Terrorism: A double edged Sword for Bushco

[Homer12]

If there is another attack under Bushco's watch it is more likely to hurt them in the long run.

Why? Even though they keep on invoking "fear of terrorism - it will happen again" as a re-election and political policy tactic and at the same time SAY that becuase of "them" that there have been NO terrorist attacks, and one happens. How can they justify "letting" another attack happen?

Sure, the easy way out is to blame liberal, the left, and Democrats, except for the fact that "the Left" is not in control and most non-politically polerized Americans understand this at least.

If another attack happens, there is NO blaming Clinton or the left. Blame will have no other place to go but on Bushco and his Neo-Con pals.

[tinrobot]

1. The obvious thing to do...

Would be for the BFEE to 'thwart' an attack or 'discover' a dirty bomb or something.

Or they could catch Osama... remember him?

[Beetwasher]

2. Definitely a Dangerous Game They Are Playing

This "No new attacks" crap can easily backfire if there's another attack. Hopefully they realize that there would be negative fallout for them and therefore they truly are doing their best to protect the country and there won't be another attack.

Unfortunately it seems they really don't care though and are NOT doing what's best to protect the country but just the opposite. I think that they might think that another attack might be used by them to further consolidate their power, regardless of the political fallout, and they might be right.

I can only hope that if there is another attack that the American people will blame not only the terrorists, but also this admin. and hold them responsible for their failed policies.

[Homer12]

3. Hopefully, Americans will blame both Bush and the Terrorists

Instead of finding some scapegoat, which seems to be the thing lately for all of our countries problems.

[rogerashton]

4. I thought it was interesting

That they claimed credit for "more than two years without an attack on the United States." Clinton gave us eight -- and every president since Roosevelt gave us as many years without an attack as he has been president. The last president to do as badly as this was John Hancock!

Edit: typo

[Beetwasher]

6. Yup, lowered expectations once again

Bush got a free pass on the first attack. If there's another one he won't get the same treatment. The upside for him is the possibilities of consolidation of power as a result of it, such as imposition of marshall law, suspending certain rights, if not the constitution altogether to some degree etc, wholesale rounding up of muslims and other "undesireables", PATRIOT ACT II rammed through congress, etc.

[jedicord]

5. The "Inevitable" Attack Won't Happen in 2004

My thoughts are that Bushco is using the fear tactic on this. Saying there's an imminent threat of attack, because Bush is the only guy who can keep us safe.

Oh No! Imminent Attack! Bush has kept us from attack for two years! We HAVE to keep him!

That's why I don't mind flying or going into tall buildings.