Arrogance to the Tenth Power

When I decided to look at the right side of the blog world this morning, I expected to find allegations of cowardice and appeasement levied against the voters in Spain. And, like knowing with the same sort of certainty that dead fish will eventually rot and attract flies and provide a fertile ground for maggots, I wasn't surprised.

Some of it is overwrought wretched excess from the usual suspects; some of it is beneath contempt, but the general sense is of an orgy of post hoc ergo propter hoc flatulence.

So I sent an e-mail to my friend, Maria in Barcelona asking her for her thoughts. Maria is probably one of the smartest people I know. She's an attorney with an extensive knowledge of Spanish history and politics, speaks English, Spanish, Catalan, some Gallego and some German and probably other languages I'm unaware of. It's worth noting that having grown up living in Spain through countless years of ETA terrorist acts, she has a healthy contempt for those who engage in acts of terrorism. I remember her telling me about the time an ETA bomb went off either just before or shortly after she had stopped off at her favorite early morning coffee place for a cortado.

She's also very generous, having taken Mércia and me around Barcelona and nearby Sitges when we visited Spain a few years ago and arranged for us to see a soccer game between FC Barcelona and Villarreal at the Nou Camp Stadium, an experience this soccer fan will never forget.

In any event, Maria responded and did so in her typically comprehensive fashion, shedding some light on matters that I was unaware of. Here's the start of what she wrote me:

I was watching TV this afternoon and there was footage showing how the railway service affected by the attack is working as usual since early this morning. It showed a trainful of commuters, some of them with tears in their eyes, some of them with an openly defiant expression on their faces. Some recognised they had felt a tingle in their stomach when boarding the train, but all said they were not going to change their life because of, and give in to, the assassins who had committed the atrocity.

I can assure you that appeasement doesn't come into the equation. Those who think otherwise forget that we have thousands of PP and PSOE councillors, old and young, who are risking their lives on a daily basis in the Basque country, sometimes getting killed for it, precisely because they refuse to appease the ETA thugs.

And they forget a very simple thing: Aznar had huge support for his hardline policy of non-appeasement of the ETA terrorists and their supporters, however, there was discontent about his lap-dog act towards Bush's war on 'global terror' which, wrong or right, was perceived as inefficient and counterproductive. Discontent extended to other pressing domestic issues, he had antagonised practically all other political parties and more than a few regional governments due to his "you-are-with-me-or-against-me" attitude, his arrogance and his intolerance. However, there was a degree of apathy in the socialist camp, as Rodríguez Zapatero was thought not to have enough experience just yet.

Here's the clincher paragraph (I have added emphasis in spots):

So, the PP knew that their antiterrorist policy (against ETA) was one of its main winning cards, and they didn't hesitate to blatantly manipulate the 11-M attack, suppressing information, calling people to demonstrate against ETA, knowing all the while that the Antiterrorist Information Brigade had as good as discarded ETA authorship a few hours after the attack. The antiterrorist police heads even threatened to resign at the madness of it all, and this was leaked to the opposition and the press. And all the while the state TVE showing documentaries about ETA activities right until late Saturday night, on the eve of the election, and failing to report live on Minister Acebes informing about the Al-Q line of investigation which he had been forced to acknowledge - forced by his own angered police heads and by the media which had all the information but was withholding it just long enough for the Minister to do the decent thing. This heartless manipulation of the dead for political gain clinched it - it was the last straw, it galvanised a portion of apathetic socialist voters who would have otherwise abstained, galvanised first-time voters, and galvanised Izquierda Unida voters (which include communists) who opted for heaping their vote on the PSOE for a higher chance of defeating Aznar (IU lost 5 seats because of that). In Spain, government change has always been heralded by a higher participation of voters. In a nutshell, many Spaniards felt badly abused, and acted accordingly. So, yes, 11-M influenced the vote, but not because we are overcome by fear, or because we think that we can avert further attacks, but because we will only put up with so much lying and manipulation, and especially not when it is the dead and their families that are being heartlessly and shamelessly manipulated.

Does that last italicized comment sound familiar?

In any case, it is a special type of odious arrogance that will accuse an entire nation of being cowards simply from the comfort of your keyboard in San Diego because they decide to exercise their rights as citizens in a democracy, the same rights that you claim that we are fighting for in Iraq.

