Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Considering that the election is going to be decided by that 10% in the center that keeps swaying with the wind this is going to be a tough call. The polls show that most people trust bush on defense. So my vote is that it will benefit him. However, timing is going to be important. The farther the attack is from the actual Election Day the better for Kerry. Given time people will start to question whether Bush can get the job done. Haven’t you noticed all the yearlong rhetoric from the Bushes about “we have to be right 100% or the time”? They are trying to pre-insulate themselves from an attack.

When I go home, I invariably bring up the latest political juice. My poor mother… she was raised by die-hard republicans (of the old, respectable school), so she’s very unwilling to believe even some of the most clear problems with the Administration. About a year ago, I had her convinced, however. At this point, I just like to drive the point home.

I think that al Qaeda and many other terrorist groups want Bush to win*. I think that a terrorist attack in the United States near the election will help Bush, in particular because the American electorate, with the best of intentions, will want to distinguish ourselves from the Spanish electorate by not renouncing our leader.

While I hope and pray almost every day (well, okay, I don’t pray) that we are never attacked again and that I don’t have to experience all that horror again, I am doubly concerned because I fear that al Qaeda realizes the aforementioned likelihood that a terrorist attack will usher in four more years of Bush, the great al Qaeda propaganda machine, the alliance-shattering crusader President.

Ultimately, I am wary of bringing up this topic at all, because it seems inevitable to me that some Republican is going to get the bright idea of accusing some (or all) Democrats of wishing for a terrorist attack. I predict that things are going to get really ugly whether an attack occurs or not.

There is no doubt in my mind that a terrorist attack on the United States would be just about the worst thing that could possibly happen. It would mean that everything is totally [expletive deleted] up.

-Cf

* At least the ones who can attack America - others, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the miscellaneous Iraqi insurgencies, may not want Bush to win but then again they aren’t likely to attack the US itself.

Christopher:

I didnt understand why you think al Queda would want Bush to win. I’d think they would want Kerry to win rather than have Bush around. Perhaps you could explain your thinking.

I hope and pray (and yes, I actually do pray :) ) that there is no attack, but I’m not blind to the idea that an attack will happen. I dont know when or where, but just as terrorists have consistently been able to wait wait wait, and then attack, I think they’ll be able to do so in the future. Unless we truly curtail civil liberties to a great extent, we remain an attackable target.

I dont really know who an attack would help, from a purely political standpoint. I suspect it would have to do with timing——if it happened right before the election, people might vote for stability. If it happened a month or so ahead of the election, people might feel enough wasnt done to prevent it. But those are just my conjectures.

I dont see how we can prevent attacks though. Israel is a much more closed state than we are, and has a much higher police presence. Yet they still are attacked consistently. So, I dont see a way out of it that is acceptable. Perhaps others have ideas to share….?

CF, I agree. I too believe the terrorists hope and will do what they can to get Bush reelected. A martyr in a cause needs an oppressive enemy to highlight one’s martyrdom. Bush gives al-Queda a tremendous amount of ammunition to strengthen their cause. The latest was Bush’s backing of Ariel Sharon putting the U.S. clearly on the side of Israel and removing the U.S. from the long held position of interested but neutral moderator and broker for peace in the Middle East.

What was he thinking? I do still give him credit for that capacity, if not the results for the effort.

I didnt understand why you think al Queda would want Bush to win. I’d think they would want Kerry to win rather than have Bush around. Perhaps you could explain your thinking.

Bush toppled a secular dictator, opening Iraq up for a fundamentalist government to take hold if that’s how the elections go.

Bush provides a rallying cry for extremists to recruit new followers with… they just have to print up some posters of dead Iraqi civilians and wave them around in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. Boom! Instant suicide bombers trainees.

Bush has given Israel stronger backing than previous US policy.

etc., etc., etc.

***All I know is this, if there were to be a terror attack in this country on this certain date it will undoubtedly be in a predominantly republican voting precinct.

Democrat or not, that’s funny right there!

> ***All I know is this, if there were to be a
> terror attack in this country on this certain
> date it will undoubtedly be in a predominantly
> republican voting precinct.

I dont know if you wrote that yourself skunkbud or if you were quoting someone else whose post is now gone. In any case, I should point out that New York City is predominently Democratic.

Joe, as for backing up my belief that Al Qaeda wants Bush to win, I think some of the others so far have pitched in much of what I would say in response.

Killing or capturing Osama bin Laden will not represent at all a defeat for what Al Qaeda stands for. To contemplate a true Al Qaeda defeat you must take a much bigger perspective.

Al Qaeda’s greatest defeat would be a unified alliance of western nations, allied with many of the world’s powerful Muslim governments, with the support of much of the world’s citizenry, all united at least in principle in their opposition to Al Qaeda’s objectives - just like things seemed to be right after 9/11. I can’t think of a single decision President Bush has made since the middle of 2002 that has done anything but move us farther and farther away from that scenario.

