phyzix525

So apparently Mrs. Rice is warning of a possible strike against us here in the states from Al qaeda before the election in order to influence the polls. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in609947.shtml )

Well what do you all think would happen if say they do attack? would it unite the people and keep bush in or would people get more upset and want him out cause he was unable to keep the terrorists out?

How quickly do you think Kerry would go from morning the dead to pointing the finger at bush to help his campaign.

Well all saw how well Bush handled the 9-11 attack, wouldn't you think something like that would only help his efforts? Don't get me wrong I am not a paranoid person saying that he would want this to happen and would not try to prevent it, just saying do you think it would be benificial to al-qaeda to do such a thing?

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

Lebell

When the terrorists attack, they will simply cause those on the fence to unite behind Bush.

At least, that is my prediction.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Boo

I hate to say it (belongs in paranoia) but I kind of expect some sort of attack, maybe multiple attacks. I would also believe that internal Iraq tensions will increase.

Unless something really significant happens before the election, I believe that Bush will win. Kerry isn't enough to derail Bush.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

HarmlessRabbit

Funny, I feel exactly the opposite way. Only time (and votes) will tell.

An attack could go either way on Bush. Bush has maintained (along with his staff) that the 9/11 attacks happened because of bad preparation during the Clinton era. It would be hard for Bush to deflect responsibility for another attack now. If you look at Spain, an attack on their soil right before the election made the conservative candidate lose. Now, the USA isn't spain, but it just goes to show you that things could go either way depending on the nature of the attack.

Sparhawk

I think it would be just one more intelligence failure, that, when put with all the others, would be the deathnell for this administration.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

onetime2

It depends on how close to the election and how many people they murder. A significant attack (hundreds or thousands killed) close to the election will unite people behind Bush because people know that he will respond with force. IMO most voters still believe force is the right course of action to fight terrorism. Pretending it doesn't exist and/or launching a missile or two at random targets in the desert is not sufficient and most believe know it.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

OFKU0

I think it will go the other way. If an attack on American soil is successful that could or at least should be seen as a homeland security failure.

If Bush gets re-elected under that pretense, who will be the scapegoat if not him? Ashcroft? Ridge? FBI? CIA? Someone else?

Hopefully that won't happen, but one cannot rule out Canada. If it is shown terrorists' came through my country, as with Ressam who tried to blow up LAX at the milleneum, then things will really become ambiguous.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

djtestudo

Honestly, I don't think it will have more then a negligable effect. Those that already support Bush will get behind him further, those that support Kerry will get behind him further. Even those in between will likely split evenly.

Unless the election is very close, on the order of 2000 or similar, it wouldn't effect us much.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

analog

I agree- and mostly because he'll pull that, "if you're not with us (me!!), you're with the terrorists" bullshit again, calling anyone who questions him "unamerican" and "unpatriotic".

tecoyah

I dont see how it would change things much. At this point it seems we are not having an election race of two candidates running against each other, more a race of one candidate trying to remain in power while half of America is trying to get him out. To me Kerry is of little importance, and Bush is of great importance. This is the first time I have noticed a large portion of the population actively fearful of a standing president, and I dont think they would be swayed to change that opinion. On the other side are an equally adamant group of citizens who love and support the current president, and they are also unlikely to switch sides.
Those who seriously dislike Bush, would simply grow more dissatisfied with him, and those who support him would hope he nukes someone for it.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

phyzix525

Are you saying the left would not want us to retaliate?

Pacifier

Sadly, I think you're right.
I think the cheap tricks analog mentioned would work again.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

OFKU0

You raise a good point. If the Americans venture into N.Korea or Iran with force and resistance occurs, do those defending themselves automatically become terrorists? And similarly, are those who raise such questions unamerican or unpatriotic?

Maybe there will be a terrorist strike against America, but not to change the current administration but rather to keep it in place as for justification to continue the terror. Certainly has the makes of an interesting quagmire.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

yournamehere

I have a question for everyone who said they thought it would unite people behind Bush because they know "he'll do something."

I can understand the "don't change horses . . . " mentality of trying to keep Bush in office (Although I strongly disagree with it) but how did the seemingly widely held assumption arise that Kerry will somehow be soft on terrorism? So many people assume that Bush will have a better "reaction" to a terrorist attack. Why do you think this? What will his reaction be? Attack Iraq again?

