I don't think another attack will help *.

[MoonRiver]

CNN is proposing that another attack means * automatically becomes a shoe-in because Americans always "rally round their president" in times of national crises. Cynically exploiting images of the 9/11 horror, smiley faced Jeff Greenfield pontificates about how wonderful a repeat of such terror will be for His Lowness. This is beyond the pale in terms of journalistic responsibility, and demonstrates how low into the gutter these whores have sunk. They are metaphorically feeding on the corpses of murdered Americans and others, who fell because of *'s incompetence and arrogance, or WORSE.

But I honestly think such spin is patently WRONG. The level of suspicion about this administration is massive. Even if most Americans don't believe in LIHOP, much less MIHOP, they have grave reservations about how much AWOL could have but didn't do to stop 9/11. Another attack will destroy all pretexts that this nightmare regime has any ability, or even desire, to keep us safe. Nobody, even diehard Repubs, are going to tolerate such an event going unquestioned and unpunished again. If, before the election this year, the bushi*es DARE to allow an attack to occur on American soil again, they will pay the price in an epic landslide for Kerry come November. I also don't think * will get away with declaring martial law and suspending the elections. The military will turn with blessings from enough Repubs, aligned with Dems, to prevent this.

Bottom line, I still believe in America.

edited for clarity

[Walt Starr]

1. I agree, another attack will NOT help Bush*

There is a caveat, however. The THREAT of an attack, especially if it results in the APPEARANCE of a THWARTED ATTACK days before the election WILL result in a race close enough to once again steal.

[MoonRiver]

2. That's why Kerry must choose Clark as VP.

The war on terror is the only area where * has an edge over Kerry.

[stinkeefresh]

17. Kerry could pick a hand puppet as his running mate

It'll still be a landslide rejection of BushCo.

I like Clark, but he isn't vital to success.

[MoonRiver]

19. I really hope you're correct.

I would feel safer myself, in terms of our security, if Clark were VP, or at least in Kerry's cabinet.

[K-W]

3. Im not nearly sure either way, I could see it helping and hurting...

but I think you also have to consider that more attacks could create a frenzy in which they could totally subvert democracy.

If we have real attacks in the current state of our country things will get very very chaotic and its very possible it will help Bush.

[SeattleDem]

11. I wonder if there is a contingency plan if there's an attack in Nov.

I could see there being controversy if the country were attacked and one or more states literally could not hold elections this November.

I wonder if there is a plan in that event.

Would the other states hold their elections as planned? Would the results have to wait until all states were able to have elections? What about those artificial deadlines in December for an approved slate of electors?

It could be very interesting. And very scary.

[Goldmund]

4. I disagree.

I don't have poll numbers to prove it (maybe somebody has done a poll like this but I'm not aware of it), but I believe that most Americans think that the terrorists want Kerry to win. Sad, but unfortunately, true. IF that is so, Bush will win after an attack -- because in America, John Wayne is more of a model than is MLK.

[MoonRiver]

I don't believe most Americans think the terrorists want Kerry.

If this were so, nobody sane would say they'll vote for Kerry. Yet Kerry is either ahead or tied in most national polls.

[Goldmund]

16. That's a decent point

But saying that "terrorists would rather have Kerry than Bush" isn't equivalent to saying "Kerry is a representative of the terrorists". Also, right now, people are more likely to see the big picture -- the blunders in Iraq, the economy, America's global reputation, etc. But in the psychosis and frenzy that would follow a hypothetical attack, I totally have the sense that the only thing that would matter is childishly raising the collective middle finger of America to the terrorists -- and that would mean electing Bush, unlike them cowardly Spaniards.

Ever since Sept. 11th, Americans have been (brainwashed into) believing that the best way to fight terrorism is by blunt force and tough talk. Only now are they waking up to the fact that not only is that not so, but the "blunt force" that Bush has been wielding has not even been against the terrorists, but in the interests of his neoconservative mafia. And that's because the adrenaline has worn off and actual thinking is starting to set in. But if there's an attack, you can kiss thinking goodbye.

[librechik]

5. that's not spin, that's hypnotic suggestion.

if they repeat it over and over, a lot of braindead types will obey.

[K-W]

8. just like the terrorists want Kerry to win talk

they are conditioing people to react properly to an attack

[coloradodem2005]

6. It pisses me off that people would think this way.

Even if you do not believe in LIHOP or MIHOP, Bush and the goddamned media is as you say feeding off the corpses of the dead Americans from that tragedy. Bush should not get a second term because of that alone, let alone having another attack under his watch.

[SeattleDem]

7. another attack would be the death knell for *

sure, maybe those who already support him would rally around him, but those in the undecided middle, who don't pay a lot of attention to politics, would finally wake up.

The accusations that we've ignored the homeland and forgotten about Osama while settling personal scores in Iraq (thus tying up billions of dollars and human resources) would finally resonate with the undecided. Especially if the attack used known areas of vulnerability, like shipping containers or airport cargo holds or if the dirty bomb materials came from North Korea, Pakistan, or the unsecured sites in the former USSR.

Plus, all this crap about the Iraq war being a front in the war on terrorism would be put to rest.

CNN has got it all wrong.

[k in IA]

9. I agree. How could we be attacked now that we caught Saddam

Hussein? I think the huge diversion of resources to Iraq instead of focusing on AQ and ramping up security in the US would cause huge negative fallout for *.

[Bonhomme Richard]

10. I think the first couple of days after.......................

an attack will help shrub but as soon as the shock wears off everyone will have to concede that it happened on his watch. It will be another disaster after all his other disasters.
He is toast unless it happens within 3 days of the election.

