Not a flame. Not unpatriotic. Not a wish. Just a question.

[Can o Beans]

Q:

What are you going to say to Bush voters if we are attacked again, 9/11 style?

I personally, God forbid this happens, will have a hard time restraining myself.

[ComerPerro]

1. "Good luck blaming THIS on Clinton, asswipe"

and "Well, I hope you are proud of yourself"

[bobweaver]

2. I would say "That shows you how effective the Bushites are against terror"

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. i really hope it doesnt...regardless of who is in power

[aden_nak]

4. "On your fucking heads, each and every one of you."

And not to dip into the Tin Foil reserve or anything. . . but with the whole push to invade Iran coming up. . . I genuinely suspect that another "attack" might be at least a contingency plan for those PNAC sickos. I would be VERY happy to be wrong. Infinitely happy to be wrong, in fact. But I don't think PNAC would let another few thousand American lives stand between them and their goals.

[Sparkly]

5. I especially hope it doesn't happen in DC, NY, or PA again

IF it happens, I hope it impacts proportionately more Bush voters this time so they experience the reality of this administration's utter incompetence, after putting those of us in these areas at higher risk AGAIN. (That is NOT to say I hope it happens -- obviously I hope it never does.)

And, if it does it won't be "9/11 style." It'll be launched from a port, or a bio attack, or an attack on a chem/nuke facility... Just mho.

[bvar22]

18. Too stupid to be president....

...is also too stupid to defend the USA.

[bvar22]

19. bush* and the republicans will MAKE SURE that...

...the next attack happens to a blue state, just like they did the first one!

[AngelAsuka]

6. I don't know if I could say anything

because they will blame WJC IMHO, and say 'Rush was right' or some other ill-informed bit of gobbledygook. "Well if all those pinko-commie-treehugging libruuls would have let Our Great Leader finish his Agenda without trying to sell us out to Osama, then it never would have happened." I swear I heard him talking up that meme a few months ago? :mad: :argh: :spank: :nuke:

~~AA~~

[smurfygirl]

7. I too will have a hard time restraining myself

But I realize these people have just been sold on Bush's charisma. I will not say anything except to God about it. What purpose would it serve?

[Bethany Rockafella]

33. Bush's charisma?

Where?

[DrWeird]

8. Chickens coming home to roost?

:shrug:

[GOPFighter]

9. Too many variables

It depends on the attack and who is responsible. Al Qaeda was responsible for the first attack. George Bush attempted to bring them to justice, but then found Iraq an easier target and lost interest in Al Qaeda. If they manage another similar attack on American soil, I'm betting that Bush will in for a lot of criticism for not successfully pursuing Osama and bringing him to justice.

If the terrorist attack is backed by Iranians, the American people will demand we invade. If it is backed by Iraqis, there will be calls for nuking Iraq. If they are backed by Saudis, we'll shake our finger at the them and say, naughty, naughty - now, more oil, please? And if the terrorists turn out to be Palestinians, god help them.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. Criticism from whom?

Bush will never be in for a lot of criticism over anything. The media will continue to look off into the distance, ignoring his culpability. Just like last time.

[GOPFighter]

17. You might be right

but personally I think we're going to see growing criticism of Bush in the Media. I've noticed a big change just since the election.

[Spike from MN]

20. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you meant to say

If the terrorist attack is backed by Iranians, we'll invade Iran.
If the terrorist attack is backed by Iraqis, we'll invade Iran.
If the terrorist attack is backed by Saudis, we'll invade Iran.

Hmm...I think I see a pattern here.

[GOPFighter]

29. LOL

You got me there!

[K-W]

10. "Goodbye."

I know it wouldnt be easy, but at that point id be exausting my resources to find a way out of this country.

[xchrom]

11. i don't restrain myself now.

i certainly won't then.
bush = 9/11

[Solly Mack]

12. You reap what you sow

I'm sure those right wing fundies can wrap their minds around that

(not)

[Orangepeel]

14. It's like your daughter is dating a man who you know is going to hurt her

you tried to get her to leave him, but she refused. You love your daughter and you don't want her to get hurt, but you are really afraid it is going to happen.

What do you say to her when she gets beat up?

[DS1]

15. Someone dig up matcom's thread on the matter

[ErinGoBraghLess]

16. Terrorists

Such a difficult question. First, whatever political party is currently in or out of power, let's all pray such an attack never comes. Second, it seems like an awfully big stretch to hold an individual voter responsible for the criminal actions of a third party (don't mean to get too legal here). I think Bush has made terroritsts more desirous of attacking us, but can't go so far as to say it's the fault of the Bush voters if an attack comes. Maybe he made it more likely, but terror attacks were directed at us long before he came in to office. So is this terror attack by someone who was recruited because of Bush or by someone who was already set on killing Americans? If an attack comes, I don't think I'll be talking about who voted for whom. I think I'll be wrapping my arms around my family.

Also, I just thought of an interesting question. What do we all think about the possibility of a terrorist attack if Kerry had won the election? Would an attack never happen? Less likely? A lot less likely?

[Bridget Burke]

26. Yes, there are always bad guys out there....

Clinton was pretty successful in protecting us. Bush & Co were not; total incompetence is the most charitable interpretation.

The 9/11 attack was good for Bush. When will he need another little bump?