I trust Maria's perspective on this. Consider the timeline: the public seem to have vigorously turned against the PP late Saturday when it seemed that the news regarding the government suppression of the links to Al Qaeda was coming out. Enough of the Spanish public, as Maria notes were fed up with the lies. With any luck, come November, the American public will be equally fed up.

Comments

[JR]

You see. You can expect such kind of thoughts from who don't know anything about Spain and its politics, just guided with anger and warmongering.

But this man's one, living in Barcelona for years and being an expert in Spanish politics, has no reason.

As a Spaniard I feel double pain: for being a victim of barbarian terrorism and being target of such heartless insults.

:-(

[JR]

But, of course, I'm still proud to be Spanish and to have booted a lier from office.

Democracy has won.

[Michael J. Totten]

Like I said, Randy, getting rid of Aznar is not appeasement. Pulling out of Iraq four days after a huge attack is.

"Bombs that fall in Iraq explode in Madrid." That was the slogan. So the theory goes that if they get rid of the "bombs" (ie, peacekeepers) in Iraq, there won't be any more terrorism in Spain.

Give your enemy what you think he wants and he will leave you alone. That is what appeasement is.

If you think what Spain did is something else, I'd have to ask what your definition of appeasement is.

But hey, maybe the new prime minister will find an excuse to stay on. That would be nice. If so, I'll drop the appeasement charge and chalk it up to politics instead.

[Michael J. Totten]

Let me ask you this, Randy.

Do you think it is wise for Spain to withdraw from Iraq? If yes, do you think it would be wise for other countries to also withdraw?

(I'm not asking if you think Spain has the right to do so. Of course Spain has the right. That goes without saying.)

[Paul]

Michael-

Why are you assuming that IRAQ is Spain's enemy?

Why can't it just be a radical Islamist terrorist group COMPLETELY UNAFFILIATED from Iraqi national interests?

PM Zapatero has CLEARLY said he intends to make terrorism his #1 priority. And he apparently feels that staying in Iraq would not help with this objective.

Who are you to judge his wisdom and that of the citizenry that voted for him? Don't you think they know how important this all is?

[Randy Paul]

Michael,

Zapatero has left the door open to keep the troops in under a UN mandate and I'm all for that, although I would imagine you are not. It is on that basis I would favor keeping them in and only on that basis do I think that Spain should keep them in.

The war was started on what certainly appears to be false pretenses. 92% of the Spanish population opposed the war. The PP is now paying the consequences for that and for the most recent bit of deceit they engaged in.

In a democracy when the overwhelming majority of the public opposes a policy and the government implements it anyway, if the opposition wins, then one could certainly expect the opposition to reverse the policy. To call it appeasement, even under the present circumstances is arrogant. in my opinion and Mr. den Beste's characterization of the population of an entire nation was disgusting.

It's late and I'll have more tomorrow.

[Javier]

A few moments after I began hearing about the ruling government's knee-jerk need to blame ETA right after the attack without any need to do so, I told my wife that was going to bite them in the ass, particularly since it was even odds that it could be terrorist other than ETA. My wife, an agertinian, told me something instructive that is worth keeping in mind: the thread holding a government's credibility on the eyes of the public is much tenous outside the US--countries that don't have the centuries-old history of constitutional rule and checks on power and the strongest of news media that we have. That thread breaks easier in other countries, particularly countries with recent histories of dirty corrupt governments like Spain, so its no surprise that the Spanish people (and remember, up to the 3-11 attacks, the election was within the margin of error, so in the end, blaming the entire Spanish nation for the acts of the 3-5% who switched their vote as a result of the damaged credibility of the ruling government is not necessarily appeasement) reacted the way they did.

As for Spaniards who have posted here feeling insulted and hurt about some of the reaction here (including you Randy), I think that is a little overwrought. Obviously, a lot of people are reacting emotionally to this, and I think it would help if we all chilled out a bit on both sides. There's a lot at stake here and we are going to need each other in other to defeat the threat both countries face. Remember, Osama and his ilk don't talk about the tragedy of Andalusia because its fun. Their endgoal is to gain it back.

I wanted to add another comment in response to your friend whose reply you posted: why does she assume that Aznar's support for the Iraq war is just a lap dog act and not his deeply held convictions?

