Full Version: Worst Case Scenario
QUOTE
Ridge Warns of 'Large-Scale Attack' Plan
Ridge said it's clear that al-Qaida has the capability to carry out such an attack. He said U.S. authorities don't have information on the time, place or method, but that they're "actively working" to gain that knoweldge.
He also said al-Qaida is working under the "mistaken belief" that such an attack would affect the nation's resolve.
Ridge said there was no specific information indicating that al-Qaida is targeting either the Democratic National Convention later this month in Boston or the Republican National Convention a month later in New York. Story Link
Ridge said it's clear that al-Qaida has the capability to carry out such an attack. He said U.S. authorities don't have information on the time, place or method, but that they're "actively working" to gain that knoweldge.
He also said al-Qaida is working under the "mistaken belief" that such an attack would affect the nation's resolve.
Ridge said there was no specific information indicating that al-Qaida is targeting either the Democratic National Convention later this month in Boston or the Republican National Convention a month later in New York. Story Link
QUOTE
Ridge Warns of 'Credible' al-Qaida Plot
WASHINGTON - The United States is tightening security in the face of a steady stream of intelligence indicating al-Qaida may seek to mount an attack aimed at disrupting elections, the White House said.
The Department of Homeland Security is addressing the threat and has efforts under way to "ramp up security," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the Bush administration based its decision to bolster security on "credible" reports about al-Qaida's plans, coupled with the pre-election terror attack in Spain earlier this year and recent arrests in England, Jordan and Italy.
"This is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm," Ridge said. "But every day we strengthen the security of our nation.Story Link
WASHINGTON - The United States is tightening security in the face of a steady stream of intelligence indicating al-Qaida may seek to mount an attack aimed at disrupting elections, the White House said.
The Department of Homeland Security is addressing the threat and has efforts under way to "ramp up security," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the Bush administration based its decision to bolster security on "credible" reports about al-Qaida's plans, coupled with the pre-election terror attack in Spain earlier this year and recent arrests in England, Jordan and Italy.
"This is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm," Ridge said. "But every day we strengthen the security of our nation.Story Link
If this did come to Pass....
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
FYI we had a similar debate here: Who would the terrorists like to see win? - it was so good it was nominated for the Year in Review Awards. However it is old so we can resume the debate here. Also, I moved this to the Election 2004 forum. 
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
At this point I don't necessarily think that a terrorist attack would mean a clear victory for Bush (as it might have before things started going so badly in Iraq).
In my opinion, if a terrorist attack were to happen before the election, it would only serve to polarize people that much more. The Bush supporters would only support him that much more vigorously and the Kerry supporters would only strengthen their resolve. This would leave independents and people undecided exactly where they are now, trying to figure out what to do at the voting booth.
The reason I believe this is because so many people have soured on the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially as it relates to Iraq, that they might actually hold Bush responsible for the attacks. People would be saying - if you hadn't taken your eye off the ball with Iraq and kept after Al Qaeda instead maybe this wouldn't have happened. Kerry offers a distinct alternative to the Bush philosophy that is no less tough on terrorism so he might get their vote.
For the people that fervently support Bush, regardless of anything in the recent news, an attack would only serve to strengthen their resolve to vote for him and convince others of that fact as well. This group it seems to me is generally fed up with making compromises or expending effort on diplomacy, they want action, and very they much like the philosophy Bush presents of "help us out or get out of the way". As long as he kept marching down that path he could come on national TV and tell people the only reason he went to war was because of a personal grudge and they would still vote for him (note: I'm not suggesting he would say that, it was merely an illustrative example).
At this point I don't necessarily think that a terrorist attack would mean a clear victory for Bush (as it might have before things started going so badly in Iraq).
In my opinion, if a terrorist attack were to happen before the election, it would only serve to polarize people that much more. The Bush supporters would only support him that much more vigorously and the Kerry supporters would only strengthen their resolve. This would leave independents and people undecided exactly where they are now, trying to figure out what to do at the voting booth.
