After the Madrid bombing, the opposition took over. Many believe this was out of fear that terrorists were attacking Spain's support of the war. If a similar situation (God forbid) happens here, what would be the reaction?

I believe people will remember the resolve Bush demonstrated after 9/11 and rally behind him as a symbolic and patriotic gesture that America will not back down. However, that is only my opinion. This is a difficult topic, and I am interested to see the various responses.

My sense is that any such attack would favor the Republican Party in general. Rightly or wrongly, the GOP is seen as stronger on national defense than the Democratic Party. (One possible exception would be if there were an attack which could clearly be blamed on mistakes made by the current administration, which seems very unlikely.)

An opposite effect might be seen if the war in Iraq drags on and/or becomes more intense. I suspect that this scenario would tend to favor the Democratic Party.

Surely such an attack would undermine everything GW Bush says he's accomplished and which America has fought for... ?

I think Americans, by and large, recognize that, in a free society, terrorism cannot be completely eliminated. Terrorist attacks, within 2 or 3 weeks of the election, would guarantee a Bush victory. Incumbant war-time Presidents tend to win elections. Terrorist attacks on US soil would remind everyone that Iraq is not the only war we are engaged in.

I nullified my vote. My response would be: it depends on the circumstances. It seems that no faults or shortcomings are sticking to Bush regardless of plenty of evidence to refute that his administration was vigilant to the signs of impending domestic attacks prior to 9/11.

The idea of another domestic attack is unconscionable. Its occurrence would certainly point out that Homeland Security was deficient, even with the Patriot Act and other measures in place to beef it up. That it took place during George W. Bush's watch would be considered by many to be tasteless and inappropriate for his Democratic opponent to bring up, even if the criticism were totally deserved.

The fact that we have a vengeful President would attract the votes of vengeful people. Those more concerned with why the attack took place and what peaceful measures could be undertaken to rectify strained foreign relations and stimulate increased UN involvement would once again take a back seat to the chickenhawks.

Actually I believe another attack will happen and sadly not if. For me the if is when, where, and how devastating. With that said, I believe if it happens just prior to the election I think that President Bush would benefit politically from such an attack.



That is if you believe that either candidate can protect you 100%. I think the American public response would be more along the lines of who would respond. As Victoria said, rightly or wrongly, the Republicans have a stronger hand in national defense. It is going to take a lot of hard work for the Dem's to change that perception and I doubt they will be able to accomplish that task sufficiently prior to the 2004 election.

I voted for the first option, people will rally around Bush. If terrorists attack before the election then Bush is going to win by a landslide.

Then we'll have another 4 years of lies, stripped civil rights, religious agendas, environmental destruction and horrid foreign relations to look forward to which will only perpetuate the cycle of course.

I don't think Kerry is weak on terrorism, but people do believe he handled Afghanistan correctly (and he probably did). They'll forget all of his other transgressions and not concern themselves with what will happen in every other area after the threat is dealt with.

What if America has a Madrid-like bombing?

In my mind, it isn't "what if" but "when"? Hope I am not being too optimistic when I say that a vast majority of the American people are well aware our government is making no promises or guarantees that another terrorist attack won't happen. In fact, our officials have been warning us of the opposite. God forbid, but if there should be another attack before the elections, I don't believe it would change the original outcome which, IMO, is going to give George W. Bush four more years.




This is a confusing and troubling statement, but I will pass on requesting clarification, other than to say that I am almost certain the terrorists would applaud and agree with your sentiments one-hundred percent!

Two links below to articles and information regarding Osama and his declaration of war on Americans in 1996.

http://www.emergency.com/1999/bnldn-pg.htm

Emergency Response & Research Institute (ERRI) USAMA BIN LADEN PAGE

http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

Osama Bin Laden's Jihad and text of Fatwahs and Declaration of War

Actually- I have speculated many times that GW would arrange another attack just to ensure his election victory- considering thier snatching of the last election, the lies, the deceptions- a few thousand US citizens sacrificed to make sure the Christian right stays in power would be okay with GW IMO- all for his "cause".