[Michael J. Totten]

Paul: Who are you to judge his wisdom and that of the citizenry that voted for him?

Who am I to argue with Spain? Who are you to argue with me? Just a person with an opinion, like me I guess.

Randy: To call it appeasement, even under the present circumstances is arrogant.

I'm not sure arrogant is the word you're looking for, and so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

My point is that the timing is terrible. It looks like terror was rewarded. I guarantee you Al Qaeda sees it that way. That's how they characterized our pullout from Somalia. I understand exactly what you mean about Spanish democracy, but Al Qaeda thugs don't see the world the way you and I do.

Besides, just because a decision was made democratically doesn't mean it was a wise decision. Democracies make mistakes. The good thing about democracies is that they are open to criticism, reflection, and correction. So, yes, Spain has the right to do what it did, and I have the right to say that I think it was a mistake, even if I'm not Spanish. It's not like they never criticize us.

[John in Tokyo]

The PP had a steady lead in the polls before the attacks, in spite of its unpopular stance on the WOT.

Al-Qaida affiliates (it appears) killed 200 subway riders and pedestrians in Madrid. 3 days later, there is a big election upset.

Sorry to say, but for the rest of the world, especially in the Islamic terrorists eyes, the terrorists altered the election and produced an outcome favorable to them.

Spaniards may talk all they want about other issues like Aznar's public comments in the aftermath. But the rest of the world probably wont see anything other than the big picture and in a few months all that "he said, she said" political wrangling in the confusion of the attack and the looming election (done on both sides it seems, despite the ban on politicing on the day before the election).

Besides, I've read several comments from Spaniards (and Catalans) over at Iberiannotes saying the opposite of what your friend Maria writes. They claim that the attack galvanized leftist and anti-war opposition to Aznar's (and Rajoy's) general position, regardless of what was said and done (they were bragging about this as they agreed whole-heartedly).

[Elrod]

Nice thread on this topic. One of the best on the web so far.

Michael,
I agree that timing is key. Had the Spanish people long rejected the PP over Iraq then the election would merely be a reflection of that sentiment. The troubling part is that the public seemed to turn in response to a terrorist attack. Certainly al Qaeda will see it that way. They'll use it as a recruiting tool and they'll try to do it again, for sure.

However, I'm not sure this explains the "shocking" turnabout. Nor does it seem to be appeasement in the minds of Spaniards. If we look at the shift in the electorate between the last poll and the election the shift is not that great. And, the explanation may in fact be the surge in first-time voters. Apparently 2 million voters - many of them young - went to the polls for the first time. Polls have a way of missing this sort of phenomenon. It's certainly happened in the US before. So imagine the bombing having never occurred it's still very possible that Zapatero could have won, and none of us would be talking about appeasement. It's possible the turnout was related to the bombing but the result was actually foregone - even if the pollsters didn't pick it up. What's more, if some voters were angry at a perceived cover-up then it is certainly their right to take it out on the government. Al Qaeda's interpretation of that vote is separate from the vote itself. I know I won't vote for a candidate based on what al Qaeda thinks, though i do plan to vote for a candidate based on what I think they will do about al Qaeda - and there is a big difference. If the Spaniards voted en masse for Zapatero because they thought that now Osama would leave them alone then they are appeasing, as you've correctly said. But if they had other motives - longheld opposition to the Iraq war, anger at the ETA comments, anger at Aznar's style, etc. - then it is incorrect to call them appeasers.

[John in Tokyo]

Do you think that Aznar could have prevented his parties defeat by acting differently in the 2 days after the bombing and before the election (before the legally imposed ban on campaigning immediately before the election)?

Ask your friend if she and many of her countrymen would have voted PP if only they had been slower to jump to conclusions (although, I believe they never made any public "conclusions," but rather discussed likelihoods).

[elrod]

"Do you think that Aznar could have prevented his parties defeat by acting differently in the 2 days after the bombing and before the election (before the legally imposed ban on campaigning immediately before the election)?"

