Iran and the Future of Journalism

[Iormlund]

I was actually one of the very few who wanted the troops to remain there. Not because I believed in the invasion, but because I thought (and still do) it was our moral responsibility to assume the failure of a system that allowed Aznar to participate in a war despite the opposition of 85% of the population and every other party.

[Neil]

Even today you refuse to acknowledge that you can't force someone to do something he wants to do.

Well, that's not exactly true, but even if it were, your statement that Spain never wanted to be in Iraq is a lie.  Spain went into Iraq of its own free will.

[Iormlund]

Not really. Traditionally the party in power seeks the cooperation of the opposition in such endeavours (like during Desert Storm), which more or less ensures there is a consensus.
Aznar broke that rule. Spain went to Iraq on his personal crusade - and despite the opposition of most Popular voters and quite a few factions within, Popular MPs followed the Party line.
Quoting the head of the (European sense) liberal wing, then VP (and later IMF head honcho) Rodrigo Rato after the election results: "You [Aznar], and your war".

[Admiral Yi]

Not really. Traditionally the party in power seeks the cooperation of the opposition in such endeavours (like during Desert Storm), which more or less ensures there is a consensus.
Aznar broke that rule. Spain went to Iraq on his personal crusade - and despite the opposition of most Popular voters and quite a few factions within, Popular MPs followed the Party line.
Quoting the head of the (European sense) liberal wing, then VP (and later IMF head honcho) Rodrigo Rato after the election results: "You [Aznar], and your war".

Which doesn't explain the difference between the election results and the last poll.

[Iormlund]

I've told the reasons several times (starting on my very first post all those years ago).

Spain has had a leftist majority for nearly 3 decades, a result of Franco's right wing dictatorship. And it is only getting bigger, as old folk die off.
Aznar's victories were based on high Popular participation and low Socialist participation. The former prompted by nationalist or anti-commie rhetoric, the latter due to apathy and discontent after numerous corruption scandals during the 14 years González led the country and the following clusterfuck within the PSOE when they finally lost in 1996.
Looking at the data, there's a clear correlation between participation in an election, and socialist victory. IIRC pre-election surveys commissioned by the Socialists gave them 6% as the increase in voting needed to win, which as you point out seemed unlikely at that time.

Then the Salafists struck.The main effect of the bombings was making people feel their country was being threatened. The first reaction to that was to go out to the streets - which is what usually happens when ETA attacks as well. The second, being that close to an election, was to go and vote, even those who had no intention to do so originally. So participation jumped up 10 points, and the Socialists, in accordance with statistical trends in place for the last 30 years, won, to everyone's surprise. And they won 3 months after that in the EU elections as well, showing the original results were not a fluke.
Of course there were other factors as well, mainly the disastrous handling of the bombing investigation by the government, that included lying not just to the people but also to our allies in the WoT, withholding intelligence info from them, airing a documentary about ETA in the night before the election and so on. That surely cost PP votes, as well as encouraged some Commies to go Socialist instead of wasting their vote on their party.

[Admiral Yi]

Is there precedent for domestic terrorism increasing turnout?

[Iormlund]

I don't know. ETA used to strike during every election, so that might be hard to see just looking at the figures. They mostly failed during the last decade, though (when I was a kid there was a successful attack every other day - over a hundred victims a year).

I can tell you, however, that just like AQ played a big role in electing Zapatero, ETA played a similar role in the election of Aznar a decade before, when a failed attack put him in the limelight. Until then he was another obscure figure with no charisma (PP had tried in vain to reinvent itself since the 80s). From that moment on he was the president-to-be.

[Neil]

Not really. Traditionally the party in power seeks the cooperation of the opposition in such endeavours (like during Desert Storm), which more or less ensures there is a consensus.
Aznar broke that rule. Spain went to Iraq on his personal crusade - and despite the opposition of most Popular voters and quite a few factions within, Popular MPs followed the Party line.
Quoting the head of the (European sense) liberal wing, then VP (and later IMF head honcho) Rodrigo Rato after the election results: "You [Aznar], and your war".

Aznar was the government.  Aznar, and only Aznar spoke for Spain.  Not the opposition.  Not the opinion polls.  Not the Spanish people protesting the war.  Only Aznar.

[Iormlund]

Aznar was the government.  Aznar, and only Aznar spoke for Spain.  Not the opposition.  Not the opinion polls.  Not the Spanish people protesting the war.  Only Aznar.

I agree with you. Which is why I was for keeping the troops in Iraq.
What really pisses me off though is Zapatero promised to change the law to require a majority of two thirds in order to send troops aborad. The bastard hasn't done that.

[Neil]

Aznar was the government.  Aznar, and only Aznar spoke for Spain.  Not the opposition.  Not the opinion polls.  Not the Spanish people protesting the war.  Only Aznar.

I agree with you. Which is why I was for keeping the troops in Iraq.
What really pisses me off though is Zapatero promised to change the law to require a majority of two thirds in order to send troops aborad. The bastard hasn't done that.

Such a law would be madness.  Why would a government want to give the opposition a veto on the use of force.  Such a thing is simply not good government, although it's the sort of thing that sounds good if you're a communist party riding a wave of anti-Americanism and cowardice to power.  Nevertheless, such a law could interfere with Zapatero's pet project:  The use of the Spanish military to destroy Israel and to slaughter the Jewish race.

[Sheilbh]

Which doesn't explain the difference between the election results and the last poll.

I believe Spanish state TV, after the bombing showed a two-hour long documentary about the bombings and the line at Spain's embassies, even after doubts were raised, was that that it was an ETA bomb.  I don't think any country in the West would tolerate just absolute lies being pushed by the government after a terrorist attack. It's like Blair blaming 7/7 on the IRA because he thought there was electoral gain in it.

[Admiral Yi]

I believe Spanish state TV, after the bombing showed a two-hour long documentary about the bombings and the line at Spain's embassies, even after doubts were raised, was that that it was an ETA bomb.  I don't think any country in the West would tolerate just absolute lies being pushed by the government after a terrorist attack. It's like Blair blaming 7/7 on the IRA because he thought there was electoral gain in it.

They made a documentary on the Madrid bombings and aired it before the election?  How long did it take to make, 30 minutes? 

I've only heard this story that Aznar lied about the bombings for electoral gain at third hand.  Has it been conclusively demonstrated that he knew it was not ETA?

[Sheilbh]

They made a documentary on the Madrid bombings and aired it before the election?  How long did it take to make, 30 minutes? 

No. A documentary on ETA, sorry I fucked that up

I've only heard this story that Aznar lied about the bombings for electoral gain at third hand.  Has it been conclusively demonstrated that he knew it was not ETA?

Well from the start people were pointing out that it wasn't ETA's style.  The embassies were still suggesting that it was 'internal terrorism' (which means ETA) until the election by which point it was entirely clear that it wasn't. 

You'd need to ask Iorm, but I don't think the PP admitted that it was not ETA until the evidence was so overwhelming that they couldn't deny it and I think that was just before the elections.

My understanding is that the issue wasn't the bomb but the perception that the government was playing with it for political purposes that lost the PP the election.  And I don't care who was the opposition if that was how things were prior to the election the government deserved to lose.

Edit:  I will go on holiday tomorrow for a week so don't expect a reply, no matter how grievously wrong I am.  Which returns us to my first question, followed up by Marty and Ark :p