Originally posted by Seagoon
Anyway, thank you for the reminder. I am no expert in Spanish politics, but prior to the attack, Rajoy was leading Zapatero in all the polls by a comfortable margin. In fact, I don't believe many here in the USA or Britain thought that a victory for the Socialist Workers Party was a serious possibility prior to the bombings. Three days after the bombings, the turn-out at the polls was an unheard of 77% and Zapatero was elected. One could perhaps lay the blame on those who elected Zapatero, but ultimately it was his new governmnet who handed the victory to Al Qaeda. How difficult would it have been to have defiantly said NON to the terrorists for several months at least until the US elections to show that they couldn't get what they wanted via murder and mayhem?
I sincerely believe that if Aznar and co. had had the balls to say, the minute they had the certainty: "yes, gentlemen, the bombs are from Al Qaeda" instead of playing the "perhaps it was ETA" until after the elections, they would have been reelected. Actually, there's not a doubt in my mind about that.
They were afraid it would negatively affect their chances of victory. What do you know, it was the other way around.
Imagine Tony Blair telling the press that, disregarding all the clear evidence pointing to islamic extremism, there's a fair chance the attacks are from IRA. It's all the same that the explosives, the modus operandi, the target, point to Al Qaeda. It's the IRA, I tell you. Right before election day.
And more evidence is unveiled pointing even more clearly towards Al Qaeda. Would you feel cheated? Many people did here.
Daniel