YES!!! I really believe that Aznar could have played his hand very differently. Once the first evidence of al Qaeda came in he could have said, "Islamic terrorists are likely to blame for this atrocity. Why did they do this? Because they want to take all of Spain for themselves. Because they want to destroy Western civilization. Because they want to destroy democracy and liberty. I understand some believe that Spain's active support of the Coaliation in Iraq somehow invited the terrorists to strike in our homeland. To them I say: Al Qaeda makes no distinction between those inside and outside the coalition. Al Qaeda aims to attack France and Germany just as it aims to attack Great Britain and the United States, just as it brutally attacked Spain. We are ALL in this war on terror together and we must vow to continue our efforts to make sure that terrorism never succeeds." A speech like that might have galvanized the Spanish population to the PP. He would dispense with the appeasers and would look in control of the situation. People might rally to him instead of questioning his judgment and leadership in a time of crisis. That would have made a difference, in my opinion.

[Randy Paul]

Michael,

To call people cowards and appeasers who have just suffered the worst terrorist act in their history and who have voted the government out of office whose policies, opposed by the overwhelming majority of its citizens may have led to that terrorist act is arrogant.

Consider these facts, Michael: Paul Wolfowitz and others in the administration have stated that one of the goals of the Iraq War was to find a way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia. One of Al Qaeda's beefs with the US was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. After 241 US marines and after the US Embassy were bombed in terrorist attacks in Beirut, the US cleared out of Lebanon. After the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia took place, the US pulled its troops out of Somalia. Would you call these incidents appeasement? I wouldn't. Perhaps you should consider the glass house you're in here, Michael.

John in Tokyo:

I'd take what Maria said to the bank. She's not an ideologue. I can't say the same about John (who I like) at Iberian Notes.

[xavier]

Randy:
At my blog, I sarcastically ended my blog post by asking when can we expect the boycotts of Spanish products and tourism.
What realy irkes me is how the sympathy within the blogopshere went from sympathetic to hostile in 72 hours following the election results. Like a pit bull biting someone without warning

xavier

[Brian Greene]

I think there are two stories here, and the way in which they are playing off each other is really confusing the discussion.

First, we have the way in which the Spanish government mishandled the response to the attack. They immediately blamed ETA, were slow in releasing information, and kept with the ETA claim even after it became apparent that Islamists were involved. I think that at least SOME of the Spaniards switched their vote purely based on disgust at the response.

Second, we have the fact that a major terrorist attack likely altered the outcome of a major European election. To me, this is a really bad sign.

Randy, I think I agree with you in your defense of the Spanish people. However, I can't be but VERY concerned that the effects of this tragedy are a strong encouragement for further terrorist attacks. Regarding your Saudi Arabia argument - I think you are confusing appeasement with something very different. The Wolfowitz strategy flowed from the idea that getting out of Saudi Arabia is part of a long-term plan for the democratization of the middle east and in restoring the legitimacy of U.S. foreign policy in the region. This would be done by immediate removal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia a gradual withdrawal of support of the Saudi government and the democratization of Iraq (hopefully). Taking troops out of Saudi Arabia to engage them in Iraq doesn't sound like appeasement to me, it sounds like engagement. Spain withdrawing troops when the war in Iraq is over and casualties are diminishing DOES sound like appeasement, and I believe, sends the wrong message that European countries will change their policy if only bullied by the terrorists.

[Randy Paul]

Here's a point to consider: did the PSOE promise before the bombings that they would pull Spanish troops out of Iraq if they won? If so, how is their sticking to their word appeasement?

[Michael J. Totten]

Randy: After 241 US marines and after the US Embassy were bombed in terrorist attacks in Beirut, the US cleared out of Lebanon. After the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia took place, the US pulled its troops out of Somalia. Would you call these incidents appeasement? I wouldn't.

Yes, and I said so on my blog last night.

I'm not being holier-than-thou (or holier than Spain, I should say).

[javier]

Randy,

I think you made Michael's point for him regarding the US pullout from Lebannon, Somalia, Aden, etc. I'm not speaking for Michael here, but a hell of a lot of Americans do think that those pull outs were in fact American appeasements, which contributed to the growth, pressence and success of islamic terrorist groups. The fact of the matter is that al-Qaida THINKS the US pulled out as a result of our cowardice, and that perception is more important than the underlying facts behind the pullouts.

[Michael J. Totten]

Bin Laden said we are a paper-tiger who runs froma fight because of those incidents, Randy. His propaganda tapes, before the overthrow of the Taliban, said we are such cowards that we should be easier to destroy than the Soviet Union was.