So yes, a terrorist attack would help GW- and I wouldn't be suprised if Karl Rove arranges another

I have to agree that a new attack would solidify the Bush second term. In fact I think that the leaders of Madrid thought that the bombing would assure them a second term, they were wrong. We are not Spain, the Spanish have much more common sense and did from the beginning of this 'fracaso'. (failure)

I saw Bush, talking to an AP crowd about a possible new attack. He stood there, casually leaning on his elbow, laid back and confident that a new attack could happen, saying," What was that? 2/3 of the country think there will be another attack?" Well, heck yeah, this country is a big country to defend.' or some other related blather.
He didn't even have the wherewithall to stand up straight and look like he even cared. Ole boy has let his Presidency go to his head. The response was why they should just elect him anyway. Where is Karen Hughes when he needs her to reign in his arrogance? It was the most bellliegerant display of platitude and ignorance I have seen since the Mission accomplished spectacle.

This admin is counting on re-election. Maybe even enough to let another PDB go unoticed and unheeded or just termed 'historical'. (hysterical) We are a vengeful nation, another attack on the US could only benefit this administration and dont think they dont know it.

This comment is way over the top, even for you, CR. Shame on you.


Back to the topic. Such an attack would probably help President Bush because it would serve to remind the American people that we are still at war with the terrorist organizations around the world. No question that the American people, rightly I might add, believe that President Bush is far better equipped to fight this war than John Kerry could ever hope to be. An attack would raise the war on terror issue to the top on the list of "what is the most pressing issue of this campaign" and that would most assuredly guarantee a Bush victory

Aquilla- if I were a betting man, and would place odds on something so awful, I would make book on thier being an attack around September or October- this question is a no brainer- look at it this way- the only poeple/person in the world to actually personally benefit from 9/11 is GW and his admin. They were well on thier way to being a very bad joke in history- as it should be- instead of a national tragedy they have become. I don't think GW will be re-elected without another terrorist attack or at least invading someone.

CR, I think most of us here are well aware of your distain for President Bush and your desire not to see him re-elected. If you wish to truly stand by the proposition that President Bush would orchestrate a terrorist attack against the American people in order to get elected, that is your right. Heck, if you truly believe that perhaps you should contact MoveOn.org or Michael Moore and maybe they could do a political ad around that theme. Works for me, it would destroy any credibility they currently hold (which isn't much). You might even call Al Franken on his radio show so he could share this idea with all 3 of his listeners.

Just expect to get called on it. It is a vicious charge. Yet still, it does demonstrate a tacit agreement with the position that President Bush and his party have the confidence of the majority of the American people when it comes to fighting terrorism. You say that the only way Bush can get re-elected is by having another terrorist attack. While I disagree with that, I think he's going to be re-elected by a considerable margin anyway, it does indicate to me that deep down you know that the American people trust President Bush more than they do John Kerry to handle that threat. The American people are right in placing their trust.

Oh, this is creative thinking! The Bush bashers now have the President and Karl Roves arranging terrorists attacks with Osama and al Qaeda in order to win the election! Using your logic, you left one group of people out of your equation in "the only people in the world to actually personally benefit from another 9.11." How about the terrorists? Don't they fit in somewhere as benefiting from these attacks that kill innocent men, women, and children? I have to ask you, CruisingRam...are you one of the conspiracy believers that Vice-President Johnson arranged President Kennedy's assassination so that he could become President? Somehow, I wouldn't be shocked nor surprised if your answer was in the affirmative.

Ah...so the scribbling on the Democratic logic wall is beginning to surface. According to them....Bush stole the election in 2000 and if he wins in 2004, they will blame it on a "pre-arranged" terrorist attack before the election between Bush & CO and Osama/al Qadea.

Back on topic....

I didn't vote on this one for I believe the majority of voters will re-elect G. W. Bush because Kerry, so far, hasn't given them a reason not to. If there was an attack before the election, Bush would win the election by a greater majority than in the absence of a pre-election attack.

Bush couldnt get a majority over Al Gore, how does anyone expect a 'considerable margin' this time?

Aquilla a 52% approval rating as a majority is utterly slim. Only 51% of the nation even voted in 2000. I think its a real stretch to assume that Bush can carry more than a bit above half. The war on terrorism might seem the most important to some republicans but not to everyone. The bungle on terrorism, the Iraq war and domestic policy is also evident to some who are not avid supporters.

