The first answer is; no one can be sure until the evidence is in. The second one; no one can be told until the votes are in.
Aznar’s government seemed to point out the culprits of the Madrid bombings last Thursday morning with an unseemly haste; ETA had done it and would be punished. The Justice minister expressed no doubt at all, even in what must have been appalling confusion in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. Aznar himself was careful not to name names, but clearly inferred that ETA was responsible. Even today, election day, government ministers are sticking to the party line. Ana Palacio, minister for foreign affairs, is still saying ETA is the ‘strong suspect’. Though, in a statement probably meant to clear the way for a future one blaming Al Qaeda, she does allow that ETA could have cooperated with Al Qaeda, as anything is possible in the dark world of terrorism. Meanwhile, rumours swirl around Spain by email and text message that the security and intelligence services have no doubt that Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda alone, is responsible.
What is going on? An election, and one that may not give the right an overall majority. Here is Aznar’s calculation. If the bombings were done by Al Qaeda, the 90% of the Spanish population that opposed the war in Iraq will feel that Aznar brought it on them and vote for the opposition. (rightly or wrongly, but it’s a fair calculation.) If the bombings were done by ETA, it’s a death blow to the organisation that will help rally many undecided voters to the rightist governing party.
In this situation, the decent thing to do is say we just don’t know who did it. The smart thing to do, absent proof or knowledge, is to blame ETA. Although a reaction to the government’s unfounded certainty has gathering pace in the last 24 hours, it is probably too late to affect the election. The government has the upper hand and the opposition is powerless to resist. Suspending campaigning helps the government - ministers must still make public statements and in doing so effectively campaign for the government by blaiming ETA.
The opposition are reduced to expressing the country’s pain, but moves to challenge the reigning view on blame will be seen as politicising the national grief. Today, already, the government has condemned that a protest about the clampdown on information about the culprits is contrary to the suspension of the political campaign. The opposition is hamstrung, and it knows it. And in the moment of grief, it’s not even the most important thing;
Today’s Observer reports:
“Socialist leader José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is reported to have told his party to avoid any debate on ‘a cover-up’ while the dead are being buried and some of the 266 in hospital are still fighting for their lives.
One senior Socialist said: ‘I have been biting my tongue all day in the face of such lies and deceit while there are 200 dead people.’ “
The only decent thing to do in the face of cynical manipulation is to let it pass.
We still don’t know who is responsible for the bombing. It could indeed have been ETA. But actions speak louder than words. The London Tube is on high alert, and the Paris Metro is plastered with notices to report suspicious packages and the like. Outside of Spain, nobody seems to have been fooled.
inferred or implied?
Not needing to be decent myself, how long I ask could Aznar survive in office IF it is shown that he has used the truth of the carnage for his own electoral purposes? It would amount to the most damning denunciation of his government’s character. It is tempting to believe that there is nothing in it, as the charge is potentially so ruinous that only the most stupid miscalculation could have lead to it.
As I wrote elsewhere, there were good reasons to suspect ETA. The titadyne—strongly associated with ETA—is one of them. Another is that they were caught attempting to place an explosive on a train a few months ago. And it’s not the case that they’ve always given warning.
Prior to the recent developments, the abandoned van was very flimsy evidence for concluding that Al Qaeda was responsible.
Now the Al Qaeda case is much, much stronger. And I have no doubt that Aznar and the PP had strong interests in pushing the ETA theory. But, even so, prior to the recent developments I still think that the ETA connection made much more sense. Most of the people in Spain didn’t initially think anyone other than that ETA was responsible—I think it’s significant that the “it must be Al Qaeda” chorus arose immediately outside of Spain. I find it a little offensive, really, in the narcissistic sense that it’s all really about the US and 9/11. Which, frankly, it’s not. There’s a lot of terrorism in the world, people.
Now, however, that I see there is a much stronger case to be made that it was Al Qaeda, I find myself at least partly convinced that they were responsible. The biggest problem I had with the ETA theory was that the ETA had so little to gain and so much to lose from such a drastic action. (But then, this stuff doesn’t have to make sense. Timothy McVeigh almost single-handedly destroyed the “militia” movement in the US.) On the other hand, Al Qaeda had a lot to gain from such an action. And, of the “coalition of the willing”, perhaps they found the least defended/biggest impact target.
I guess what I’m saying is that it mustn’t necessarily be the case that the PP has been dishonest. I think that informed observers found the ETA theory most credible at the same time that Aznar was blaming them.