The reason I believe this is because so many people have soured on the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially as it relates to Iraq, that they might actually hold Bush responsible for the attacks. People would be saying - if you hadn't taken your eye off the ball with Iraq and kept after Al Qaeda instead maybe this wouldn't have happened. Kerry offers a distinct alternative to the Bush philosophy that is no less tough on terrorism so he might get their vote.
For the people that fervently support Bush, regardless of anything in the recent news, an attack would only serve to strengthen their resolve to vote for him and convince others of that fact as well. This group it seems to me is generally fed up with making compromises or expending effort on diplomacy, they want action, and very they much like the philosophy Bush presents of "help us out or get out of the way". As long as he kept marching down that path he could come on national TV and tell people the only reason he went to war was because of a personal grudge and they would still vote for him (note: I'm not suggesting he would say that, it was merely an illustrative example).
If we were attacked prior to the election, one would have to view it as a Bush Administration failure to protect its citizens on their home soil, regardless of the civil liberties that it had striped from those very same citizens with the Patriot Act.
It would prove that no matter how hard Bush tries, he is unable to thwart attacks, and it is time to give someone else a chance.
Edited to keep thread on track.......
It would prove that no matter how hard Bush tries, he is unable to thwart attacks, and it is time to give someone else a chance.
Edited to keep thread on track.......
Is there any legal opportunity for the President to postpone an election?
Not unless there is a statute change. 3 USC Section 2 provides:
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
This was part of the hubub around Bush v. Gore due to the fact that some were alleging the actual date of the election was changing.
J
Not unless there is a statute change. 3 USC Section 2 provides:
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
This was part of the hubub around Bush v. Gore due to the fact that some were alleging the actual date of the election was changing.
J
The topic to debate is: How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
If you would like to debate any other questions start a new thread.
If you would like to debate any other questions start a new thread.
I believe the type of attack would influence the electorate's decision.
It has been well documented that Al Qaeda likes to use planes as a method of attack. If this were to happen again, I think the people would view it as a Bush failure and vote Kerry into office.
Conversely, something like a car bombing I believe would benefit Bush. The one poll he keeps a comfortable lead in is national security. People would get emotionally charged and want immediate action. They would see Bush as someone who will lead them through war again, and America would see the opposite of the "Madrid Effect."
But in the words of Dennis Miller, "I could be wrong."
It has been well documented that Al Qaeda likes to use planes as a method of attack. If this were to happen again, I think the people would view it as a Bush failure and vote Kerry into office.
Conversely, something like a car bombing I believe would benefit Bush. The one poll he keeps a comfortable lead in is national security. People would get emotionally charged and want immediate action. They would see Bush as someone who will lead them through war again, and America would see the opposite of the "Madrid Effect."
But in the words of Dennis Miller, "I could be wrong."
QUOTE
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election
Since Bush has claimed that the world and America is a safer place now, then a terrorist attach would damage his credibility and harm him in the election.
If Bush wished to accent the positive(no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11) then he would have no choice but to take responsibility for the attacks.
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
I'd like to counter the question with another question: how many times can Chicken Little run around screaming "the sky is falling!" before people stop paying attention? Why haven't all these false "alarms" affected the voters?! For almost 3 years now, "credible information" about an "impending terrorist attack" has been a predictable event. NOTHING has come from these wolf-criers. I for one am sick and tired of hearing "the sky is falling".
Oh, the list goes on………and on. How about the dreaded (fake) LA mall bomber?
I think the chances of something actually happening, or prevented from happening are slim and none, and Slim's left town.
I'd like to counter the question with another question: how many times can Chicken Little run around screaming "the sky is falling!" before people stop paying attention? Why haven't all these false "alarms" affected the voters?! For almost 3 years now, "credible information" about an "impending terrorist attack" has been a predictable event. NOTHING has come from these wolf-criers. I for one am sick and tired of hearing "the sky is falling".
