Will Another Attack Help Kerry or Bush?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by GuessWho, May 28, 2004.

  1. GuessWho A Californian Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    189
    If there is another attack on US soil before the coming presidential election, will it help Kerry or Bush?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    I think it would help kerry more than bush. Most will stick by there left or right sided guns...but some would feel it is the "last straw" of an inept bush administration. Change, any change, will be viewed as good.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dsdsds Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    An attack would definitely help Bush. American “patriotism” and bush’s approval rating was very high after 9/11. Bush shines when he’s crapping his rhetoric about defeating terrorism and “evil” – and the frightened, stupid masses cling to that shit. America (and the rest of McWorld) just doesn’t get it. This is why Bush’s approval rating is still what I consider extremely high at forty-something percent. After another terrorist attack, Americans would overwhelmingly embrace Bush’s “SEE .. I told you we need to go after these evil doers .. MORE troops, MORE war .. with us or against us … etc. etc.. etc.. “rhetoric rather than blame him for his policies which enticed the “evil” acts against America.
    Look what the Bush Admin is doing right now .. They are warning (almost predicting) more terrorist attacks to cover their butts when/if it actually happens. They can do no “wrong” and the voter public is responsible.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GuessWho A Californian Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    189
    If there is an attack, the true intention of Al Queda will be to help Kerry but the result I think will backfire because US is not the same as Spain. Another attack will only make US more determined to fight against terrorism and Bush is a better choice to do so.
     
  8. dsdsds Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    See what I'm talking about?
     
  9. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    The voter public voted for Gore. And I'm fairly certain that even the idiotic public who made 2000 a close election didnt expect all of this... although they should have. The only reason to pick Bush to be the Republican candidate over the senator from my own state John McCain is if you have some sort of conspiracy that demands the re-assembily of the Bush I regieme.
     
  10. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    Why would you make such a comical statement? The terrorists we are looking for are in Afghanistan, which we all but abandoned in order to attack a country that, granted, we didn't like, but they were no threat at all, and certainly had none of the terrorists we were looking for. Tell me you conservative puppy dog how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi expatriates?
     
  11. crazy151drinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,156
    Hard to say.
    The Left would say it would be further evidence of Bush's failure.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,046
    We apparently know who we're looking for. It will be interesting to see if they elude capture until November.

    An attack before the election will help Bush. Americans generally rally around the executive at such times.

    An attack after the election ... well, that depends on who takes the oath come January.
     
  13. Dark_Man Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    Guesswho is 100% correct. If there is ANY sortof attack between now and the end of the yr on american soil the point is to influance the election, and I agree it will back fire. Americans aren't wussys like the spanish. Ether that or you can look at it like we (americans) are bull headed awholes.

    You are wrong. SOME of the terrorists we are looking for ARE in Iraq. Why? cause the moment we attacked Iraq they all rushed there to "defend it" or rather "retake" it.

    Lets face a HARSH reality. We will NEVER defeat terrorism until we do away with there ability to make new terrorists. I play this game called Starcraft. There is only TWO ways to win ANY game on SC. You blow up the enemy biuldings that make troops OR you blow up his biuldings that gather resources. Either way you cut off his ability to make combat units fights over you wipe him out. SAME situation. If the middle east is democratized. They have free elections, capitalism, etc etc... then you also get a FREE mass media. EVENTUALY someone is going to step forward and preach philiosiphy and ideals that don't envolve BLOWING UP EVERYONE AROUND YOU. I admit its not guaranteed to happen, but with EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY a dictatorship/monarchy it is guaranteed NOT TO.

    Above and beyond ANY of this is one simple fact. IF there ecomomy and social standing improves. Meaning if instantly Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebenon, and Palestine were all free democratic societys and everyone had jobs, money, food on the table, and a roof over there head etc etc. Terrorism would fall to record low lvls over night. Why? cause rich WELL educated ppl with nice cars kids houses and dogs RARELY suddenly decide to go blow themselves up to just make a point...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The flip side is that pour uneducated ppl with NOTHING to live for make great terrorists. For exactly that reason. They have nothing to live for other than pleasing some fanatical nut who brian washs them with a religion (any would do). So they go blow themselves up. My proof? When was the last time you saw a rich guy like UBL actualy blow themselves up in a suicide attack? not very often. They prefer to get others to do the actualy blowing up.

    So if you cure mass poverty. Fix the polatics by introducing several democratic goverments. Then get some mass media going to spread counter propriganda to fight the current waves of radical islamic propiganda. The guess what. Terrorism slows down in a MAJOR way.