But the emotions and political stakes are so high that it’s hard to imagine that A) Somebody, somewhere, isn’t motivated enough to be dishonest; and/or, B) Somebody, somewhere, isn’t motivated enough to capitalize on a charge of dishonesty.
An ugly situation all around.
Note the possibilty that ETA, probably correctly, sees the PP as their main enemy and committing the bombings but blaming it on Al Qaeda would best serve their purposes if hurting the PP is their priority. Much more so than claiming responsibility themselves. Just a thought.
“Aznar himself was careful not to name names, but clearly inferred that ETA was responsible.“—Maria
“inferred or implied?“—Nasi Lemack
Of course only Maria truly knows what she intended. But this is, to me, a very interesting example of a questionable use of “infer” because, really, Maria could have meant exactly what she wrote. That is: that Aznar clearly had made the inference that the ETA was responsible. And, obviously, he implied this. :)
It is illogical to accuse al-Qaeda before getting accurate information… The Spanish government was aware of this and moved fast to blame Eta before anyone else. Perhaps al-Qaeda was only used to deceive Spanish and world public opinion.” Saudi Arabia’s Al-Riyadh
“It is very regrettable that some analysts and leaders rushed to link this terrorist act with so-called “Muslim terrorists” without verifying the truth of this insane statement [claim of responsibility by Abu-Hafs al-Masri brigades]… This insane statement has soiled the name of Islam… Islam is innocent of these bombings.”
Jordan’s Al-Dustur
I’d agree with Keith that there may be ugliness on both sides. I don’t know how Spanish television news are reporting this tragic event, so I can’t make any claims on which side is worse.
Let the Spanish people vote. May they do so with wisdom.
Hey, the last time Al Qaeda did something, it turned out the Iraqi’s were the ones who got stomped for it, with no end of evidence fabricated or lied about.
Why should this time be any different? The Spaniards were happily compliant in the Iraqi affair.
Just take a look at this comic strip in Spanish progressive newspaper El País.
You can follow minute by minute the Spanish election in the official site of Interior Ministry.
On the other hand, the government has been quick to release information that pointed the other way, including at 1 AM on election eve. Reasonable, non-political, observers first reacted by thinking ETA was to blame. So I don’t see the big nefarious conspiracy. And if people think atrocities like this could have been avoided if we’d just stayed out of Iraq, they’ve got a poor grasp of these groups’ priorities.
Note that the video “message” give equal billing to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Infer / imply? I meant ‘imply’, I think…
My apologies for using the kind of clumsy language that drives me crazy when others do it!
But now I see the cleverness of what Keith is inferring, I’m almost inclined to change my mind. ;-)
Yes, equal amounts of ugliness all round I think.
And there are plenty of reasons to hold onto the belief that ETA was responsible, from the self-serving political ones to a simple desire that the perpetrators be from a terrorist organisation without global reach.
I just think that in the absence of proof, assertions should be seen as just that.
jr,
thanks for the link to the Spanish Interior Ministry. ‘No permitido’ was what I got on trying to link to it.
This isn’t one of your better efforts. That the government calculated to blame ETA early - the news media was not willing to play along - and the personal communications revolution of cellphones and the internet have allowed a counter movement to grow almost immediately.
The election was already breaking away from the PP - because of suspicions that they had engaged in politicking with a previous bombing investigation. The video tape, and its exposure, showing the government was saying “ETA” while seeing “Al Qaeda” was the last straw.
Sometimes the “safe” prediction isn’t very safe.
The violent deaths of innocent people as sports contest.
How much of the time and mental energy of world citizenry will be spent on debating and contemplating which one, among the possible responsible organizations, did in fact cause this latest atrocity?
And how much to a careful examination of their respective motives?
Because it doesn’t matter about their motives, does it?
Their motives are the same as everyone else’s - to win.
Team colors, team banners, what more do we need?
On to the play-offs!
Although a reaction to the government’s unfounded certainty has gathering pace in the last 24 hours, it is probably too late to affect the election. The government has the upper hand and the opposition is powerless to resist. Suspending campaigning helps the government - ministers must still make public statements and in doing so effectively campaign for the government by blaiming ETA.
This prediction was wrong. You might consider why, instead of flaming us at BOP.
Y’all normally are great.
This prediction was wrong. You might consider why, instead of flaming us at BOP.