QUOTE
January 2003-Intelligence pros say the White House is manufacturing terrorist alerts to keep the issue alive in the minds of voters and to keep President Bush's approval ratings high, Capitol Hill Blue reports.
The Thursday report said that the administration is engaging in "hysterics" in issuing numerous terror alerts that have little to no basis in fact. Source
February 2003— A key piece of the information leading to recent terror alerts was fabricated, according to two senior law enforcement officials in Washington and New York. ABC News
May 2004-A false hijacking alarm at Los Angeles International Airport in May, a June 4 incident involving a photo flight over New York and an episode that led to the evacuation of the U.S. Capitol amid preparations for former President Ronald Reagan's funeral have prompted concerns about communications flaws. Baltimore Sun
The Thursday report said that the administration is engaging in "hysterics" in issuing numerous terror alerts that have little to no basis in fact. Source
February 2003— A key piece of the information leading to recent terror alerts was fabricated, according to two senior law enforcement officials in Washington and New York. ABC News
May 2004-A false hijacking alarm at Los Angeles International Airport in May, a June 4 incident involving a photo flight over New York and an episode that led to the evacuation of the U.S. Capitol amid preparations for former President Ronald Reagan's funeral have prompted concerns about communications flaws. Baltimore Sun
Oh, the list goes on………and on. How about the dreaded (fake) LA mall bomber?
QUOTE
"On four separate occasions during 2003, Americans were notified by their government that the color of the day had changed.
January 2004-“Six cases of mistaken identity were behind the pre-Christmas grounding of six Air France flights between Paris and Los Angeles over terrorism fears,
June 2004-Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern writes: "Last Wednesday, it was Attorney General John Ashcroft - joined Friday by me-too Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge - claiming that 'credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that Al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States' between now and the November election. If 'credible intelligence' sounds to you like protesting too much, there is ample reason to be skeptical. Overshadowing Ashcroft's dramatic warning that Al Qaeda planned to 'hit the United States hard' was the headline-grabbing, specific claim that 'an Al Qaeda spokesman announced that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete.' Had Ashcroft thought to check this out with the CIA - or even NBC - he would have learned that the 'Al Qaeda spokesman' was actually 'Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades'... According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, this 'group' may consist of no more than one person with a fax machine." Democrats.com
January 2004-“Six cases of mistaken identity were behind the pre-Christmas grounding of six Air France flights between Paris and Los Angeles over terrorism fears,
June 2004-Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern writes: "Last Wednesday, it was Attorney General John Ashcroft - joined Friday by me-too Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge - claiming that 'credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that Al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States' between now and the November election. If 'credible intelligence' sounds to you like protesting too much, there is ample reason to be skeptical. Overshadowing Ashcroft's dramatic warning that Al Qaeda planned to 'hit the United States hard' was the headline-grabbing, specific claim that 'an Al Qaeda spokesman announced that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete.' Had Ashcroft thought to check this out with the CIA - or even NBC - he would have learned that the 'Al Qaeda spokesman' was actually 'Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades'... According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, this 'group' may consist of no more than one person with a fax machine." Democrats.com
I think the chances of something actually happening, or prevented from happening are slim and none, and Slim's left town.
QUOTE
2002-But crying wolf once too often smacks of political opportunism, and risks jading the public to future warnings, even one that might be real. This does absolutely nothing to protect and everything to endanger the public. Final Call
QUOTE
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
First off, I'm inclined to agree with DaffyGrl, I've heard a lot of things about "very credible" information and "imminent" attacks. Of course I don't want to be proven wrong here, that would be awful. BUt how would it effect the election? I don't understand how it could "strengthen the resolve" of the Bush followers. Let me just see if I've got this straight:
1. 9/11 happens and Bush vows to "git them evildoers" and crack down on terror.
