Guardian: Spain Got the Point

[kskiska]

By defaming the Spanish while Madrid weeps, the Bushites display a sneaking contempt for democracy


Maybe they think it's payback time. In 2001, many American conservatives were appalled by the reaction in some European quarters to 9/11, a reaction crudely summarised as "America had it coming". They insisted it was grossly insensitive to attack the United States and its foreign policy while Ground Zero still smouldered. They were right and I took their side, urging people at least to pause a while before adding greater hurt to an already traumatised nation.

But look what's happening now. A matter of days after the event branded Europe's 9/11, and American conservatives - including some of the very people who were so outraged by the criticisms hurled at the US in September 2001 - have started whacking not just Spanish policy, but the Spanish people.

Witness David Brooks in yesterday's New York Times, outraged that the Madrid bombings prompted Spanish voters to "throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to al-Qaida's liking. What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Rightwing blog artist Andrew Sullivan also raided the 1930s lexicon for the same, exhausted word: "It seems clear to me that the trend in Europe is now either appeasement of terror or active alliance with it. It is hard to view the results in Spain as anything but a choice between Bush and al-Qaida. Al-Qaida won." Not to be outdone, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, the man who coined "axis of evil", sighed at the weakness of the Spanish: "People are not always strong. Sometimes they indulge false hopes that by lying low, truckling, appeasing, they can avoid danger and strife ... And this is what seems to have happened in Spain."

Perhaps this is how the Bushites hope to avenge what they saw as European insensitivity two and half years ago, by defaming the Spanish even as Madrid still weeps. But this assault should not go unanswered if only because, if allowed to settle in the public mind, it will widen yet further the already yawning transatlantic gulf of misunderstanding.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1170977,00.html

[DianeG5385]

1. I stand with Spain

I support my country, but the current administration must go. They are the most destructive of democracy in the history of this nation!

[Demeter]

2. Throwing Out Bad Leaders Isn't Appeasing Terrorists

The Bushites try to compare apples and tin cans. Spain hated their leaders, but were too apathetic to hope for change, until the fire was lit in their souls to dump the bastards that got them into this mess.

Al-Qaida will not benefit from the new leadership--smart and good democratic leaders are much worse for them than venal and corrupt fascists. This could be the beginning of the end of two of our own problems: Foreign terrorists and home-grown Nazis.

[KissMyAsscroft]

3. It wasn't the terrorist attack that made them vote Asnar out.

It was his lying and his alliance with Bush that they opposed.

I love how these assholes will not mention the fact that 90% of Spain opposed the war.

Nice to know we have our own Al Jazeera(CNN) spinning this bullshit lie of "appeasement" for Bush.

[salib]

4. Isn't what * and co. are doing just playing into the hands of terrorists?

If they were just simply willing to say that in fact polls showed the election in Spain would have gone the same way before the bombing, then it would defuse the whole impact of al Qaeda, ETA, or whoever is the bogey-man du jure. Instead, since they cannot possibly be magnanimous about anything that does not go precisely their way, i.e. their "allies" lost (phone calls of congratulations notwithstanding), they put a tremendous feather in the cap of whoever wants to claim responsibility for the bombings.

Don't they know that this is EXACTLY the wrong way to deal with blackmail, terrorists, serial killers, CRIMINALS, etc. You do not make them out to be important, especially more important than they could possibly have been.

[Turbineguy]

5. I have to wonder if the WH

did not "suggest" that the attacks were ETA. Then hopefully nothing would change to implicate Al Qaeda and the election would go forward.

Obviously the Al Qaeda link would tie to Iraq, which is odd, because that's what Bush has been saying all along.

Presumably forging the Iraq- Al Qeada link after the invasion was not so good.

So the election would have been close anyway, but it was the hasty blame on the ETA by the conservatives that swung the balance in favor of the socialists (who by the way have a history of supporting U.S. policy as well). It was not a landslide.

It would be the heighth of irony if the Bush Administration hobbled the election in Spain. But it would so expected in view of the way they do things. And then in typical fashion, they would say that the terrorists had won.

Just speculating here.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Conservative Narcissism

A lot of the Spaniards' rejection of the Popular Party (Aznar's conservative political party) has nothing to do with them "caving in to terrorism." The fact is that Aznar failed to prevent a terror attack that now appears to have been amateurishly planned, and instead blamed it on the Basque militant group ETA, out of a longstanding animosity Aznar has towards ETA, and Spanish conservatives have against the Basque people.

Mind you, ETA is a nasty little group, but they have been losing power, support, and membership steadily for years. Still, the Spanish supported a more aggressive policy toward ETA, which quickly got out of hand. Most Spaniards have had qualms about Sr. Aznar's crackdown on civil liberties in the name of defeating ETA, but this episode was the last straw: over 200 people died and almost 2000 were injured, and PP did nothing but spin the story for a failed grab at political gain.

In the USA, we can usually count on the Right to have a fanatical hatred for Arabs and Muslims. But in Spain, the roles were reversed. The Right overlooked the Islamist militants for political reasons. And the Spanish voters threw them out of office because the Right played with their lives instead of maintaining vigilance against terror.

