SCENARIO: How the Terrorists could use Terrorism to decide the Election

[Walt Starr]

What if we are wrong? What if the terrorists really want to get rid of Bush because he is a tool of the Saudi Royal family? How could they use terrorism against Bush and do so without firing a shot?

Simple, plant evidence of imminent terror attacks. Make the Bush administration piss their pants over phony information. Have them up the terror alert status over bogus "chatter". Terrorize people without even having an act of terror, just the threat of an act of terror.

For it to work, a large percentage of Americans have to be chicken shit cowards. For it to work, Bush needs to be in a bad way and welcomes the opportunity to show how he is "strong against terror" with gesticulating and posturing over terror alerts. For it to work, Bush has to be amenable to being played like a violin.

For my part, I think this is the most likely scenario of all. There will be no terror attack before the election, just "chatter" and the threat of a terror attack.

And Bush may be a little flat, but he's still being played. As bin Laden pulls the bow across his strings, the nation will see just how much of a coward Bush really is. And the underlying thoughts of every American, that this administration pushes bogus attack information for political gain, will become the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[Dirty Hippie]

1. Sy Herch said

during his ACLU speach that Bin Laden would be just as happy if he destroyed the US economically.

In that case * is his man!

[ClintonTyree]

2. That's crossed my mind as well Walt...............

there is no need for actual terrorist attacks. The Bush Adminintrations constant over reaction is enough to disrupt the economy and keep everyone in a state of fear. It's a very simple and very realistic plan.

[jukes]

3. a few bogus

sensational pinches, whisked off to gitmo so they cdnt be unmasked, wd clinch the deal...

[Walt Starr]

4. We already know most of them are ready to die for their cause

Being captured to spread disinformation would be an even harsher martyring than death.

The pieces do fit the pattern of alerts we've had.

Al-Queda has to know when Bush is in trouble.

Bush is bin Laden's violin.

[Murdock]

5. Walt.. Honestly..

I don't see it happening that way, the terror alerts HELP Bush..

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=715646&mesg_id=715646

It's win/win for Bush to play the terror alert card right now, if there isn't an attack he wins, by "preventing" it..

If there *is* an attack, Bush wins by the "Rally around the Leader" effect..

[Walt Starr]

6. Short term, yes

Long term, no.

Every time an alert is given and it turns out to be much ado about nothing, he loses credibility.

Now they have "specific information" about "specific targets" and they release the alert at a "suspicious time".

When nothing happens, they'll look like the fools they are, playing terror alerts for political gain.

[Dhalgren]

8. No, I think that if there is another successful attack

against the US, Bush will lose. It's one thing to be caught with your pants down when no one was ready, but, now? If we get hit badly, then Bush has failed and no one, except the most ardent nazis will vote for him. (Not that the actual vote will have any thing to do with who "wins" the election).

[Walt Starr]

9. And if there is an actual attack

It will occur nowhere near the buildings put on higher alert, making Bush look even more the fool.

[LibDemAlways]

11. If those buildings were ever the

targets, they aren't anymore. The plotters will move on to Plan B.

[LiberalPersona]

7. I believe

that the true terror the terrorists aim for is the stupid anti-Constitution crap that Bush does in response to the attacks and threats, not the actual attacks themselves.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Let's be pro-active

Talking points:

Since Bush announced "mission accomplished" (May 1, 2003) in the "central front in the war on terrorism" (Iraq), al Qaida has staged several attacks on western targets in Turkey, Spain and Saudi Arabia. Al Qaida allies, such as Zarqawi, have more power in Iraq as a result of the invasion than they did before.

Of course, the reality is that Iraq is not a central front in the war on terror. This is because while Saddam had no ties to al Qaida nor any weapons of mass destruction to give them. Bush and his neoconservative aides either knew or had reason to know this, but disregarded the relevant intelligence and even manipulated intelligence in an effort to make the case for war against Iraq appear much stronger than it actually was. They had long before decided to invade Iraq, regardless of facts, and were simply attempting to make a false case for war. Meanwhile, as Bush and his aides prepared to invade Iraq, they took resources away from Afghanistan, a more realistic place to designate a front in the war on terror; al Qaida took advantage of the release of pressure and regrouped.

Given this, the world is not safer from terrorists as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. On the contrary, it is a blunder of immense proportions that allowed al Qaida to regain strength lost following the action in Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The attacks in Turkey, Spain and Saudi Arabia are the consequence of Mr. Bush's blunder.

Let us hope there is no attack by al Qaida against Americans on American soil, but if there is, it along with the other events mentioned would only underscore the folly of Mr. Bush's approach to the war on terrorism. The very fact that we are even talking about it at this point shows that invading Iraq failed to make the world safe from terrorists. That suggests that we might be better off were we to choose a leader with better judgment, like Senator Kerry.

[Arclight311]

12. How do you keep protesters away from RNC?

Hey, here's a joke...

How do you keep thousands of 'Remove the Smirking Chimp' protesters from the RNC in NY City?

Why, use the Code Orange Terror Alert of course!!!

That'll keep them far away from the 'fair and balanced' media covering the event...

Wow, they had me fooled there for a bit... gosh, they are so smart up there in the White House...

Tom
Atlanta GA

[Walt Starr]

13. Yep, and bin Laden KNOWS there will be protests

ergo, Bush is more amenable to being manipulated into a 'Terra Lert' for New York leading up to the RNC.

Like I said, he's being played like a violin. Al Queda KNOWS how much of a coward Bush is and they are playing the game like they are dealing with a coward.