[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4532-4533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     TERRORIST ATROCITIES IN SPAIN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to fervently 
condemn the terrorist bombings in Madrid on March 11 and to express his 
strong and unwavering support for the Spanish people in their fight 
against terrorism.
  As all of our colleagues surely know, last Thursday at the height of 
the morning rush hour, terrorists detonated 10 bombs on commuter trains 
in the Spanish capital of Madrid. These synchronized attacks blew up 
four different trains. Several of them were in station at the time, 
increasing the carnage. At last count 201 people were killed in these 
attacks and almost 1,500 people were injured. These attacks were the 
worst terrorist atrocity in Spanish history and maybe the most terrible 
on the European continent in modern history.
  Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 
2001, the French newspaper Le Monde, often a font of anti-American 
sentiment, declared that ``We Are All Americans.''
  Now we are all Spaniards united in solidarity and resolve with our 
friends and our allies.
  To compare terrorist atrocities is in some ways to minimize the 
importance of each human life that was so brutally and pointlessly 
extinguished by those who exalt in the murder and maiming of their 
fellow men, women, and, yes, children too. But I sense that most 
Americans saw the slaughter in Madrid on March 11 through the prism of 
our own experience on September 11. Even the dates mirrored each other 
with 3/11 coming exactly 2\1/2\ years after 9/11.
  For those of us who evacuated our offices on 9/11, watched the smoke 
from the burning Pentagon, and heard the sirens of emergency vehicles, 
we could not help but identify with the scenes of killing and bloodshed 
that we all repeatedly saw on our television screens last week.
  Sadly, last week's attacks marked not a new phenomenon in Spanish 
life, only a new magnitude of suffering.
  For more than 30 years, Spaniards have endured a vicious terrorist 
campaign by the fringe, Basque-separatist ETA organization. Given this 
bloody history, it was no surprise when Spanish officials first blamed 
ETA for the March 11 train bombings.
  Since then we learned that these reprehensible attacks are more 
likely the work of the Islamic terrorists linked to al Qaeda. A clear 
determination is not yet possible. We often speak of the global war on 
terrorism. Last week we were reminded just how global the threat of 
terrorism really is. Al Qaeda has already struck in Africa, Asia, and 
North America. Now nearly all relevant authorities are tentatively 
concluding that these terrorists have struck in Europe as well.
  In conjunction with these attacks, Spanish authorities have arrested 
five suspects, three Moroccans and two Indians, who are believed to be 
al Qaeda loyals. Authorities are seeking other suspects in conjunction 
with the bombings. The bombings in Spain demonstrate that Europe is 
indeed a target of al Qaeda and the brand of Islamic extremism that it 
espouses. It is a terrible shock, but it comes as no surprise to 
European terrorism experts. Europol, which helps coordinate police 
activity among nations, warned in December that al Qaeda was still 
active in Europe and remained a threat there. However, if there was 
still any thought among Europeans that they were somehow immune from al 
Qaeda attacks, these bombings proved them wrong.
  An additional concern in this case is the obvious, and apparently 
successful, effort by terrorists to influence a democratic election. 
Many analysts have attributed the unexpected victory of the Socialist 
Party in Sunday's national elections to voters' reactions to the 
terrorist attacks. Spain's participation in military action against 
Iraq was unpopular among the electorate. Some post-election reports 
indicate that a large number of Spanish voters may have voted against 
the ruling popular party in the belief that its support for the Iraq 
war was responsible for Spain being targeted by al Qaeda.
  If, indeed, as this Member believes, al Qaeda carried out these 
terrorist attacks just 3 days before a national election in order to 
affect the results of the election, it would be an extremely troubling 
development. We already know that al Qaeda aims to kill our people and 
cripple our economies. It is, furthermore, extraordinarily disturbing 
that this group seems to be targeting governments friendly to the 
United States in order to bring them down.
  An editorial in the Omaha World-Herald yesterday declared that, ``The 
Spanish voters, in their sorrow and anger, have broadcast exactly the 
wrong signal: terrorism works.''
  Mr. Speaker, if anyone in Europe believes that standing on the 
sidelines will somehow protect them from al Qaeda, they are wrong. 
Europe was a target of al Qaeda even before 9/11 and the Iraq war, and 
it remains a target of al Qaeda. The response to terrorism cannot be a 
quest for neutrality. It cannot be the pursuit of a nonaggression pact 
or a modus vivendi with al Qaeda. This is not possible.
  The only response can be a reaffirmation of a commitment to 
strenuously work together within Europe and within the Atlantic 
Alliance to root out the terrorists in our midst and to destroy their 
ability to operate throughout the world.
  Fortunately, we see indications from our European allies that this 
will be their response. Already officials in European countries and in 
the European Union are stepping up their efforts to improve cooperation 
against terrorist groups and strengthen legislation against terrorism.
  However, that inclination, apparently, is not shared by Romano Prodi, 
the President of the European Commission, which is the executive 
bureaucracy of the EU. On Monday, Mr. Prodi said, ``It is clear that 
using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with 
terrorists.''
  This outrageous, wrong-headed comment is the worst thing an EU 
official could have said in response to the terrorist attacks in Spain.
  Instead of vowing to redouble efforts to defeat al Qaeda in the 
mountains of Afghanistan, the head of the European Commission advocates 
appeasement and surrender to those who orchestrated the massacre of 
innocents in Madrid.
  If the terrorists were encouraged by their apparent success at 
influencing the Spanish elections, they must be ecstatic that high-
ranking officials like Mr. Prodi want to pursue a

