24 Hours Behind the Times

In a NYTimes OpEd (Rewarding Terror in Spain), it is argued that removing the Popular Party from power and replacing them with the Socialists was done with the following logic by the electorate:

1) Fighting terror by attacking Iraq upset Al Qaeda, which prompted the bombings.
2) The Popular Party is for the war in Iraq, and the Socialists are against it.
3) Thus, by voting out the Popular Party, and in with the Socialists, we can pull out of Iraq and not be bombed by Al Qaeda anymore.

In this interpretation, the Spanish are cowing to terrorism.

There is an alternative interpretation:

1) The War in Iraq was an adventure to remove Hussein from power because he was not liked by the American President, which is expensive and does nothing to promote the war on terror and Al Qaeda.
2) The Iraq war was based on outright lies (to not be kind) pushed by the Popular Party including that Hussein directly contributed to the 9/11, and that WMD existed in the country.
3) Following the bombing, the Popular Party continually pointed at the ETA, against growing evidence. This PR campaign mirrored that for war in Iraq, where the government pushes a set of false conclusions to suit its political desires.
4) Thus, voting out the Popular Party punishes those who use lies about the fight against terror to push their political agenda.

The only way to distinguish between these two scenarios is to poll those who voted in the socialists -- and I don't know that anyone has done that.