The socialists win in Spain

dod

A completely unexpected win for the Spanish Socialists, ousting the ruling Popular Party. Talk about timing in finding the Al-Aqaeda tape admitting responsibility for the bombing. The insistence, by Aznar, that it was ETA (and the insinutation that this was for political gain in the election) was badly misguided and has backfired dramatically.

This raises a lot of interesting problems for government in Madrid- not least what impact terrorist behaviour will have on political decisions in Europe- it has clearly had a substantial impact on the political makeup of Spain and the influence of the socialists in the EU on this occasion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3511886.stm

New Spain PM vows to fight terror

Spain's new prime minister-elect has vowed to continue the fight against terror following his election triumph.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero led his Socialist party to victory, ending eight years of conservative rule. "My immediate priority will be to fight all forms of terrorism," he said in a victory speech on Sunday night.

Correspondents say voters punished the outgoing Popular Party of Jose Maria Aznar in the wake of the Madrid bomb attacks that killed 200 people.

Congratulations

Mr Zapatero was - until Thursday's bombings - considered an outsider for Spain's top job.

But the Socialists won 42% of the vote, while the centre-right Popular Party garnered 38%, according to official results.

However, as the Socialists did not win an absolute majority, there will be much political horse-trading to come.

Mariano Rajoy of the ruling Popular Party congratulated the Socialists on their victory.

"We will have the interests of Spain at heart," he said.

A larger than expected 77% of the electorate turned out to vote.

Analysts said people had voted in bigger numbers than predicted in order to defy the bombers who carried out last Thursday's attacks.

But the BBC's Chris Morris in Madrid 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, he says.

Aznar criticised

Investigations are continuing into who was behind the bombings.

Initially, the government was convinced the Basque separatist organisation Eta was responsible, but now it has been forced to admit that al-Qaeda has become the top suspect.

A videotaped claim of responsibility by a man identifying himself as al-Qaeda's military spokesman in Europe forced the government to change its stance.

The videotape was found in a litter bin on Saturday following an anonymous tip-off to a Madrid television station.

In the video, a man speaking Arabic with a Moroccan accent says the attacks were revenge for Spain's "collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies".

A BBC correspondent in Madrid says criticism of the way government ministers handled the initial investigation into the attacks may have lost them the election.

"It's the first time I voted. I feel very happy because the government had to change... because of the Iraq war," a Spanish law student told the BBC.

Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio told the BBC that Eta was still a strong suspect, and said police were not ruling out a possible collaboration between Eta and al-Qaeda.

Three Moroccans and two Indians are being held in connection with the attacks.

Germany has called an urgent meeting of EU interior ministers to discuss the situation.

Duty to vote

Black ribbons hung from polling booths and voters' lapels on Sunday.

Cayetano Abad, one of the 1,500 wounded in last Thursday's attacks, was driven to a polling station in an ambulance.

"I've come to show that everything carries on, that we cannot stand idle," he said, bandaged and wearing a neck brace.

Many people admitted they had not planned to vote until the bombings.

"I have two friends who have never voted in their lives and they're going to vote in this one," said 41-year-old businessman Carlos Bermudez.

Outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and his wife were booed and jostled as they arrived to cast their votes.

As he tried to address supporters, he was drowned out by cries of "manipulators", "liars" and "peace".

The Spanish government backed the US-led invasion of Iraq last year despite polls showing 90% opposition to it from the Spanish public.

dod

Another interesting article on the election result, this time from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1169596,00.html

New PM promises realignment in Europe
Zapatero signals move away from US

When he ordered the crowd of flag-waving supporters at his headquarters to stop their celebrations and stand silent for a minute's homage to Madrid's dead and injured last night José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was starting what he pledged would be a new style of government.

Where the past four heavy-handed years of José María Aznar's People's party had seen increasingly bitter and divisive splits between Spaniards, be they left or right, Madrileño or Basque and Catalan, the 43-year-old lawyer who will now lead Spain has promised dialogue, debate and healing.

The first people to be cared for, he said, were the families of the dead, those still missing relatives and those still battling for their lives or recovering from ghastly, life-changing injuries in hospital. But the main task, he said, was to fight terrorism wherever it raises its ugly head.

This will necessarily mean forging relationships with other world leaders, though Spain's place in the world may be about to change dramatically with Mr Zapatero at the helm. He has already said he wants George Bush to lose the presidential elections, so he will have no friend there.

As for Tony Blair, he had already welcomed Mariano Rajoy, Mr Aznar's successor, to Downing Street before the elections. Mr Blair's friendship with Mr Aznar has always irked Spain's socialists, some of whom see him as a traitor of the left.

Yesterday the leader of the house, Peter Hain, promised that relations with Spain would be unaffected by the change in government.

"The coalition, the unity between Spain and Britain has been one of the driving forces for economic and political reform in Europe and I'm sure that will continue," he said.

The big question on foreign policy remains whether Mr Zapatero sticks to his guns and withdraws Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30. The crowds outside his party headquarters shouting "No to war!" last night will certainly expect that. In Europe, Mr Zapatero can be expected to move closer to France and Germany, though Spain's record as a tough partner that fights its corner hard in the EU is unlikely to change.

