Spain has a new leader, and Kevin Drum has an excellent post detailing something that has been on my mind, and the minds of others, I suppose. Second in his list analyzing the Socialist victory, he writes:

Evidence has also been piling up that it really was al-Qaeda behind the bombings, not ETA. So another possibility is that the voters (or at least some of them) were upset that Aznar’s support for the Iraq war was responsible for al-Qaeda targeting Spain, which seems to be the theme of this Washington Post story. This would be a considerable victory for al-Qaeda and would reflect very poorly indeed on the Spanish electorate. It also doesn’t smell right to me.

He then proceeds to insult the few morons in his comments by having to clarify that one little detail about a terrorist victory in Spain. He proceeds, in an update:

In comments, lots of people are asking why I think #2 would be a victory for al-Qaeda. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

The goal of terrorism is to affect public opinion and to scare people into not opposing the terrorists’ aims. If (if!) the Spanish electorate was punishing Aznar solely because they perceived his actions as being anti-terrorist enough to provoke an al-Qaeda attack, the terrorists have accomplished their goal: the Spanish public has shown that if they are attacked they will vote against a politician who strongly opposed the terrorists.

Never mind Calpundit’s ifs — which I think are a safety measure for him to not be stoned by his own readers for heresy — he nails the the concept on the head. Hopefully, and I sure do hope so, that percentage of people in Spain that blamed Aznar for bringing down the fury of Al-Qaeda on then by joining Bush in the war is a small one. Because if not, their country is going to the dogs, and others will not be far behind.