] 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.

I collected a bunch of essays in response to Oaknet's post that the bombings on 3/11 had no impact on the election in Spain.

I don't like this essay, per say. It attempts to argue that the government in Spain didn't mislead people in the wake of the attack about who was responsible. It did. You were there. I was arguing against the ETA hypothesis on MemeStreams long before it was widely accepted that the ETA wasn't responsible, and I don't even live on the same side of the Atlantic.

But, this essay did make me think. Spain is libertarian.

Spain has two main parties. The republicans (essentially) and the socialists. Most Spaniards don't agree with the position of the conservatives on Iraq. But they consistently vote for them anyway. The reason is that they support the conservatives successful economic programs, and they care more about the economy then they do about the war.

The bombing didn't shift their opinions so much as it shifted their PRIORITIES. They concluded that Iraq was more important then the economy. So they voted for the guy who was going to give them the Iraq policy that they wanted, despite giving them an economic policy that they don't want, rather then the guy who was giving them the Iraq policy that they didn't want and the economic policy they liked.

Spain is libertarian. If a candidate appeared on the scene there who was opposed to the Iraq war but ran a capitalist economy, he'd win.

Also, Al'Q likely knew this. All Spain needed was a priority shift. A terrorist attack will do that. Spain was low hanging fruit for Al'Q. Their minds were already made up.

Al'Q will not touch Spain again now that it has withdrawn from Iraq. Doing so would let the spanish people know that in or out of Iraq, Al'Q is still a threat to them. Al'Q would rather they believe its America's problem. I don't think that Spain, France, Germany, or Canada is in the firing line. The UK is. Russia is, but for unrelated reasons. Al'Q would rather everyone believe that they are America's problem. At least for the medium term.

It was a win for Al'Q. There is no doubting that. But it wasn't the bombing that really did it, ultimately. It was our failure to properly communicate the threat the Al'Q represents to the European street. Our failure to coherently explain what the hell we are doing in Iraq (in this context the we is required. Bush represents you.). Our failure to be diplomatic.

BTW, Bush's approval rating has dropped below 40%. He has a big problem. Al'Q might help him out a bit with it. An attack will drive the U.S. right.... like clockwork...

Who Misled Whom in Spain?