It is at home, however, that Mr Zapatero hopes to make the biggest difference.

He wants to cure Spain of those angry splits which have made the country turn against itself under the stern, dour leadership of the hawkish Mr Aznar.

That may be easier said than done, however, not least because he cannot govern on his own. Twelve seats short of an absolute majority as the final votes were counted last night, he must find someone else to support him from an array of leftist and regionalist parties.

The confrontation between central government and regions, such as Catalonia and the Basque country, demanding a further extension of already considerable powers of semi-autonomous government have reached levels of previously unseen bitterness.

In the Basque country, regional premier Juan José Ibarretxe has a plan for turning the region into a "free associate" of Spain that has the support of one half of the Basque parliament and the absolute rejection of the other half.

Catalonia expects the outflow of power from Madrid that started more than two decades ago to continue.

Mr Zapatero has insisted that he wants to reach consensus with the People's party on "matters of state", including terrorism, possible constitutional reform and new powers for the autonomous regions. Will the People's party, wounded and perhaps furious at the allegations that it had tried to hide the truth about Thursday's bombings, let him?

A gracious speech by Mr Rajoy, in which he accepted defeat, signalled, perhaps, that the old, aggressive, battling Aznar style, so thoroughly rejected at the ballot box, may disappear. Or not.

Mr Aznar lost, in part, because he made his party the holder of the only acceptable opinion on terrorism, especially with Eta, on whom his government seemed determined to pin the blame for Thursday's attack.

When Eta tried to blow him up in 1995, his advisers reportedly predicted that it would help launch him into the prime minister's Moncloa palace, which he first occupied the following year.

A second, much crueller terrorist attack has provided a tragic end to his eight-year stretch as Spain's first and, so far, only, rightwing premier since the death of General Franco. It was a cruel, and undoubtedly painful, goodbye.

vorbis

if the new guy lets up on ETA, he'll be making abig mistake. Also i think this sends a bad signal to terrorists. Bomb us and we'll oust the guy ye don't like.

dahamsta

Where does it say he'll "let up on ETA"?

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
Also i think this sends a bad signal to terrorists. Bomb us and we'll oust the guy ye don't like.

Huh?

Maybe you've forgotten that during the war in Iraq, something like an estimated 90% of Spaniards were opposed to the war.

There was a strong chance of a backlash against their government for taking such a universally unpopular move come these elections anyway.

Yes, the potential link of this bombing to Al Qaeda will only have re-inforced that, but I'm sorry...what did anyone expect?

This might sound tasteless, but if you declare war on someone, then expect war. And when you declare war on terrorists, you are going from the ridiculous to the sublime if you expect them to fight war on your terms, rather than the already-established terms they already fight their wars by - loathsome thought that may be.

So you can view this as capitulation to the terrorists if you like. Alternately, you can view it as a population who said "we don't want this", who's government made them have it anyway, and now that it appears that its no longer a war just being fought abroad, the people are saying - even more forcefully - "we told you, we don't want this".

I find it laughable that when the war in Iraq started, and the protests started that supporters of action decried the protests as meaningless and effectiveless. Now that one nation has transformed its protests into votes against the government, we don't hear "maybe we should have paid attention back when you were protesting"....nope....we hear comments that basically imply the public have played into the terrorists hands.

The sooner or later governments start accepting that their actions can have reprecussions, instead of trying to find who else to blame for the joint mess, the sooner we might start finding a solution to things.

jc

seamus

Originally posted by vorbis
if the new guy lets up on ETA, he'll be making abig mistake. Also i think this sends a bad signal to terrorists. Bomb us and we'll oust the guy ye don't like.

I think it's pretty clear that people ousted the ruling party because they went to war against their wishes, and ultimately innocent people died at home because of that involvement.

Although personally, the letter from Al-Queda has something weird about it. It seems a bit too simplistic, "We bombed you because you got involved in Iraq". Just a gut feeling of mine...

mneylon

Originally posted by vorbis
if the new guy lets up on ETA, he'll be making abig mistake. Also i think this sends a bad signal to terrorists. Bomb us and we'll oust the guy ye don't like.

You obviously know very little about Spanish politics.
PSOE were ousted in 1996 and the PP under Aznar came to power. Why?
A number of reasons. From a purely theoretical perspective a complete swing from one side of the political spectrum to the other is part and parcel of the completion of democracy.
In the case of Spain Gonzalez' government was surrounded by scandal and their re-election was impossible. Unfortunately the only viable alternative was the right-wing PP, as the Greens were weak and the Communists lacked focus.
8 years later the PSOE had grown in strength and was again a viable alternative.

Aznar's dealings with ETA were not dissimilar to Thatcher's treatment of the IRA. He outlawed HB and in so doing took away any chance of dialogue.
The PSOE are not going to be "soft" on ETA, but they are more likely to adopt an approach that could eventually lead to conflict resolution.

