Help me out here.

Not being one to keep up with Spanish elections I seem to remember that the Socialist party was about 4 points behind before the bombings.

The Spanish people were 90% opposed to the war in Iraq. (again I am depending on my memory)

What was the margin of victory for the Socialists after all the votes were counted? By how many points did the election swing?

I can't help but believe that the bombings influenced quite a few in Spain to vote against the incumbent.

I do not believe however that being a conservative, liberal or anarchist means that you are automatically joined at the hip with Al Q. That insinuation is just pure political bullshit rhetoric.

Posted by boortzlistener on March 16, 2004 09:01 AM Link to comment

Never mind guys. I just heard on the radio it was a 12 point swing.

Pretty damned substantial so I will continue to believe that terrorists can influence the outcomes of elections.

Karen Kwiatkowski has some interesting thoughts here:

www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski67.html

Posted by boortzlistener on March 16, 2004 09:20 AM Link to comment

"It makes me absolutely sick when so-called patriots in America (I'm thinking Neal Boortz) equate a political loss for the ruling party here with a defeat at the hands of terrorism, no matter what pseudo-logic they use to support their case."

Are you referring to my post? Either way, I'm glad to see people from differing views visit our blog. If you haven't noticed, it's run by two conservatives and token liberal. Lots of political drama.

Posted by Gordon the Magnificent on March 16, 2004 09:25 AM Link to comment

Gordon,

I visit you sometimes - mostly when SWG Eric links you. Yours was one of several posts criticizing the Spanish people for voting out the incumbent party. I just picked yours because the words like "cowardice" you applied to them so shortly after they experienced a traumatic event. That made me see red. My sequence: I get angry, post, then cool down.

Boortzlistener,

Yes, the attacks influence elections. Here, in Europe, and elsewhere attacks of this sort influence elections, because they change the way voters see themselves, their countries, and their leaders. I don't think there is a way to avoid having attacks influence elections - and I don't think its necessarily desirable to avoid that: the attacks on 9/11/01 influenced the elections in 2002 and will influence the elections in 2004. That doesn't mean that the terrorists are winning. Likewise the attacks on 3/14 influenced the elections in Spain on 3/16. that doesn't mean the terrorists have won. It means democracy still works.

Posted by smijer on March 16, 2004 09:38 AM Link to comment

Yup, no proof of any link here between Iraq and AlQ. I dont believe it now anymore than I did the several times Ossama Bin Bombin released his public messages urging Iraqi's to stand up and fight the infidels. It's all just a coincidence.

I agree w/ you on an earlier post Boortzlistener, although I am thankful that we have had no more domestic attacks I do feel that it is only a question of when, not if.

My heart goes out to Spain and I understand their actions when they voted out the incumbent. It was however a big blow to our efforts in the middle east.

Recent accomplishments:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/15/alqaeda.death/index.html

2. http://www.oakridger.com/stories/031504/bre_20040315099.shtml

Posted by JMichael on March 16, 2004 10:53 AM Link to comment

I'de just expect an attack here close to election time. If they can influence Spain's election they'll damn sure try to influence ours. I don't think al Qaeda understands Americans though, we are far more stubborn then Europeans.

In a way I think another attack would possibly help Bush in the election, since he has proven he will be tough on terrorists and countries that aid them, to the point of irritating our allies, and pissing off the entire world (which I thoroughly enjoy by the way). Or maybe it'll cause a loss of faith his ability to lead, who knows?

I'll point out that immediately after WWII Churchill was voted out with a huge majority. He had served his purpose, maybe the same can be said about G.W.B., maybe a lack of a terrorist attack will convince voters that the "tough-guy" is no longer necessary, and that the police can mop up what's left of al Qaeda. It remains to be seen.

Posted by Tim on March 16, 2004 11:22 AM Link to comment

I object to chalking up everything that happens in the Middle East to the neo-con policy in Iraq (if that is what JMichael is doing in his post). In fact there is a lot more in play now: Lybia has been vying for Western approval for a long time now, and what is going on there can legitimately be seen as the culmination of a decade of negotiations between Quadafi and European leaders. (whether this "accomplishment" is very meaningful is a secondary question, and I am skeptical of the view that it is). The Saudis had a lot of motivation to fight the radical religious factions in their own country already - not least of which are the recent bombings in Riyadh.

