the outcome may be seen by some as a win for the terrorists

Hey Gail, what do you think the terrorists think?

We disagree

If the NYT is now claiming psychic powers, why can't they do better at predicting NFL scores or, better, print stock closes in the morning?

Anyway, the Times doesn't bother to tell us why the polls showing the PP ahead on Thursday were wrong. But that's cause it's MAGIC.

The peaceful nations of the world are all in this together, and they must work as partners.

France and China, peaceful countries working together in a coalition to defeat terrorism.

So, let me see if I understand this:

Al-Qaeda attacked Spain. Spain is withdrawing from Iraq because that occupation is not harming Al-Qaeda.

Now, either AQ attacked Spain to force them out of Iraq - in which case, that action presumably harming AQ - or AQ attacked Spain for centuries-old reasons - in which case appeasing them is pointless.

Conclusion: the Spanish swing vote is deeply delusional. They blame the US for these bombings.

What I'm really wondering: who will the British blame when the Underground is bombed in a few months - the US, AQ, or Spain?

Mike:

The Irish

Who's our delusional swing vote going to blame when Penn Station goes supercritical on Halloween?

The sun is rumored to rise in the East. We disagree.

The moon is believed to circle around the Earth. We disagree.

The NYT is said to be a paper of outstanding quality. I strongly disagree.

The Washington Post, on the other hand, gets it. This paragraph concludes its lead editorial today:

"The danger is that Europe's reaction to a war that has now reached its soil will be retreat and appeasement rather than strengthened resolve. "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," European Commission President Romano Prodi said yesterday. Should such sentiments prevail, the next U.S. administration -- whether led by President Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry -- may have no alternative to unilateralism."

"Nor was the U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam a win for the Communists."

As I think I pointed out in another comment, Orrin, this statement would have been literally true had Congress not caved in 1975 and denied the Ford Administration the ability to conduct the airstrikes that would have stopped the NVA offensive cold.

NPR had a Euro-pundit on this morning to answer the question "did Al-Quaeda decide the election in Spain?". He trotted out the same lie, that it was a repudiation of the Aznar administration's position on the Iraq war, not a repudiation of the war on terror. He did not explain why, if this is the case, that Aznar's party was favored to win just prior to the bombings. Neither was he asked to explain.

Robert--

Our local paper did, of course, tow the Party line.

What the Times or NPR doesn't understand is doesn't matter what they think caused the outcome of the Spanish election, it matters what the terrorists think caused the outcome of the Spanish election, and odds are they didn't click on the editorial link of the Times website this morning (registration required), read Ms. Collins' editorial and say to themselves "Damn, we really didn't influence the outcome. I guess there's no reason to try the same tactic in (name your coalition country) before their next election."

Actually, I think in their hearts the Times' editorial board knows that the bombings turned the election, but since the result put the party the Times was hoping would win into power, they're feeling a little slimey about the implications of their political hopes being on the same wavelength as al Qaida's. Today's editoral was more of a mental exercise designed to absolve themselves of being on the same side of the argument as the terrorists, and good practice for the fall, just in case they have to trot the same argument out again if al Qaida tries to influence the U.S. election via terror bombings or some other form of attack.

The problem is Spain, needs a John Ashcroft, and
a Patriot Act. There are many echoes of 9-11 and
the original WTC bombing's missed dots. The im
prisoned cell leader Yarkas/Rachman; the failure
to track another cell leader, who had appeared in
connection to other events; (Zougam/ Al Midhar; who had received CIA attention, due to the Jan 2000 meeting in Malaysia, and NSA intercepts from
Yemen (Acoording to Kaplan at US News) yet the
FBI/CIA/NSA cooperation was spotty at best; and
has been pointed out; they could not yet charge
with a crime. Instead, the Spanish electorate,
threw the baby in the sauce pan, and now is rewarding the ALQuedas, ETA and everyone else;
because of course, Iraq had no connection to
Al Queda, right