I would also advise you to read up a bit on the background to the Spanish elections. The reason the PP lost was not because of a bombing, but how they dealt with it.
As over 90% of the Spanish public were against involvement in Iraq any kickback was bound to be harmful
The fact that they literally lied to the public was their final undoing.

martarg

In the case of Spain Gonzalez' government was surrounded by scandal and their re-election was impossible. Unfortunately the only viable alternative was the right-wing PP, as the Greens were weak and the Communists lacked focus.
8 years later the PSOE had grown in strength and was again a viable alternative.

Well, for everyone's sake, I do hope that PSOE has certainly grown in strength. As you also said, swings from one side to the other of the political spectrum are a part of democracy, and a healthy one too, but it has taken PSOE a long time to find a substitute for Gonzalez, there are many rival factions within the Socialist Party, and Zapatero was elected as a compromise leader. This is certainly his best advantage in theory, if only the groups to which he owes support will start showing a little party discipline and stop blackmailing him. Perhaps now they are in power this will strengthen Zapatero's position once and for all. I like him well enough personally, and in a sense I am prepared to expect the best from him, but I also find him a little naive in some respects... let's wait and see....

Aznar's dealings with ETA were not dissimilar to Thatcher's treatment of the IRA. He outlawed HB and in so doing took away any chance of dialogue.

Well, that is a long and complicated subject to discuss with someone who possibly supports Basque independence and sees things from the HB-Sinn Fein perspective (correct me if I am wrong), but I will only say that HB was not outlawed because they though ETA was wonderful, but because they were lending material support to terrorism. As a political party HB had access to state money which ended up swelling ETA treasury, electors' lists with names and addresses of possible targets, and other valuable information that was best not shared with ETA. HB existed as an instrument of terrorism, and it was banned according to legal criteria. By the way, Judge Garzon, who moved the illegalisation, once went as an independent on PSOE's lists.... I agree that the Basque people need to be listened to, as any people do, but ETA is not the Basque people, and personally I am against negotiating with terrorists or allowing them the advantage of playing with guns and votes at the same time.

I would also advise you to read up a bit on the background to the Spanish elections. The reason the PP lost was not because of a bombing, but how they dealt with it. As over 90% of the Spanish public were against involvement in Iraq any kickback was bound to be harmful The fact that they literally lied to the public was their final undoing.

The reason PP lost was not because of the bombing, or how they dealt with it. Accusations perhaps were the final push for electors to mobilise, but the war in Iraq had more weight, as well as the general state of public opinion for some months previously. The political campaign in fact had been going on for months, there was a general cry to oust PP long before the bombings... and this is a perfectly naive question: How exactly did they lie? I have heard it often enough, but I still cannot see it....

mneylon

Originally posted by martarg

and this is a perfectly naive question: How exactly did they lie? I have heard it often enough, but I still cannot see it....

There was some very good coverage of this in the Spanish media over the weekend. The government went to great lengths to "ensure" that foreign journalists laid the blame on ETA (see http://www.cadenaser.com/articulo.html?xref=20040314csrcsrnac_2&type=Tes for full details)















FYI - I do not support ETA or HB. I strongly believe in dialogue as being the only way towards conflict resolution.

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
Maybe you've forgotten that during the war in Iraq, something like an estimated 90% of Spaniards were opposed to the war.

There was a strong chance of a backlash against their government for taking such a universally unpopular move come these elections anyway.

Yes, but as far as I can see all the polls put the Socialists behind in the run-up to the election. This one, carried out on 4 March and with a margin of error of +/- less than 1%, gave the Popular Party a lead of over 6%.

It looks to me like the elections saw an unexpectedly high turnout, with a lot of people suddenly deciding to go out and vote for the Socialists. The bombing might have had a lot to do with this.

Whoever carried out this bombing is hardly going to think "hey, I can swing any election I like now!", but they're not going to be discouraged either.

martarg

There was some very good coverage of this in the Spanish media over the weekend. The government went to great lengths to "ensure" that foreign journalists laid the blame on ETA (see http://www.cadenaser.com/articulo.h...rnac_2&type=Tes for full details)

I see... well, it does seem the government was anxious to have it published abroad that this was the work of ETA, but that is hardly a very direct way to work on the Spanish electorate... perhaps I am starting from my own impressions, I went along pretty naturally from ETA to Al Qaeda as new information came out, I never felt misled or lied to....

It looks to me like the elections saw an unexpectedly high turnout, with a lot of people suddenly deciding to go out and vote for the Socialists. The bombing might have had a lot to do with this.

Yup, that probably had a lot to do with the results, but also the long, long political campaign... public opinion had been slowly building against PP....

Valid point shotamoose.

Al Queda can think what they like as regards the reasons for the sudden and late swing being attributed to them.
It was more probably a case of the ridiculous position of the Spannish Government insisting that ETA was to blame when the dogs on the street could realise the probable truth.
The important thing is that they will be sorely mistaken if they think the new socialist government will be any less ruthless in tracking them down.