Im not saying Bush wont win, but I wouldnt go acting like this is going to be anything but a close call.

Bush is the incumbent now, and that makes a huge difference. All things equal, people want stability, not change.

The President's approval ratings are similar to those of Reagan before his landslide re-election and Clinton before he was re-elected in 1996.

As for the effect a terrorist attack would have: I believe the retaliation option would have the most effect. I think people feel that Bush would retaliate, while Kerry might be more inclined to negotiate. This would be the major difference, and a major contributor to a Bush victory.

Oh please. Get off the Bush bash bandwagon and stop thinking that Karl Rove would organize the deaths of more American citizens on our soil for the sole purpose of re-election. That is sad and stupid thinking. It is also sick thinking.


I would not doubt that there would possibly be a terrorist attack on US soil in that time period. But still thinking you would blame Bush for organizing it makes me SICK



Now, i think people will have a hard time deciding who they would vote for, so i didn't vote in the poll. A majority of the American people might throw their weight towards Bush, seeing as he has done more taking on terrorism (making Libya disarm it's WMD, getting rid of Mr. Hamas Supporter Saddam Hussien, killing a big chunk of Al-Queda's leadership and foiling plots to attack American interests again) but maybe they will swing to Kerry but he really doesn't have any plan wahtsoever as of yet

I think that this would probably help Bush more than Kerry, were it to happen.

If, however, the analogy is with Spain and the immediate aftermath of the Madrid bombings, the incumbent (Bush) would blame the notional (and let's hope it stays that way) atrocity on the opponent that are most politically useful to his re-election.

In his case, he would probably blame al-Quaeda. (In Spain, the old government blamed ETA.)

For the analogy to hold, it would have to be revealed before the election that the atrocity was not carried out by the politically useful opponenets at all, but by politically damaging ones. In Spain, this was of course AQ.

In America, let's imagine that it was in fact carried out by home-grown McVeigh-style terrorists. Bush would be left looking like a cynical son-of-a-female-dog would would exploit the dead bodies of his fellow citixens to grab a few votes and cling onto power a while longer, and the electorate would rightly turf him out on his ear, just as they did with the incumbents in Spain.

The only way that this theoretical circumstance would not mirror the Madrid bombings is that most of the population of the world's only superpower wouldn't patronise the anti-Bush vote in America by assuming that they were all scaredy-cats, or secretly supported the terrorists, the way they did in the aftermath of the Spanish election.

I didn't vote, because the answer depends on the timing.

As speculated, if the attacks occur in Sept/Oct timeframe, Bush gets to act strong and there's not enough time to really investigate what happened or why, so Bush will win, because people will buy into his messages of fear.

If the attacks occur before Sept... say while Bush is on his usual August vacation... then Kerry wins easily, because there's enough time for Kerry to use the tragedy to beat up the Administration for not doing enough without seeming like he's stomping on the victims' (and their families') initial grief.

It's all about timing.

I thought about this after the Madrid bombing and I think AQ would like not attempt something of that nature here for the very reason that the result is difficult to ascertain. I think it will polarize more than shift votes. I think those supporting Bush would continue to do so, perhaps with greater vigor. I think those supporting Kerry would use this as continuing evidence that Bush's approach to the War on Terror is failing.

The x factor in this would be the fence sitters, and I suspect there are quite a few out there. I'll admit to little science behind my theory but I suspect it would push those to Kerry. While people do see the Republican Party as tougher on defense usually, such an attack would, I think, convince people that our current approach isn't working and opt for a change.

A morbid, but fascinating question.

Doc

" Yet still, it does demonstrate a tacit agreement with the position that President Bush and his party have the confidence of the majority of the American people when it comes to fighting terrorism. You say that the only way Bush can get re-elected is by having another terrorist attack. While I disagree with that, I think he's going to be re-elected by a considerable margin anyway, it does indicate to me that deep down you know that the American people trust President Bush more than they do John Kerry to handle that threat. The American people are right in placing their trust. "


It does not signify any tactic agreement- it simply plays on the American reflex not to change quarterbacks in the middle of the game, and a cynical manipulation of the country rallying together in the time of crisis- We were of one nation to attack Afghanistan- and he cynically used that to attack Iraq- when, but all to a few, it is obvious that Iraq was no threat to our national security, had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no link to Al-Quaida.

