Why would a pre-election al Qada attack ensure * re-election?

[digno dave]

It's my belief that if in fact we are attacked between now and the election it would be easy for the Dems to claim that * has diverted our resources to Iraq when we should have been focusing on al qada the whole time. Because of this we have been left more vulnerable, hence the attack. What is wrong with this arguement?
I don't fully understand why most pundits assume that an attack before the election would necessarily help *.

[Momof1]

1. Do you still doubt the October surprise?

Bin Laden will be in cuffs.

[Pachamama]

3. Nope - Osama will be in a body bag - Dead Men don't talk n/t

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

2. We might claim that, as a party, or one-on-one, but....

if there's an attack between now and November 2nd, while Dems are pushing for a reasonable response, * will be compiling evidence (falsely or not) and mounting revenge. The sign from September 11th that a storekeeper in Manhattan put up will say it all: MR. PRESIDENT, DECLARE WAR ON AFGHANISTAN TODAY! SEPTEMBER 11!

If there's another terrorist attack, while we Dems are explaining how the Iraq war weakened our security, * will be bombing the holy shit out of someone. Rightly or wrongly, that will make a lot of people feel better. I cried in frustration the other day when Kerry said he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terror. THAT statement will come back to bite us on the ass over and over. There is no such thing as a sensitive war.

[prowler]

4. Al-Qaeda knows no better either...

Granted, if Kerry made that 'sensitive war' statement I agree it was a stupid one. But analytically, as far as where another attack would put both parties, and as far as how both parties have issued statements on the issue of protecting America, well, those are 2 different issues yes? I admit they overlap, but keep with me...
So let me bifurcate the issues of Kerry and Bush's statements/credentials regarding terrorism, and what another attack would do for the election respectively.

1. Let us not forget that there is a card Kerry has not played vehemently enough, and that is the one concerning a) our borders and our port security, i.e. the issue with Mexico and our borders and Bush's compromises therefrom, alongside Bush's lack of steadfastness in heightening security where material shipments into the U.S. are concerned, and I include b), the original posts' argument that Kerry has the option of highlighting how the war in Iraq has diverted our attention from Al-Qaeda.
2. I have heard from certain radio interviews that there are even disagreements between individual fundamentalists in Al-Qaeda about a) what party should* be kept in power in the first place and b) whether another attack would assure the leverage of one or the other.

I do not claim any factual basis here, as I cant remember who was interviewed, but I come to more anyways out of shear reflection.

Concerning a. of 2., Let us think, which party would be best in power for AL-Qaeda? A-Q may hold the viewpoint that Kerry will be 'softer' on terror. At the same time, A-Q may hold the viewpoint that Bush's more 'reckless' foreign policy in the long run helps fuel their arguments in the mid-east and likewise their recruiting.
Concerning b. of 2, Which party an attack would help, we all know the postulated reason for why an attack might help Bush. I refer to number 1. of this post for how it would help Kerry. But I would assume that Kerry would focus on port security and Iraq before he focused on our borders (Mexico), for reasons we can figure well enough and well aligned traditionally with the donkey, e.g. what happened with the Gray Davis/immigrent issue in Caly. hmmmmmmm........now what would that say about us? But I swam far from shore a while ago with this...

In short, I think it foolish to prematurely assume any correspondence whatsoever between the implications of a terror attack here and what happened in Spain. Likewise we cannot rest content assuming an exact inverse. We are on the forefront of this war, like it or not, and just to put a kink in any grudge with the reader here, we very well know that a successful attack in Spain had no possibility whatsoever of being a victory for the conservatives, because the Iraq war was not supported in the majority or even close to 50/50. It is very different here. Here we stand alone on the implications of our own world power. But also the convolution of catch-22 advantages and advantages possibly wrested from presumed catch-22's on the other side because of it. See the tongue-tie? We already knew the iceburg, here's being on the tip, kid...

[TomNickell]

5. Unpredictable.

There is no way to predict what the effect on the election would be.

There's a rally 'round the leader effect. But, there is enough skepicism about Bush now that there could be a big 'throw the bum out' effect.

Hopefully, we won't get the chance to find out.

Rule of thumb: the pundits are always wrong.