An Historic Revolution in Spain (please help)

I had planned to take it easy today, but my boss pretty much ordered me to write about what has happened in Spain for tonight's edition. I didn't have a lot of time to do this. Could you take a quick pass through this and tell me what needs changing or fixing? Many many many thanks.

===

The winds of change are blowing furiously through Spain today, as terrorism and war take center stage for the first time since September 11 as the determining factors in a democratic election.

It began in horror with the bombing of Spanish commuter trains and the deliberate slaughter of 200 people on Thursday. Thousands more were wounded in the blasts, and the entire nation of Spain was hurled into the blackest mourning. The government of Jose Maria Aznar has attempted to connect the bombings to the Basque separatist group ETA, but evidence – including a videotaped claim of responsibility – is pointing towards al Qaeda as the perpetrators.

The reasons Aznar’s government wanted to see the attacks connected to ETA instead of al Qaeda were found in the streets of Spain by the thousands on the Saturday after the bombs went off. Madrid was awash with protesters demanding answers from Aznar as to who was responsible. They thronged the streets holding signs reading ‘Paz,’ and carried a banner reading ‘Your War, Our Corpses.’ If the attacks could be connected to ETA, the resulting fury would be directed towards the Basque separatists. If the attack was perpetrated by al Qaeda, however, that fury would roar towards Aznar himself.

He would be held personally responsible for those deaths because he involved Spain in the invasion of Iraq despite the disapproval of some 80% of Spain’s citizens. If the attack was perpetrated by al Qaeda, it would be seen as revenge for Spain’s role in Iraq. As the Spanish people wanted no part of that war, and as Aznar brought them into that war against their wishes, the blood of those people, according to those thousands of protesters, would be dripping from his fingers.

Much of the mainstream media’s coverage of these protesters suggested that the crowds had been usurped by anti-war activists, that the majority of the protest was aimed at the bombers and not Aznar’s government. But then, on Sunday, the people of Spain went to the polls for the parliamentary elections. The results appear to prove beyond dispute that the anti-war sentiment seen in the crowds on Saturday was not the exception, but the rule.

There were several parties on the ballot on Sunday, the two most prominent being Aznar’s Popular Party and the Socialists. Before the bombing, it was widely believed that Aznar’s hand-picked successor for the prime minister’s spot, Mariano Rajoy, would win handily, and that the conservative Popular Party would retain its majority in the 350-member Congress of deputies. By 5:00 p.m. EST on Sunday, however, conventional wisdom had been turned on its head. With 85% of the votes counted, the Socialist Party had taken 164 seats, Aznar’s Popular Party had taken 148 seats, and Rajoy had given concession speech for himself and his defeated party. It was a reversal of epic and stunning proportions.

There are number of lessons to be taken from the incredible turn of events over the last 100 hours, few of which are comforting.

The timing of the attack on Thursday is deeply troubling. If al Qaeda was indeed responsible, the terrorist organization certainly planned the blast to happen on the eve of the election. While many may rejoice at the repudiation of a party that brought its nation to war against the will of the people, the fact remains that this repudiation came after 200 people died. Terrorism, slaughter and fear owned the ballot boxes in Spain on Sunday, a precedent that is simply horrifying.

America’s role in the Iraq invasion itself played a central role in the Thursday attacks, and bears a lion’s share of responsibility for the horror. George W. Bush sprinted to attack a nation that posed no threat to his country, or Spain, or any other. He has poured hundreds of billions of dollars and nearly 600 American lives into the endeavor, in no small part because of now-debunked claims that Iraq and al Qaeda enjoyed an operational alliance.

Had Bush chosen to press the fight against al Qaeda itself, and not against toothless red herrings like Iraq, it is entirely possible that the bombings in Spain would never have happened. The force and funding of American wrath would have been brought to bear against actual terrorists, severely impeding actions like the one which so shook Spain. Had Bush chosen to press the fight against al Qaeda itself, and not against toothless red herrings like Iraq, Spain and Aznar and all those dead would not now be on the forefront of the carnage.

Again, many will find some grim satisfaction in this, but the facts auger towards a deepening gloom. Clearly, the Iraq war has not made America or the world safer. It has, in fact, further imperiled many nations and many peoples. The people of Spain were right to resist it. The hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans who took to the streets to resist it were right to resist it. The 30 million people who protested in every capitol on earth on February 15th were right to resist it.

Though they have been proven right, there is no comfort in it, for as the terror in Spain has demonstrated, the people of the world face more of a threat now than ever before. This will be further articulated on March 20th, as yet more protests to mark the first year of the war will again boil in the streets of the world. There is no comfort in it, for the war grinds on, and the consequences continue to claw at us all.