I don't believe they will actually orchestrate the attacks- just let one slip through, similar to what they did with 9/11- and Sept/Oct will be too late to start any investigation into this.

I will not place anything above Karl Rove- I think he would gladly sacrifice tens of thousands of Americans- and it goes for GW too- in what he would consider a "holy cause"- there is no real difference in thinking between the Neo-con New American century types and the OBL types- they are really peas in a pod personality and motivation wise- the only difference is thier subtleness of action and sophistication of execution. You only have to see the disdain and arrogance of GW when it comes to the dead in Iraq to realize that some more sacrifice of Americans to his "just cause" will be no big deal for them- they are his own personal martyr brigade- just as unknowing about thier sacrifice as the majority of hijackers where about thier deaths on 9/11.

I don't plan on being anywhere near a target in Sept Oct- maybe an extended camping trip in the Alaskan bush - because the timing would play perfectly for the Bush campaign.

And after the dirty tricks- such as kicking thousands of black sounding names off the election polls in Florida as felons by Jeb-- well, I do not put anything past these Zealots.

And I will always place more trust in War time to an actual vet who has actual combat experiance than to a party frat boy from Texas- anytime.

To tell you the truth, I believe that people wouldn't change their vote either way. Even the "swing" independent voters would stay consistent. You have to remember that there were a few undercurrents in the Spanish election. For one, the ruling party had the perception with the people that they had lied as to who was responsible for the attack. Secondly, polls showed that over half of the people opposed Spanish involvemetn in Iraq. Those two things are not in play for Bush in America.

Desert Resident: It is interesting that you would state that the terrorists would agree with it !00%, that is, looking for a peaceful resolution to problems, when the terrorists are willing to strap bombs to their backs and detonate them rather than to try using diplomatic channels.

Let me therefore clarify: Answer violence with violence, and what do you get? Places like Belfast and Jerusalem and countless other parts of the world, especially in the continent of Africa. Answering violence with violence only works if there are no longer combatants left on one side to fight back. This is the type of problem solving that George W. Bush represents.

When George W. Bush talks about bringing people "to justice," he uses it synonymously with killing them. It can be well documented, as with Uday and Qusay Hussein. Usually, when a person speaks of bringing someone to justice, it means arraigning them and having them at least answer for their crimes in a court of law. But George Dubya Bush was most eloquent about getting the culprits of 9/11 "dead or alive," a statement for which he was roundly criticized, but although he softened the rhetoric somewhat, he has stuck to his original intention. When Dubya is not being managed too closely by his handlers, his candor is quite refreshing.

In the Arab world, it is pretty fair to say that those who are the angriest about their situations in life expect to kill and/or be killed. They do not expect to be captured and exposed to world scrutiny and opprobrium for what they have done, to have to stand responsible and be told that no, it is not the considered opinion of the world that their god ever told them to kill unbelievers, especially innocent people, as an act of righteousness. That's the last thing they want to hear. They want to die listening to resounding chants in their heads that they are good, and righteous, and holy and heroic. It is disgraceful for them to be in the hands of the "infidels" who might try to confuse them by making them answer for their crimes.

Arab extremists understand George W. Bush's "justice" very well. But funny: it doesn't stop them from continuing to commit these horrible atrocities.

The method Bush has been utilizing, having predominantly American military fight and die and American civilians bear the brunt of the enormous bill has produced some order, but the killings in Fallujah belie the idea that terrorism has been dealt a deathblow because of the War on Iraq.

Could it be that treating these murderers as criminals and not fighting wars might be a better approach to curtailing the behavior? We'll never know if George Dubya Bush gets another four years.

I guess we can go back and ask Bill Clinton why the law enforcement approach doesn't work, either...

Is there a third option?

Leave them alone? Don't think that would work.

No one has the perfect solution yet.

And if that if so how is it Carter beat Ford, Reagan beat Carter, Clinton beat Bush41 and Bush43 beat Gore?

It's an ill wind that doesn't blow somebody some good, huh? Is that the principle at work here?