2. Security everywhere is strengthened
3. The ::cough:: Patriot Act is passed to help crack down.
4. Some terrorists caught
5. Attack Saddam and claim that Al Qaeda is being fought.
6. Another terror attack
Now it seems to me that number six shouldn't happen if the first four have happened right? I mean, would that not completely negate all these things that we have done to stop terror attacks on our soil and abroad? If I were a Bush supporter I would seriously reconsider who to vote for, not based on ideology, but on events that had took place while Bush was in office.
(Edited for spelling type stuff)
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
I think that it would hurt Dubya. Not necessarily to the people who already support him, but to the fence-sitters. I think that people (some of them) have put a considerable amount of trust into the Administration's ability to handle terrorism; if a terrorist attack should occur, they'll look to put their trust elsewhere. Two terrorist attacks on your watch certainly isn't conducive to the feeling that you'll keep the American people safe from another.
I contend that it would be a matter more of the loss of life: if another 2,500 people are killed, Bush won't last. If, to use your car bomb example, twenty-five people are killed in a car bomb, I think people will be upset but not upset enough to cause a major switch from Bush to Kerry. As popeye47 mentioned, if he continues to build on his ability to keep the country safe and something big happens, he can kiss another term good-bye.
I think that it would hurt Dubya. Not necessarily to the people who already support him, but to the fence-sitters. I think that people (some of them) have put a considerable amount of trust into the Administration's ability to handle terrorism; if a terrorist attack should occur, they'll look to put their trust elsewhere. Two terrorist attacks on your watch certainly isn't conducive to the feeling that you'll keep the American people safe from another.
QUOTE(lee)
I believe the type of attack would influence the electorate's decision.
I contend that it would be a matter more of the loss of life: if another 2,500 people are killed, Bush won't last. If, to use your car bomb example, twenty-five people are killed in a car bomb, I think people will be upset but not upset enough to cause a major switch from Bush to Kerry. As popeye47 mentioned, if he continues to build on his ability to keep the country safe and something big happens, he can kiss another term good-bye.
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
I would like to begin my post with, I am a fence sitter, a woman without a President to vote for. Pretty much the main reason why I remain on the fence is that I am far from confident that Kerry is willing or able to maintain an aggressive proactive stance in the War on Terror, which is what I believe circumstances require.
I certainly see the point of view that depending on the scale of an attack, may have a bearing on public reaction and it most certainly could play out in that manner previously discussed, a smaller Spain style attack might rally the People behind Bush and the other extreme a repeat of 911 might have the opposite effect.
When I examine how I would feel if attacked again there is one point that definitely has bearing on my perception of the war on terror as a whole. It has been quite some time since the terrorist have attacked us here on our soil. I feel that if I were to assume that they just haven't wanted to attack, would be a bit naive of me. Here in NY just last week we just exported a couple of Security Workers for the Iranian Embassy...
Then there was the Russian missal trade deal , here in Newark...
Given that my impression of Kerry to date has been that he is a bit inconsistent on many issues, and that I consider the War on Terror a National Priority. If we were attacked again I venture to say that many on the fence Americans like myself might be swayed towards Bush as at least he has shown steadfastness and resolve in the War on Terror. I don't believe I would want to risk putting into office a man which I consider to be a wild card. Of course all of this could change if Kerry were to actually get down to business and commit to a game plan on this issue, though he has waited so long that I would have to wonder if he were not saying what he thinks we want to hear.
Edited to add...
Daffy has some interesting points and I thought a link might be helpful for those who wish to respond to Daffy's take on the issue Crying Wolf or
I would like to begin my post with, I am a fence sitter, a woman without a President to vote for. Pretty much the main reason why I remain on the fence is that I am far from confident that Kerry is willing or able to maintain an aggressive proactive stance in the War on Terror, which is what I believe circumstances require.
