How on Earth could another "Terrist Attack" POSSIBLY help Bush?

[22181]

I hear everyone saying that it might be something the administration has up their sleeve - planting the big bogeyman ideas in the American public's head and then poof - another LIHOP "terrist attack" as a diversion.

Sure, it would be a diversion, but the way I see it is that another "terrist attack" would only HURT * and his cronies.

I look at it this way: All he does over and over again is talk about how much safer we are under his mindless chimp regime... He parrots anything he can about peace, safety and "terrism" trying DESPERATELY to get the American public to buy into the fact that re-electing him is the ONLY way we'll be safe from "terrists".

So just like 9/11, they conveniently don't do what needs to be done to foil one that comes up, no matter how big or small...

All that does is send the message loud and clear to the American people that we are NOT safer from terrorism. That this ignorant President and his nefarious cronies have let yet another "terrist" attack slip through the cracks because they are just stupid, and those who aren't stupid are just rot-in-hell-evil.

How does it work for their advantage at all? I just do not see it. Can anyone clear this one up for me?

[LTR]

It's all in the spin (nm)

[22181]

2. Spin can only take you so far...

When you turn off the telly and KKKarl Rove's spin doctors and go to sleep at night mulling over the sights and sounds of yet another attack - spin doesn't matter diddly, I don't care how good they think it is.

2 + 2 does NOT equal 5... Not just yet, though I admit we are close. It just doesn't add up to a win for the chimp if it happens.

[LTR]

1. .

[DaveClearwater99]

3. I'm sure it would help Bush

Aside from the rally round the flag factor he does make some people feel safe. They may like standing behind a dumb thug with a gun and no hesitation to use it.

I don't think we have to worry about an attack though. It looks like Karl is going with rallying the country around a war with Iraq. He won't even have to actually go to war, just start beating the drums for the next 104 days.

[fofer]

4. I wondered this myself.

Look at what happened in Spain. The attack in Madrid happened right before the elections and the Bush-friendly administration got tossed out on its ear. I don't know how Bush and Co. could be sure that an attack would help them, either, unless of course the darling media stepped in.

[LoZoccolo]

5. People cling to whoever they think the power to protect them.

Because what else are they gonna do? They don't wanna go around thinking they're not safe, so they pretend the guy in charge is doing a great job.

[22181]

8. But when they get attacked on "the guy in charge's" watch...

They will associate the attacks with the guy in charge...

[Blue_Roses]

6. I agree

another attack would seal it for the majority of the American people. They have already had enough of his crap, but another attack would piss so many off because of his blatent disregard for security that they would say, "enough, get this incompetent idiot out of the WH." People are just plain tired of this crap. For four years we have dealt with terror attacks (they still haven't found the anthrax killer), war, job loss, higher health care, poor environment...geeze...I get depressed just writing about it.:(

No, it would not do Bush ANY GOOD if this happened...quite the contrare

[deminflorida]

7. Keep F911 in mind.....

You can make people do anything if they are afraid.

or if they'er stupid shit-kicking Southerner's (Hey, sorry but I'm from Alabama)...

Angry....

Piss off a bunch of rednecks and guess what, he could shore up his base. Eventhough the majority of them are currently unemployed.

I'm sure Fox and Friends will be glad to fan the flames as well.

on the other hand, if Southerners are informed and they think they're being used as dumbasses, which they have been for the past four years. Then they become even more angry at the current administration.

