peace. Uber alles.

[punpirate]

1. Slightly different cases, I think...

... because of the following: Spanish voters had time to react to their government lying to them about the root cause for the attacks--the government promptly said that the Basque separatist movement was responsible, while the evidence pointed to al-Qaeda. Besides that, the bulk of the voters for the Socialists had already determined that Aznar had ignored their will before the start of the Iraq invasion.

In the case of Reagan, up until the last week of October, 1980, Carter was running neck and neck with Reagan. Carter's failure to obtain a last-minute release of the hostages probably sunk his chances for re-election. That the Reagan bunch (Bush, Sr., included) managed to thwart, illegally, the return of the hostages, and managed to make a separate deal with the Iranians, probably ended Carter's chances for election.

Had Carter found out in time that the Reaganites were manipulating the hostage situation, he might have won. Then, the Spanish elections of 2004 and the US elections of 1980 might have made sense with each other--each a determination to avoid bloodshed and pursue diplomacy instead of war.

[FDRrocks]

2. If I recall

The two parties that won the major vote in Spain were neck in neck before the terrorists attack.

I would say in both cases terrorists threw the elections. But also in both cases a good amount of the populous was upset with the leadership.

[punpirate]

3. Continue to believe that, if you wish...

... but I think that the behavior of the least-truthful party (Aznar's in 2004, and Reagan's, in 1980) determined the election results.

Your mileage may vary.

Cheers.

[FDRrocks]

4. Well. don't take me wrong...

My whole idea is that terrorism did not elect the fraudulent Socialists in Spain. But I think it had an effect. The Aznar party was actually ahead in polls before the terrorists attacks, but I do not believe in polls.

In your latest post I see your point. I, myself, do not doubt that G.H.W. Bush directly dealed with the Iranians. It was just enough to throw the election. The timing of the release was very suspect to me. And that makes the anecdotal evidence on the Bush-Iran thing that much stronger.

I am drinking tonite, so I am very sorry If my point is unclear, I do not wish to waste your time, just to point out the correlation b/t the two events, b/c many DU'ers bought the idea that the Madrid attacks won the election for the fake ass Socialists.

[punpirate]

5. I'm unemployed...

... and I am master of my own time, so it's never wasted.

As for "fake-ass socialists," perhaps we should let the Spaniards decide the currency of their chosen party for themselves. After all, they've spent a lot more time under fascist control than we have.

Cheers.

[FDRrocks]

6. From what I understand they ran

on lowering corporate taxes. That is fake socialism from my standpoint.

[punpirate]

7. Still, it's the choice of Spain's citizens...

... not us. You can argue about their speeches, but it's their vote, not ours.

Let them decide what's best for them. We in the US have completely lost, thanks to the dittoheads, the concept of live, and let live, especially in an international sense.

If the Spaniards determine that they made a mistake in 2004, they will correct it at the next opportunity. Hopefully, if they do, they won't depend upon lies to do so, as we did in 2000.