I'm serious - why do so many of you assume Bush will be tougher on terrorism than Kerry? Just because he disapproves of war without justification? I would say another attack on our soil is plenty of justification, and I'm sure Kerry would respond accordingly.

If anything, I would think taking $100 billion and a quarter million troops away from the <b>real</b> war on terrorism is <b>not</b> the best solution.

__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

tecoyah

Of course not. That would be far too general of a statement and we have more than enough of that going on already. But, I would say that the left would likely be more accepting of options other than immediate retaliation. My point was more aimed at replying to the posted question, and attempted to state an opinion on the presidential race itself. I used the term "Nuke" as a way of focusing attention on an attitude of war and violence we seem to be caught up in, and to remind people of one possible outcome of such continued blind agression.
Many of those who are opposed to the re-election of Mr. Bush, hold this opinion out of a mixture of fear, and frustration. Fear of the possible outcome of this new "Holy War" we have instigated(and yes it is becoming a war of religions, whether we want it to be or not). And frustration at the apparent lack of forsight that has been put into the "plans" of said war.

Just to clarify, before I am flamed as liberal and unpatriotic again.
I do not like the democratic party, or what they stand for as a general rule.
I have even more dislike for the republican platform , as it is likely to create even more problems for people like myself (average working American) than that of the Dems.
I think strategic destruction of terrorist infrastructure, and personnel is an option with considerable weight.
I do not think blanket destruction of anything remotely terrorist related, or anti-American is an acceptable option.
I do not beleive the United States has invested the needed resources into non-violent resolution of the underlying reasons for such devotion to American destruction, as is seen in many Terrorist harboring regions.
I dislike Bush, As I find his policy of deluted civil rights and freedom fries to be ignorant and misguided.
I dislike Kerry , as he is attempting to gain the presidency for all the wrong reasons.

Honestly, in my opinion. Anyone who would actively seek the job of president of this country is likely the wrong person for the Job, for various reasons depending on the individual. Thus we are forced to chose the candidate who is less likely to make things worse, In this case, I feel that would be Mr. Kerry.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Mojo_PeiPei

1) Kerry is a pollster, plus he has been wish washy on his voting record. Plus If some shit went down I know Bush would act for America and its interests, he wouldn't get a permission slip from the UN.

2) The war was justified, there are a great many justifications, as pointed out in other threads by people on boths sides of the fence.

3) If you think Kerry is being level headed and not some cowboy in opposition to Iraq now, which btw he "voted for, before he voted against it", you should dig up some quotes from the Dem war drum beating in 98'. The man is a pollster through and through.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

onetime2

Well said. I agree.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Sen

Very well put.

I also think the country would unite behind Bush. Remember the reaction in America to the elections in Spain? Sure, the terrorists attacked and the present administration lost. But, how many political cartoons, pundits, or just general water-cooler conversations did you see/hear about how badly Spain caved to the terrorists? Americans definitely doesn't want to give the appearance of "caving" to the terrorists and I think they would send a message by uniting behind the President.

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

Flat

Ahem, excuse me.

Retaliate against who ?

__________________
<advertise here>

phyzix525

whoever suppled, harbored or helped the terrorists.

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

Warf Rat

I think it would help Bush, because even though many people disagree with the Iraq war, they don't dissagree with "a" war on terror.

I also feel that democrats in general try to find "root causes" and americans know this. That means even though an attack would be viewed as a failure on our intelligence, people would be reluctant to trust democrats if they really feel vunerable.

__________________
A day late, and a dollar short.

Zeld2.0

I'd like to say one thing - what politician isn't a fucking pollster?

Everyone of them has the goal of getting re-elected so no shit they're going to change their mind to whatever gets them attention to get them the votes.

Mojo_PeiPei

Yeah but Bush has shown he has a sack because he sticks to what he says. Kerry changes his mind daily. And there is a big difference to pandering to constituents then being a pollster.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Zeld2.0

Well of course Bush sticks to what he says because you believe in what he says - those who are skeptical, as you are to Kerry, will see that he changes his mind as well.

Not to mention not following the original lines

But in our own little world of our mind, we're right

Kadath

You have a short-ass memory, sir. Every presidential candidate changes his tune. Shall I find you the clips of Governor Bush saying the US shouldn't be nation-building?