    Bottom line is Bush has the right idea. He's going for a long term solutions to a LONG term problems. Not a quick fix, or a solution to a SYMPTOM. You can't ignore it or thrown money at it. You have to fix the root causes. Poverty. Lack of education. etc etc.

    Owe and don't give me that crap about we aren't helping them we are killing them. Saddam in 20 yrs killed WAY more ppl than we have and I am 100% sure his kids would kill that many or more when he died. So in the over all balance sheet we saved WAY more ppl than we killed OR LOST.

    I saw a commercial the other day byt he GA state patrol. Click it or ticket. We lose 42 THOUNSAND ppl every YEAR in automobile deaths. Yet your whning about losing less than 1000 ppl in almost TWO YEARS of fighting (including afganistan). In that SAME ammount of time literaly 1000 times MORE ppl have died right here in the US from driving drunk etc. Get over it ppl die.

    With that I'll say one last thing. I HOPE beyond hope Iran is next. If we weren't spread so thin I'd say do it now, but like I siad long term solution. Takes time to make it all happen.

    GO BUSH!
     
  14. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    How could I tell without reading your post, just from the way you capitalize odd words, that you are both a conservative and a star craft player? As for your comment about being wusses like the Spanish, it’s clear you are the sort of dope the right loves. The Spanish saw how their government reacted to the bombing, by lying and scapegoating, and that threw their support down a few percentage points. Big whoop. They were doing bad to begin with then made asses of themselves by mishandling the post terror attack propaganda. This was a case of the Spanish people realizing what chicken hawks are good for, not terrorists winning.
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    In fact, all but four of them were Saudi Arabians. The Saudi royal family provided the money and manpower for 9/11. Osama is a member of that family by marriage, and their money and knowhow keeps al Qaeda going. They fund and manage that huge network of anti-American terrorist training camps throughout the Middle East that masquerade as elementary schools for boys.

    If there is one Muslim nation that passionately hates America and actively does everything it can to destroy us, it's Saudi Arabia.

    If there is truly a threat of another al Qaeda attack on our soil, the only rational thing to do is to cut off its head: overthrow the Saudi government, occupy the country, and put a stop to their endless supply of money and leadership to anti-American causes.

    But what is Bush doing? He's still got all of our troops in Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact was the closest thing to a secular society that existed in the entire Arab world. Attacking a Muslim country with absolutely no rational excuse makes every Muslim in the world, from Uganda to Iran to Pakistan to Malaysia -- all two frelling BILLION of them -- makes them afraid that the U.S. has started a holy war against them all, and their innocent country might be next.

    But is that good enough for the brainless Bushman? No! On top of that, he orchestrated the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners -- now stay with me here, everyone knows that prisoners get abused during wartime, that's not the problem -- and he made sure they took PHOTOGRAPHS of it! How coincidental is that? In the entire age of photography, how many times have people who are doing something really stupid and evil taken PHOTOGRAPHS of themselves in action?

    How many photographs are there of southern "gentlemen" lynching black men? Of frat boys hazing freshman with humiliating, abusive, and illegal stunts? Of gangsters shooting each other in turf wars? Of rednecks gang-raping hippie chicks in the 1960s? Of anything at all that happened in Auschwitz?

    But there are HUNDREDS of photos of what went on in Abu Ghraib Prison. So many that there was absolutely no way to prevent them from being seen by every human being on this planet, including ALL TWO BILLION MUSLIMS. So that now, rather than simply being afraid of the possibility that America is trying to re-start the Crusades, they have pictorial evidence that America really is THE GREAT SATAN.

    Could he have done a better job of painting a bulls-eye right smack in the middle of the U.S.A.?

    Anyway, to answer your question. If al Qaeda truly pulls off another attack against America this summer, it will be because Bush is complicit. He refuses to do anything about Saudi Arabia's constant and prolific support of al Qaeda and other anti-American enterprises, and in fact treats these scumbags like good old boys from Texas. He insists on establishing a profile of sending American troops to attack Muslim countries at random. And he has ensured that every Muslim on earth has seen photographic proof that Americans are the nasty infidels they always thought we were.

    So if Americans have any brains, if and when this attack happens, Americans will rise up against the lame-brained bastard and insist that Congress impeach him and that the Pentagon bring him up for a court martial.

    But then. . . . if Americans had any brains, this insane chain of events wouldn't have gone this far. On 9/11, when every airport in America was locked down, yet Bush allowed a planeload of Saudi officals and members of the royal family to return to Arabia, probably including bin Laden's relatives, they would have brought him down right then and there.

