[Restorer]

The problem with your theory is that the conventional wisdom, right up through the election, was that the attacks would result in a larger majority for the party in power.

None of the pundits really predicted a Socialist victory as a result of the attacks, which blows a great big hole in their potential motive.

Also, you need to remember that Socialists (in America called liberals) are not Communists. They are squeamish Communists. If they were not squeamish, they would be hard left, not soft left like Tony Blair. That's why Socialists normally get eaten alive by real Commies, who are not even the slightest bit squeamish, in factional fighting.

As a rule, squeamish people do not kill 200 civilians for some nebulous possible political benefit.

[wayoverontheright]

The problem with your theory is that the conventional wisdom, right up through the election, was that the attacks would result in a larger majority for the party in power.

Obviously, the conventional wisdom wasn't very wise.

I don't think it is a leap to conclude that Zapatero's minions could have believed completely that a terror attack, followed by an immediate acknowledgement by al-Qaida that not only it was them, but the act was perpetrated precisely because of their leadership's stubborn collaboration with Americans, would give them a chance to win. Remember, they were behind, and nothing short of some calamity befalling the leadership would have accomplished a victory for the Socialists.

[elli1]

OTOH, the polls indicated that the socialists were losing prior to the election anyway. Nothing ventured, nothing gained?

[forrestroche]

"The problem with your theory is that the conventional wisdom, right up through the election, was that the attacks would result in a larger majority for the party in power."

None of the pundits really predicted a Socialist victory as a result of the attacks, which blows a great big hole in their potential motive."



I have to agree here with wayoverontheright even if I disagree adamantly with his (or her) conclusion. The analysis here was that if it was ETA that would slightly help the PP, if it was al Qaeda, that would possibly tilt the election for the socialists or at least cause the PP to lose their absolute majority and have to form a coalition government. I hope you take my word for it, but I can dig out last week's papers if you want (please say no, I believe you).

forrest