The train in Spain caused pain and many slain.
My initial reaction to the terrorist attack in Madrid was one of sorrow and solidarity with the Spanish people. That has diminished somewhat and I am not particularly proud of that. I'm not particularly proud of the Spaniards either. We can sympathize with the families of the victims like we did with those in NYC and DC. I took it to heart after September 11, 2001 when it was said that we are all New Yorkers now. I felt it a little bit after March 11, 2004 that we are all Madridians or whatever they are called. Then came the Spanish national election on Sunday and all that goodwill went straight down the tocador for me. All indications in pre-election polls were that Aznar's centrist-right Popular Party would retain control of the government. Then the trains went boom and spines fell out of the electorate. The Socialists swept into power and the word was given to despicable people around the world that they can change the outcome of elections through terrorism. (From what I have heard from news analysis, the Socialist Party in Spain is centrist-left. Perhaps it is not as bad as it appears, but any party called socialist just sounds bad.) I should say at the outset that what I know about Spanish politics could fit into a flea's backpack. I am speaking only about the symbolism of the aftermath. For all I know the polls were wrong and Zapatero's Socialist Party would have won anyway. A majority of the population was against Aznar's support of the war in Iraq. Now Zapatero is babbling on about withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq and calling the war a disaster. I'm not sure what his definition of disaster is. The war went rather well and despite occasional attacks on troops the rebuilding effort is going well too.
There must be a distinction made between the Iraq war and a broader struggle against terrorism. Spain has been a key supporting ally when it comes to discovering and capturing prospective Islamic terrorists. Even the wimps in France have been important in this effort. I believe Spain will continue in this fight and this should not to be dismissed. But when it comes to taking the fight to them, they seem to be taking their ball and going home. If we take the shoemaker's word as that of the Spanish people (zapatero is Spanish for shoemaker), we can see a clear difference between America and Spain and probably Western Europe as a whole. We had roughly three thousand citizens slaughtered and we got our backs up. They had three hundred of theirs murdered and they are cutting and running. At least that is the message sent. Do they think that they were attacked because of their support of the U.S.? What they fail to understand is that they are a target anyway. This radical militant Islamic war is not against the United States but against the entirety of Western civilization. What country will be next? The U.K. looks to be a prime candidate for the next big thing. And let's not forget that we have an election coming up. It might be that the evil-doers realize that we will not roll over and play Neville Chamberlain. We struck back last time. But Europe is prime for appeasement and the U.K. is a high-profile enemy. I'd be sweating bullets if I lived in London right now. Fortunately they don't have elections coming up until 2006. Australia will be holding elections in November. Uh-oh! At least the Aussies look like they don't run from a fight either. They took a serious hit in the bombing in Bali and did not back down. We'll have to see how the terrorists consider their resolve. Like in Spain, many Australians opposed their government's involvement in Iraq. They might be ripe for another hit. I hope not. But Spain took their punch and ran away crying. It seems to me that the people died on that train died in vain. Ironically, The Clash had a song called "Train In Vain" in which the question is asked: Did you stand by me? The answer from Spain seems to be the same as in the song. No, not at all.
And another thing...
Today we are seeing the first round of testimony of the September 11 Commission. Let the blame game begin! I'll tell you exactly what we're going to get out of this charade and it isn't anything constructive. We will have Bill Clinton and members of his administration covering their collective ass and protecting whatever legacy that president ever had. They will claim that they did everything they could in the fight against terrorism and that they tried to tell the new Bush Administration about the impending threat but they weren't listening. Then we'll hear from President Bush and members of his team who will say that they were completely surprised and that the previous administration should have done more. And there will be members of Congress from both parties pointing fingers at the other side and blaming everything on them. This whole thing is a complete mistake, at least now. I don't have any problem with investigating what signals were given and why they were not picked up and the dots put together by the appropriate intelligence agencies. But congressional panels and commissions are nothing but grandstanding. Being an election year makes this even more of a volatile political tool. This should be one thing that is a non-partisan investigation. But that will never happen. The hatred is too strong on the left. This is the one issue they think they can beat Bush over the head with and destroy his credibility. Remember, hindsight is always 20/20. I don't think either Clinton or Bush knew what was going to happen. But there were several ominous precursors throughout the 1990's that could have been better handled. What if we had treated those previous attacks as part of a war against us instead of a law enforcement issue? Would the towers still be standing? I guess we'll never know.
Then there is the book by Richard Clarke that is causing such a ruckus. Oh the haters are going to line up and say "See? The whole Iraq war was a fait accompli. Bush wanted to attack Iraq from the day he entered office and September 11 was just an excuse." It just naturally fits into their perception of the truth. As a matter of disclosure, I have not read the book and I did not watch the softball 60 Minutes interview. I have heard much of the discussion about both the book and the interview. It just sounds like someone after the fact, with perfect 20/20 hindsight, self-servingly shouting "See? No one listened to me. I told them this would happen." This morning I heard comments on the radio from a man with whom I usually disagree politically who has read the book. He said that much of the book points out intelligence failures in different administrations. This we already knew. He is critical of both the Clinton and Bush lack of focus on the terrorism threats. And there was a press pool interview with Mr. Clarke in 2002 in which he actually explains that Bush and his advisors were stepping up the effort against terrorism from what is was under Clinton, which wasn't much more than just having meetings. But what part of his book is being trumpeted by the media? That Bush was so focused on Iraq that he dropped the ball on Al-Qaeda. Something just isn't right here? He is being hailed as a conscientious whistle-blower and that the Bush Administration and the great "right-wing conspiracy" is trying to discredit him for breaking the code of silence. There is probably as much if not more blame for dropping the ball and not taking aggressive action that can be addressed at the Clinton team. No sufficient response to various attacks in the 1990's. Those lauding Clarke as a Bush-attacker better be able to handle the criticism of their guy. And what happened to people who criticized the Clinton Administration? They were personally destroyed, discredited and discounted as kooks, extremists or Clinton haters. It seems now that the footwear has been removed from one lower extremity and placed on the opposite side and the ABBA's don't like the fit.
And another thing...