There is something disquieting in the fact that so many posters in this thread believes the spilling of blood would actually benefit one candidate or the other.

If Bush or Kerry possess even a shred of decency, neither one of them wants to climb over a pile of bodies to get into the White House. The only "right" answer is nobody wins and everybody loses if there is a Madrid-style event before the election.

It is repellent to me to think Americans would permit themselves to be swayed and manipulated one way or the other based on the evil machinations of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Let's say that Al Qaeda decides in September or October 2004 to set off bombs in shopping malls, shoot down some airlines with Stinger missiles, poison some city's water supply, set some refineries on fire in Louisiana, blow up the Sears Tower and Golden Gate Bridge, machine gun some Greyhound buses, derail some trains and set off a dirty bomb in the Holland Tunnel at rush hour.

Would George Bush or John Kerry deserve credit or blame?

We'd better wake up to what a President can and cannot do. These are politicians, not superhumans. We had better shake ourselves from the illusion that because it hasn't happened here since 9/11/2001 that it can't happen here again.

What if Al Qaeda's "October Surprise" is the assassination of both Bush and Kerry? Who wins then? Dick Cheney and Kerry's running mate?

I believe that most thinking Americans believe there will be another attack on us. I also believe the vast majority of those Americans understand that it is vertually impossible to defend a free country the size of the United States against small groups of terrorists.

That out of the way, IMO, should that attack occur between now and the November Elections the American people wil rally to the man they have seen handle such an attack and handle it well. Many will will move away from Kerry. Some because of the harsh reminder of the WOT an attack will engender. And some because they blame Kerry and/or many of his vocal backers for allowing terrorists to think that a change of election outcome brought about by an attack would be to the terrorists advantage.

But most of all, I believe such an attack will again bring on a wave of partotism and patriotism is death to the left. Very many of the American people will want revenge for any large scale attack and they will vote for the man they know will put a hurt on the enemy. That man is not John kerry.

Also IMO, if/when we are attacked again all of the peace/anti-war types might as will burn their signs an go home. The American people may not look on them as benignly have they have to date.... after another attack..

1SG

CR, you are in need of some sleep! Have you been working the back shifts again?

Who was it that said, "When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy"? I don't beleive for a minute that Bush is part of the religious right/zealots as much as he is pandering to them to get their support.
If he gets re-elected, his true colors are more likely to be shown. He may surprise us all.

I agree that Bush would retain office, as Americans are not likely to stand by and let the terrorists get away with this kind of thing again. It seems to have worked in Spain, but this isn't Spain we are talking about.

And I suppose another topic related to this that would make a good discussion would be, what would a President Kerry do if another Terrorists attack occurred after he got in office?

I can foresee Kerry crawling to the French to beg their sage advice, then turning to the United Nation for some sort of international concensus on a possible solution that may be effected, sometime in the future...If the terrorists did stop the attacks. No actual action would be taken until 98.7% of all members of the United Nations agree on the proper response and only then, if the latest polls indicate American approval.

1SG

I'm not going to dignify the first part of GDan204's remarks by debating them because it's only more of the same of his now standard "The Left Hates America" rap that he amply demonstrated in the last thread about casualties in Iraq.

Nothing new to see here. Move along.

BUT...

The second part of his liberal bashing diatribe does merit a response. I believe such an attack will again bring on a wave of partotism and patriotism is death to the left.

Here we go again. More of that same tired rap that only conservatives love America and if you ain't a right-winger you don't love America. You can "believe" whatever you please, sir. However, I can write with complete confidence that it is the truth that liberals do love their country, are patriotic, and yes, some even go off to fight and die for their country.

Unlike the present Commander-in-Chief, who while Kerry was killing Viet Cong, Bush was killing six-packs of beer.

Or do you "believe" that all 720 dead and 4151 wounded American soldiers are card-carrying conservatives?

Not. Bloody. Likely.

Kerry's plan has a few items of interest. He would work to have our military forces side by side with NATO troops in an "out of theater" campaign run by American generals. On the dometic side of running Iraq, he favors a prominent U.N. role while NATO and the U.S. are cleaning house. Lastly, he favors having an International Commissioner be chosen to run the domestic improvement in Iraq. This would be a person who would be widely regarded in the international community and who would command the respect of the Iraqi people-kind of like how the Afghans revere their old king. You can read a more in-depth explanation of his policy at: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

well we did have something similar, on 9-11. The difference is that Spain got the guy that bombed them.