American neo-conservatives are looking at this through their own narcissistic eyes. The conservative political machine in Spain had become a de facto accomplice of al-Qaeda by virtue of a failed anti-terror policy. Since the Socialist party got into power, the American neo-cons have a fresh new set of lies they can tell to an increasingly disbelieving world.

"The Reds and the A-Rabbs have made common cause! To arms!"

The decision of new Spanish president Zapatero to pull Spain's troops out of Iraq is entirely unrelated to the attacks. Most of the parties which stood up to Aznar have had this on their agenda since Aznar threw his lot in with Team Bush. But, like the Basques in the fevered imagination of Aznar, Muslims are the boogeymen to barstool patriots all across America. Both Spain and America have suffered grave attacks -- each aided and abetted by vainglorious domestic conservative thugs. The people of Spain, at least, have cleaned house.

--bkl

[Jack Rabbit]

7. There is nothing sneaking about the Bushies' contempt of democracy

It's quite obvious.

[Lisa]

8. not just tactless to pick on Spain, but illogical ...

I read one right-wing editorial that lavished praise on the people who filled the streets in protest after the Madrid attacks, then promptly slammed Spain for being "cowardly" when they dumped Aznar. As if it never occurred to the writer that it may have been the exact same people!

I'm just very sorry that the Spanish people would have to hear such rubbish, when they are still in mourning.

[madrchsod]

9. spain came from

a horrid military dicatorship to the real democracy in my life time. the real spirit of a people who are free showed in their rejection of a government that lies to them. it is not unexpected that these mother fuckers are pissed because they see what a true democratic society can do-reject them and their facist bosses. fuck those whining little piss ants..they don`t matter anymore.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Freedland on the September 11 attacks

Jonathan Freedland is one of my favorite Guardian columnists. This piece, written shortly after the September 11 attacks, is still worth reading. It is a good complement to today's piece.

[HuckleB]

14. Thanks for sharing that piece. I remember it well.

However, he was talking about a small minority of folks after 9/11. What's happening now, in regard to Spain, is that a large group of folks is jumping down the throats of the Spanish people, and this is coming after few in the U.S. reacted with solidarity to Spain as the Europeans did to the U.S. after 9/11.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. What's happening now is seems more orchestrated

European lefties embarrassed themselves with some gloating after September 11.That gloating, however, was a spontaneous reaction. Much of it was in the mode of an adult feeling some satisfaction hearing that a schoolyard bully got smacked. The Guardian had a columnist at the time name Charlotte Raven whose anti-Americanism I used to find obnoxious, especially at that time.

As Freedland pointed out in his piece, that is unbecoming of a progressive. America has its faults that are accentuated in the Bush regime, but no one in the WTC deserved that. It needed to be said.

What is happening now seems more coordinated. Right wing news papers and outlets are smacking down Spanish voters and deliberately spinning there vote as appeasement.

No doubt there are some Spaniards who for the Socialists in that mood; however, the better case for voting for the Socialists and for abandoning Bush's war on terror is that it simply hasn't worked. The invasion of Iraq was not an honest effort to fight terrorism. Saddam had no close associations with al Qaida and nothing that he could offer them. The assertion that the US and other western powers needed to invade Iraq to keep Saddam from handing off weapons to terrorists was a lie and those who made that assertion knew it was lie.

The attack on Spanish voters is nothing less than an extension of the same lie, just as was the outing of Valerie Plame, just as is the false dilemma of "You're either with Bush or with the terrorists." This is an effort to keep those who would waver from Bush's camp and find some better way of alleviating the threat of international terrorism in line.

The attacks from the right wing and corporatist media on Spanish voters are no more about any honest effort to defeat Osama than was invading Iraq. They are about keeping Bush in power by intimidating those who rightly question his wisdom and integrity.

[T_i_B]

11. The best colummist in Britain...

...at his very best. :-)

The first mistake is the more surprising, for no word is invoked more often in support of the "war on terror" than democracy. Yet these insults hurled at the Spanish show a sneaking contempt for the idea. For surely the Spanish did nothing more on Sunday than exercise their democratic right to change governments. They elected the Socialist party; to suggest they voted for al-Qaida is a slur not only on the Spanish nation but on the democratic process itself, implying that when terrorists strike political choice must end.

The "blame the electorate" mentality of the right does not display a sneaking conpemt for democracy, but a blatant contempt. It is a less then subtle suggestion that the electorate of Spain should not be making their own decisions. Blameing the electorate for your own guy's failings is a big no-no in my book whoever does it.

But this is not the heart of the matter. The right's greater error is its failure to distinguish between the war against al-Qaida and the war on Iraq. About 90% of the Spanish electorate were against the latter; there is no evidence that they were, or are, soft on the former. On the contrary, there have been two mass demonstrations of Spanish opinion in the past few days: let no one forget that 36 hours before the election, about 11 million Spaniards took to the streets to swear their revulsion at terrorism. It takes some cheek to accuse a nation like that of weakness and appeasement.