[NeonLX]

14. I think they will THWART an imminent attack

And become "heroes" to the Murkan sheeple. It will be a cake-walk for them.

[MoonRiver]

21. If they can actually PROVE they thwarted one.

Nobody's listening to chicken little anymore.

[tandot]

12. If we have another attack, BUSH failed to protect us

That is how I see it.

I read today that in all, we spent $191 Billion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ($119 Billion for Iraq).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=8&u=/ap/20040527/ap_on_go_co/us_war_spending

First, he has p*ssed of almost every Arab by his Iraq conquest, and now we don't have the money to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks. And he is planning to cut funding for education and homeland security in 2006 (if he gets re-elected):

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=4&u=/washpost/a58762_2004may26

Thanks to all of the MORONS who voted for that incompetent idiot in 2000.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

13. Exactly

* is toast if there's another attack. People will start asking why he can't protect us and there would be no way to blame THIS one on Clinton. I think that Rove and Co. honestly believe an attack will be good for them, but they are dead wrong, IMHO.
P.S. CNN are Rethug whores anyway.

[whistle]

15. Another attack on the scale of 9-11 would just prove how.....

...totally incompetent and out of touch the BushCo folks really are. They have not learned from the past and are bungling idiots. Let's hope there is not attack on U.S. soil. When John Kerry is sworn into office, his plans to protect the U.S and the world can be implemented ASAP (hopefully in 100 days or less). As for 9-11 and the events surrounding the terrorist attacks, I'm leaning more and more toward LIHOP and/or MIHOP by the Bush administration. These guys need to be reined in immediately.

[Selwynn]

18. I believe an attack WILL seal Bush's victory.

But admittedly, I have been accused of not thinking very highly of the American voting public so...

[gbwarming]

20. Bush* fatigue - look at the approvals - nobody REALLY likes *

He's been the downhill kid ever since the inaguration. There are 4 distinct upward steps - the only time his rating have _EVER_ gone up - each smaller that the previous and followed by an even steeper down slope. #1 9/11, #2 Iraq War, #3 Saddam Capture, #4 ???.

People supported Bush* and what did they get? Nuttin good.

I don't think capturing Osama would do any good, and a major attack would just be depressing -

http://www.radiofreemonkey.com:8080/charts//img_bush_approval.gif

Plug for
http://www.radiofreemonkey.com:8080/charts//
and MIA Professor Pollkatz

[Timefortruth]

22. It doesn't have to help him since he will declare marshal law.

The public won't care because they will think that it is necessary to keep them safe. Look at all the intrusions into civil liberties they have tolerated so far.

[TexasSissy]

23. I think it will. It'd harken back to his glory days of 9/11....

his shining moment. And many people would not want to change Presidents in the midst of active terrorism in the country.

I think a terrorist attack in our homeland would have the opposite attack as the one in Madrid did. There are vast differences between the two situations.

[chookie]

24. It will not help

Been there, done that.

Another attack will NOT rally people behind His Chimperial Majesty -- he will instead be properly blamed for not having taken adequate measures to protect us. He will rightfully be blamed for failing to focus on appropriate counter-terror measures, having chosen instead to chase phantoms in Iraq. He will rightfully be blamed for failing to put out one fire before starting another. He will be blamed for compromising national security by dishonoring America with his conduct of the war.

I saw that report you mention -- it seemed really out of touch with current popular consciousness. Sounded like wishful thinking.

Another thing -- LOTS of conspiracy theories are floating around. Maybe people don't buy into them 100%, but I bet most people are suspicious about at least one or two details. An attack prior to the election will confirm a lot of people's worst suspicions about His Chimperial majesty's dark political agenda.

*Americans* dealt beautifully with the events of Sept 11. I was never so proud of my countrymen as when they spontaneously rose to the challenges of that horrific day. Fuck Bush! -- he just kinds stumbled into frame a couple of days after, and rattled off a couple of meaningless platitudes and was virtually drooling in anticipation of being able to launch the PNAC program on the coattails of thousands of dead.

I think an attack on American soil before Election Day is a dead cert. They NEED this to happen -- even more than they NEEDED it back in 2001. MIHOP/LIHOP -- anything it takes to hold onto their maniacal power. I'm reading in between the lines of the latest threats -- I am disturbed to hear the "spin" that Al Qaeda wishes to disrupt American elections, because they were "emboldened" by their "success" in the Spanish elections earlier this year. Message -- resist the urge to send Whistle Ass back to Crawford, and stand resolute against the Evil Doers.

First time around (sept 11) -- there was spontaneous, deep, numbing shock. People were confused too -hence the spontaneous rallying behind the idiot in the Oval Office. Next time -- and I am quite certain an attack will be manufactured by November -- people will be shocked, of course, but not deeply so, and not made numb enough to accept whatever Bush says or does Their critical faculties have gotten a LOT of exercise since 2001, and they will not swallow the bullshit Bush will be handing out. I predict ANGER! There will, of course, be a very strong reaction from the militant right, and maybe even actions against dissenters taken by the Justice Department. But I don't think people will sit back and take it like they did in 2000. We Demand Our Election!

He's going down regardless of what happens the rest of this year. There is no miracle that I can conceive of that will restore his reputation before the election. At this point -- Bush can only win by dirty filthy tricks. Are we ready for it?

[MoonRiver]

25. It's horrible to think about what we may have to go through though.

CNN and other whores are endangering all of US by not putting *'s feet to the fire. WHEN Kerry wins, and we take back the House and Senate,(I'm gonna think positively), there should be multiple investigations, not just about the * criminals, but the media conspiracy to bring down this democracy.