__________________
it's quiet in here

theusername

Every President comes to office with a specific plan of what they want to get done while in office. Bush's plan changed drastically on 9/11, he could no longer commit to his original ideas and had to adopt a strategy in order to best protect our national security, which was the public's number one concern.

I think an attack will help Bush but then agian I'm praying we will never have to find out.

Mojo_PeiPei

Shall I show you clips of planes crashing into buildings? 9/11 my friend, completely changed the name of the game.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Sparhawk

Hmmm... Post 9/11 flip-flops by Bush... *not thinking very hard* *not thinking very hard*

-Releasing Military Records
-Opposed, then championed creating Dept Homeland Security
-Opposed, then championed 9/11 Commission
-Opposed, then championed U.N. involvement in reconstruction of Iraq (think like, last weeks press conference, and the Brahmini guy)

And that's right off the top of my head. I'm sure you all can think of more. Pssst, conservatives, this is where you say that all politicians are flip-floppers, so of course it's hypocritical of us to call Kerry one and put Bush on some non-flippy-floppy pedestal

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

yournamehere

Actually, not to defend him - quite the opposite - but I've heard Bush say on several different occassions that he doesn't care about polls, thus proving that not every politician gives a rat's ass what you think. He's got his own agenda, and he doesn't want public opinion getting in the way.

I'll take a pollster any day over the megalomaniacal oligarchy in place now.

__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

Flat

That's all very nice and handy but in all likelyhood that will be "noone" or at least "noone willing to admit it".

Then what ?

It's just that I see people saying "retaliate", " won't retaliate" and generally never considering that retaliation might just not be a viable option.

__________________
<advertise here>

Kadath

I feel like the feint just before the right cross.

__________________
it's quiet in here

dimbulb

Correction: He would act for HIMSELF and his interests.

It would be a massive failure on the part of the counter-terrorism effort if a major attack happens. 4 years and many lives and attacks later, after all the pre-emptive wars and clampdown on civil rights....

Bush might do another "war on terror", but the war on terror isn't your conventional war against the Soviets. It will be won on many small fronts, many small battles (and I'm not talking about the battle against the insurgents in Iraq), through concerted international efforts. Looking at the "success" that the Bush administration has had in building support, thats not going to happen soon.

grumpyolddude

It all comes down to whether you believe that the actions of the Bush administration have been the right moves for the country.

I'ts true that they have acted decisively, in the "do something, even if it's wrong" sense. But, in many ways, they have made the world a much more dangerous place for Americans.

If Al-Quaeda makes a major hit on American soil, it proves that we haven't done what it takes with these guys in charge. Hopefully, the voters will see that.

__________________
"Regret can be a harder pill to swallow than failure .With failure you at least know you gave it a chance..." David Howard

Not Normal

If there is a warning of terrorist attack, the White House can exploit it to keep Joe Sixpack home in front of the TV all day on Election Day. Imagine, the streets of your town are flooded with national guard on voting day. HumVees roaring up and down the road, choppers overhead. Would you go outside?
Meanwhile the Republican core constituents put their faith in Jesus...after all, Jesus is on Bush's side...they get to the polls and vote.
Next day-- Gee, the terrorist attack didn't happen. Here's the explanation: Jesus picked Bush to win (again) and since Jesus likes Bush, He stopped the terrorists from attacking. Q.E.D.

But seriously, Bush lost the WTC and nearly lost the Pentagon to Osama and he's had three years to find him. His time's up. I don't see how Kerry could fuck things up worse.

Sparhawk

Float like a butterfly, Sting like a bee

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Jesus Pimp

What if Al Qaeda rigged the election so Bush win a 2nd term..

__________________
Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

mattevil

Bush actually polled about a week ago on whether he should say he's a pollster. He also spent about a million on polls in the year after he was elected.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098921/\


don't get me wrong I'm not a bush supporter but I think this should be seen.

onetime2

He said he doesn't make decisions based on polls he doesn't say he never uses them.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Kadath

If you don't base your decisions on polls, why would you bother spending money on them?

I'd also like to point out that, though this is a republic and we elect people to decide for us, rather than decide ourselves, it'd be nice if the president listened to what the people thought about issues.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Mojo_PeiPei

Thats what the different branches are for, no? You elect local and national congress to be your voice, not the president.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.