In addition, there have been other major actions that have influenced these events. Bush led the world to a just and righteous war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. The collective might of the industrialized war quickly disbanded the Taliban and crippled the Afghanistanian operations of al Qaeda. The recent events in Saudi Arabia and in Lybia are at least as likely to have been influenced by that action as by the subsequent violence against Arabs in Iraq.

I think that we could scratch the surface and discover that Bush apologists who are all-to-willing to chalk up these events as "accomplishments" of neo-con theology will hesitate to be consistent and chalk up other 'related' events to the Bush team. Nobody is blaming Bush for the train bombs in Madrid, or other terrorist actions in Turkey, Indonesia, and elsewhere. I feel like people should be consistent. If they are going to give him credit for things he didn't do just because they happened after he over-ran Iraq, then they should give him credit for both the good and the bad.

Accomplishments or not, the price has certainly been high. How many American lives (and how many Iraqi lives) is one Poet's arrest worth? In order to disarm a nation that was decades and billions of dollars away from a successful nuclear experiment, is it worth it to undermine the rule of law on the international level? These are heady questions. I'm willing to entertain any side of them, but it worries me that a cult of personality is developing around Bush. It is disconcerting that his followers seem to believe that he can do no wrong, and that some secret vindication for Iraq is just another 10 years away.

Posted by smijer on March 16, 2004 11:37 AM Link to comment

Of course I expected you to make every effort to prove that Lybia's recent actions happened in spite of Bush instead of them possibly being influenced by watching the events unfold in Iraq over live TV. That's fine, no shocker from you.

Should we blame GWB for the bomb attacks in Spain?

Accomplishments or not, the price has certainly been high. How many American lives (and how many Iraqi lives) is one Poet's arrest worth?

That is a good question. I will answer with another. How many INNOCENTS would have continued to die because of this mans inspiration? Now who are you defending with this question? These people kill innocents, children, mothers, fathers. How many lives was Hitlers capture worth?

It is disconcerting that his followers seem to believe that he can do no wrong, and that some secret vindication for Iraq is just another 10 years away

It is a global war on terrorism and Bush is certainly at the forefront and I am sorry for posting somewhat positive news on the global effort, I didnt mean to interrupt your though process. Accomplishments in the war on terrorism need to be heard about, whether taking place in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or the good ol' US of A....not just all the bad drudge you can dig up just to support your views.

Posted by JMichael on March 16, 2004 11:50 AM Link to comment

"Of course I expected you to make every effort to prove that Lybia's recent actions happened in spite of Bush instead of them possibly being influenced by watching the events unfold in Iraq over live TV."

I think you have a thing or two to learn about the burden of proof. Proof is generally provided by the person making the positive assertion - in this case that it was Bush's aggression against Iraq and undermining of the rule of law that caused Lybia to disarm. You have not met that burden of proof, so there is nothing for me to do, except to point out the logical fallacy and remind you of evidence that indicates Lybia was already negotiating a peaceful disarmament with Europe before Bush lost his head, and that there are plenty of other factors to consider before we start engaging in *guesswork* about the cause of Lybia's actions.

If you want to talk about accomplishments in the war on terror, it would be reasonable to do that in a way that didn't leave the appearance that you were attributing them to the unrelated war in Iraq.

I can appreciate talking about positive developments around the world, and even giving credit to those actions of Bush that have been directed toward that effort. I've consistently done that in the past. I just got the impression that wasn't how your comments were intended. I got the impression that they were intended to justify Bush's actions in Iraq.

Posted by smijer on March 16, 2004 12:00 PM Link to comment

I have made my opinions on Iraq known and do not care to re-hash them.

The recent events in Saudi Arabia and in Lybia are at least as likely to have been influenced by that action as by the subsequent violence against Arabs in Iraq.

Guess work??

I think they are sensitive to that, and all but the biggest loud-mouths are willing to cast dark aspertions and sinister hints without coming right out and saying that Democrats are Al Qaeda's best friends.

Guess work or just being smug??

You terrorists can influence our politics if you bomb us.*

Now that you have attacked us on our own soil, we intend to elect a leader who we believe will fight you terrorists more effectively.