[Randy Paul]

Let me pose this question again, then, Michael: According to what I have been able to find, the PSOE did in fact promised before the bombings to withdraw troops from Iraq if they won. If that is the case, why is their keeping to this promise appeasement? I think that the argument might be valid if they had said they would not withdraw the troops, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[Michael J. Totten]

Randy: If that is the case, why is their keeping to this promise appeasement?

Because of the timing. It looks like weakness. You have to understand how Al Qaeda thinks and how THEY will interpret this. It doesn't really matter what you, I, or the average Spaniard thinks of it.

Al Qaeda thinks Westerners run from a fight, that all you have to do is kill a few and and an entire nation will bend to their will. That's what they say in their recruitment propaganda. This is a big boon for them.

[Spencer]

Michael, it's obvious Al Qaeda wants nothing more than to get the western world into a "religious war" that probably can't be won. Bin Laden loves it when "coalition forces" bomb Muslim cities because it galvanizes the Muslim world against the West. Then Al Jazeera can stream footage of dead women and children, destroyed mosques, more Muslim humiliation to rally his followers and those on the fence to his cause. The "paper tiger" taunts were obvious attempts to humiliate the West into overreacting (or just acting imprudently, e.g. Iraq), and Bush and cohorts were more than happy to comply. The question to ask is whether this sort of reaction makes us any safer in the long run. The electorate in Spain said "no" on Sunday.

[Randy Paul]

Michale,

That may be, but consider what Zapatero said regarding terrorism: that it would be his greatest priority. He also said that he would keep the troops there under UN authorty. That is hardly appeasement.

There is much more to fighting terrorism than sending army's around the world. If all attempts to prosecute terrorists by Spain, if all intelligence on terrorist activities stops, then you might have an argument for appeasement. If, however, you insist on viewing the issue solely through the military prism and expect others to view it the same way and accuse them of appeasement when they don't, then don't be surprised when they regard your position as being arrogant.

Cooperation isn't dictation.

[Jon JUzlak]

As far as the US withdrawal from lebanon after the attack on marines, it seems to have worked. It got us out of a fratricidal battle. Hezbollah has not subsequently attacked the US. It was a good strategy to get us out of a battle that we had no business being involved in in the first place. Otherwise, we would have been stuck in Lebanon forever.

There are numerous examples of countries retreating or pulling out without bringing about the catastrophic scenarios predicted. The US pulled out of Vietnam -- and while Vietnam did fall, the so-called dominao theory never came about. Britain pulled out of half a dozen colonies (India, Kenya, Palestine), some in response to terrorist activities (Mau Mau in Kenya, Irgun/Stern Gang in Palenstine). France pulled out of Algeria. And so on ..

The war in Iraq was a disasterous mistake and detracted from the real enemy -- Al Qaeda. I think the US may be in Iraq for at least a decade. Spain's actions were absolutely in keeping with its own national interest -- it has a pressing reason to fight Al Qaeda, but none to get involved in Iraq.

Historically, there are numerous examples of countries withdrawing from wars or the like

[Michael J. Totten]

Funny how anti-war liberals wanted more allies in Iraq, and now they think it's just hunky dory when our allies ditch their posts.

Do you think Spain was wise to pull out? If so, should other countries pull out too? If not, why not?

Since most people on the left don't seem to know appeasement when they see it, and since they think it's fine and dandy to run away from a fight and abandon peace-keeping missions, I'm more likely than ever to vote against John Kerry.

It's true, Randy, that anti-terrorism requires more than just the use of military force. It also requires freedom, secular education, and political liberalization in the Middle East. But the left seems to hate the use of the military, and has turned almost completely against the causes of anti-fascism and nation-building. Two cheers for Spain withdrawing the troops, two boos for me for wanting to rebuild Iraq with allied support.

Romani Prodi said yesterday that the use of force against terrorists is an obvious failure. Dialogue is nice, but I don't see Al Qaeda at a negotiating table anywhere. Islamofascists are low-level genocidal killers. They need a bullet in the face, not understanding and hugs. Diplomacy won't work. They have no diplomats to talk to.

Negotiation might work for tin-pot thugs like Gaddafi in Libya, but it doesn't work with totalitarian killers like Saddam Hussein. Over a decade of negotiations and sanctions produced exactly zero positive results. Blowing up his palaces and putting boots on the ground was a lot more effective, as were the no-fly zones (there's that military again) that protected Iraqi Kurdistan.

