Spanish bombs. David Sanger seems to agree with Condoleeza Rice, whom he quotes in his A1 news analysis this morning on the Spanish elections ("Blow to Bush: An Ally in Spain Is Rejected by Antiwar Voters"), that a vote for Aznar was a vote against "intimidation":

Before the election results were in, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," "I believe that the Spanish people understand that they've had strong and good leadership in President José María Aznar and his government, that fighting terrorism cannot allow one to be intimidated."

Sadly, the Spanish electorate seems not to have been ready to take the Bush challenge. Sanger assesses the damage to Bush from the upset Socialist victory in terms that are entirely flattering to our Young Churchill:

The Bush administration must now fight the perception, accurate or not, that acts of terror against America's allies can sway nations into rethinking the wisdom of standing too closely with Mr. Bush.

Don't stand too close to the steely-eyed rocket man if you can't take the heat, I guess is the message. "Perception" is such a useful journalist's weasel-word. Where exactly does such perception ("accurate or not") exist, David, except in your own mind and perhaps the mind of Bush's spinmeisters?

Sanger might do well to read his own paper for a corrective to his "perception." Those fraidy-cat Spaniards—who Sanger can't be bothered to remember have always been deeply against the Iraq adventure—might have a few other things on their mind, like, for instance, Aznar's having taken Bush's lead on more than just the Iraq war:

Spain's opposition Socialists swept to an upset victory in general elections on Sunday, ousting the center-right party of Prime Minister José María Aznar in a groundswell of voter anger and grief over his handling of terrorist bombings in Madrid last week.

Investigators reported Sunday that there was growing evidence of involvement of Muslim fundamentalists in the attacks. ... With each new bit of information about the investigation into the attack came accusations that Mr. Aznar's party may have tried to suppress evidence of possible Qaeda involvement by assuming that Basque separatists were responsible.

Elaine Sciolino, "Following Attacks, Spain's Governing Party Is Beaten"

Maybe, just maybe, Spanish voters were led to repudiate Aznar for the Bush-like way his government, shall we say, reasoned inductively about Basque complicity in the bombings from whatever conclusion was politically most convenient to them. Could they have been offended that Aznar, as Josh Marshall puts it, "deliberately withheld or obscured information about who was behind the attacks so as to avoid the backlash" that they expected from al Qaeda's being named responsible? Nah—if Americans don't mind that sort of treatment, why would the Spanish?

Update: Misread the Sanger piece a bit. He does, in fact, remember the general Spanish opposition to the war—I missed it because it's stuck in a (doubly) dependent clause in a paragraph that has Bush lauding Aznar's "courageous example" in ignoring popular opinion:

Time after time, President Bush has responded to critics who say he has alienated America's closest allies by pointing to Mr. Aznar as a courageous example of a leader who ignored poll numbers — upward of 90 percent of Spaniards opposed the war — and who acted in Spain's best interests.

If I were Sanger, I'd find a way to talk about Bush that didn't require some synonym for moral fortitude in every goddamn sentence.

posted by michael  9:57:05 AM  
tell me about it []