A lot of people have been talking about this article (in Spanish) by Fernando Mugica in El Mundo. It details what happened between March 11 and March 14, explaining why the Aznar government was so sure that ETA was behind the bombing and what then occurred in the media frenzy that ended with Zapatero's victory. I think it's just a little conspiracy-minded, myself; that is, I believe most of the media and the political left did their very best to torpedo the PP, and they achieved this. I do not believe, however, that there was a plot behind the media assault; I think it was spontaneous. What happened was that several different media outlets all did the same thing at the same time, but each acting on its own. That shouldn't be too hard to believe, since we know that the bosses of El Pais, TV3, SER radio, and the like are all the same kind of people and so are all likely to automatically do the same thing. Bang any normal person on the knee and he'll kick his foot. Bang any normal Spanish leftist on the knee and he'll try to sabotage the Partido Popular.

Just to show there's occasionally somebody sensible writing in La Vanguardia, here's Jaime Arias, who does not like the current Administration one bit but who is pro-American. He's commenting on the expansion of the European Union to 25 countries, which officially happens today. (Trivia question: Can you name all 25 countries without looking it up? First person to actually do so wins a date with the Jedman. Second person wins two dates.)

...America (is) the traditional guarantor of democratic values and principles. This is a question of forgetting, just for a few moments, the errors committed in foreign policy by the current Administration in Washington. And remembering, on the other hand, how much of the achievement of the dreams of Churchill and Monnet is owed to the almost continuous generosity of the United States and Canada during and after the Second World War.

You can be sure that Europe would not be celebrating today the union of 25 of its states if it had not had the formidable support of the successive Congresses and presidencies of the United States. The colossal landings, the participation in the decisive battles, the incredible Berlin airlift, the Marshall Plan, NATO, the firm support of European institutions, the alliances in the Cold War leading to deStalinization, the later military presence in the Balkans, and the Sixth Fleet, protecting our seas...Why go on? Despite the obvious failures, debated in the media with the freedom of expression, Europe: "Remember". (in the original English).

Thank you, Mr. Arias. We may disagree about Bush, but I'll bet we agree about most other things.

Now let's take a dive into the shithole. Here is a story from yesterday's Vanguardia. It seems that Tikrit Tommy Alcoverro is back in Barcelona and spreading lies.

La Vanguardia's correspondent in the Middle East, Tomas Alcoverro, on Wednesday denounced the violation of human rights by George W. Bush's administration in Iraq. During a conference, part of a series organized by the Sabadell city government, the journalist asked, "How many civilian victims have fallen in this war that does not want to admit its name since Bush proclaimed on May 1 the end of military operations?"

The experienced correspondent told how in Fallujah an American sergeant fired on a boy who, with his hands in his pockets, was crossing a vacant lot, and killed him on the spot. The sergeant screamed at his soldiers, "Leave him to me." He wanted to get revenge for the death of a Marine friend--he explained--who had been shot to death by an Iraqi guerrilla.

...He talked about the vulnerability of the civilian population and the violation of freedom at the hands of the most brutal violence.

I accuse Tomas Alcoverro of lying. First, if he'd really seen anything like that, he'd have reported it post-haste and it would have been a big screaming headline on the Vanguardia's front page. Second, if he'd really seen anything like that, he should have reported it instantly to Coalition authorities--perhaps by bringing it up at a press conference. If Tommy didn't trust the Americans, he could have made his accusations to a Spanish officer. Third, how does Tommy know why the sergeant wanted to kill the Iraqi boy? He must have talked to the sergeant himself or to his men. Why doesn't he give their names or units? (The sergeant and his men should have been identifiable because of their surnames and their unit badges sewn on their uniforms.) That would prove his story is true. Or why doesn't he produce a photograph? What's a reporter these days doing without a cheapo digital camera?

I just bet he doesn't give their names and units because he made up the whole damn thing himself. You are a liar, Mr. Alcoverro, and I'll see your sorry ass in court if you want to sue.