I certainly see the point of view that depending on the scale of an attack, may have a bearing on public reaction and it most certainly could play out in that manner previously discussed, a smaller Spain style attack might rally the People behind Bush and the other extreme a repeat of 911 might have the opposite effect.
When I examine how I would feel if attacked again there is one point that definitely has bearing on my perception of the war on terror as a whole. It has been quite some time since the terrorist have attacked us here on our soil. I feel that if I were to assume that they just haven't wanted to attack, would be a bit naive of me. Here in NY just last week we just exported a couple of Security Workers for the Iranian Embassy...
QUOTE
The guards were taking photos of infrastructure, modes of transportation and New York City landmarks, a U.S. official said Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity. They were the third set of Iranian guards caught taking pictures. Story
Then there was the Russian missal trade deal , here in Newark...
QUOTE
Briton has been charged in the US with conspiring to sell missiles to terrorists with the aim of shooting down American airliners.
Hemant Lakhani was arrested in Newark, New Jersey, after an elaborate sting operation involving Russian and UK intelligence which stretched back 18 months. Story
Hemant Lakhani was arrested in Newark, New Jersey, after an elaborate sting operation involving Russian and UK intelligence which stretched back 18 months. Story
Given that my impression of Kerry to date has been that he is a bit inconsistent on many issues, and that I consider the War on Terror a National Priority. If we were attacked again I venture to say that many on the fence Americans like myself might be swayed towards Bush as at least he has shown steadfastness and resolve in the War on Terror. I don't believe I would want to risk putting into office a man which I consider to be a wild card. Of course all of this could change if Kerry were to actually get down to business and commit to a game plan on this issue, though he has waited so long that I would have to wonder if he were not saying what he thinks we want to hear.
Edited to add...
Daffy has some interesting points and I thought a link might be helpful for those who wish to respond to Daffy's take on the issue Crying Wolf or
What's up with the edit feature?! I tried to edit my previous post, but the edit button is mysteriously missing. 
Anyway, the LA "Mall Bomber" link should be here, but it can be reached through the link I previously posted...that'll teach me not to read through the whole darned source!
Anyway, the LA "Mall Bomber" link should be here, but it can be reached through the link I previously posted...that'll teach me not to read through the whole darned source!
I personally don't believe that another terrorist attack is necessarily imminent.
On the one hand, now that the US has created a larger number of terrorists through more misguided foreign policy, it's possible Bush and Co. could get lucky.
And if it were to happen, I think it would help the administration because not too many people think rationally when they're scared. Since Bush claims to be tough on terrorists, that's all people will think about. A majority won't be thinking of it as a Bush failure to protect us -- they will be too emotionally charged -- and Bush will be stepping up the rhetoric of "smoking them out" that will appeal more to a scared public.
An even more likely explanation is one that I felt strongly before seeing F 9/11, but didn't quite know how to articulate until I saw a member of congress (who was also a psychologist) in that film talk about how this admin. uses fear as a psychological weapon to get what they want, using the color coded terrorist levels and warning of possilbe attacks at anytime, anywhere.
Also, this report of possible attacks looks like setting the stage for this little maneuver that the administration has planned:
From Misleader.org
On the one hand, now that the US has created a larger number of terrorists through more misguided foreign policy, it's possible Bush and Co. could get lucky.
And if it were to happen, I think it would help the administration because not too many people think rationally when they're scared. Since Bush claims to be tough on terrorists, that's all people will think about. A majority won't be thinking of it as a Bush failure to protect us -- they will be too emotionally charged -- and Bush will be stepping up the rhetoric of "smoking them out" that will appeal more to a scared public.
An even more likely explanation is one that I felt strongly before seeing F 9/11, but didn't quite know how to articulate until I saw a member of congress (who was also a psychologist) in that film talk about how this admin. uses fear as a psychological weapon to get what they want, using the color coded terrorist levels and warning of possilbe attacks at anytime, anywhere.