In the horror and the woe, there are two thin linings of silver. The first is this: When the bombs went off in Spain, that nation and the world faced a tipping point. The fear and horror could have compelled the Spanish people to support their government and its role in the farcical War on Terror. They could have allowed themselves to be swept up in hysteria and lined up behind leaders who have, thus far, done everything wrong. They did not do this. They did, in fact, overwhelmingly repudiate their government and its war. This came at a terrible cost in blood, but had they done otherwise, the precedent as witnessed and potentially followed by the world could have spiraled beyond even a semblance of control.

The second is this: The bombing took place on Thursday. Two days later, the people of Spain were battering down the doors of government offices demanding information, demanding truth. "We cannot vote without knowing who are the assassins," cried the protesters. "The government is hiding information. They think we're idiots." Emilio Jimenez Tomas of Madrid, in a comment given to the New York Times as he surveyed the wreckage left behind by the bombings, said, "Look at this. This is an election and the government pretends that they don't know anything about who really did it. They've been lying to us and we won't know the real truth until after the election."

Two days. That was all it took for the people of Spain to become impatient, to pressure their government for the truth. When they did not get it, they threw that government out on it’s ear. For America, a nation approaching the 1,000th day in which their government has not provided the truth of September 11th, this is a lesson to be taken deeply to heart.

there were anti-government protests on other cities other than Madrid, though. I know there were some in Andalucia, Barcelona and others.

Added to document.

elections in Spain. The description of Spaniards demanding the truth about what happened and who was responsible is an example for what the people in this country should be doing. The fact that they threw out the PP when they knew that they were being lied to and is an example for the American public in November. Hope we show the courage and patriotism to do the same.

All in all, a great article.

the 2 'red herring' references back to back is a little distracting.

the silver linings is a stretch. it reads as if you wanted to be able to draw that conclusion. i think you're better off making the conclusion without trying to draw anything positive from the act - and spend a little more time making the violence doesnt solve problems angle.

That whole "red herring" paragraph seems awkwardly constructed, which suggests to me that the thinking behind it may not be clear. For example, the phrase "actual terrorists" rings false, because it suggests that the opposite would be "fake terrorists," whoever they might be The phrase "forefront of the carnage" doesn't work as an image -- you can have forefronts when there are clear lines of battle, but carnage doesn't go by fronts and rears. And "force and funding of American wrath" is another clumsy line. You can come down upon someone with the full force of your wrath -- but I never heard of anybody coming down on someone with the full funding of their wrath.

The problem may be that you're leaning over backwards to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assuming that if he hadn't invaded Iraq, he would have done something effective about al Qaeda But you don't really believe that yourself, and the result is that you fall into a lot of half-baked metaphors.

In the next paragraph, "the facts auger towards a deepening gloom" is also muddy. The problem is with the verb "augur," which means to be an omen of coming events. I think you mean something more like "argue for."

That same paragraph also has too many "resist" phrases. I think it would flow more smoothly if you cut "Americans who took to the streets to resist it were right to resist it" down to just "Americans who took to the streets were right to resist it."

Then there's the phrase "there is no comfort in it." Not only do you repeat it within a paragraph, but it isn't clear what the "it" is, or whether the "it" in the second repetition is the same as the "it" in the first. It also isn't clear what you're saying the March 20 protests will prove -- that the world faces more of a threat than ever? that people don't take comfort from the Iraq War? -- or how anti-war protests can be assumed to express people's feelings about threats of continuing terrorism.

In the next paragraph, the phrase "this came at a terrible cost in blood" is placed in such a way that it seems to mean that voting Aznar's party out resulted in bloodshed. Perhaps a change to "This victory had come at a terrible cost . . ." would clarify it. In the same sentence, "the precedent . . . could have spiraled beyond even a semblance of control" is also something of a mixed metaphor. Precedents don't spiral out of control -- results do.

In fact, the whole sentence is a series of conditional assumptions piled up on one another -- if the Spanish voters hadn't repudiated Aznar, if the Spanish government had escalated the farcical War on Terror (as opposed to the resl war on terror you were calling for earlier?), and if the rest of the world had followed this precedent, then things (what things?) could have spiraled out of control.

As in the red herring paragraph, I believe you need to think more clearly about what you're trying to say before you start to say it.

Although a constitutional monarchy modeled much after the UK, they are showing all the signs of a young and healthy democracy - engaged, concerned, and vital - the protests and voter turnout are evidence enough. Surely, the 90% who opposed involvement in Iraq show they have a vocal populace who enjoys the mantle of democratic reform bestowed a generation ago. Their constitution was ratified in December 1978 after a 3 year process that began upon Franco's death and subsequent acquisition of the reins by King Juan Carlos during the interim. The last 25 years have seen Spain eager to become a player with the other Western modern European nations like the UK, France, or Germany. The first step was joining NATO in 1982, and since, the pendulum of power in the PM's seat has veered between the Socialist Party on the left and the conservative (center-right by U.S. standards) Popular Party. The pendulum swung back today.

