Why do they say ALQAIDA DISRUPTED SPANISH elections? Elections happened!

[LittleApple81]

They were NOT DISRUPTED.... ASSHOLES!!!!

[LittleApple81]

1. This said on CNN at 12:08 - then Ridge appears to emphasize the

IDEA.

[fdr_hst_fan]

5. They weren't disrupted;

it's just that the Bush clone LOST-THAT'S how the Spanish elections were "disrupted"!
:dem:

[donco6]

2. Because they didn't turn out the way they wanted.

Asnar was voted out, therefore Al Quaida must have "disrupted" the elections enough to "change the outcome."

Talk about revisionism.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. They were disrupted in that Socialists got elected.

That's a huge disruption from the fascist point of view.

[cmf]

4. Oh, because the Spanish would have never elected Socialists otherwise!

of course they wouldn't!

[Guaranteed]

6. This is getting REALLY bad.

I don't know what we're going to do...This isn't going to end up good.

[MuseRider]

7. This really pisses me off.

The elections turned out the way they did because Asnar lied to the people and so they voted him out. And you are correct, they did indeed have their election.

[Irishladdie]

8. Exactly

LOL!! It only disrupted them because the Neo-Cons plan
was thwarted by smart voters!!

[rocktivity]

9. More important, the race was relatively tight prior to the blast

From The Daily Howler's Spinning Spain:

The contest in Spain had always been close between the governing Popular Party, which backed Mr. Bush’s policies, and the Socialists, who opposed them...In the final poll, on March 7, the Popular Party led, 42-38...On March 14, they ended up losing, 43-38.

That represents a very minor swing in public opinion. In fact, it may represent no swing at all; have you ever heard of “margin of error?” But so what! Our airwaves are full of people...railing about the vast swing which the bombing produced...

:headbang:
rocknation

[Brotherjohn]

10. That pisses me off, too. They assume that their guy would have won...

... if not for the Al Qaeda attack.

This is so faulty for so many reasons.

First, if this magnificent crystal ball (which they must obviously be in possession of) allows them to foresee election results, why does it not allow them to also foresee terrorist attacks?

Then there's this admittedly CRAAAZZY idea: that if your big claim to re-election is that you are able to keep your people safe from terrorism, maybe a major terrorist attack might actually reveal how inept you are at that responsibility.

Oh, then there's this idea that's WAY OUT THERE: if you take the opportunity of a major terrorist attack on your country to further mislead your people (so as to cover your ass from the above possibility) -- a people, I might note, who are already P.O.'d that you misled them into an unnecessary war -- then that just might not sit too well with them. Hell, it might even cost you the election!

Then there's the little notion that, terrorist attack or not, the people are doing the voting. If a terrorist attack influences their vote one way or another, they're still free to vote whichever way they want... even if "your guy" doesn't win. That's called "democracy".