Posted on 03/16/2004 10:57:17 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
From the standpoint of a political campaign, the Popular Party of Spain made one of the gravest screwups in history, one that spells nothing but trouble for Spain, the United States and the security of the world.
They let al-Qaeda decide who will lead their nation.
When the news broke on March 11 of the terrorist bombing in Madrid, which killed two hundred people, al-Qaeda immediately claimed responsibility. But throughout the news coverage, doubt surfaced as to whether the Islamic terrorist organization was really behind the attack.
"Why don't they think it was al-Qaeda?" my wife asked. "Of course it was al- Qaeda." She was, as she almost always is, absolutely on the mark.
The reason for the doubt was centered in the reaction of the Spanish government itself, which is to say the reaction of the Popular Party leadership of Prime Minister José Maria Aznar. Readers of this space know I am a huge fan of Aznar, for two reasons:
First, his steadfast support of the United States in the Iraq War. It was Aznar who was behind the letter signed by eight European national leaders on January 30, 2003, expressing solidarity with the U.S. on Iraq. This was a defining moment in the creation of the war coalition and an event of incalculable importance in the success of the war and the defeat of Saddam Hussein.
Second, his domestic leadership of his country for the past eight years. He balanced the budget, reduced taxes, successfully fought corruption, and reduced unemployment from 23 percent to 9 percent. In the words of the noted author and columnist Carlos Alberto Montaner, "during Aznar's eight years…Spain consolidated its position as a First World nation endowed with an enviable quality of life and per-capita annual income of more than $21,000."
He chose not to seek reelection to a third term in 2004 because when he ran the first time in 1996, he had promised to serve only two.
But in the wake of the May 11 tragedy, with the election only three days away, Aznar's chosen successor, Mariano Rajoy, blamed the bombings on Basque separatists, not al-Qaeda. Obviously, if the Basque extremists had been responsible for the bombing, it would have been much better, politically, for the Popular Party; just about the only negative it had going was the unpopularity of Aznar's support of the U.S. in Iraq.
In Spain as elsewhere, domestic prosperity trumps all other political issues, and Rajoy held a lead in the polls before al-Qaeda struck. If they could just sustain the notion that the Basques were responsible for a mere three days, Popular Party leaders reasoned, their majority would be sustained. But it couldn't be done.
We will never know what would have happened if Rajoy had bitten the bullet and lashed out against al-Qaeda immediately, called on Spaniards to reject the murderous violence of the bombers and their masters in their Himalayan caves and portrayed the attack as a tragic demonstration of the need to fight the scourge of international terrorism. We will never know if an appeal to modern day Spaniards to show the same courage as did their 15th Century ancestors in ending Muslim rule of their country by defeating the Moors would have struck a resonant chord.
We do know that prevarication didn't work, as it usually doesn't.
Now Spain will be ruled by socialists. The economic miracle of the past eight years will stagnate. Spain will rejoin the Old Europe of Chirac and Schroeder. Spanish troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. The American-led coalition will be weakened.
And most important of all, no election in the world is now safe from violent disruption by the terrorists. Having tasted success, the Osamites are sure to repeat their tactics again, perhaps even in America.
Since September 11, 2001, the United States has pursued a policy based on the proposition that the world is either going to capitulate to terrorism or extirpate it root and branch. But the forces of appeasement have captured the Democratic Party here as surely as they captured the now-victorious Socialist Party in Spain.
John Kerry has refused to identify the "international leaders" he says support his election to the presidency, thereby opening the door to speculation that they consist of those who seek an end to President Bush's foreign policy, the central tenet of which is an aggressive prosecution of the War on Terrorism.
It would be unfair to accuse Senator Kerry of being soft on al-Qaeda. But the Spanish disaster shows clearly that unless Kerry comes out forthrightly and serves notice on the terrorists that they have nothing to gain by his election, they will assume that they do, and the result could be a pre-election tragedy here that could dwarf what happened in Madrid.
American administrations of both parties resolutely, if not always effectively, maintained a strong anti-Communist policy during the long decades of the Cold War. If we are not similarly united for the duration of the War on Terrorism, we are asking for trouble.
Veteran GOP media consultant Jay Bryant's regular columns are available at www.theoptimate.com, and his commentaries may be heard on NPR's 'All Things Considered.'
Revisionist horsefeathers. In the left's own mind maybe. As a fact, they defended Hiss at the begining and reviled Reagan at the end, chanting Ho Chi Minh is gonna win in the middle. There was an anti-communist wing of the Democratic party. But it was never the whole party, and it was largely destroyed along with Johnson's presidency in 1968.
We do not survive these things by consensus. We survive them if and only if the people back only the party with the right policy. That is what forces the irresponsible wing out of the other one - or the whole party out of positions of responsibility, if they do not police themselves. The Dean phenomenon was a decision by the national Democratic party in this election that they were not going to take the responsible position. He dragged everyone to his own, irresponsible one. There they remain, and the way our system handles such things is to reject them in the general election in reply.
If the Dems find that anyone calling for appeasement of the terrorists is unelectable, they may build a responsible wing. Right now they do not have one, not that is viable in a national election. (There are individuals like Liberman and Biden who are better than their party on this. But they are not broadly supported for it, by Dems).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.