That's why the panhandle for Kerry folks down here on the Florida Panhandle are being slick at getting people to see Moore's movie. We are the GOP strong-hold of Florida. Here's what's going on tonight:

"07.22 & 07.23: See Farenheit Free! Air America Radio's "Ring of Fire" hosts Bobby Kennedy, Jr. and our own Mike Papantonio will host a "Fahrenheit 9/11 Voter Registration Drive" on Thursday, July 22 and Friday, July 23 at the Gulf Breeze Cinema 4, located at 1175 Gulf Breeze Parkway. Each night, the movie will be FREE to the first 150 persons who come to register to vote. For those already registered to vote, the admission is only $5! Limited seating, first come/first serve. Voter registration will begin at 6:00 PM, with the movie beginning promptly at 7:00 PM. For more information, please contact Todd Early at 435-7013."

www.panhandleforkerry.com
and
www.santarosaforkerry.com

[spotbird]

9. You'll see. nt

[joanne]

10. I dont see it either

Seems to me if there was another attack he would be toast. Especially with all his bragging about how he has made America "safer".

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Could happen

But not if Bush reacts like he did last time of course. I think Bush would have been toast had there been`a terrorist attack last December, or January, say. That would have given people enough time to get over their first wave of shock to start asking hard questions about why we were not better prepared.

If Bush manages to pull off acting tough and steely, and if the government looks like it mobilized well to handle the immediate aftermath of an attack, it could be real trouble for Kerry. Everyone really believes there will be future terror attacks, there will be if Kerry wins also. Since everyone knows that, it will not necessarily be obvious to people that Bush blew it if one happens this year. Bush would claim that we had previously foiled many other attacks with our vigilance, and that we would be in a much more dangerous place had we not thrown Al Quada on the defensive by going after them where they live. It will all be bullshit but that is what the Republicans do well. Initial reporting will focus on devastation and grief and heroic actions made by some. It will focus on our political leaders trying to look united representing one nation facing down the terrorist "cowards". It will focus on reactions around the world. All this would give Bush chances to look Presidential and above politics.

Bush will be President until January no matter what, an emotional part of people would WANT to rally behind the only President we have. Later, investigative reporting would start poking holes in the way the current administration prepared this country against the threats. There would be a little of that early on, but it would not become the "front page" coverage until after people had enough time to calm down and reflect, and the Elections would probably be history by then. A lot would ride on Bush's first address to the Nation after a terrorist attack. Kerry would not be in the drivers seat, he would be hemmed in by not wanting to appear partisan at a time of great crisis..

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Since Kerry would have to be very patriotic after an attack

NOW is the time when Kerry can and must be partisan. Now is when he has to trot out every single argument about why Bush hasn't done the things that need to be done to protect the American people, with as many specifics as possible. Now is when Kerry needs to present his plan for what he will do to make America safer against Terrorists, explaining exactly how that differs from the botch job Bush has presided over. And it isn't good enough that Kerry's plan exists on a piece of paper, it has to be hammered home on the campaign trail. The sound clips have to become very familiar to the American public. Then if something horrible happens, the points will have already been made by Kerry, our leader in waiting, because Kerry won't be able to make those points forcefully immediately after a Terror attack. Then he would be expected to join in circling the wagons against America's shared enemies.

[David Dunham]

13. American tend unfortunately to rally around the leader in a crisis

[DaveClearwater99]

14. Most of you seem to have more faith in the intelligence of Americans

than I do. I think Rove is right. People are easily manipulated by fear and I'm sure the reaction would be 'We're not gonna cave like those lousy Spaniards'.

Someone above laid out the best plan. Kerry needs to start talking about the security failures NOW. I've seen him do this to an extent in an ad but it was to light and fluffy. He started out with something like "The way to make America safe is to bring the country together". I think he's being to subtle. He really needs to dumb down the message.

God I want Carville back. Someone needs to scream in peoples faces WE'RE NOT SAFER AND IT'S BUSH'S FAULT.

[democratreformed]

15. Because the idiot consistenly leads in polls relating

to who is strongest on terror and protecting the country. It's twisted, I know, but it's that way. After another attack, the crippling fear thing would be played to maximum potential once again. Of course, some of are sick of the "wolf" cries. And, we also know that thinking we have to keep that idiot to protect us is ludicrous. Hopefully, if it happens, the Democrats will be able to pound into the detractors' heads that the occurence means that the idiot is NOT tougher on terror.

