How on earth could an attack on Iran boost Bush's poll numbers?

[revree]

I believe the only way it would help him is by him declaring martial law and calling off all future elections until the "war on terra" was over. But how in hell it would raise his poll numbers? I don't get it. People will be disgusted, furious, angry with another war when the one we already have is a mess...

[melody]

1. It can't. It would drop them like a rock. n/t

[revree]

5. Yeah, but why do the pundits keep thinking an attack on Iran

would be like the Holy Grail for Bush? I swear, they make no sense and are living in a parallel universe...
Yeah, he could shut down the Nov. elections and keep Repugs in power, but the people would eventually catch on...

[movonne]

16. and another trillion dollars...thousand more die...sounds like

right up the repugs agenda...Ps, then sell off our airports to the carlyle group...

[melody]

25. Too late

Take a look at who owns the Denver airport.

[melody]

21. Because they are moronic, simple-minded cheerleaders n/t

[vi5]

7. Yeah, we were all saying the same thing before the 02 elections

"Oh they would never push this before the election."
"Polls show people don't want to invade Iraq"
"They wouldn't dare try it. It would be political suicide."

Right. People have this idiotic "rally round the president/country" mentality that trumps all logic and sense.

[melody]

19. Not at this point

This is AFTER the Iraq War about which he lied where a lot of Coalition people have been killed.

He didn't win the election honestly anyway. His poll numbers were cooked, but even then they showed clearly the race going to Kerry.

Bush is toast. Beyond toast. He's now in the carbon range.

[vi5]

33. By all means please look me up on here after election day...

..and I will be more than happy....elated even...to admit I was wrong and that I completely overstated the idiocy and gullibility of the american public. In fact I'll do so with a big, stinkin', toothy smile on my ugly mug.

However, something tells me I will be right and he (and the republican party) will be no more toasty this time than they were the 8 billion other times over the past 5 years that people on here have been declaring that he (and they) are toast.

[melody]

36. Only if Diebold lets them be

I'm in California. I KNOW how deeply despised he is here.

[malaise]

26. Ditto

Bush is history since Katrina. The emperor is naked for all to see.

[iconoclastNYC]

2. It's about the midterms silly!

[LiberalVoice]

4. What about the midterms?

You think this would be good for the republican party as a whole? No way...they would take an even worse beating then they are now.

[iconoclastNYC]

37. Look at the IWR and 2002

It's going to be about forcing the Democrats to either fall in line or be labeled "weak on terror", also will piss off our base when our dems just go along to get along. classic wedge politics.

[LiberalVoice]

40. This is not NEARLY the same thing!

We now have a "long war" we are losing to deal with. Sorry but the idea that another war would be good for the republicans is just plain wrong.

[iconoclastNYC]

41. It will, watch and see.

It fear-based wedge politics. It's classic.

The fact that thier military contractor donors will make more money doesn't hurt thier motivation either.

[spuddonna]

3. It wouldn't... but it might allow him to declare martial law... n/t

[Selatius]

6. He may be calculating a "rally 'round the flag" effect

When the invasion of Iraq began, there was tremendous support for Bush. Our troops were heading into harm's danger. They need our support. It was difficult for detractors of the war to say much, and if they did, then people like O'Reilly told them to shut up and support the troops.

[Jayhawk Lib]

18. It would not help him and the Republicans

whatsoever in the polls. Their numbers would drop like a rock. I do not think he really cares about the polls. He is going to do what he thinks is right no matter how misguided the rest of know he is.

[Selatius]

22. Well, if true, then at least we know what we're dealing with

When a government no longer listens to the people, you're living under a tyranny that rules despite the people instead of with respect to the people.

[Jayhawk Lib]

30. Not quite tyranny

We have a chance to change our Representatives every 2 years. They represent us the people.

We have a chance to change the President every 4 years and the senators every 6 years so far.

With tyranny you never get a chance to change anything.

[Selatius]

42. Yeah, if you believe there are no problems with e-voting machines. n/t

[raccoon]

38. We know we have that now. nt

[LiberalPartisan]

8. It shows he's 'a man of action'

It doesn't matter that the action is detrimental in the long term it's the short term that matters. And it feeds the need for perpetual war which is central to this administration's foreign policy.

