RE Terror attack

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hypothetical


Suppose there is a terrorist attack right before the election.

What do you think Bush would do? Anything?


I think he would declare marshal law and postpone the elections with the idea of preventing us from making Spain's "mistake". That would be inserting himself where he didn't belong in the electoral process, but I can see it happening.

Would he, and if so would you be supportive of such a move?

 

[conjur]

After pissing his pants and whining that we'd attacked Iraq and the terruh was eliminated?

He'd probably form internment camps and round up any non-citizen of Arab descent and toss them into them. You'd also have Wolfowitz drooling to launch some nukes.


As for delaying elections, that would be a huge mistake, imo.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think that's highly unlikely regardless of new terrorist attack(s) in the US.

 

[Napalm]

Rove to Bush: "We've got to keep them scared..."

 

[HappyPuppy]

I think you should stop shorting your customers meds. Too many drugs can affect your mind permanently.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I think you should stop shorting your customers meds. Too many drugs can affect your mind permanently.

That's one vote for yes

 

[Zephyr106]

Clearly Spain's "mistake", is bad in that it can be seen as appeasement to terrorists. But one of the primary goals of terrorists is to disrupt the lives of their victims, and Bush pulling some "3rd World Election Delay" in the World's only superpower would be a huge victory for terrorists. I do not think the public opinion situation here is comparible to that in Spain, with regards to Iraq, and so a last minute terror attack may not change public opinion as much as it did in Spain. Both Bush and Kerry would obviously pursue terrorists and maintain commitments to Iraq after a terrorist attack. Of course some clueless ideologues may dispute that last comment.

Zephyr

 

[Infohawk]

I don't think there would ever be a postponement of an election. More likely Bush would use the bully pulpit to his advantage. He would use his bizarro logic that unfortunately seems to sway so many under-educated Americans. It would go something like this: "It is attacks like these that led us to go to war in Iraq. (Nevermind that Iraq happened before these attacks and helped create the anger towards us that caused these new attacks). My fellow Americans, these people are ennemies of freedom. They don't want to see you vote. Yes, there are arab men in distant rooms that sit around tables discussing their hatred for our elections. (let's forget that they say they are mad about Israel and our meddling in the middle east). Don't cut and run by voting for John Kerry (even if there's no evidence he is softer on terrorism). Let's stay the course (that's not working). If we only invade enough countries and rape enough prisoners, we will change the heart of minds of those that attack us.

 

[dahunan]

I am curious about what the answer would be to this question

Does Bush listen to God for answers or Jesus? *this is an honest question - I think someone who listens to God is closer to Israel and the OLD Testament and Violence.. someone who listens to Jesus is more of a Christian and would be MORE Peaceful and could think things through more clearly.

 

[myusername]

If the leader of the free world hears voices telling him what to do, I would submit that it is the least of our worries as to whether he believes those voices to be of God the Father or God the Son.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Clearly Spain's "mistake", is bad in that it can be seen as appeasement to terrorists. But one of the primary goals of terrorists is to disrupt the lives of their victims, and Bush pulling some "3rd World Election Delay" in the World's only superpower would be a huge victory for terrorists. I do not think the public opinion situation here is comparible to that in Spain, with regards to Iraq, and so a last minute terror attack may not change public opinion as much as it did in Spain. Both Bush and Kerry would obviously pursue terrorists and maintain commitments to Iraq after a terrorist attack. Of course some clueless ideologues may dispute that last comment.

Zephyr

:beer:

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I am curious about what the answer would be to this question

Does Bush listen to God for answers or Jesus? *this is an honest question - I think someone who listens to God is closer to Israel and the OLD Testament and Violence.. someone who listens to Jesus is more of a Christian and would be MORE Peaceful and could think things through more clearly.

You DO realize that this is a Christian country we live in, right? Look up the Doctrine of Retribution and tell me if we should change the laws because it was founded on Christianity. I personally could alter the "Do not kill people" one to exclude people that cannot seem to get my fries right side up in the bag.

Not a huge fan of orgainized religion myself, but I am not so blind as to notice the difference between countries that are founded on Christian principles vs. ones that are not. Where this does not always apply is when democracy has been installed as thier system of government.

 

[tallest1]

^bump^ for a good question. Too busy with university coursework to contribute at the moment =/

 

[arsbanned]

According to General Tommy Franks, (Cigar Aficionado Dec. 2003 Issue) the U.S. would indeed go to Martial Law if another major turrah attack takes place. That would certaily solidify Bush's place in office for at LEAST another 4 years. :disgust:

 

[Ryan]

Yep, if we're attacked again, you can kiss Kerry goodbye, the American majority will flock back to bush.