I think that if there is another attack on US soil on Bush's watch, then Kerry would win in a landslide.

The reason Spain got their guy is because he wasn't hiding amongst mountains full of caves.

If the US had another attack, it might be in Bush's favor, but it might fail and Kerry would win

What many people seem to forget is that the attacks of 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, all the blaming of the actions or inaction of previous administrations notwithstanding. Yes, Dubya responded with teeth, but it was while he was President the terrorists succeeded. And yet, his staunchest supporters said, I'm sure glad that Bush was President, not Gore, when this happened. And who is to say that it would have happened had Gore become President? The circumstances might have been similar, or they might have been far different.

This is a cynical question: who would win if there was a terrorist attack here like the Madrid train bombing. Nobody would win. We would lose more innocent people. We would react the way we did to the 9/11 attacks--grief, anger, a flurry of enlistments, the speech of an outraged President and a local official, a period of intense mourning, investigations, lawsuits, the frantic search for people who were scheduled to be on the train, picking amid the rubble and fumes to find pieces of people and their identities.

In my opinion, there is nothing to recommend George W. Bush over John Kerry in circumstances such as these. But I and many other Americans will remember Bush's resistance to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission to investigate and Bush's unwillingness to testify or have his cabinet members testify under oath to the Commission. That sort of thing sticks in your memory. Secretiveness smacks of dishonesty and a fear of facing the music.

It appears to me that Kerry's plan is not substanciallly different from Bush's. He would have NATO in Iraq, but does not say how he would actually go about getting those NATO countries not already committed to Iraq to participate. He says he would increase troop strength in Iraq (whether Commanders request it or not). Bush has said he will increase troop strength as Commanders request it. Kerry hasn't said where those troops, he will make the unilateral decision to send in, are going to come from, or how they are going to be rotated.

On the domestic side, Kerry will get the UN involved, but the United Nations has proven ineffective in real infrastructure improvement in almost every country they have gone in to help. Bush does favor and has got the United Nations to help out on the political side of Iraq, he like most Americans, now realize that is about the limit of the UN's capabilitilies.

Kerry favors an International Commissioner to run the domestic improvement programs in Iraq, but he doesn't say how he would get one there and who would be the controlling authority of said commissioner (certainly not the bribe taking UN). One the great problems in Iraq is that there is no person such as you describe to be Commissioner. If there were, he would be leading Iraq today, ala Karzai in Afganistan. Most of all, Kerry does not say how he would get around the fact that by the time he may become president, the Iraqis will have their own government in place that may not like his unilateral ideas for them.

So IMO, Kerry has no real plan for Iraq. He is just regurgitating Bush's plan changed very slightly, with some NATO smoke added for flavor.

Back to the reason for this thread. I believe too many Americans see John Kerry as an self serving, indecisive, wishy-washy politician who see-saws back and forth on important issues. Should there be a Madrid like attack on the United States prior to the November Elections I believe the American voter will go for the proven leader. Not the politician who says - Forget my 25 year Senate voting record, I was a hero 35 years ago.

1SG

I voted it will have no effect, but should have nulled my vote.

I think that when there is another "terrorist" attack (especially a mass casuality one) it will lead to martial law and suspension of the constitutin and many civil rights. (newsmax is HARDLY a leftist source either!) I don't think it will be a bombing either. I worry more about a biological attack. I am also of the belief it will be staged by the government (possibly with outside help) so as to give the president "plausible deniability".

and recently the governments biggest concern when it comes to terrorists using bio-weapons is ANTHRAX. now there are dozens of viruses and germs that are far more effective at killing people (such as ebola and marburg) were terrorists to use anything to kill large amounts of people it would be something with a high infection rate. but the government focuses on anthrax (which we have the largest stock of) anthrax is a great weapon for staging a terrorist attack to manipulate public opinion. people cannot SEE anthrax spores, and are thus extremely terrified by them. but anthrax also as a low secondary communicability rate, meaning that while contact with the spores makes you sick, you are highly unlikely to get sick from being around someone with anthrax. this is actually WHY it was devoled as a weapon. it would mak the soldiers sick, but very rarely their families.

