Friday, March 19, 2004
Spain, Spin, and Opinion
The election of a Socialist government (which campaigned on an anti-Iraq War platform) following on the heels of the horror of the Madrid train bombings, now being called 3-11 around Europe, has sent quite a shockwave throughout the world's capitals.
Washington spinmeisters are using this event to reframe the issue to the benefit of TeamBush in advance of the election. Although too early to say for sure, I think they're having some success--although it is success based on faulty logic and comes, of course, at the cost of accuracy.
The line coming out of TeamBush and its media allies is that Spain, by threatening to pull its meager troop contingent out of Iraq, is 'letting the terrorists win.' They have managed to frame the language of the debate in a crucial way, the first good score for Rove, et al for months now. The rub is this: The Spanish did not say, as is being construed across the board by the US media, that they were going to pull out, per se. Quite the opposite, they said they were going to pull out if the US refused to internationalize the occupation and turn over control to a group with broader interests, eg the United Nations.
Of course, one could say, "six of one, half a dozen of the other." Certainly the US would not let some other entity run the show until it chose to let it do so, but the distinction is a critical and vastly underreported one. What the incoming Zapatero administration is saying quite clearly to TeamBush is that you screwed up the occupation, are running the country like a mess, and we're no longer going to be part of it with you at the helm.
A few things about the vote itself. Clearly, the big issue here for our allies is that almost all of them backed Bush in his war drive against the wishes of their population. In Spain, 90% of the electorate was against the war. Yet, because of homefront issues like a strong economy, Aznar's Popular Party was expected to squeak by against the Socialists.
In fact, when word of the bombings came, the Socialists expected to even lose seats on a sympathy/rally-around-the-flag vote. But Aznar made the mistake of pushing the homegrown Basque ETA terrorist connection to the exclusion of all others. The Spanish CIA-types went on record as saying it was '99% certain' that ETA was the culprit. It became clear, however, that there were links to Islamic fundamentalists that were being ignored or quietly pursued quite contrary to the public statements. Finally, the dam broke open when the Socialist campaign was given word that the current primary suspect was in fact already in custody in a region near Madrid known to be a stronghold of conservative PP support. The campaign contacted the local authorities and reportedly said, "We know you have him, go public now or we will."
Only then did the ETA story begin to crumble and the actual events of the investigation begin to emerge. Spaniards of all stripes begin to look at the election-focused deception being maintained by the Aznar campaign in a time of national tragedy and mourning as worthy of dumping his government. Exit polls clearly show this phenomenon. Turnout was very high (77% over the low-50s expected) and most of those who came out at the last minute to vote out Aznar did so because of his lying as much as his unwavering support of Bush in the face of the current reality. It was simply the last straw.
And Aznar might well not be the last victim of his support of TeamBush to the exclusion of his compatriots. As Byron Williams noted in his analysis of Bush's growing international credibility gap:
"(L)arge majorities in every country, except for the U.S., hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush. The president was rated unfavorably by 57 percent of respondents in Britain, 60 percent in Russia, 67 percent in Turkey and Pakistan, 85 percent in France and Germany, 90 percent in Morocco and 96 percent in Jordan."
What's more, Josh Marshall quoted Ivo Daalder saying that:
"This is the third election of a major ally in which the party running against George Bush won. Look at Germany in '02, South Korea in '03, and now Spain. The message is: If you want to get re-elected, don't go to Crawford. Bush is a political liability -- in Europe, in particular. His foreign policy has trampled on the European views and it's now resulting in the election of governments that do not support his approach."
Italy's Burlesconi must be momentarily thankful that the Italian left is so fragmented that it can't come to terms on how to oust him. But he's likely troubled that they are more willing to put aside their historical animosities to achieve that goal than at any time in the past thirty years.
The election of a Socialist government (which campaigned on an anti-Iraq War platform) following on the heels of the horror of the Madrid train bombings, now being called 3-11 around Europe, has sent quite a shockwave throughout the world's capitals.
Washington spinmeisters are using this event to reframe the issue to the benefit of TeamBush in advance of the election. Although too early to say for sure, I think they're having some success--although it is success based on faulty logic and comes, of course, at the cost of accuracy.
The line coming out of TeamBush and its media allies is that Spain, by threatening to pull its meager troop contingent out of Iraq, is 'letting the terrorists win.' They have managed to frame the language of the debate in a crucial way, the first good score for Rove, et al for months now. The rub is this: The Spanish did not say, as is being construed across the board by the US media, that they were going to pull out, per se. Quite the opposite, they said they were going to pull out if the US refused to internationalize the occupation and turn over control to a group with broader interests, eg the United Nations.
Of course, one could say, "six of one, half a dozen of the other." Certainly the US would not let some other entity run the show until it chose to let it do so, but the distinction is a critical and vastly underreported one. What the incoming Zapatero administration is saying quite clearly to TeamBush is that you screwed up the occupation, are running the country like a mess, and we're no longer going to be part of it with you at the helm.
A few things about the vote itself. Clearly, the big issue here for our allies is that almost all of them backed Bush in his war drive against the wishes of their population. In Spain, 90% of the electorate was against the war. Yet, because of homefront issues like a strong economy, Aznar's Popular Party was expected to squeak by against the Socialists.
In fact, when word of the bombings came, the Socialists expected to even lose seats on a sympathy/rally-around-the-flag vote. But Aznar made the mistake of pushing the homegrown Basque ETA terrorist connection to the exclusion of all others. The Spanish CIA-types went on record as saying it was '99% certain' that ETA was the culprit. It became clear, however, that there were links to Islamic fundamentalists that were being ignored or quietly pursued quite contrary to the public statements. Finally, the dam broke open when the Socialist campaign was given word that the current primary suspect was in fact already in custody in a region near Madrid known to be a stronghold of conservative PP support. The campaign contacted the local authorities and reportedly said, "We know you have him, go public now or we will."
Only then did the ETA story begin to crumble and the actual events of the investigation begin to emerge. Spaniards of all stripes begin to look at the election-focused deception being maintained by the Aznar campaign in a time of national tragedy and mourning as worthy of dumping his government. Exit polls clearly show this phenomenon. Turnout was very high (77% over the low-50s expected) and most of those who came out at the last minute to vote out Aznar did so because of his lying as much as his unwavering support of Bush in the face of the current reality. It was simply the last straw.
And Aznar might well not be the last victim of his support of TeamBush to the exclusion of his compatriots. As Byron Williams noted in his analysis of Bush's growing international credibility gap:
"(L)arge majorities in every country, except for the U.S., hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush. The president was rated unfavorably by 57 percent of respondents in Britain, 60 percent in Russia, 67 percent in Turkey and Pakistan, 85 percent in France and Germany, 90 percent in Morocco and 96 percent in Jordan."
What's more, Josh Marshall quoted Ivo Daalder saying that:
"This is the third election of a major ally in which the party running against George Bush won. Look at Germany in '02, South Korea in '03, and now Spain. The message is: If you want to get re-elected, don't go to Crawford. Bush is a political liability -- in Europe, in particular. His foreign policy has trampled on the European views and it's now resulting in the election of governments that do not support his approach."
Italy's Burlesconi must be momentarily thankful that the Italian left is so fragmented that it can't come to terms on how to oust him. But he's likely troubled that they are more willing to put aside their historical animosities to achieve that goal than at any time in the past thirty years.
Comments:
Post a Comment