The Spaniards showed they knew the difference between the struggle against al-Qaida and the conflict in Iraq. It is hardly a shock that this distinction is lost on the likes of Frum and company: the Bush administration worked tirelessly to conflate the two, constantly eliding Saddam and 9/11 even though the president himself has had to admit no evidence links the two.

The Spanish electorate were not voting for a cave-in to al-Qaida. On the contrary, many of those who opposed the war in Iraq did so precisely because they feared it would distract from the more urgent war against Islamist fanaticism. (Witness the US military resources pulled off the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and diverted to Baghdad.) Nor was it appeasement to suggest that the US-led invasion of an oil-rich, Muslim country would make al-Qaida's recruitment mission that much easier.

This is the best bit of the article IMHO. I for one opposed the Iraq war first and foremost because I did not belive that Iraq and Al-Qaida were linked and that as a result the war on Iraq was very much counter-productive in the war on terror. Freedland writes that "it is quite possible to be strongly opposed to the Iraq adventure and militantly in favour of the war against Bin Laden - indeed the two sentiments can be strongly linked." and I have to agree wholeheartedly on this one as I am one of those of that very viewpoint.

A fantastic article from start to finish! :bounce:

[Capt_Nemo]

12. At times I have been at odds with Mr. Freedland

For not being forcefull enough on Blair, making him look not very
consistent and a bit of a fence-sitter. But I have to acknowlege
this is a hell of an opinion piece that goes right to heart to
the matter.
My hat's off to Mr. Freedland's brilliant article.

[HuckleB]

13. European insensitivity?

Hogwash. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans came outside to march, to candlelight vigils, to moments of silence to honor the victims of 9/11. They stood with us in every way. What is with this rewritten history?

Now, of course, few Americans have acted in kind in relation to Spain. Few Americans that I know will even talk about what happened there, mostly because they don't really know. They haven't read a damn thing about it.

[ixion]

16. Not sure of his logic here, since BushCo has given the 'terrorists'

everything they've asked for.

As with anything a neocon says, this smacks of hypocrisy and projection. Framing the argument such that the only 'proper' response is to be strong and vote for Pax Americana, because anything else is weak.

Sigh. These people will certainly bring on an Armageddon, if given the chance. Both sides are extremist fundie radicals and they're both responsible for the current state of things. The only sane response, IMHO, is to vote out extremists in lieu of people who aren't afraid to use common sense.

[Briar]

17. Excellent article

and a welcome relief from the overwhelming view of the UK government and media that "Al Qaeda" won the election. As Freedland says, that insults the Spanish and demeans democracy. Obviously, it is a view that Bliar favours, but it makes as much sense as saying that Hitler won the 1944 election in the UK, the one which threw Churchill out in favour of the radically reforming Labour government of Clement Atlee. Extraordinary events encourage electorates to shake off their apathy and bring those who might normally not bother (often the young) out where they can do the most good - at the ballot box.

[T_i_B]

18. Correction

The Atlee/Churchill election was held in 1945 not 1944, after Hitler had been defeated. Both Labour and Tory supported WWII and worked together in a coalition cabinet. The parralels with the Spain of today and that election are few and far between.

The "appeasement" accusation is nonsense. If you want an appeaser then look no further then the current occupant of 10 Downing Street and his sucking up to Bush. In fact Blair goes further than Chamberlain ever did. If we were to apply Blair's logic to the 1930's world then we would have invaded the Sudetenland for Hitler! :grr:

[Jack Rabbit]

19. 'Blair goes further than Chamberlain ever did'

I agree.

Chamberlain may have been a fool, but at least he was an honest fool. He didn't cross to the dark side. Blair has surmised that the future is the one the neocons envision; he has simply decided to side with the winner, regardless of the any moral judgment on that vision of the future.

Any honest person with a sense of justice opposes Bush. What we saw in the anti-war marches a year ago is that common people have better moral judgment than most political leaders. We saw it again in Spain on Sunday. Bush will see it in November. Tony Blair will see it someday, too.

[Briar]

21. Thanks

I should have read that over before posting it!

Never the less, my point is that it is idiotic to say that al Qaeda won that election. The Spaniards had their own reasons for kicking out Aznar, as the Brits had their own reasons for kicking out Churchill. In both cases, extraordinary events had politicised people who might not bother to vote normally. In both cases, the result was a triumph for democracy. Hitler might argue that voting out a government which had defeated him was tantamount to declaring support for the Nazis, as the Republicans (together with Timothy Garton Ash, Freddie Forsyth and numerous other right wing Brits) are arguing that voting out a right wing government which had made common cause with Bush and Bliar over the illegal war in Iraq is tantamount to declaring support for the terrorists. In both cases, such an argument is simply ridiculous. In the case of the Republicans it also demonstrates their hypocrisy and deceitfulness in pretending that the war in Iraq has anything to do with protecting ourselves from terrorists.

[Bonhomme Richard]

20. I guess those countries that opposed Germany's attack on........

Poland were also accused of appeasement.