As thankful as I am regarding no further attacks on American soil, I wonder if we've been lucky, at least as much as we've been smart. And for those of us eager to end the Bush years without another American soil attack, if the administration gets the political credit for “no attack,” I'll assume that these measures will hold, despite the prophesy of Pat Robertson each year. And I will be thankful for it.

Sorry William but thats an inaccurate statement, or at least the way it's put strongly suggests a storyline that isn't the real one. Aznar supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. He sent Spanish troops into Iraq against a massive public outcry (91% of Spaniards were against it). The terrorist attack occured much later, just a few days shy of the general elections. Right after the bombings he insisted that the attack had been perpetrated by our homegrown terrorist group, ETA. Not an unreasonable assumption, most people thought that at first. But it became clear within several hours that it had been Islamic terrorists. Aznar continued to insist on ETA. The fury generated by the combination of the attack (which was understood to be a retaliation against our involvement in Iraq, an involvement Spaniards opposed massively) and suspicion that Aznar was trying to pin it on ETA to save his political hide pushed what was previously an expected close win to a close loss for him.

Zapatero then carried out his campaign promise of taking our troops out of Iraq. Spanish troops remain in Afghanistan, two were killed just last week.