It always bugs me that normally logical people are falling for the appeasement argument in Spain. The reason that the Spanish people ousted Aznar is that he failed to protect them against terrorism. He was focusing too heavily on Iraq, and thus forgot that al-Qaeda is actually a threat, unlike Iraq. Zapareto has carried with him a responsibility to better protect Spain against terrorism, and if there is another attack, he will, rightfully, be kicked out of office. To me, this seems much more logical than the argument that Bush will be better off after an attack. Wouldn’t that mean that the “war on terror” failed?