-sigh-There is more than enough ill-will to go around in the blogosphere. But you may wish to note the shout-out to CT that Sterling gave, which was
Crooked Timber gives an example of the kind craven caution which seemed so endemic: of course the right wing government was going to get away with it. But that has more to do with the traumatization of the American left, than with the realities in Spain itself.
When Chris points out that CT should not be taken as emblematic of the American left, (it would be a little difficult to present a full blown defense of Maria’s post, given that they are on different continents, but maybe that is the way things work at BOP) the reply is:
I stand corrected, and in the light of the candor which you seem to display I will amplify my disdain for the poor standard of analysis which her writing displayed.
“craven caution”? “my disdain for the poor standard of analysis”? Who’s flaming who? The results of this taste test have me choosing CT by a wide margin…
Well, all I can say is I’m very happy to have been wrong. Very happy indeed.
Turnout seems to have been very high, almost certainly as a result of the bombings. The socialists don’t have an absolute majority (42% compared to 38% for PP), but the result seems to be the expression of a protest vote against Aznar’s involvment in the war against Iraq and his insistence that ETA were responsible for the bombings.
And they say virtue is its own reward.
I just posted the following over on the corresponding thread BOP in response to an emotionally overcharged comment there:
The bottom line is that CT got it dead wrong, and then though that the best way to cover it up was to attack me for not being an expert on CT.
No, I didn’t attack you. I simply pointed out - without prejudice to any of the substantive issues - that an assumption you were making about CT was false. Nor was I covering anything up. I don’t speak for Maria and she doesn’t speak for me: we don’t have a common party line at CT.
All I know is that the right-wing American (in particular, but not just it) response to all this has made me sick to my stomach.
In the same way in which the victims and families of 9/11—some of whom I know—were appropriated for many people’s self-interested, partisan political opportunism, just so are the victims and families of 3/11—and Spain’s grief itself— appropriated for many outsider’s self-interested, partisan political opportunism. And they’re exceptionally fucking obnoxious about it, too.
‘And there are plenty of reasons to hold onto the belief that ETA was responsible, from the self-serving political ones to a simple desire that the perpetrators be from a terrorist organisation without global reach.’
Yes, and the fact that was significant circumstantial evidence pointing to ETA. Maria accuses the PP of ‘cynical manipulation’ without any evidence at all. Repeat: there was good reason to believe ETA was involved. Making statements to that effect is not lying or deceiving.
Many (e.g. Edward Hugh) who do not hold any brief for Aznar believed (and some continue to believe, that ETA was involved.)
You also fail to mention the illegal demonstation against the PP on saturday night. I suspect the PSOE is not quite so ‘virtuous’ as you make out.
Excerpt from yesterday article in the Spanish newspaper “Diario Critico”: (sorry about the awful translation)
Rebellion of Spanish judges and policemen because of Aznar’s behaviour on 11M massacre. Solvent sources have informed our newspaper that the very same day of the attack (Thursday), the Head of the Home Office Angel Acebes, knew Al-Qaida’s connection and that he still blamed ETA. Acebes was afterwards (Saturday 20:15) obliged to correct that, since a group of judges and public prosecutors leaded by Baltasar Garzón had met that afternoon to protest against that Home Office manipulation.
Who or what is BOP?
Jchave - I did actually mention the protest on Saturday night, (in rather tortured English which really needed a pre-posting review);
“Today, already, the government has condemned that a protest about the clampdown on information about the culprits is contrary to the suspension of the political campaign. “
Contrary to your claim, the legality or otherwise of the demonstration has not been established, nor likely will it at this stage.
For the record, I didn’t and don’t condemn Aznar et al for making a wrong call in the first 24 - 48 hours after the bombings. After all, we still don’t know with absolute certainty who is responsible. What my post did say was that given the complete lack of certainty of those first couple of days, and the approaching election, it was wrong to blame it on one group and continue to broadcast it despite the growing evidence to the contrary. I also pointed out that blaming ETA would help the government win.
In my post, I said this was wrong but smart. The election result shows it was wrong and foolish.
“In my post, I said this was wrong but smart. The election result shows it was wrong and foolish.“—Maria
Maybe. Maybe not. The PP could have lost even more seats had there been no doubt that al Qaeda was involved. As it was, there was substantial doubt.
I really don’t see what in your post, Maria, has people upset. You made a valid observation, and, really, that the PP lost as badly as they did took pretty much everyone by surprise, it seems to me.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review