Also, this report of possible attacks looks like setting the stage for this little maneuver that the administration has planned:
From Misleader.org
QUOTE
Bush Coordinating War on Terror With Election
In the months after the tragic attacks of 9/11, President Bush told the American people that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use [the War on Terror] as a political issue."1 But according to a new report, the Bush Administration is now demanding that international allies coordinate the arrest of al Qaeda terrorists to coincide with key U.S. political events, so as to maximize political benefits for the President.
According to the New Republic, top Pakistani intelligence officials have confirmed that the Bush Administration is demanding the Pakistani government find as many "high value" terrorist targets specifically before Americans go to the polls in November. By contrast, no similar urgent push or "timetable" was discussed in 2002 or 2003. Even more troubling, Pakistani sources admit White House aides told the Pakistani Director of Intelligence that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any high value terrorist target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July" - the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.2
The report calls into question whether key military decisions were affected by similar political motivations during the last three years. For instance, during 2002 and 2003 when al Qaeda was regrouping along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Bush administration refused calls to seriously increase operations there. Only in March of 2004 - once the Presidential election campaign had begun -- did the President finally announce "stepped up efforts" in Afghanistan to find bin Laden.3
In the months after the tragic attacks of 9/11, President Bush told the American people that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use [the War on Terror] as a political issue."1 But according to a new report, the Bush Administration is now demanding that international allies coordinate the arrest of al Qaeda terrorists to coincide with key U.S. political events, so as to maximize political benefits for the President.
According to the New Republic, top Pakistani intelligence officials have confirmed that the Bush Administration is demanding the Pakistani government find as many "high value" terrorist targets specifically before Americans go to the polls in November. By contrast, no similar urgent push or "timetable" was discussed in 2002 or 2003. Even more troubling, Pakistani sources admit White House aides told the Pakistani Director of Intelligence that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any high value terrorist target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July" - the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.2
The report calls into question whether key military decisions were affected by similar political motivations during the last three years. For instance, during 2002 and 2003 when al Qaeda was regrouping along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Bush administration refused calls to seriously increase operations there. Only in March of 2004 - once the Presidential election campaign had begun -- did the President finally announce "stepped up efforts" in Afghanistan to find bin Laden.3
QUOTE(jenreiautter @ Jul 9 2004, 12:11 PM)
And if it were to happen, I think it would help the administration because not too many people think rationally when they're scared. Since Bush claims to be tough on terrorists, that's all people will think about. A majority won't be thinking of it as a Bush failure to protect us -- they will be too emotionally charged -- and Bush will be stepping up the rhetoric of "smoking them out" that will appeal more to a scared public.
Is it possible that people may feel that Kerry having said very little during his campaign about the war on terror, may find themselves questioning his readiness to effectively deal with post attack issues and subsequent military action. I do not base my proactive position on the War on Terror off of fear but off of what recent history has taught me about what inaction gets us. We essentially did nothing for years while a ship, housing complex, Embassy's, an attack on our soil (first World Trade Center attack) etc. were perpetrated. Did the terrorists lay off, no they finally got it right in a big way. I find it a bit difficult to stomach the thought that Americans as a whole would be paralyzed with fear and that is why Bush would be re-elected. Yes there may be a segment of the population that may react that way though a segment would not cinch the race for him, my guess is that the very segment I discuss probably has no intention of voting in the first place.
QUOTE
If we were attacked again I venture to say that many on the fence Americans like myself might be swayed towards Bush as at least he has shown steadfastness and resolve in the War on Terror.
If I was a fence sitter, which I'm not, it would have pretty much the opposite effect on me. I mean, two terrorist attacks on American soil during one term in office would say to me, "Can I trust Bush to be steadfast on terrorism when he has already let in two terrorist attacks?" I would probably swing to Kerry because we don't know he is bad at terrorism, and most people think other wise.
An example of that here.