Iraq had something to do with al Qaeda.*

The people of Spain were taken to war in Iraq against our will. Aznar knew that the people of Spain did not want to support a war in Iraq. He didn't represent our will, and now we are going to vote him out and replace him with someone who will represent our will.

Imperialist adventure is not the Spanish way.

Guess work, or being smug once again?

I'm sure that Bush and the members of his cult of personality would have preferred it if the Spanish people had chosen to play the role of Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, and had chosen to allow a regime with which they were unsatisfied to stay in power just to "spite" the terrorists

Definately guess work, unless I am wrong and you have your fingers on the pulse of the Spanish people?

Sir you are so anxious to prove that our efforts in Iraq are and will continue to be a failure, all I am saying is that you can jump to conclusions all you want and drudge up all the mess you want to support your views. You can continue to see what you want to see and ignore what you choose to ignore, but whether you say it will or not, the fact is that our Iraqi efforts will be judged, for better or worse, over the course of time, not after 5 minutes on your liberal blog.

Posted by JMichael on March 16, 2004 12:13 PM Link to comment

Seems I struck a nerve. If it bothers you so much to read my liberal blog, there are plenty of conservative blogs for you to read that already buy the neo-con line on Iraq. Check them out. If you don't like to have the neo-con theories about Iraq subjected to skepticism, some of those conservative blogs are right up your alley. Instapundit would be a good start. Good luck to you.

Posted by smijer on March 16, 2004 12:29 PM Link to comment

Nah dude, you didnt strike a nerve and I never said it bothered me to read your blog I just think you need to practice what you preach a little, and you DO preach. Dont just tell half the story that suits your needs and then preach about that.

I dont know who struck the nerve because I am the one being asked to leave I guess. Guess this forum isnt as "open" as some would suggest, eh?

Posted by JMichael on March 16, 2004 12:45 PM Link to comment

Your previous post looked pretty hostile - that's why I thought I had struck a nerve. You weren't being asked to leave, just suggesting that if it got you that upset to read here, that there were places that might be more comfortable for you.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong and you aren't getting upset and defensive... maybe you just have an odd way of expressing your ideas. Either way, its up to you. Stay here or head over to the Free Republic. Just don't expect for the neo-con ideology to be embraced here the same way it is there.

Posted by smijer on March 16, 2004 12:52 PM Link to comment

P.S.:
"I just think you need to practice what you preach a little"

I strive to. If I fail, feel free to point it out. The list of my words you pointed out above were each taken from the context of discussions on my part about suggestions and estimations - not claims of absolute fact - so I can hardly see how repeating them supports your position.

However, the discussion we were having isn't about me, or whether I practice what I preach. It was supposed to be about actions and their consequences. A person can be a full-time purse-snatcher and beater of old ladies and still make a valid point. A person may be a model citizen and make a mistake.

So, bear in mind if I do fail to always practice what I preach that is insufficient evidence that my sermon was erroneous. I will try to do you the same favor.

Posted by smijer on March 16, 2004 01:40 PM Link to comment

"How many lives was Hitlers capture worth?"

I hope about 51 million. I think that is how many lives were given.

I really don't think Al Q gives a damn who is in the drivers seat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. By fighting terrorism the way we have chosen to fight terrorism we manage to kill many more civilians than terrorists and everytime civilians die terrorists have a great recruiting tool.

I would be very careful about hoping for justification down the road. The Middle East is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

Check this article out. Eric Margolis is one of the best.

www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_mar14.html

Posted by boortzlistener on March 16, 2004 02:03 PM Link to comment

"Yours was one of several posts criticizing the Spanish people for voting out the incumbent party."

You stand corrected, I never critisized the Spanish people for their election.

Posted by Gordon the Magnificent on March 16, 2004 09:40 PM Link to comment

Ok then. In my part of the country, calling people cowards is usually considered a kind of criticism. I'll take your word for it that you meant it otherwise.

Posted by smijer on March 16, 2004 10:18 PM Link to comment

Well I most certainly insulted them, just for different reasons then you have lead your audience to believe.

Posted by Gordon the Magnificent on March 16, 2004 11:34 PM Link to comment