    So your guess is as good as mine. If we get attacked, they'll probably just rally behind Bush again because Americans are all stupid masochists and they like having a president who makes them look smart.
     
  16. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    I'm not sure about the outcome of the election at all. Clinton lied about sex, and he got impeached. Bush has led the nation to war on fraudulent claims, admits he had no plan for the end of the major combat operations, abandoned the hunt for the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, is spending the nation into the worlds largest deficit, let his buddy Dick's former employer rip off Iraq and the military, says his head of DoD is doing a "great job" when he authorized the torture of Iraqi prisoners (90% of whom were there under false charges according to the international red cross) and you hardly hear a peep out of the opposition party. The democrats aren’t up to competing with the big boys in politics. People who can turn a blowjob into a national crisis, but print themselves a free pass on all their corruption lies and conspiracy.
     
  17. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Kerry would benefit from another attack, I think that the American public will have indisputable evidence that the Bush policy has failed (as if Iraq isn’t enough). The fact that Al Q today is able to potentially launch a "major attack" within the US has shown us that Iraq has not in any way shape or form made you safer, it made your lives much more dangerous. Kerry wouldn’t even have to exploit the situation the Bush administration would probably collapse under its own weight in lies.
     
  18. StarOfEight A Man of Taste and Decency Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    684
    It'll help Bush. The Republicans are Michael - politically capable and soulless. The Democrats are Fredo - basically decent, but soft as shit and utterly incompetent.

    And Frag ... people did take pictures of lynchings: http://www.musarium.com/withoutsanctuary/main.html
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2004
  19. dsdsds Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    The worst thing (political-wise) for Bush & Co. is for Americans to start feeling safer from terrorism. He is a self-declared "war president" and would not be able to stand up without a war to "manage". Can you imagine a Bush without the existence of terrorism or Iraq? It is his raison-d'etre.
    The best thing that can happen to Bush is another attack on US. The masses fear ANY change in a time of crisis. The Admin knows this and as Fraggle pointed out, this maybe why pictures were released to increase hate towards the US. And those of you who say that "America is not like Spain", you're absolutely right. There is more fear in the US. And more importantly, the US government has mastered to use fear as a tool to control the masses.
     
  20. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    I would think it would help Bush because it shows Americans that the terrorists are still amongst us and even more is needed to ferret them out and bring them to justice.
     
  21. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,024
    It's anybody's guess if another terrorist attack at home would help Candidate Kerry or President Bush. A few factors:

    Where?
    If the attack happens in NY, DC or CA then the administration could get nailed for not providing enough homeland security money. Montana on the other hand mya matter.

    Deaths?
    If 300 people die from conventional explosives, a la Madrid, the U.S. will not go crazy. Simple fact is that this nation has lost 3000 people, plus close to another thousand in two subsequent wars. I think al Qaeda would almost look like a failure if they didn't kill enough people.

    What kind?
    I said conventional weapons, because if chem, bio or nuclear were used the whole equation could be changed. The terror factor of a WMD attack, even with low casualties would be tremendous. This could help Bush because he predicated the case for Iraq on WMD and terrorists. How much we konw, especially where they got these WMDs from would be cruical in deciding the election. If it was Iraq or Syria, then Bush would benefit.

    The Response
    Presumably another terrorist attack would envoke further military action by the U.S. If a link between say the terrorists and Syria were found, Bush would invade (presuming the attack took place at least 6 wks before the election, giving enough time for force manuvering and the induction of war). In this case the American people would rally around, flag, country and president if we were killing Syrians.

    Helping Kerry
    If the administration rushed to judgement or made some idiotic political response to the attack (too haugty, cold, "we told you so" or other) it would help Kerry. That's assuming a whole lot about how much we could now, and how far before the election the attack would happen.

    If Iraq (the election will likely be a referredum on) was seen as a help to al Qaeda
    (however that would happen) Kerry would win.

    The wildcard in it all is the timing. But I'm inclined to believe that Bush would benefit, here's why:

    The president is a very empathetic and religious man. That's not to say Kerry is a cold-blooded atheist, but Bush is far warmer and caring with people than Kerry. Bush is closer to Clinton in "I feel your pain" than Kerry. Bush is very eloquent when talking about God, good and evil, the American ideal, justice and using cowboy lanugage. People WANT that after an attack. Kerry can't deliever the emotional response that Bush could.

    It's anyones guess who would benefit from an attack here. Hopefully this hypothetical never comes true....
     

Share This Page