In my mind, it's all a mute argument. Kerry cannot be compared to the idiot on this issue, b/c he hasn't been in the idiot's position YET. But, at this point, polls show that's where their advantage is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Yes, and a terror attack won't be covered as a political story

It's not like a bad unemployment report or a rise in interest rates. Talking heads won't be on screen talking about what it says about Bush's economic policies. There wouldn't be the equivalent of human interest stories about people buying prescription drugs in Canada either. It would be 24 hors daily of fear grief pain and wanting revenge footage. The United States, unlike countries with a Monarch and Prime Minister, or a President and Prime Minister, does not have a ceremonial Head of State. Our President is all we got.

All eyes and ears will be on Bush. Some of the best script writers in America would work on his speeches to the nation from the oval office. Count on him delivering what most people will think is a great speech. The fog machine will be blowing full steam, and anyone trying to pierce it will be seen as overly partisan, bordering on dangerously unpatriotic.

Don't doubt for a second that Bush's political team is much better prepared to deal with the next terrorist attack than our country's security forces are. That's how this Administration governs. Style over substance. Bush's political team has already anticipated any attack complaint that could be made about Bush not keeping our nation safe, and they have the slogans ready to prove us wrong. Keary would be unable politically to attack Bush in the immediate aftermath of a terror attack at home. Kerry has to attack Bush NOW so that the doubts are already implanted.

Until the country solidly views Kerry as better equipped to deal with Terror than Bush, we are in trouble if an attack happens before the election. There would be an emotion fueled political climate in place. There are many things Bush could do or say to SEEM like he was dealing firmly and effectively with the situation. Look how long it took for any doubts to settle in that Bush might have been asleep at the wheel prior to 9/11, and a lot of people STILL don't get it. This time Bush would use Clinton as cover. He would say there was more that both he and Clinton should have done, in retrospect, to prepare the country against terrorism prior to 9/11, but not a day has passed since then when his every waking thought wasn't directed toward keeping America safe. And though they got us this time, we stopped them dozens of other times since then, we are a strong people, we have them on the run now, but it will be a long hard fight that he is fully prepared to lead America through blah, blah, blah.

[democratreformed]

20. Your description

of the aftermath of a new terror attack prior to the election is just what I envision. I can see it so clearly in my mind. Nothing like the emotions of fear and anger to galvanize a country. We saw it before and we would see it again.

I agree that the seeds of doubt need to be planted now. I'm glad you brought that point up. You are right that there would be nothing we could do in the aftermath. Any action would be spun and viewed by many as opportunism and would cause distrust and anger towards our candidate. I sure hope they work to instill that doubt about the current idiot now.

[George_Bonanza]

17. Actually, wouldn't it hurt him, since...

One of his platform boasts is that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the U.S. since 9/11? Aside from the momentary surge of "patriotism", I think more voters would see it as the final nail in the coffin for Bush. They were willing to overlook his domestic weaknesses for his strength abroad, but an attack would crush that latter notion.

[Larkspur]

18. Gives him a reason to declare martial law and postpone elections

That would be the only way it's help Bush.

[VOX]

19. Never misunderestimate the sheepiness of the sheeple...

The sheeple didn't mind turning their freedoms over to Bu$hCo after 9/11. And I suspect that they'd do it again if, God forbid, some similar happened again.

No entity on Earth capitalizes on fear the way that Republicans do. With the enabling of a sympathetic media, Bu$hCo has gotten an incredible amount of mileage out of playing on the sheeple's fears.

[TexasSissy]

21. (1) They'll postpone election; (2) They're great at spinning; and

(3) Bush is at his best posing for photo ops with his "brave" face and "resoluteness" after terrorist attacks, where he says, "We're gonna smoke 'em out and get 'em."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Nothing can help Bush. He's toast.

The real question now is how much we can gain in Congress.