Cast your mind back to when Mary Robinson won the presidential election here.
Brian Lenihans lying about his trip to the park to influence a presidents decision, and his infamous mature reflection statement.
That swung it for Mrs Robinson as prior to that she was behind in the polls.
Voters don't like being deceived especially when that deception is right infront of their eyes.

mneylon

Originally posted by Earthman
Cast your mind back to when Mary Robinson won the presidential election here.
Brian Lenihans lying about his trip to the park to influence a presidents decision, and his infamous mature reflection statement.
That swung it for Mrs Robinson as prior to that she was behind in the polls.
Voters don't like being deceived especially when that deception is right infront of their eyes.

Good example

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
Yes, but as far as I can see all the polls put the Socialists behind in the run-up to the election.

Correct. But from a news-feed I was reading this morning (no link, sorry), many exit polls also showed the Socialists behind by a similar margin.

It was only when the first vote-counts were actually in that people realised what was happening.

This is why I'm not convinced that the polls were as accurate as they would claim.

Whoever carried out this bombing is hardly going to think "hey, I can swing any election I like now!", but they're not going to be discouraged either.

I hardly think the timing was coincidental. Whoever carried this out was targetting the election-weekend, but not the election itself.

jc

xm15e3

Originally posted by bonkey

I hardly think the timing was coincidental. Whoever carried this out was targetting the election-weekend, but not the election itself.

jc

Agreed, IMO the Socialist Party was making an omelet with 190 eggs.

shotamoose

Originally posted by xm15e3
Agreed, IMO the Socialist Party was making an omelet with 190 eggs.

Do go on. Are you implying that they either had something to do with the bombing or that they are "taking advantage" of it in morally suspect way?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, the potential link of this bombing to Al Qaeda will only have re-inforced that, but I'm sorry...what did anyone expect?

This might sound tasteless, but if you declare war on someone, then expect war. And when you declare war on terrorists, you are going from the ridiculous to the sublime if you expect them to fight war on your terms, rather than the already-established terms they already fight their wars by - loathsome thought that may be.

So you can view this as capitulation to the terrorists if you like. Alternately, you can view it as a population who said "we don't want this", who's government made them have it anyway, and now that it appears that its no longer a war just being fought abroad, the people are saying - even more forcefully - "we told you, we don't want this".

The way you put it ("This might sound tasteless, but if you declare war on someone, then expect war") it certainly does sound like capitulation to terrorists. However I agree with some of the other posters here, that it was the handling of the Madrid bombing and the cynical blaming of ETA for politital purposes that got the PP out.

If anything, the Madrid bombings will make the incoming Socialists tougher on terrorism and this will be largely with the consent of the Spanish electorate.

Senor_Fudge

id 100% agree with the first thing u said there in the last post
Start a war finish it i say

Don't get me wrong i love spain and a lot of people i love are over there and i hate seeing anything like this but Aznars government let the spanish in for it

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
The way you put it ("This might sound tasteless, but if you declare war on someone, then expect war") it certainly does sound like capitulation to terrorists.

Not necessarily, but I can see where you're coming from.

See, the outgoing Spanish Government declared war on terrorists (or, of you prefer, joined in someone else's already-declared war on terrorism), despite the apparent wishes of the populace.

The people never wanted war - for whatever reason. Rightly, or wrongly, they said "we want no part of this war", and they were ignored by their leaders.

As often happens, strong opinion on an issue like this doesn't carry as wholly as one might expect/hope to elections. However, the bombing will have - at the very least - reminded people of what their government did.

I saw some member of the outgoing party decrying the whole thing on TV last night. He used the "kowtowing to terrorists" argument as well.

He also used the good old "And now we-re being blamed by the Socialists for the actions of terrorists - how crazy is that."

I have only one answer...

Kick an angry dog, and expect to be bitten back.

The Spanish government kicked an angry dog that the public didn't want them to kick. Now that the dog has (apparently) bitten back, the government want the world to believe that it is the dog's fault they got bitten.

The public, on the other hand, started by saying "leave the dog alone" - as I said, rightly or wrongly. Now that the dog has bitten back, the people are saying "look, we told you to leave the dog alone". Is that capitulation? I don't think so....because they (the public) never changed their stance.

I don't know how big a factor it was in the election. Perhaps it had no impact whatsoever, and that it was just the outrage of "this happened on your watch". Perhaps it was - as others suggest - a reaction more to the impression that they were being misled by politicans seeking to make electoral hay out of the event by blaming ETA more loudly than the evidence supported.

I don't know. I just know that if this was Al Qaeda, then someone got bitten for kicking a dog and are looking to blame the dog.

jc

vorbis

shotamoose I would say the socialists did take politicial advantage from it. Allegations that the PP did were flying from the moment the bombing happened. This pre-emptive condemnation of the governemnt led people to not vote for them. Therefore political advantage was gained by the socialists. As for the terrorist link. The PP were ahead in the days before the bombing happened. The bombing happened and the opposite party won. Of course the bombing had nothing to do with the election result. :rolleyes: Frankly this result is possibly the best result OBL coudl have hoped for. Also a pedantic point about Spanish involvement in Iraq. They attacked IRAQ. Al Qaeda do not represent Iraq. Those nutters will probably end up bombing every majot western country at least once.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
Therefore political advantage was gained by the socialists.

