Why would a terrorist attack be good for Bush?

[noahmijo]

Every so often on this forumn I see sporadic statements that basically point to saying "well Kerry can win...unless the terrorists strike again!" over and over.

Tell me how exactly a terrorist attack would be good for Bush. Okay sure he can play the fear factor thing and stuff, but see that only works when no terrorist attack happens. Plus as it stands most rational people really don't believe that Bush can claim credit for stopping terrorist attacks. Our agencies like law enforcement and the likes are the ones who stop terrorist attacks, the ones that Bush has PULLED funding from. On that reason alone he can't be given credit for entities that he refuses to support.

If a terrorist attack were to happen that would pretty much dump the last trump card that keeps the "fearful" voters (a voter who really doesn't like Bush but thinks Bush is the only one who can save us from the terrorists) wouldn't it? I mean the emperor failed to protect his people despite his policies to curb terrorism.

By NO means am I saying that I'm hoping for a terrorist attack. I'm just saying I really don't believe that a terrorist attack would help bolster Bush. It would actually cripple him even more.

[Kool Kitty]

1. I don't think it would help him, either.

He certainly couldn't say he was keeping us safe if we get attacked again.

[specter]

2. State of Emergency

n/t

[Wapsie B]

3. If he were to stop a real attack

or one that was staged it could score him points with the masses. He doesn't have much else going for himself.

[OpSomBlood]

4. Unfortunately, I see a situation like Spain....

...a large terrorist attack strategically timed just before the election in an attempt to sway the outcome.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. he could call off the elections

"its too dangerous, folks, we're at level red - stay in your homes"

[Zero Gravitas]

6. Probably hurt him

ON one hand there is the "rally round the flag" effect, but on the other hand it would only underline Bush's poor decisions on the so-called "War on terrorism". Assuming an al Qaeda attack it would only beg the question "why are there only 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan, where AQ is based and 130,000 in Iraq, a country that never had any connection with AQ?"

However Bush's support is strongest amongst the least informed, people whose ignorance allows them to believe Bush's lies. So his core support would be strengthened in their resolve, but anyone with half a brain or the smallest clue about the world outside the US would be more likely to wake up to the harsh reality that Bush is an incompetent fool propped up by lies and propaganda (if they haven't already.)

[DaveSZ]

7. At this point

I believe it would hurt Bush if the terrorists struck again.

[WFF]

10. I think the "rally 'round the flag" effect would be huge

Look at how much Bush's popularity went up after the 9/11 attacks. America has traditionaly rallied around its leaders in times of war, at least at first. If Bush had not invaded Iraq (which is dragging like Viet Nam), I think his poularity would be much higher.

Look at what happens when there is any kind of disaster... flood, hurricane, etc. Americans will pull together to help one another. If we were attacked by terrorists, America would pull together, embrace Bush, and let him do whatever he wants,

[Virginian]

14. Illogical isn't it?

If we were attacked again, Bush's approval rating would go up even though we were attacked on his watch.
Logically, it should go down. He failed to keep us safe. That is a bad thing. It should not cause him to get rewarded.

[BillZBubb]

8. The reaction would depend on the specifics...

but in general, I disagree with your analysis. The majority of voters still by a wide margin think Bush* would do a better job fighting terrorists. These people clearly are not viewing the situation rationally. Another attack would only fuel their irrational support for Chimpy. They'd want blood, and Chimpster would gladly provide it.

Witness Israel. Sharon promised to end the attacks against Israel. His heavy handed policies have actually made matters 10 times worse. Yet a large majority still support him because he's "tough". In spite of his total failure, the majority are lemmings and follow his failed lead.

We are no different from the Israelis. Sad, but true.

[Nlighten1]

9. Why is anything good for Bush?

This guy has been the most fucked up President ever but...there he is...strutting around like some kind of billy-badass on my TV and the media just plays along.