[July]

27. When Bush and his buds have busily tried to sell fear,

along with the idea that only Bush can protect us properly, I think it's fair to hold Bush voters accountable. Presumably, many of them voted for Bush because they feel "safer" having him in the White House. At least, that's what we heard and read in news reports and interviews with average Bush voters.

Sure, we had attacks before. But Bush asked for votes on the basis that he would protect us best, and he whipped up a boatload of fear to feed that argument. Another attack here will make Bush 0 for 2. Not a great record.

Why ask about Kerry? We're no longer holding the national debate about who would protect America best; this conversation is about how we'd react to those who said it was Bush if there is another attack on Bush's watch. Can't really compare an unforeseeable Kerry presidency (many possible scenarios, depending on what he would do, as well as on the legacy of Bush's decisions) with something that could actually come to pass.

[quiet.american]

21. More Kool-Aid, anyone?

It probably won't matter much what's said to them.

There will be some other emotional twist of logic given as to why it's not Bush (the stern father's) fault and they WILL find a way to tie it into Presidant Clinton (the nurturing parent's) term.

Or, better yet, they'll link it to Ted Kennedy "emboldening" the terrorists, yada, yada.

They're never at a loss for passing the buck.

[Inland]

22. Doesn't matter. Because it will be a time for the nation to unite.

If we get attacked again like 9/11, then the media and pubbies are going to state that NOW is not the time for doubts and blame, but time to rally around our Commander in Chief. Dems will largely accede.

At which time Bush will finally jam his social security reform measures through Congress and attack Iran despite our knowledge Iran had nothing to do with the second attack.

Whether the next US election will be cancelled as an emergency measure is still up in the air. Most likely, there will a "compromise" whereby a person hand selected by Bush will be given the presidency in order to ensure that there is continuity during these troubled times. Dems who ask why we would want continuity of incompetent, craven fascist rulers who seem to have an incentive to encourage terrorism and fear in terms of their personal power and success will be shushed.

[Bigmack]

24. Whenever anyone says "unite"....

... I wanna just get out the KY jelly, because I KNOW I'm gonna need it.

Why do we always have to "unite" under the Repubs? Why not "unite" under the people who think, research, and reason?

[Inland]

38. Exactly my point.

And why do you always have to unite under pubbies? Because they want the unity that comes from surrender, and the peace that comes from total and complet victory.

[JackRiddler]

23. 9/11 was an inside job

9/11 was anticipated and stage-managed by the administration, members of whom had foreknowledge of and engaged in active preparation for the attacks. The behavior on the day provides ample prima facie evidence that it was allowed to happen on purpose, with the principles feigning surprise and intentionally circumventing defensive response. The trail of the alleged hijackers leads us through an apparatus of surveillance and probable support run by networks connected to the longstanding Bush/CIA mafia (not to be confused with but certainly reaching into the real institutional CIA). The evidence points to the original Bojinka plot having been uncovered years before its execution, taken over and financed by foreign agency and private entities contracted to the covert networks surrounding the Bush mob, and seen through to its fruition as a planned matter of covert policy, to achieve exactly the effects we have seen (which were openly planned in advance: the wars, the domestic changes, the shifting of trillions of dollars in resources and spending). It was an intentional "New Pearl Harbor." The primary perpetrators hold office in the administration and surround our government as its contractors and advisers. All of the official investigations since 9/11 have served to obscure and whitewash these realities. The obvious avoidance of all key questions about 9/11 by the Congress and Commission serve to confirm. This is a logical culmination of the history of the national security state and worldwide terror apparatus dating back to its founding after the Second World War. It is an equally logical culmination of the history of the Bush mob. The precedents for false-flag terrorism commited by states upon their own people for the purpose of rule-by-fear and to justify wars are legion. This is by far the most robust paradigm for explaining the available facts.

And so you must proceed from the presumption that any future 9/11 is also an inside job, unless proven otherwise. If you want to have any impact on the environment after a new attack, you have got to spread the word about the old one now.

[CrispyQ]

25. My repuke mother will never see or hear from me again.

She is in full gloat mode this week. Sent me an email with a link to the blue "truth" bracelets & told me to "JUST GET OVER IT!"

[MsTryska]

28. So much for winning that war on terra, eh? nt

nt

[arcane1]

30. it will be all Kerry's fault, of course!

and it may be illegal after that to say anything that is non-chimp-positive :scared:

[Just Me]

31. Nothing.

I would likely be too busy making plans to get out of the country before the neocons begin their world war and verily hoping they don't impose martial law closing all borders until the end of their endeavor.

[Bethany Rockafella]

32. ..

Well Bush did say "bring em on".

[passy]

34. What do you tell them when their son comes home from Iraq in a body bag?

[noonwitch]

35. It depends on who is responsible for the attack

If the IRA, for example, were to take something out (Hey, I saw that episode of "Miami Vice"), I would hardly blame the republicans. The looney right-wingers like McVeigh only attack when there's a democrat in the White House, so I'm not looking for that to happen in the next four years.

If it was al Queda again, I'd make some sarcastic comment about how we now need to find a country to invade fast.

[oneighty]

36. Can o Beans

You survived. Way to go. Skinny Legs and All. (Tom Robbins)

Welcome to DU.

180

[Can o Beans]

39. I was lucky.

Darn frogs and snakes.

[ernstbass]

37. do you feel SAFER now you idiots?

[Can o Beans]

40. See this is what I'd be tempted to say

Just wondering if I'd be in the wrong for doing so...