Y esto es del Washington Post. Aquí casi se nos tilda de cobardes, cosa que, por supuesto, no comparto, pero que pongo como muestra de que la opinión internacional tb está dividida:
The Spanish Response
>
>
>
FUENTE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61727-2004Mar15?language=printer
>
> Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A20
>
>
> SPANISH VOTERS no doubt wished to rebuke the
ruling Popular Party
for
>its wrong-footed reaction to last week's terrorist
bombing in Madrid,
and
>its support for the United States in Iraq. Fair
enough -- but it's
hard not
>to be concerned about how the message was likely
received outside the
>country, by the leaders of al Qaeda and other Islamic
terrorist
>organizations. Before the bombing, the Popular Party
was favored to
win
>comfortably; after the devastating attack, and an al
Qaeda statement
saying
>its intent was to punish Spain for its role in Iraq,
the election was
swept
>by the opposition -- and its leader immediately
pledged to withdraw
Spanish
>troops and cool relations with Washington. The rash
response by Jose
Luis
>Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's prime minister-elect,
will probably
convince
>the extremists that their attempt to sway Spanish
policy with mass
murder
>succeeded brilliantly.
>
> The outgoing prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar,
lived by entirely
>different principles. An ardent opponent of
terrorism, he became one
of
>President Bush's most steadfast allies after Sept.
11, 2001, and
>courageously supported the Iraq war even when polls
showed the Spanish
>public was overwhelmingly against it. Until last
week, it appeared
that Mr.
>Aznar's toughness would prevail; even though he had
decided to leave
>office, his chosen successor appeared likely to win.
His government's
>mistake may have been to blame the Basque terrorist
organization ETA
for
>last Thursday's train bombings until evidence of
involvement by al
Qaeda or
>other Arab extremists seemed overwhelming. The miscue
apparently
angered
>some voters while confirming others in their belief
that Mr. Aznar was
>wrong to send 1,300 Spanish troops to Iraq. The
beneficiary was Mr.
>Zapatero, who had promised even before the bombing to
withdraw the
troops
>on June 30 unless the force was sanctioned by the
United Nations.
>
> Mr. Zapatero could not be expected to alter his
view that the
original
>decision to invade Iraq was wrong. But the reaction
of Spain, and
Europe,
>to this massive and shocking attack on its soil is
crucial -- as is
its
>response to the continuing challenge in Iraq. The two
are inextricably
>linked: Whatever the prewar situation, al Qaeda's
tactics now have
made
>explicit the connection between the continuing fight
in Iraq and the
>overall war on terrorism. Mr. Zapatero said his first
priority would
be to
>fight terrorism. Yet rather than declare that the
terrorists would not
>achieve their stated aim in slaughtering 200 Spanish
civilians, he
>reiterated his intention to pull out from Iraq in
less equivocal terms
than
>before the election.
>
> The incoming prime minister declared the Iraq
occupation "a
disaster" --
>yet he didn't explain how withdrawing troops would
improve the
situation.
>Spain's participation on the ground in Iraq is small,
but a Spanish
>withdrawal will make it harder for other nations,
such as Poland and
Italy,
>to stay the course. The danger is that Europe's
reaction to a war that
has
>now reached its soil will be retreat and appeasement
rather than
>strengthened resolve. "It is clear that using force
is not the answer
to
>resolving the conflict with terrorists," European
Commission President
>Romano Prodi said yesterday. Should such sentiments
prevail, the next
U.S.
>administration -- whether led by President Bush or
Sen. John F. Kerry
--
>may have no alternative to unilateralism.