[AlinPA]

9. Lots of 'murcans love war. They like commanders-in-chief. They like

to kick ass. They like to wave flags. Next they will roll out an "Operation...(fill in the blanks with some dumb ass name"

[revree]

13. This is such a small minority of people, though.

The rest of the country has had enough of money for war, and a growing class of working poor paying the price.

[melody]

24. Exactly. Less than 30%

There are a LOT of people hurting now. A LOT. And a lot of blood spilled behind us.

[LiberalPartisan]

17. They like to play patriot

and send other people's kids off to war while they play armchair quterback on the Freeper and Hannity webboards.

[debbierlus]

10. There will be a bounce to show support for the troops

Bizarre, I know. But, people have a weird way of equating loyalty to the President in a time of war as a means of supporting the military and nation.

[BuyingThyme]

11. Americans ALWAYS rally around executive-branch murder.

It's a formula that works.

[jwirr]

12. It can't but at this point the only thing they are intersted in

is another way to shuffle money to their friends.

[LiberalPartisan]

14. If he called off the elections and declared martial law

He would be inviting, at the minimum, a great degree of civil unrest and at the extreme civil war. In either case any action(s) taken in oppositon of such a decree by Bush would be legitimate

[leftofthedial]

15. however his controllers and the corporate media want it to

same as it ever was

[ewagner]

20. Your problem is:

you're not devious enough...

play it out this way.....

Iran's President keeps making stupid threats

Bush, Condi, Cheney and their newest recruit, McCain hit the talk show circuit early and often talking about Iran's NEW-CUL-LAR threat.

Fever pitch begins in September..right after labor day...new product rollout right?

Iran is a "REAL AND PRESENT DANGER" and Bush wants Congress to give him authority to use force (any of this beginning to sound familiar?)

Congress is then divided up into two groups: the GOP "HE-MEN" and the Democratic "whimps"

btw...the goal here is not necessarily to attack Iran...just divide the congress and the american public before the '06 elections.

[booksenkatz]

23. Another Reichstag fire would help catapult the propaganda. nt

[bullimiami]

27. i dont think it can help them either, that game is played out.

[ikojo]

28. First it will be a bit easier for the corporate media to whip

up hatred of Iranians. All they have to do is bring back images of the hostage crisis from 1979 and 1980. Aren't there also rumors that the current pres of Iran one of those who took people hostage back then?

Many Americans flock to their appointed leader during times of war.

[f-bush]

29. I fear it might boost his numbers because...

there are an awful lot of unthinking, non-caring self centered assholes who are all gung ho about looking tough and being a macho nation. There are also a whole pile of people who automatically fall in line with whatever admin is in when we go to "war" then there are the "sheeple" who believe what ever an administration tells them what to believe. It makes me sick!

[SmokingJacket]

31. If they cared about poll numbers, there are lots of things they could do..

like aid for Katrina victims, coming down strong on port security, doing something seriously good for Medicare and Social Security... but they choose not to.

[yurbud]

32. terrorist attack would boost poll numbers, then he'd spend the political

capital on Iran War.

Until the public knows where that stuff if really coming from, they will be able to do it with impunity.


Right now, the only thing standing between us and a world war is somebody in the military or CIA deciding to disobey Bush's orders to save our country.

[dflprincess]

34. I don't see how a terrorist attack would help

it would just prove we're not any safer than before.

[yurbud]

35. I hope that would be the response, but neocons might expect to repeat

their 9/11 success.

[MadHound]

39. More jingoistic nationalism, more blind patruitusn

And a chance to "payback" the Iranians for the hostage crisis so long ago. People have a tendecy to rally 'round the flag during the initial stages of any war, and once the war is going, it is hard to convince people that it is wrong.

Besides, what with BlackBox voting and other various schemes to rig US elections, do you honestly think that Bushco worries about the election? Really now, unless it got to the point that ninety percent of Americans hate Bush and the Republicans, relatively few people will serious question election results, and that isn't likely to happen. All Bushco has to do is keep the numbers close enough to steal the election, and all is good.