 

[arsbanned]

So I guess you're hanging your hopes on it then. ?

Majority? Huh? Check the result of the last election and get back to me.

 

[Klixxer]

God save the queen?

 

[Stunt]

If the US was attacked, the stock markets would take a massive hit,and travel would subside again, both instant reactions to a hit on US soil.

This will not only show americans that homeland security is garbage, his war on terror isn't working, whatever he is doing in iraq is NOT benifiting iraqi's --> everything Bush has done 'well' (the few things u could argue he did well) during his whole term will have been discredited.

Also, use this in combination with farenheit 911 getting popular, showing bush being good friends with the bin ladens, and how the only ppl in the world that could fly in the US during the grounding of all US aircraft were the bin laden family, with no interrogation, also the fact that a few months prior to 9/11 the taliban, who the bush family were in business with, offered to hand over osama bin laden...

If this movie makes the mainstream, Bush will be done...he should be scared of this movie more than anythign else, if you explain that stuff to the american public, they will not respond nicely.

 

[lozina]

Another terrorist attack?

That would easily draw any swing voters currently leaning towards Kerry to vote for Bush- because according to polls- Bush is "better on terrorism".

Secondly, the Victory Act (Patriot Act II) would get passed quite easily and the criticism agains the first Patriot Act would subside. (See how easily Patriot Act got passed the first time)

Any criticism against the administration's dealings in Iraq, would also subside for a while.

Perhaps also sympathy by International members would quiet their disagreements over the recent UN resolution proposal, and it may get passed without revision or compromise with some of the disagreements some members have- particularly about the vague language.

In other words, I feel another terrorist attack would clearly benefit the administration.

edit: And no, Bush would never declare martial law and suspend elections as it would be unecessary and clearly cause huge dissent.

 

[Stunt]

The only reason Bush is associated with terrorism is because he is the first to openly try to fight it...
and has made his whole term based on it...if the US is no safer with his 4 years of reforms, the american pubic wont say he is better on terrorism...
cuz his record will suck...this would definately help the dems.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt
The only reason Bush is associated with terrorism is because he is the first to openly try to fight it...
and has made his whole term based on it...if the US is no safer with his 4 years of reforms, the american pubic wont say he is better on terrorism...
cuz his record will suck...this would definately help the dems.

uhhh....that's why he ignored it completely for the first 9 months?

And then spent 2 months fighting it in Afghanistan and then turned his back on it and started working up detailed plans for invading Iraq?

 

[Stunt]

they had to attack afganistan first, that was the country harbouring the 9/11 culprit.
I'm just arguing the fact that ppl here are saying that Bush can handle terrorism better than others, the only reason they are saying that is because he is the only one to openly fight it, relative to other presidents.
Bush is using 9/11 to make himself out to be the saviour of the american people. When all he has done is provoked more anger.
Is the world safer with what bush has done?...i'd say it's worse.
Just gotta look at what he has done and what the reaction to that will be.
that's all terrorism is --> reactions.
for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction...
ask yourself this, would you feel safer going to the ME now or before Bush's Iraq trip...

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I am curious about what the answer would be to this question

Does Bush listen to God for answers or Jesus? *this is an honest question - I think someone who listens to God is closer to Israel and the OLD Testament and Violence.. someone who listens to Jesus is more of a Christian and would be MORE Peaceful and could think things through more clearly.

That's the single most idiotic thing I've read in a long time. The world would be a better place with bigots like you removed.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Yep, if we're attacked again, you can kiss Kerry goodbye, the American majority will flock back to bush.

The above is 100% USDA approved grade A bullshit.

A successful terrorist attack against American citizens on American soil would do nothing but damage Bush's campaign as the administration would be perceived as failing to protect us in the wake of 9/11.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt
they had to attack afganistan first, that was the country harbouring the 9/11 culprit.
I'm just arguing the fact that ppl here are saying that Bush can handle terrorism better than others, the only reason they are saying that is because he is the only one to openly fight it, relative to other presidents.
Bush is using 9/11 to make himself out to be the saviour of the american people. When all he has done is provoked more anger.
Is the world safer with what bush has done?...i'd say it's worse.
Just gotta look at what he has done and what the reaction to that will be.
that's all terrorism is --> reactions.
for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction...
ask yourself this, would you feel safer going to the ME now or before Bush's Iraq trip...

I see where you were going with it.

I just disagree that Bush has fought terrorism more openly. A token effort in Afghanistan does not equate fighting terrorism in my book.

Iraq is purely about the PNAC's vision, not fighting terrorism.