Yes, but not through any action of their own. They didn't take advantage....they just watched their opponents line a large weapon at their own feet, and just kept on watching while they (their opponents) pulled the trigger again, and again, and again.....

Of course the bombing had nothing to do with the election result. :rolleyes:

But thats not what was asked. What was asked was if the Socialists took advantage of the situation. They didn't - the advantage was handed to them.

Frankly this result is possibly the best result OBL coudl have hoped for.

And in the US, the best result he could hope for is probably that Kerry wins. Is that an excuse not to vote for Kerry? In fact, in any 2-party election for any "coalition of the willing" nation, there will always be one party for whom the result will be "the best result OBL could have hoped for". Should we stop voting for all of these parties?

Also a pedantic point about Spanish involvement in Iraq. They attacked IRAQ. Al Qaeda do not represent Iraq.

If you want to see it purely in those terms, then you're correct. From that perspective, there is no connection whatsoever, and Al Qaeda just hate all of us Westerners equally and irrationally.

And its also pure coincidence that it happened to be a significant US ally from the Iraqi offensive which was attacked.

And here was me always thinking that hte first step to defeating someone was to understand their motives. Guess it won't work in this case...there's none to look for, and we're all just doomed....

jc

Sand

I don't know. I just know that if this was Al Qaeda, then someone got bitten for kicking a dog and are looking to blame the dog.

I dont follow. The Spanish didnt plant those bombs, Al Queda did. Who else is to blame exactly? Al Queda have been doing it for years now, slaughtering people all over the world - much as they were slaughtered in Madrid.

The Spanish government took the utterly correct decision to confront those terrorists - that its not enough to say "Its happening to someone else, its not our problem". What happened in Madrid last week didnt happen to me - why should I care under that logic? Why should Ireland agree to a common terrorist policy when were sidling up to all those other big European targets - we dont want to be even associated with the guys kicking dogs do we?

Al Queda are terrorists - confronting them does not then mean that they are justified in commiting crimes because you confronted them. Hell, if the police didnt go after crinimals then they wouldnt get shot. Clearly the police shouldnt bother going after crinimals, because you know - if you kick that dog and you get bit youve no one to blame but yourself.

Whoever carried out this bombing is hardly going to think "hey, I can swing any election I like now!", but they're not going to be discouraged either.

Yeah, my view that terrorism is futile might have to be revised in light of whats happened- regardless of the reasoning behind the result, Al Queda and co are only going to take heart from whats happened. Regardless, the PP shot themselves in the foot with their blame ETA line and they were only ahead in the polls - not the actual vote which again shows polls are only so useful and should not be used as a substitue for actual government. The 90% against the war thats mentioned wasnt reflected in the vote either.

More to the point - attacks are now more likely against other European targets in the aftermath of the Spanish promise to pull out of Iraq. If Al Queda can bomb the other european countries contributing to Iraq out of there, it knows it can easily bomb the UN out of there ( its done it before after all ), and with an election year coming up it can probably put a lot of pressure on Bush and win a real victory in Iraq. For the Iraqi people of course.

xm15e3

Originally posted by shotamoose
Do go on. Are you implying that they either had something to do with the bombing or that they are "taking advantage" of it in morally suspect way?

It's just a suspicion. Whoever did it wanted the Socialists in power, that could be either ETA, Al Quida, or the Socialists themselves. The division between the Spanish people their government's stand on the Iraq war was well known. This division made them ripe for an attack.

I personally doubt it was the ETA, had they been linked to the attack, they would lose support and strengthen the Popular Party. That leaves only Al Quida and Socialist Party (who were most likely going to lose the election, imo). Al Quida was my original assumption, however, they could have achieved the same results by targeting Spanish forces in Iraq (about 1000 of them). They did this with the Pakistani's in Somalia, and it would have been much more cost effective them now.
That leaves the Socialists. The van with six detonators and Islamist media together with the letter from the Al Quida affiliate (same group that claimed responsibility for the NY Blackouts) seems a bit contrived. Really, how many spare detonators do you need?

shotamoose

Originally posted by vorbis
shotamoose I would say the socialists did take politicial advantage from it.

Just because the bombing happened and they subsequently won doesn't mean they 'took advantage', since that implies they deliberately used the tragedy to prop up their own cause. I haven't seen any evidence of that - for example statements to that effect from Socialist politicians. Have you?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
The 90% against the war thats mentioned wasnt reflected in the vote either.

You can't say that either way, unless you have the magical ability to divide up the influence of every possible issue that influenced every voter. Or unless you think a 90% majority on a single issue must be reflected in a 90% majority in the next general election.

shotamoose

Originally posted by xm15e3
That leaves the Socialists.