[Randy Paul]

Michael, you have consistently ignored this fact, so I will let you read it for yourself:

While he sounded definitive in parts of his interview, at others Zapatero repeated a previous campaign pledge to pull out troops if the United Nations does not take charge by mid-year.

"If there is no new developments, the soldiers will return on July 1," he said, adding he did not expect any new developments on a U.N. takeover.

At another point, however, Zapatero said no precise pullout plan would be set until he was in power and without wide political consultation.

There is a possibility for Spanish troops to remain in Iraq, just as there is a possibility for more international support to develop. It will take some pride-swallowing on the part of the Bush administration so I doubt if it will happen.

As for this: "But the left seems to hate the use of the military, and has turned almost completely against the causes of anti-fascism and nation-building," keep making your sweeping generalizations if it makes you happy or gives you a sense of contentment, but know this: the primary cause for the war was built on a mountain of lies, some of which are still being perpetrated by the president as well; there was no need for a rush to war, but the president hyped the reasons and ratcheted up the fear. If you are comfortable with the results despite the mendacity, despite the deceit, despite the dishonesty, then you forfeit your right to the truth. That's too high a price for me to pay.

For what it's worth, by the way, among the places where support for the Bush administration and the Iraq War is the weakest is New York City, the place hardest hit by the 9/11 attacks. I don't think we or the Spaniards need a lecture from anyone on how horrible terrorism is.

[JR]

"For what it's worth, by the way, among the places where support for the Bush administration and the Iraq War is the weakest is New York City, the place hardest hit by the 9/11 attacks. I don't think we or the Spaniards need a lecture from anyone on how horrible terrorism is."

Bingo!

How can anybody call coward or appeaser a country wich has been suffering 30 years of continous terrorism?

BTW, does he also consider an act of cowardice the retreatment from Saudi Arabia?

[John in Tokyo]

John from Iberian Notes is an ideologue but it was in his Comments Section where Spaniards, not John, contradicted your friend Maria, saying that they wanted to punish Aznar for joining the coalition, the ETA accusations be dammed - the swing voters deciding this after the bombing. I've seen news reports with plenty of protestors and PSOE supporters claiming the same thing. Like Aznar, they were laying blame (on Al-Qaida) long before the clues emerged. There were good reasons to suspect ETA (and still are) and the government publicly stated that all lines of investigation were open. So selectively targeting Aznar for outrage is just partisan spin - part of the ideological rostat test.

Spencer's above claim that al-Qaida wants the West to invade Muslim countries is partially correct. Yes, they want to draw us into a Religious/Civilizational conflict. However, I'm pretty sure that losing the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq wasn't part of their plan (to the extent that they had one). They didn't want Afghans and Iraqis to reject the Taliban and Saddam in favor of new moderate democratic (we hope) governments.

Randy thinks the Spanish troops might stay and help build these moderate democratic governments if the U.N. is put in charge. I've read this line of reasoning elsewhere. I just have to scratch my head.

So, the rebuilding of Iraq and installation of democracy might be an acceptable cause afterall. The important part is not letting the Jihadis sabotage Iraq's future, but making sure Kofi Annan and Romano Prodi are in charge instead of George Bush. This in spite of all recent evidence that neither the Spanish, nor the U.N. is willing to stand up to the people who planted the bombs that killed U.N. officials, Shiite pilgrims and Madrileno commuters. Not to mention Turks, Morroccans, Tunisians, Australians and Indonesians (long before Iraq), New Yorkers, etc.

Yes, we must put the U.N. and the old Europeans in charge of building Iraqi democracy because they opposed it's creation in the first place, contribute little to nothing to it now, and wont take any risks in the future - their stake in this is zero so naturally they should be in charge. How come Bush won't swallow his cowboy pride and beg them to take over?! Whatta dummy.

[Michael J. Totten]

What John in Tokyo said.

The UN is not going to be in charge of Iraq. Zapatero knows this as much as anyone else knows it. And "pride" has nothing to do with it.

If I thought the UN had any chance of doing a good job, I'd be all for it. Sadly, there is no evidence, and plenty of anti-evidence, that the UN can pull this off.