[AndyTiedye]

11. Hatred and Fear

> he can play the fear factor thing and stuff,

Hatred and fear are all he has to work with.

> but see that only works when no terrorist attack happens.

No, more attacks stir up more hatred and fear.

> Plus as it stands most rational people really don't believe that Bush > can claim credit for stopping terrorist attacks.

Rational people will vote for Kerry, just as they voted for Gore last time. To paraphrase Adalai Stevenson, that is not enough, we need
to win the election.

The more hatred and fear he can stir up, the fewer rational people
are left.

Finally, if Bush* is hopelessly behind in the Fall,
another terrorist attack would allow Bush* to play his
trump card and declare martial law. He can't lose the election
if there is no election. It has been stated repeatedly
that we are only one terrorist attack away from martial law and the
shutdown of what is left of our democracy.

[oblivious]

12. Of course it would be good

They'd play the "if you vote against Bush, you're caving in to the terrorists" line over and over and over and over. And it would work, no doubt about that.

[neebob]

13. I think about this a lot

and keep coming to the same conclusion as you - especially after seeing the better-safer-whatever banners. It would blow the safer argument out of the water. But then I think what if he and his cronies really are the bumbling idiots some people think they are? And what if it becomes obvious they're going to lose and lose big - what won't they do to stay in power? Either way, I keep worrying about it.

[Rosco T.]

15. Martial Law, National Emergency, Elections 'delayed' for National Security

- another "terrorist" attack(s) with significent casualities

- Christmas Treeor Color code goes to 'Red'

- effecitve state of Marshall Law, no public gatherings, business closed, people ordered to stay at home, off the streets..

- in the interests of "national security" and to 'keep from making targets' (polling places), elections are placed on hold until it comes off Red Alert

- every month or so, another 'incident' and you're at eternal red

- since public gatherings are prohibited, no protests, news media (more) controlled..

- welcome to Amerika....

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. The groundwork is already being laid to exploit any attacks for Bush!

Based on selected comments from various officials such as FBI Director Mueller and General Tommy Franks, it appears to me that the groundwork is being laid by Bush and his supporters to exploit a terrorist attack, if one occurs near the November election, to Bush's advantage.
FBI director Mueller's warnings that AQ might use a terrorist attack to influence our election like what happened in Spain(According to Bush loyalists anyway!) seemed to me like an attempt to make the American public think that, in the event of another terrorist attack occuring before the election, voting for Kerry (or anybody else BUT Bush) would be like voting for AQ and allowing AQ to subvert our electoral process (as if we would all vote for Bush otherwise!). I don't buy into that line of reasoning and I hope and pray that the rest of the public doesn't buy into it either should something happen right before the election.
Statements made by General Tommy Franks are even more ominous suggesting the possibility that the martial law might be needed (and declared) in the event of another terrorist attack against our country. Interestingly enough, though, as bad as 9-11 was given the attack on the Pentagon (and the possibly planned but possibly thwarted attack on the White House and/or Congress?), Bush did not declare martial law then and any future attacks should not be any more likely to result in the need for martial law unless the devastation is massive and widespread. I mean, Israel has had to deal with almost daily suicide bombings and massive civilian casualities and surprisingly they have not had to resort to martial law yet. That Bush might try to exploit another terrorist attack by declaring martial law is a chilling prospect made even more chilling by the lengths that this administration has gone to prosecute their so-called "war on terror."
Personally, I don't see any way that another terrorist attack can help Bush. I think that most people have decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt when he and members of the administration insist that there was NOTHING that they could have done to prevent 9-11 but hopefully they will not be so quick to forgive them should something like 9-11 happen again under his watch. By now, it is beyond dispute that AQ wants to hurt us wherever US troops and/or civilians are and have several means at their disposal for doing so. Hopefully, Bush and Condi Rice will, in Condi's immortal words, "move heaven and earth" to prevent future terrorist attacks against the US (at least until November 2004 anyway!)!