By the same logic (and I use the term in its loosest sense), George Bush probably arranged the Sept 11 attacks, since it gave him a huge boost of popularity.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by shotamoose
By the same logic (and I use the term in its loosest sense), George Bush probably arranged the Sept 11 attacks, since it gave him a huge boost of popularity.

Well, in fairness, I've seen several instances on these very boards suggesting that very scenario. Personally, I think either case is very farfetched.

xm15e3

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Well, in fairness, I've seen several instances on these very boards suggesting that very scenario. Personally, I think either case is very farfetched.

I'll admit it myself...now that the cafine is wearing off.

sovtek

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Well, in fairness, I've seen several instances on these very boards suggesting that very scenario. Personally, I think either case is very farfetched.

At this point in regards to the Socialist, I agree it is very farfetched.
In GWB's case, however, there is alot of coincidences and their own obstruction of investigations into 9/11 that suggest complicity. At the very least there is no doubt that GWB's regime has used the 9/11 attacks for political gain.

TomF

It is too bad the Spanish weren't able to delay their election for a time to let some kind of thoughtful debate take place about the reasons for the massacre in Madrid. Maybe a delay is impossible under the Spanish constitution. Imagine what would have happened in the U.S. if the September 11, 2001 air attacks had happened a few days before a general election. There wouldn't have been a Democrat elected if that had happened.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by sovtek
At this point in regards to the Socialist, I agree it is very farfetched.
In GWB's case, however, there is alot of coincidences and their own obstruction of investigations into 9/11 that suggest complicity. At the very least there is no doubt that GWB's regime has used the 9/11 attacks for political gain.

I find the notion that either the socialists in spain or GWB were complicit in the murder of hundreds/thousands of citizens, respectively, to be ridiculous, regardless of "coincidences" that people may point out. These arguments remind me of the methodology of creationists. These are people with an agenda of proving their notion of how we got here, and their scientific philosophy can be summarised as follows: "Start with the idea that God created the earth a few tens of thousands of years ago, then cherry-pick select facts to support your assertion." Now I don't know how many people here are scientists, but anyone who is would immediately see the fallacy of this scientific method.

No doubt both parties used the attacks for political gain. To be honest, can you expect anything better? These are politicians. But do you really believe that either would be capable of such a deed? And, if you do believe that each would have been capable (which I don't), how likely is it that they'd be able to cover it up, or find the necessary people to go along with the murder of their countrymen without saying a word? I often wonder if people making such arguments realise that by doing so, they are in fact discrediting their own positions on other issues, regardless of how legitimate those other positions may be.

sovtek

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I find the notion that either the socialists in spain or GWB were complicit in the murder of hundreds/thousands of citizens, respectively, to be ridiculous, regardless of "coincidences" that people may point out. These arguments remind me of the methodology of creationists. These are people with an agenda of proving their notion of how we got here, and their scientific philosophy can be summarised as follows: "Start with the idea that God created the earth a few tens of thousands of years ago, then cherry-pick select facts to support your assertion." Now I don't know how many people here are scientists, but anyone who is would immediately see the fallacy of this scientific method.

Creationist come from a POV of trying to prove a conclusion they have already made. ie proving the Bible factually correct.
Unlike creationists I'm not stating that I know the Bush regime were complicit or involved in the Sept 11 attacks. I'm saying that I beleive they could be complicit because I've seen evidence in the interim that suggests it.
Given that past government actions have been that sadistic and brutal (ie operation MONGOOSE, COINTELPRO, operation NORTHWOODS).
Also that the Bush regime (and family and friends connected to them) seemed to have gained alot of their goals held before Sept 11th and as a direct result of such. The Bush regime has also done everything possible to obstruct the investigation of Sept 11th.
While it doesn't prove they were complicit it surely suggests it. At the very least it shows they aren't being completely honest about their actions before said tragedy.
Unlike you I'm not ruling out things that are actually possible, whilst you seem to be suggesting that it's impossible and that the Bush regime is INCAPABLE of doing such deeds.
Which strikes me as being exactly what you are accusing myself and creationist of doing.

No doubt both parties used the attacks for political gain.

I have yet to see how the Socialist USED the attacks. Did the PP shoot themselves in the foot? Yes! Would it then logically follow that their opposition would gain? Does that mean that the Socialist intentionally set out to use the attacks against the PP?

But do you really believe that either would be capable of such a deed?

Yes they are human beings. Have I seen evidence that the Socialist did such a thing...no. On the other hand I have from the Bush regime. In fact I thought claims that Bush were involved were complete garbage 3 years ago. Subsequent evidence and their actions following have changed my mind though.

And, if you do believe that each would have been capable (which I don't), how likely is it that they'd be able to cover it up, or find the necessary people to go along with the murder of their countrymen without saying a word?

Are you saying that people aren't capable of such atrocities? Are you also saying that governments haven't done such things in the past?

I often wonder if people making such arguments realise that by doing so, they are in fact discrediting their own positions on other issues, regardless of how legitimate those other positions may be.

How am I descrediting myself when I suggest that the government are possibly involved in something that they've done before in similiar circumstances and with some of the very same people as actors?