I do not think that it is beyond the bush adminstration to stage a terrorist attack to hold onto power (whether by influencing an election or suspending it) as I've pointed out in the topic FAKE TERROR governments have long used manufactured "terrorism" to push their agendas.

I for one dont think this would help out Dubya in any way shape or form, just because there is to many of his bad policies that people will not be willing to put up with for 4 more years and end up getting worse ones. I for one do not think he showed true leadership after 9/11 more than anyone that was our president under the same circumstances would have done. As for people not wanting to change the leadership if this did happen before the elections I most certainly would still be voting for ABB no matter what.

To GDan204 to the points of Kerry's foreign policies on Iraq I hate to say it, but what Kerry is saying is what he has been saying all along since Dubya took us into Iraq. As well as many members of congress on both sides of the aisle, its just that Dubya is finely opening his eyes seeing the writing on the walls that have been there for quite some time now.

I think it would help Bush. Americans will go to the ends of the earth to anger any foreign nation whether they be friend or foe. If the United States were to be attacked I am assuming Americans would sprint to Bush's side out of spite and when we attack an unrelated country again he will lose support. Americans are like that. You attack Clinton and impeach him his approval ratings steadily climbed. America is a counter-trend nation. In Spain it may seem logical to abandon a leader who led you into an unsupported war and made you a tasty detonation destination but in America f the world mentality reigns supreme. We dont care if we have to lose every ally and destroy a future coalition as long as we do the exact opposite of what the people who hurt us want as quickly as possible. All Americans care about is feeling good in the present and not giving the terrorists what they want would override all sense and logic. Any negative about Bush would be forgotten and forgiven as such multi task thought processes like being able to seperate standing up to terrorism while making sound judgements about those in power to deal with terrorists are too complicated. The American response tends to be we were hurt lets support anything those who hurt us dont like irregardless of the reality of the thing we now must support.

Bush would once again take a page from his Reagan book and invoke his religion displaying his camera friendly idioms that make the American public swoon while telling us absolutely nothing.

the current configuration of "likely voters" has this election at a dead-heat; and the candidate who gets *their* voters out will win. In my opinion Kerry's voters are more motivated -- but if there was terrorist incident before the election, its a new ballgame.

Prior to the 2000 election, I saw a poll that showed support for bush and gore stratified by education; in general Gore supporters tended to be more educated. Here is the source

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~opinion/pdf/keysep00.pdf

I assume that this general trend still stands but would be interested to see any information you all have on this (note to our GW supporters -- this is not intended as a slam) and that a terrorist incident will incite people who don't generally follow or think about politics so much to vote. This group, I believe, will overwhelmingly vote for Bush.

...of course I could be wrong

Cheers,
Jacabo

From a logical perspective, it seems like it would hurt Bush, or at least not help him any. So far, he's been our war leader, telling us that the world is a safer place because of our invasion of Iraq. If an attack occurred on american soil, a Legitimate question could be raised "What have you been doing for these 3 years to prevent that?" A spin doctor could really emphasize that our war on Iraq did NOTHING at all to prevent that attack. For 9/11, Bush was able to pass the blame down on others. He can't blame the same people for a second attack.

Maybe Moveon.org would air successful ads, but, somehow, I don't see Kerry coming out and actually making a difference politically if a second attack did occur.

I remember him trying to explain an issue on which he was challenged as a "waffler." He spurted and turned out a complicated answer which made him seem like... a waffler. My point being, Kerry couldn't take it to Bush the way a better speaker, like Clinton or Reagan, could.

Well, for starters, let's not compare Spain with America.

Firstly, Spain has longstanding domestic terrorists, the misjudged blaming of which was the main cause of the change of government.

Secondly, Bush has managed to generally frame the debate as regards the election in terms of security or, softness on security as a choice in the election.

This can change, of course, but so far, this is the pattern. How gullible the US voting public is to this message is hard to predict but I think slightly gullible enough to put Bush back in power (at this point in time). My fingers are well and truly crossed, however.