The nation is a young and healthy modern republic, coming closer with each year to being the player in the EU it wants to be.

I am working on a book about Spain and its emergence from Franco's shadow since 1975. I have little to offer correction-wise, but if you need any additional insights, let me know.

Glad you are doing a piece on Spain, regardless!

and throw a credit to you in the byline?

:-)

I'm 99.9% sure I have the spelling of your name right, but PM it to me anyway to be sure. THANK YOU.

I also fixed a typo inthere, so be sure to copy the revised version.

Name awaits in the inbox...

it points out Spain is a constitutional monarchy, and then later calls it a republic. Using the standard definitions, that's a contradiction - maybe just say 'democracy' or something?

Try modifying

The first step was joining NATO in 1982, and since, the pendulum of power in the PM's seat has veered between the Socialist Party on the left and the conservative (center-right by U.S. standards) Popular Party. The pendulum swung back today.

to

The first step was joining NATO in 1982, and the pendulum of power in the PM's seat then periodically swung between the Socialist Party on the left and the conservative (center-right by U.S. standards) Popular Party. The pendulum swung to the Socialists today.

------

You can't swing (not veer) the pendulum "back" unless you state clearly that it recently was at the Popular Party.

They were chanting Your war, our dead. (BTW - That's a stupid name for a political party.) If you want someone to read this who seems to know about politics in Spain, ask NV1962. Has a lot of posts and info on LBN.

You wrote: "...Rajoy had given concession speech for himself." I think you meant, "...Rajoy had given a concession speech for himself."

replace with zombywolf's?
Had Bush chosen to press the fight against al Qaeda itself, and not against toothless red herrings like Iraq, it is entirely possible that the bombings in Spain would never have happened. The force and funding of American wrath would have been brought to bear against actual terrorists, severely impeding actions like the one which so shook Spain. Had Bush chosen to press the fight against al Qaeda itself, and not against toothless red herrings like Iraq, Spain and Aznar and all those dead would not now be on the forefront of the carnage.

I agree they should not be back to back. But what I wanted to say is :
shouldn't that be "red herrings that ooze oil from their gills" ? :-)

Two Days. Two days and 200 dead. I would add that (to compare to the US & Iraq Body Count).

Otherwise, a very good analysis. You write well when fast. Especially the "tipping point", that is exactly how I felt it - and why I'm so glad now.

:thumbsup:

Your changes, suggestions and corrections were added to the final, which has been submitted. I will post the final when it becomes available.

Thanks again. You all rule.

If i was going to be a little picky, and I do so enjoy being a miserable git, maybe this paragraph is a tad strong in slightly the wrong direction:

"The timing of the attack on Thursday is deeply troubling. If al Qaeda was indeed responsible, the terrorist organization certainly planned the blast to happen on the eve of the election. While many may rejoice at the repudiation of a party that brought its nation to war against the will of the people, the fact remains that this repudiation came after 200 people died. Terrorism, slaughter and fear owned the ballot boxes in Spain on Sunday, a precedent that is simply horrifying."

It sort of plays to the "Thou shalt not commit terrorism" brigade. I am kind of keen in weaning the idiots off this appealing to big woolly bullshit concepts as a guide to what actions they should take, instead of doing the work necessary to acquaint themselves with the empirical details of the situation in which they find themselves.

But leave it, it's fine.

...group?

You say, "is pointing towards al Qaeda as the perpetrators", perhaps better to say, "is pointing towards an al Qaeda inspired (Like) group as the perpetrators"?

EDIT! Just read an article on Yahoo that has them connected to a WTC planner. Ignore my suggestion.

Will -

Sorry you have a boss now who forces you to write on deadlines! Hope it doesn't interfere with your great writing

Here's my feedback:

CONTENT

It's very good that you insist on making the point that if Al Qaeda did it, there's blood on Aznar's hands. And that despite certain media reports, THIS was the message of the protesters in the streets - not mainstream media's spin that this was just generic anti-war sentiment. Quoting the placard "Your war, our corpses." was good proof of your point.

It's also very good that you show that the blame naturally extends beyond Aznar, to Bush. Some may try to spin this as somehow "bad for the Democrats" - when it's quite clearly bad for Bush. If people get killed because of Bush's stupid policies, the blame belongs squarely in Bush's lap.

Finally, it's great that you point out that terrorism may have essentially influenced a national election. I was speculating on this same possibility today. It's pretty chilling.

I LOVE the closing paragraph. "Two days. That was all it took for the people of Spain to become impatient, to pressure their government for the truth." Bringing it all back home.


FORM

"auger towards a"
should just be
"augur"

= = =

"America’s role in the Iraq invasion itself played a central role in the Thursday attacks, and bears a lion’s share of responsibility..."

would be clearer if you inserted another "America" before "bears"

= = =

"threw that government out on it's ear"

delete the apostrophe


- ScottXYZ