BattleBoar

Originally posted by sovtek
The Bush regime has also done everything possible to obstruct the investigation of Sept 11th. While it doesn't prove they were complicit it surely suggests it. At the very least it shows they aren't being completely honest about their actions before said tragedy.

Of course it is *possible* that this is because they had a hand in the attacks. Anything is theoretically *possible* . But is that likely?

Originally posted by sovtek
Unlike you I'm not ruling out things that are actually possible, whilst you seem to be suggesting that it's impossible and that the Bush regime is INCAPABLE of doing such deeds. Which strikes me as being exactly what you are accusing myself and creationist of doing.

Who said I'm ruling anything out. All I said is that I don't believe it's likely that anyone would reach that conclusion through a careful analysis of all the facts currently available without having a preconceived bias.

Originally posted by sovtek I have yet to see how the Socialist USED the attacks.

Perhaps I should say, no doubt both parties gained from the respective attacks.

Originally posted by sovtek Yes they are human beings. Have I seen evidence that the Socialist did such a thing...no. On the other hand I have from the Bush regime. In fact I thought claims that Bush were involved were complete garbage 3 years ago. Subsequent evidence and their actions following have changed my mind though.

So do you believe Bush was involved then? Not do you believe it's *possible*, because I believe it's *possible*, however unlikely. Do you believe there is more than a 50% chance that GWB was complicit?

Originally posted by sovtek Are you saying that people aren't capable of such atrocities?

No, read my original post. I'm saying that I think it highly unlikely that GWB or the Socialists are capable, or could pull it off even if they were.

Originally posted by sovtek How am I descrediting myself when I suggest that the government are possibly involved in something that they've done before in similiar circumstances and with some of the very same people as actors?

Because as I stated previously, I think it's very unlikely someone could look at all the facts currently available and reach that conclusion. I believe one could only reach said conclusion with a preconcieved bias.

By the way, what previous case has there been of the US govenment murdering 3000 of it citizens in a strike made to look like terrorists for political gain? I haven't seen that incident in the history books.

spanner

Originally posted by bonkey
Huh?



This might sound tasteless, but if you declare war on someone, then expect war. And when you declare war on terrorists, you are going from the ridiculous to the sublime if you expect them to fight war on your terms, rather than the already-established terms they already fight their wars by - loathsome thought that may be.



jc

yes but that doesnt mean you should throw in the towel. the fact of the matter is that an election should not of been held so close to the bombings. emtions are very raw still and i dont think the people were able to make a clear decision

Sand

You can't say that either way, unless you have the magical ability to divide up the influence of every possible issue that influenced every voter. Or unless you think a 90% majority on a single issue must be reflected in a 90% majority in the next general election.

I cant say it for sure - but with the bombing and the blame being laid at Al Quedas door the war and Spains decision to contribute to Iraq would have been at the forefront of everyones minds. If 90% are against the war, it would carry that a significant portion of those people would vote against the government which supported that war. The breakdown was far more even, 38% for the PP and about 42%(?) for the socialists I think. I think its fair to say the 90% didnt carry through there, or wed see a far more decisive victory for the socialists.

Regardless, my point is that the polls of 90% against the war does not imply only 10% support for the government in actual verifiable elections. The idea that government policy should be slaves to TV, newspaper or telephone polls is actually dangerous to real democracy where everyone is consulted rather than whoever the pollsters happen to find on the street.

Sparks

Originally posted by spanner
yes but that doesnt mean you should throw in the towel. the fact of the matter is that an election should not of been held so close to the bombings. emtions are very raw still and i dont think the people were able to make a clear decision

It wouldn't matter. The problem with elections is that they compress huge numbers of issues, both policy and personal, down to a single question - do you want to vote for this candidate? It's a heavily distorted answer you'll get back, every time. Did they vote for you because of a series of educational reforms and grants you brought in two years ago? Or because your opponent was caught having an affair last week? Does the vote give you a mandate to continue with your programme of closing hospitals or was it because they wanted you to continue with your programme of opening schools? There's no way to tell.
See, that is the problem with representative democracy as we run it - elections are held so far apart that there's no way to tell what the results actually mean in terms of how the electorate supports the policy decisions made by government.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Regardless, my point is that the polls of 90% against the war does not imply only 10% support for the government in actual verifiable elections.

No, because while many people would be against one governmental stance (e.g. the war in Iraq), they may feel that on balance the government represents their interests better than the opposition.

However, is that sufficient grounds for a government to ignore public opinion? That as long as you are the lesser of two evils, or the least flawed option, that you can or should ignore public sentiment at will? I'm not convinced that it should...but I recognise the reality that it does.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Of course it is *possible* that this is because they had a hand in the attacks. Anything is theoretically *possible* . But is that likely?

Has the American government ever covered up attacks that they carried out on a group of people?

Who said I'm ruling anything out.

But do you really believe that either would be capable of such a deed?

All I said is that I don't believe it's likely that anyone would reach that conclusion through a careful analysis of all the facts currently available without having a preconceived bias.

