Spain and 9/11 -- Maybe It's the Lying The conservative line on Spain's recent presidential election is that the results are a victory for Al Qaeda, and that the electorate capitulated to terror. See for example, Andrew Sullivan, who writes:

March 11, 2004, was easily the greatest victory for terrorism since 9/11 itself. It was a victory not simply because so many innocents were murdered in cold blood - going about their business in a free and democratic society. We know how thrilled the Jihadist terrorists are when they can murder in large numbers - as they have now done in Iraq and Morocco and Bali and New York. It was a victory because it also succeeded in provoking the one response terrorists long for and feed upon. Faced with mass murder, the Spanish electorate voted to give the Jihadists what they were demanding: withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. 3/11 was a reprise of 9/11. But this time it worked. Instead of rising up in anger against the mass murderers of the new fascist movement in the Islamic world, as the United States did, Spain did the reverse. It gave in.

But Ivo Daalder, writing for The Center for American Progress, points to another interpretation:

Another flaw in this reasoning is in assuming that Spaniards, like Americans, see Iraq as the central front in the war on terror. They don't. For them, as for most Europeans, the war in Iraq and the war on terror are completely separate. In fact, the train bombings in Madrid (like the earlier attacks in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Turkey) underscored that toppling Saddam Hussein had not ended the threat of terrorism. To the contrary, it may even have encouraged it ? which is how many Spaniards interpreted last week's terrorist attacks.



The train bombings put the government in a quandary, which it tried to escape by pointing the finger at ETA, even though this Basque terror group had never engaged in a terrorist act of this magnitude. Even as signs of al Qaeda involvement multiplied, and the inevitable link to Iraq became politically salient, the government insisted that ETA more likely than not was responsible for the attacks. None of this rang true to a majority of Spaniards.

Most Spaniards did not believe attacking Iraq was a good strategy in the war on terror; they were against the policy. But also, the Spanish government lied!

And this wasn't a minor lie, a lie about sex. It was a cowardly lie, a fundamental act of betrayal. The government of Bush's ally, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, didn't trust its own people. So why should those people trust --and re-elect-- such a man? What right does he have to lead after such a fundamentally wrong deception?

Maybe American conservatives don't want to think about lying because they're supporting an administration whose deceptions and secrecy and fundamental dishonest and cynicism and distrust of the judgment of the American people are unequaled.

Bush lied about Iraq's WMD's.

Bush lied about the cost of his Medicare bill.

Bush tried to sandbag the 9/11 commission.


Bush lies about important policy details on matters of war, on matters of economic policy, on matters, in short, that go to the fundamental elements of governing. It's that simple.

Conservatives don't want to see that lies have consequences in a democracy. They don't want to see what lying cost Bush's ally in Spain. Because to see it means they'll have to consider what might happen to Bush.   ¶ 11:25 AM