If we get hit by al Qaeda terrorist attack, it will be bad for Bush...

[kentuck]

probably devastating. Why? Because, the attacks will originate out of Afghanistan or Pakistan and if he had devoted our resources and troops to that area, instead of Iraq, we may have been able to have wiped out most of the terrorists by now, at least, in that part of the world. So, if we do get attacked, Mr Bush should hope it is not by the al Qaede of Afghanistan and Pakistan. People will start putting it together if we get hit again...

[vivalarev]

1. No...It will come from Iran...

Thats what they'll say and then America can rally round their asshole leader once again as he takes us into another unnecessary war in the middle east

[Goldmund]

2. All that assumes that people will act...

...rationally. I predict that in the case of another attack, you'll see "unite around the leader" sheep herd mentality one more time, though not nearly to the extent you saw after 9/11. I actually think you'll see further polarization to a point where it becomes physically dangerous.

[Raven]

3. It certainly will put the lie to "the US is safer"

and it will make Bush's foot dragging on the 911 Commission all the more negligent.

[libhill]

4. Agreed

assuming that Al Queda was actually involved in 9/11, and there seems to be a lot of evidence that they were used as scapegoats, or maybe even not involved at all - but assuming they were, all military resources should have been concentrated on Afghanistan. But even if there is a new attack, I doubt it will hurt Bush - nothing seems to stick to that asshole. And they used to call Reagan the Teflon President.

[chookie]

5. It's unclear

Mr Rove's script goes like this: if no attack occurs, it is only because George W Bush has done such a magnificent job protecting the American people. If an attack occurs, it PROVES beyond a doubt that the world has become a dangerous place, just as George W Bush told us it had, and that we need this resolute War Time Commander in Chief to protect us.

That being said, my dear kentuck -- I don't think it's going to make a bit of difference to potential voters. I think their views one way or the other are already set in concrete, and "bounce" is likely to be very small. I don't think an attack, or lack of one, will make that much of a difference.

If Kerry got only a slight bounce -- as the media is ecstatically crowing about these last few days -- well, Bush can only expect a very small one as well, from the RNC convention or anything, which may include the coming October Surprise -- which people will be VERY suspicious of.

I know people who don't watch Michael Moore, or read DU, or listen to me, or even consider themselves Democrats who now trust their own eyes and ears and know that Bush is a liar and mistrust everything he says and does. It's a beautiful thing.

[enki23]

6. kentuck... i respect you

but i think you're being dangerously naive on this particular issue. we just saw the democratic mayor of st paul endorse bush because of the *possibility* of terrorist attacks, citing "continuity of government." i would look for a deluge of democrats to do the same in the event of a real attack.

bush and his backers have very little incentive to actually stop any attacks... unless of course they can do it live on fox news.

[kentuck]

9. That's OK enki....

I think the deluge of Democrats would be what Bush and Co would anticipate also. However, if the act were to be committed by terrorist from Afghanistan or Pakistan, it would magnify the fact that Bush deserted that part of the war to invade Iraq and permitted these terrorists to re-group and attack us again. I think that would be a credible argument in many minds. I'm sure we would hear much about "continuity of government"...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

17. bush and his backers have very little incentive to actually stop any attac

Oh ma gosh.... good point. When your only trump card is fear... then fear is what you will use.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

8. No. Nobody wants it but....

It is the Bush regime that has made the war on terrorism the centerpiece of a political campaign. Who can deny that? It would be nice to not have this issue on the table but we cannot escape that reality. The issue is bigger than the war on terror because of the tryanny and the deception involved in the participation thereof...

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

13. No. You are wrong....

It was unfortunate that Rove memo was discovered that wanted the Repubs to use the "war on terrorists" as the issue in the 2002 elections. If Bush had not unilaterally invaded Iraq, I doubt the issue would be as political as it is now. By the way, do you see any difference in "war on terror" and "war on terrorists"? One is imposssible to defeat.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

19. There are many more terrorists now than when we....

went into Afghanistan. We had a chance to wipe out the terrorists in Afghanistan and it would have been a devastating blow. But the invasion of Iraq permitted them to re-group in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to recruit thousands of new adversaries in Iraq and surrounding states.

Again, I ask, Do you see any difference in "war on terror" and "war on terrorists"??

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Senior citizen]

10. Has Bush* paid for another terrorist attack?

Prior to 9/11 he sent $43 million to the Taliban, who were known to be harboring Bin Laden at the time. Has he paid for another attack? Does he funnel the money through Pakistan these days? If it is paid for, it will happen, and if it isn't paid for, it won't.

[DaveSZ]

12. People will react with fear

and Bush will win in a landslide.

Bush may even let a terror attack happen to get his reelection (or election for the first time rather).

[napi21]

14. It all depends on when it would happen!

If it occurred in Mid Oct., the majority would probably rally around the President. If it occurred this week, there's 3 months for the shock to change to anger, then to some rational thinking, and that just maybe the current guy ain't doin' the job!

[kentuck]

15. That is a good point, napi21...

The time of attack could make for a different perspective from the people...

[nomaco-10]

16. I doubt it.....

They will blame it on the Clinton admin and just keep repeating the memes "they hate us for our freedom" "I will smoke them folks out and bring them to justice", "Murika is on the move" and then the October surprise, bin laden or al zarwaqari caught, captured or killed. These guys are the king of lemons, they seem to be able to turn lemons into lemonade and dress up a turd and sell it to the Murikan people as if it was a piece of gold or a free tank of gas. They're evil, but they're very good at what they do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Not a chance. Flagwaving and revenge will trump rationality.

The fact that the war(s) have only increased the power of the "terrorists" will be overlooked or considered treasonable if stated. Even the draft will be considered absolutely necessary and whatever country(s) are next on Wolfowitz's list will be attacked by a united and "patriotic" nation singing "God Bless Amurka".