QUOTE(Piper Plexed @ Jul 8 2004, 02:15 PM)
If this did come to Pass....
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
It would effect the election in that it would be delayed, perhaps unduly so. Evdiently, they are looking at contingency plans if such an attack were to occur before or on election day.
QUOTE
U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda, Newsweek reported on Sunday.
and....
QUOTE
The magazine cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the election if an attack occurred on the day before or the day of the election.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ion_terror_dc_2
This could be very hard for the Bush folks. An election is not some flimsy thing that can be changed and morphed at a whim, but it would be foolish to believe that such an event would not be the perfect opportunity for Al-Qaeda to attack.
How would it effect Bush?
O.K., the only difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry would work for more international cooperation on Iraq. He isn't even calling for the withdrawl of troops, like the Libertarian nominee is, he's even calling for an increase in Iraq of 40,000 troops. How Al-Qaeda "wins" in this scenario is really not given. Bush won't be blamed for such an occurance, things like terrorism will happen no matter who is president and no matter who does what to try and stop it.
It's true that Kerry doesn't have the moments already imbedded in our minds that Bush does -- I'm not sure that necessarily means that Kerry would be weak on terrorists.
I do find the fact that he was mislead by the administration (enough to vote for Bush to attack) on the Iraq issue disturbing -- I would hope that someone who was going to be president would have looked at all the possibilities to find that it was unlikely that Iraq was building a nuclear arsenal. There was plenty of info going around in 2002 if he would have bothered to look for it that suggested that Bush was going to war with Iraq for other than stated reasons.
Here's another way Bush can benefit from another terrorist attack:
U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
(Is this another way of saying that al Qaeda may want Bush to remain president?)
I do find the fact that he was mislead by the administration (enough to vote for Bush to attack) on the Iraq issue disturbing -- I would hope that someone who was going to be president would have looked at all the possibilities to find that it was unlikely that Iraq was building a nuclear arsenal. There was plenty of info going around in 2002 if he would have bothered to look for it that suggested that Bush was going to war with Iraq for other than stated reasons.
Here's another way Bush can benefit from another terrorist attack:
U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
QUOTE
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network may attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.
(Is this another way of saying that al Qaeda may want Bush to remain president?)
How would another terrorist attack before the election, influence the country and effect the election?
It depends on the timing, as I think I pointed out in the earlier thread.
If it comes within 2 weeks before the election, it probably will swing the election to Bush, who will make political hay out of it and Kerry isn't nasty enough to try to point the finger at Bush so close to the attack.
The further out from the election the attack occurs, the better for Kerry, because he can then use the attack to make political noise and not seem like he's using the tragedy to his political advantage.
It depends on the timing, as I think I pointed out in the earlier thread.
If it comes within 2 weeks before the election, it probably will swing the election to Bush, who will make political hay out of it and Kerry isn't nasty enough to try to point the finger at Bush so close to the attack.
The further out from the election the attack occurs, the better for Kerry, because he can then use the attack to make political noise and not seem like he's using the tragedy to his political advantage.
I could be wrong on this but I think an attack would help Bush in many ways. After attacks to the country the president's approval rating almost always goes up. I can't to my knowledge think of a time in the last 30 years where it hasn't helped the President. Furthermore this would support the Presidents belief that we are still at war and that all these threats are very real.
QUOTE(BravesCHAMPS95 @ Jul 24 2004, 12:03 AM)
I could be wrong on this but I think an attack would help Bush in many ways. After attacks to the country the president's approval rating almost always goes up. I can't to my knowledge think of a time in the last 30 years where it hasn't helped the President. Furthermore this would support the Presidents belief that we are still at war and that all these threats are very real.
I couldn't agree more. However, in view of some people (myself included) George Bush is the best president OBL can ask for - never before was United States so unpopular, not only in the Arab world, but throughout Western world as well. I believe GWB is the guy that Osama would rather see win in November - therefor he might push for an attack.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.