Ummmm so I would have to have a preconceived bias when know that America has given financial and military aid to Bin Laden, people in the Bush regime have financial connections to the Bin Laden family, There were warnings that Al Qaeda intended to hijack planes and crash them, people in the Bush regime that have financial connections to UNOCAL wanted to put a pipeline through Afghanistan prior to '98 but the Taliban wanted to much money, Hamid Karzia is a former consultant of UNOCAL as well as the interior minister of Afghanistan, UNOCAL now have a contract for a pipeline through Afghanistan, top officials in the FBI obstructed investigating Mossoui prior to 911
by lower FBI officials, one of those was killed in the Towers just months after he quit FBI and got job as head of security for twin towers, Bush never wanted an inquiry into 911 but was pressured by victims families, Bush has done everything to stall the commission and has never cooperated without serious pressure from the victims famillies.....now....do I need a bias to think that suggests some ulterior motives in regards 911?
Sorry I forgot the little passage in the document presented to Clinton by the PNAC that said "would not be able to carry out these policies without some catostrophic even like another Pearl Harbor" or something like that.....who make up the PNAC that are now in the Bush regime?

[/b]Perhaps I should say, no doubt both parties gained from the respective attacks.

Fair enough but that totally changes what you said.

[/b] So do you believe Bush was involved then?

What I now honestly beleive, knowing that I could very well being wrong, is that the Bush regime knew that that Al Quaeda (or some other terrorist org) were going to carry out a big attack and allowed it to happen so as to be able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and put through other aspects of their agenda.
To beleive they were actually involved would require more evidence.

Not do you believe it's *possible*, because I believe it's *possible*

Definetly!

Do you believe there is more than a 50% chance that GWB was complicit?

Yup now I do...that we will ever know for sure....not for another 50 years probably...if ever.

[/b] No, read my original post. I'm saying that I think it highly unlikely that GWB or the Socialists are capable, or could pull it off even if they were.

NO you said "if you do believe that each would have been capable (which I don't)"

Because as I stated previously, I think it's very unlikely someone could look at all the facts currently available and reach that conclusion.

Given what I stated above I don't see how you can say that honestly.

I believe one could only reach said conclusion with a preconcieved bias.

I really don't understand how you could come to that conclusion.

By the way, what previous case has there been of the US govenment murdering 3000 of it citizens in a strike made to look like terrorists for political gain? I haven't seen that incident in the history books.

The JCS drew up a plan to attack both US military and civilians targets and blame it on Castro. They didn't carry it out (that we know of) because Kennedy vetoed it (instead of having them arrested and tried).
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

BattleBoar

What I now honestly beleive, knowing that I could very well being wrong, is that the Bush regime knew that that Al Quaeda (or some other terrorist org) were going to carry out a big attack and allowed it to happen

Ok, fair enough, so at least you aren't one of the people that believes they planned it and carried it out. I believe that it is possible that Bush administration got warnings that there going to be an attack, but didn't see that there was enough specific evidence to act on it, and didn't know if it was real or not. They left it to the beaurocratic nightmare that is the FBI to figure it out, and they weren't talking with the CIA, and even if they were, it's doubtful that the two organisations would have gotten their acts together in time to do anything. I'm willing to say that the Bush administration may be guilty of incompetance if that is eventually shown to be the case, something I think they're guilty of anyway on other grounds. But do I believe that if Gore was in the White House the exact same thing wouldn't have happened? Definitely not.

sovtek

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Ok, fair enough, so at least you aren't one of the people that believes they planned it and carried it out. I believe that it is possible that Bush administration got warnings that there going to be an attack, but didn't see that there was enough specific evidence to act on it, and didn't know if it was real or not.

I remember that someone (sorry I don't have a link) gave them warnings about Moussoui (spelling) before 911 during his flight training. It was why he was arrested, IIRC. Thing is the top of the FBI prevented search warrants from being granted to search his computer and apartment. This came from the top down, not the other way around.
So the top leaders of the FBi didn't seem to want to find out if it was a real enough threat.

They left it to the beaurocratic nightmare that is the FBI to figure it out, and they weren't talking with the CIA, and even if they were, it's doubtful that the two organisations would have gotten their acts together in time to do anything.

Ok but this is the first of two times in the past 3 years that the Bush regime has blamed the CIA for policies that they were responsible for carrying out. It's at least obvious from Iraq that it wasn't the incompetence of the CIA but the wish to go to war no matter what the evidence happened to be.
Where blaming the CIA and FBI for incompetence falls apart is when it was revealed that two of the supposed hijackers were issued visas and entered America from Canada legally. Both the FBI and Immigration knew that they were on an FBI watch list. Still they were granted visas, allowed to enter and not watched.
Put that together with the obstruction of the Moussoui investigation just looks too much like intent and not like incompetence.
I've never seen a situation where such gross incompetence actually led to you getting almost everything you've previously wanted.

But do I believe that if Gore was in the White House the exact same thing wouldn't have happened? Definitely not.

I don't agree but I can see that it's possible.
I still believe that it wouldn't have happened if Gore was president.