[[Page 4533]]

separate, dishonorable accommodation with terrorists.
  In an article in yesterday's Washington Post, Robert Kagan offered a 
withering critique of Mr. Prodi's comments.
  Mr. Kagan wrote, ``Al Qaeda seeks to divide Europe and the United 
States not just in Iraq, but in the overall struggle. It seeks to 
convince Europeans that not only the use of force in Iraq was mistaken, 
but that the use of force against terrorism in general is mistaken and 
futile--just as Prodi is arguing. Are Europeans prepared to grant all 
of al Qaeda's conditions in exchange for a promise of security? 
Thoughts of Munich and 1938 come to mind.''
  And Mr. Kagan recognizes that the policy of weakness advocated by Mr. 
Prodi will only encourage the terrorists. ``Responsible heads in Europe 
must understand that anything that smacks of retreat in the aftermath 
of this latest attack could raise the likelihood of further attacks,'' 
Mr. Kagan wrote.
  Surprisingly, a more realistic European assessment of the motivations 
and goals of these terrorists came from the French newspaper Le Monde.
  Never known for sharing a worldview with the Bush Administration, Le 
Monde on Monday noted that these terrorists ``attack democratic 
societies because of what they are: open, flexible, respectful of the 
rule of law,'' and for them ``the only measure of success is killing as 
many people as possible.''
  Mr. Speaker, America must stand by our Spanish allies and all of our 
European allies in this struggle against terrorism. We extend our 
sympathy to the families of those killed in the Madrid bombings, to 
those injured, and to the Spanish people. And we reaffirm our 
commitment to work together to defeat the perpetrators of this terrible 
crime.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert into the Record the Omaha 
World-Herald article.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Mar. 16, 2004]

                              Wrong Signal

       Spain's change of leadership can be viewed as saying that 
     terrorism works.
       The surprise is not that Spain's prime minister-elect 
     figures on pulling his nation's troops out of Iraq. He had 
     made that pledge during the campaign. The surprise is that he 
     was elected.
       Spaniards have a long history of bravery verging on 
     stubbornness. So it is unsettling to see them give at least a 
     surface appearance of knuckling under to terrorism. Prior to 
     last week's death-dealing bombings aboard Spanish trains, 
     national polls had strongly suggested that Mariano Rajoy, 
     candidate of the incumbent Popular Party, would be elected 
     prime minister.
       Then evidence increasingly pointed to the likelihood that 
     Islamic fundamentalists--quite possible al-Qaida--were 
     responsible for the bombings. After that, enough popular 
     votes shifted to swing the Socialist Party into the 
     parliamentary majority. That will make Jose Radriguez 
     Zapatero prime minister.
       In campaigning, Zapatero vowed to make fighting terror his 
     ``most immediate priority.'' He has a strange way of showing 
     it. The signal being sent here, intentionally or not, is that 
     radicals can gain advantage by murdering hundreds of innocent 
     people.
       There may be some wiggle room in all this. What Zapatero 
     has specifically said is that he will pull out his nation's 
     troops on June 30 unless, by then, the United Nations has 
     taken charge in Iraq. That brings to the forefront what is 
     meant by ``take charge.''
       The occupying forces intend to hand political control of 
     Iraq to an interim government on July 1, and there is ample 
     evidence that the United Nations will embrace that change. 
     Moreover, substantial U.N. involvement in peacekeeping would 
     be widely welcomed. But expecting the international body to 
     actually run the show is unrealistic. It isn't staffed to 
     handle the task.
       Spain's withdrawal from Iraq would be symbolic, in that its 
     troops number less than 1 percent of international forces 
     there. But in such matters, symbolism is important. It's true 
     that about 90 percent of Spaniards opposed their nation's 
     involvement in Iraq. But that opposition appears to have 
     taken on added weight after the bombs went off.
       The world weeps with Spain, which suffered a terrible blow. 
     But the Spanish voters, in their sorrow and anger, have 
     broadcast exactly the wrong signal: Terrorism works. It's 
     enough to make you wonder what nation might be next.

                          ____________________