oaknet wrote:
] Those in power in Spain today had said BEFORE the bombings
] that they would withdraw from Iraq. A great many people in
] Spain, and elsewhere, believe the occupation to be illegal and
] immoral. And in a democracy like Spain, they got their way. I
] see no evidence that the bombing changed was was already on
] the cards, though it certainly suits the more hawkish in the
] US to resort to oversimplification and claim that this was so.

If you see no evidence that the bombing changed what was "already in the cards" then you haven't been paying attention. The idea that Zapatero wasn't doing well in the polls prior to the bombing, and that the outcome of the election was primarily influenced by the bombing, isn't a specious claim made by "hawkish quarters" in the US. It is a widely reported and well established fact, internationally. It is otherwise spun only by those with an interest in spinning it.

References:

Washington Post:

While opinion polls taken before the attacks had given Aznar's Popular Party a comfortable lead, voters overwhelmingly endorsed candidates from the opposition Socialist Party...

...unexpected victory...

In recent months, controversy over the Iraq war, deeply unpopular here, had receded as a major issue, and more voters appeared focused on Spain's robust economy...

(After the bombings...) There was a sense of outrage that Aznar's pro-American policies had put Spain on the firing line of Islamic extremists seeking reprisals...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57707-2004Mar14.html

AP Wire:

The conservatives' defeat was unexpected. Pre-election polls had projected the Popular party, led by Mariano Rajoy, would win comfortably, and even some exit polls Sunday showed it might win.

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040315.wspain0315/BNStory/International/

BBC:

A larger than expected 77% of the electorate turned out to vote in the wake of last Thursday's attacks.

But our correspondent says the late swing to the Socialists also raises one disturbing thought - if al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3511886.stm

The BBC's Chris Morris, in Madrid, says the train bombings did more than shock Spain to the core; they proved to be the decisive factor in the general election that ousted the government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/3511886.stm

Here is a left wing view. Its somewhat reasonable but a few claims are very thin, such as the implication that people were lieing on pre-election polls out of fear of retribution from the government.

Still, it is acknowledged that the outcome of the election was the result of the bombing.

Aznar’s failures being what they were, it is still important to address the simple reality that a terrorist attack was at least a catalyst in a series of events that probably turned the tide in a Western European election.

http://technologyreports.net/primarybuzz/?articleID=2771

A view from a libertarian think tank:

Presented with such a stark choice, voters appeared likely to support the ruling conservative party, notwithstanding its Iraq policy, just as they did last year in local and regional elections. In those elections, held days after the suicide attacks in Casablanca, which included the bombing of the Casa de España, the war in Iraq played as big a role as, if not a bigger role than, it did in the national elections of March 14. Indeed José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the Socialist leader and now incoming prime minister, tried to make those elections a referendum on José María Aznar's policies on international and domestic terrorism, but voters sided with the government.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-06-04-2.html

RE: USNews.com: Suspicions about a new terrorist attack have U.S. spies scrambling (5/31/04)