The going rate for ousting a pro-American European government: 200 dead Spaniards.
The cliché is right this time: the terrorists did win. They might not have been on the ballot, but they managed to turn mass murder into an effective political tool.
UPDATE: David Frum voices the same opinion at NRO today. "Lesson: terrorism can work. Prediction: therefore expect more of it. Expect more terrorism aimed at the United Kingdom, against Australia, against Poland, and – ultimately – against the United States. For the terrorists must now wonder: If murder can influence elections in Spain – why not in the United States?"
I'm not sure we can blame the Socialists' win on the attack, inasmuch as Spain's participation in the Iraq war was highly unpopular.
The Socialists blamed the government for the attack, and the Popular Front was way ahead in the polls three days ago. The *only* way the Socialists won was with the blood of innocent commuters.
Eric,
I'm with RC here. According to one news report, 90% of the Spanish populace opposed going into Iraq. Before the attack, people were apparently willing to overlook Aznar's going into Iraq anyway and vote for his party, and therefore his successor, for other reasons. But when the bombs hit, the whole issue came back since now there were more consequences to the Iraq war for Spain than a few dead soldiers.
That, and people were upset the way the government first said that it was Basque separatists, which would have helped their chances in the election. Whether there was any manipulation going on, people thought there was and so voted for the other guys.
One thing is certain: if al Qaeda thinks they can effect political change with their attacks, that only strongly encourages them to plan more of them. Though I really doubt that such an attack would work to get Bush ousted; the Spanish could understandably, if perhaps incorrectly, think the war on terror wasn't their fight. We can't, and so I think an attack in October would only have a rally-around-the-flag effect.
The Spanish government assumed ETA was behind the bombings because ETA has murdered hundreds of Spaniards in past years. It was natural to assume that ETA was behind the bombing (as the anti-ETA protests indicated). The idea that the Spanish authorities even had time to organize a cover-up is absurd.
Coward, I agree that an "October surprise" from the still-living parts of al Qaeda would not necessarily lead to Bush's ouster. However, that doesn't mean they won't try. Remember: they looked at Beirut 1983 and Somalia 1993 as examples, and decided that an audacious attack would cause us to withdraw from Saudi Arabia -- or else cause a confrontation with the wider Muslim world. Just because they misjudge American politics doesn't mean they won't try to kill lots of people. I think we can assume that they will try to do something before the elections.
FYI, David Frum of NRO says pretty much what I just said.
The polls prior to the attack did not show a victory by the Socialist party. Of course polls aren't perfect but nobody expected a win by the Socialists and such a landslide was a total surprise.
I doubt if the non-support by the Spanish people on the war on terror was the defining issue in the campaign until the terrorist attack.
If people did change their votes because of it then it is another case of blaming government instead of terrorists. Sticking your head in the sand and hoping they don't attack you is a strategy sure to embolden terrorists.
If this was indeed done by an Islamic Terrorist group the fact that Spain was an allied with the U.S. was probably only a factor. Their are many past historic grievances that Muslims would act on especially with the large population of Muslim immigrants into Spain.
Right, Jeff -- and since the Spanish birthrate is among the lowest in the world, that's an increasing number of Muslims, too.
I've gotta agree with RC and Anonymous Coward here, that this really goes back to the Neo-Con War in Iraq. Sorry, but we paleo-cons were right.
About what, Pete? That the Islamofascists' delicate sensibilities would be harmed if we removed a man responsible for killing more Muslims than any man alive? That if only we wouldn't pursue anything resembling a foreign policy, then the world would love us? I'm a little surprised to see you echo the odious Mr. Buchanan on this point -- do you agree with him that we had it coming on Sept. 11?