HOW DOES the saying go? Oh, yes, "excusatio non petita, acusatio manifesta". Sometime it's difficult not to think of that, for example when reading this headline on the Moroccan press:

No evidence on Moroccan intelligence involvement in Madrid attacks

And then

"The probe on March 11 attacks (in Madrid) has revealed no evidence of a possible involvement of the Moroccan intelligence services in the attacks,” stated a senior Spanish official, who claimed anonymity, reported MAP.

The truth is that, as the Washington Post reports today,

[a]bout 75 people -- the majority of them Moroccan nationals -- have been arrested in connection with the attacks, and 23 remain in prison. But central questions of who organized them, and how, remain unanswered.

[...] The national daily El Mundo, which has broken several stories on the investigation, has reported extensively on an alleged connection involving elements of the Moroccan secret security services. The Moroccan government denies the allegation.

And another truth is that relationships between Spain and Morocco have been always shaky: over Ceuta and Melilla, over Western Sahara, over illegal immigration, etc. But most specially so during the Aznar administration: in july 2002, the two countries even had a military kerfuffle over the Parsley isle, which was invaded by a handful of Moroccan soldiers, only to be expelled a few hours later by the Spanish army. So, objectively speaking, before March 11 there was a non-Morocco-friendly administration; after March 11 (or, rather, after the election 3 days after that), the new administration is so friendly that they even join military operations in Haiti together.

At the same time, Morocco saw that Spain was the US preferential ally on the Western part of the Mediterranean; now, with Zapatero almost radioactive in the international scene, despised by the Bush administration, the US quickly named Morocco as major non-Nato ally. Which means weapons and military support.

If we use the Cui Bono rule, it's scary.