Let me ask you in return: Why would Al Qaeda want Kerry to win the election?

-Cf

I will argue that OBL probably doesn’t care. Bush and Kerry are so close in their opinions on Iraq and Israel that it wont matter all that much. Kerry has endorsed Bush’s endorsement of Sharon’s plan, both want participation of the world community, both plan to stay the course.

I guess he may want Bush out only because he could take the satisfaction of knocking out an enemy.

The one he would like to see win is probably Nader.

Craig

OBL probably wants Kerry only because he remembers how easy life was for him the last time a Democrat was president. Living in a cave just doesn’t compare with dining in restaurants, taking over countries with impunity, building training camps in the open and committing terrorist attacks without penalty like he did when Clinton was president. Of course, he’s wrong and the president (whether Bush or Kerry) will have to follow through with Bush’s policies. Because there’s no retreat possible now, it’s good to know that we’re getting eight years of Bush’s bold policies no matter what (even in the unlikely event that Kerry is the one sitting like a suit stuffed with straw in the Oval Office).

OBL probably wants Kerry only because he remembers how easy life was for him the last time a Democrat was president.

Martin, bin Laden’s billionaire family members are hiding him in a posh hotel somewhere in Saudi Arabia. He’s sleeping on satin sheets, has a kidney dialysis machine nearby, and has female Christian white slaves massaging his toes.

The guy’s worth hundreds of millions by himself and he has a huge network of followers in Saudi Arabia and around the world. He’s not cowering in some little hole in Afghanistan.

Only a chump would try to run a worldwide terrorist organization out of a cave.

Lee, you’re scaring me—how do you know so much about about Bin Laden’s location and why aren’t you sharing this with the proper authorities? :)

All accounts I’ve seen say that he’s probably passing back and forth in the mountainous tribal border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, afraid to use his satellite phone and using carriers to deliver his few messages. It’s doubtful (again, not having insider’s information like yourself, this is only based on all the media reports I’ve seen) that he’s really in charge of Al Qaida anymore.

9thwave,

The question you raised is the same one I ponder every time I see that poll of support for going into Iraq (the latest 52%-43% in support).

But, of all the current polls, the 52% majority here is the most tenuous - and the Right is reading it wrong.

All those none Fox News Channel viewers have absorbed the volume of news of our porous borders and airport undercover investigation failures.

Only Republicans will think that all the revelations from O’Neill to Woodward had no discernable impact.

And, unfortunately, the families of service people cannot (and dare not) say publicly what they truly feel about this war - for being called unpatriotic.

Whatever span of time it took after 9/11 for Americans to become selfish and self-absorbed again, factor out 10% as the duration where Bush goes from healer to scapegoat.

Don’t dare pretend that people who are willing to rise out their trenches under enemy fire and throw themselves on grenades are so cowardly that they won’t mouth their supposed real opinions— the talking points as you’d have it of John Kerry’s campaign, what you want them to believe.

That takes real gall. Bert, have you listened to what the vast majority of families of servicemen are saying, or more importantly, what servicemen are saying themselves about Iraq? Clearly not. I know several of these guys, and they’d be completely pissed off if they heard some anti-war activist saying that they’re actually against the war but don’t have the balls to admit it. Some nerve.

Martin,

I am surprised to hear such a shrill mis-interpretation of my statement coming from you.

Yes, I never served, but I do understand the penality for vocal and public dissension from those on active duty.

But, if you look again at my comment just above yours, I was referring to the families of service people who cannot express their true feelings about this war.

I do not doubt for a minute that the public statements of most families are supportive of the war. My point is that there is a reason that we see very little vocal opposition from servicemen families, because of the obvious repercussions.

I am angered that 700+ soldiers have lost their lives in an unjust war! Forgive me that I do not have the exact data or sources, but these things are true:

- an inordinately high rate of suicide among troops in Iraq

- a higher desertion rate than the Gulf War

- documented, but not made public, the lowest morale rate among troops since WWII

- a drastic decline in re-enlistment and recruitment for military duty since the beginning of the war.

Do not dare suggest I do not respect, honor and support those in harms way, in protection of my freedom.

Next time someone questions or opposes any aspect of this war, think before you jump to question his patriotism.

Bert and Martin,

I’ve seen several dissenting views in print and on TV from troops and their families. The last guy I saw, I was thinking he’s going to get reamed by his boss. It was something about kicking Rumsfeld’s ass over extending his deployment.

The new Zogby poll actually asks this question!

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=821

In the case of a possible major terrorist attack in the United States, exactly 50% (down from 52% last month) of voters prefer to be led by Bush as compared to Kerry with 38.8%.