Kofi Annan recently said that democracy should not be "imposed" in Iraq. He needs to stay the hell away from that poor country.

[Randy Paul]

John,

Read this article in today's New York Times and consider these points:

But interviews with scores of Spaniards of both parties indicated that a number of things happened after the attacks that shifted the balance to the Socialists. Voters flooded the polls on Sunday in record numbers, especially young people who had not planned to vote. In interviews, they said they did so not so much out of fear of terror as out of anger against a government they saw as increasingly authoritarian, arrogant and stubborn. The government, they said, mishandled the crisis in the emotional days after the attacks.

Voters said they were enraged not only by the government's insistence that the Basque separatist group ETA was responsible, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, but they also resented its clumsy attempts to quell antigovernment sentiment.

For example, the main television channel TVE, which is state-owned, showed scant and selective scenes of antigovernment demonstrations on Saturday night, just as it ran very little coverage of the large demonstrations against the war in Iraq last year. It also suddenly changed its regular programming to air a documentary on the horrors of ETA.

That was the last straw for some Spaniards, who said it evoked the nightmare of censorship during the Franco dictatorship little more than a quarter of a century ago.

Prime Minister José María Aznar personally called the top editors of Spain's major dailies twice on the day of the attacks. In the first round of calls, Mr. Aznar said he was convinced that ETA was responsible.

"He said, `It was ETA, Antonio, don't doubt it in the least,' " said Antonio Franco, editor in chief of the Barcelona-based El Periódico de Catalunya, in an interview.

Mr. Franco's newspaper published a special edition based on Mr. Aznar's call, then Mr. Franco published an editorial rectifying the mistake as new information came to light. "It was shameful to me that the whole world was taking precautions and debating about Al Qaeda except in Spain, where the attack occurred," he said.

At the Spanish news agency EFE, Alfonso Bauluz, a correspondent and member of the agency's union, said, "I received information from my colleagues, who have good sources, about the Al Qaeda hypothesis, but the editor said we don't want that, don't pay attention. On Saturday, the editor wrote a story with his own byline saying all possibilities of an Al Qaeda connection were thrown out."

During Mr. Aznar's second call that evening, he acknowledged that other avenues were being investigated, but discounted them, Mr. Franco said.

That certainly vindicates Maria's arguments.

Michael,

Compare father and son in terms of how they handled Iraq. One sent his SOS around the world slowly, gradually and effectively building support for a war based on facts. The other cobbled together evidence from exiles led by a convicted felon (albeit convicted in Jordan) who hadn't been to Iraq in more than forty years, put together "evidence" which was not supported by the facts and rather than garner more support for his position or letting the inspectors do their job, rushed headlong into a war, alienating most of his allies and drawing terrorists into Iraq. If you support a policy built on lies, you forfeit the right to truth.

As for the WOT, most people I know here in New York supported action against the Taliban as did I. We were hit the hardest on 9/11 and most of us have opposed the war in Iraq. Most of us also don't feel any safer now than we did on September 12, 2001.

[Randy Paul]

Regarding the UN Michael, I wouldn't want you to take my word for it, so consider this from today's Los Angeles Times:

An official of the Dutch Embassy in Washington said later that his country might not make its decision on troops for several months, and emphasized that the government's choice would depend in part on whether the U.N. was given an expanded role in Iraq.

"In this process, what is important is the role of the United Nations," the official said.

The Bush administration has been ambivalent about sharing authority with the United Nations. But in recent days, as the bloody bombings in Madrid have reminded many Europeans of their dislike of the Iraq war, U.S. officials have realized that they need the United Nations' imprimatur to maintain support from governments.

One U.S. official said the Bush administration was planning a broad effort involving the U.N. to relieve the pressure on governments that have been taking heat because of their military participation.

"That's one area where we're hoping to get progress that would make people feel under less pressure," the official said.

In Los Angeles on Tuesday, a European Union official also stressed the importance of working out such a resolution.

Pat Cox, the president of the European Parliament, noted that Spanish Prime Minister-designate Zapatero had made it clear that he could keep Spanish troops in Iraq if the United Nations was given a new role.

Diplomats said British and American officials have begun trying to move ahead quickly with such a U.N. resolution.

Whether it happens, who knows, but the Bush administration seems to be moving in that direction.