OK, tell me where I am wrong. A terrorist attack in US before election

[lottie244]

will not help Bush. How can he say he is the best leader to protect us if there IS another terrorist attack inside the US? AND, if there is no terrorist attack between now and election, isn't all this hype about alerts just political?

I don't see how Bush can claim anything positive from all this after all those alerts. OK, so they tell us Al-qaeda is planning to bomb us or do worse. If it doesn't happen, then Bush looks like a liar again and like he is playing politics. If it does happen, then it means that Bush regime couldn't stop it.

I this as the greatest possibility: The Bush regime fakes some car bombs or other attacks, catches the "culprits" and claims to have thwarted an attack. That's the only way I see any of this hype about new alerts and new attacks helping Bush. Otherwise, he is toast.

[salin]

1. Same scenario but with out the actual bombs

too risky if they were caught faking attacks... but with the stepped up terror alert and ongoing propoganda about intentions to strike before the elections... all they have to do - in a couple of months - is start pointing to the absence of any incident as "proof" of their effectiveness at keeping us safe.

[sendero]

2. That is ...

... pretty much how I see it, but ya hafta admit the American mood is fickle and unpredictable. I'm hoping we get through the year with no more terorist attacks. Hell, through the decade :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Bush isn't impressing people right now

if these terror alerts are for real, why is the Idiot in Chief out fishing or vacationing? Can you imagine Kennedy during the Cuban Missle Crisis telling his staff that he was going to go sailing off Cape Cod?

[Aunt Anti-bush]

12. Agreed.

He's making an ass out of himself and a mockery of the rest of us.

[never_get_over_it]

4. One of the problems

and I think this might be at the heart of the terror threat before election is that these freaks are trying to find some way to postpone or cancel the election.....will the American people sit still for this - God I hope not - but they sat still for the stealing of Florida in 2000 so who the hell knows

[wildeyed]

5. In addition, Kerry has

been pressing bushco to do more about terrorism and do it faster. If there is another attack before the election, the dems will be driving it home that Bush was dragging his feet on the war on terror. That said, Bush's numbers do go up every time there is a 'lert, so who knows how the average citizen would react to an actual attack. It would be a risky strategy for bushco to pursue, but if it looks like they are far enough behind, they might figure they got nothing to lose.

[Kierkegaard]

6. I don't think you are wrong...

I've been of this same opinion for quite some time. It reminds me of Paula Poundstone's line about disciplining her cats. She uses a water pistol to dissuade them from doing wrong, but after being squirted, the cats run to her for protection.

That's what this administration would count on under such circumstances, and I doubt the majority of 'cats' would fall for it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. In the after-shock, logic does not prevail. Prepare now politically.

The after-shock of an attack leaves the voters in a very volatile emotional state. If it is before the election, then those who are politically prepared before hand will be able to act quickly.

Rumors will circulate very quickly. Real facts will be at a premium. There will not be time for reasoned refutations but abusive falsehoods will have to be refuted and quickly. Emotional appeals will be effective.

Be prepared. Think how media landscape and punditry will look in the aftermath.

There will be a reluctance to "change horses in mid-stream" and a certain amount of reflex rallying around the commander in chief. But Bush can be held in the spotlight for being the miserable failure he is.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. A "Thwarted" Attack is more Likely: September or October Surprise

It is more likely that a terrorist cell under observation now preparing for an attack will be revealed to the public in late September or October. Somewhere, somebody empowered to say it will be told to say "Round 'em up." Or a big fish on ice will be offered up.

This kind of non-surprise Surprise has none of the downsides of an actual attack, such as turmoil, casualties, and recriminations against the incumbent. It can be contemplated without requiring a huge conspiracy behind a conspiracy. It is easy to leak or reveal an outsider conspiracy. It is much more difficult to maintain a leak-free conspiracy to keep an outsider conspiracy on track and undiscovered.

The opposition is clever, but even they know they make mistakes and thus they look for something simple and easy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. You're counting on a rational response.

I think that al-Queyda, or a similar bunch, will attempt an attack in this country or on some high profile American target overseas (an embassy, military installation, etc) before the election. The object will be to prove their strength and to ensure a victory for the yellow-smirk-of-texas. Not to mention the very possible effect of making the war on terror a completely religios war.

The Smirk-in-Chief will look as solemn as possible, wave the flag, call for "national unity", surround himself with heroic troops in camis, blame the Democrats for putting obstacles in the glorious war on terror such as the 9/11 commision and investigations into harmless abuse of prisoners, and daring to question the noble cause.

Don't think the American people will lap it up? I give you as evidence the Internment of American citizens during WWII. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The first Gulf War. The totally irrational response to 9/11 of invading Iraq to the cheers of the majority of the American people.

A combination of fear, anger, and "patriotism" is a powerful weapon for megalomaniacs. Even stupid ones.

I sincerely hope that I'm wrong.

[jdj]

10. The media is the worst danger.

They spin everything to the right, and against the left...if one happens, they'll say, that's why we need Bush to protect us, and if it doesn't they'll say it's because of Bush.

[jukes]

11. won't be necessary

between cheating, stupid americans, & a sympathis supreme court(ship) the dictator will do four more years @ least. no telling what he'l do after that; coronation, perhap?

in the meantime, the "Hatriot Act" will be expanded, & constitution rights will disappear, for the lower & middle class, anyway.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Suppose that 30% of the votes are counted on inaudible electronic...

machines that are under the control of RW contributers. (BTW: They are.)

Now, suppose Kerry is out front by 10% a few days before the election. If Bush stole the election, he'd have some serious explaining to do.

HOWEVER - There's an attack. All the cable "news" channels report, nay cheerlead a rally behind the leader. The votes are "counted" and, hey presto, Bush wins in a landslide. Now, prove he stole the election.