What US City would you attack next if you were Bush, and why?

The "terrorists" seem to like to attack liberal strongholds.

San Francisco? Get revenge on those "Marin County Hottubbers"?

NY Again? Looks like they already lost the Jewish support anyway...

LA? Get all those "foreigners" there?

Seattle? Get revenge for that grunge music crap?

Boston? Old Liberal stronghold?

Santa Fe? Noone will miss it anyway...

Miami? Make sure Florida is in the bag this time...

Gov. Jeb Bush joked during a Florida Cabinet meeting Wednesday that the people of San Francisco may be endangered and, "That's probably good news for the country."

The subject was environmental land and Bush was looking at a map showing locations with a lot of different wildlife.

"It looks like the people of San Francisco are an endangered species, which may not be a bad thing. That's probably good news for the country."

People in the room broke into laughter.

"Did I just say that out loud?" the governor asked.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5025&catcode=33

that well developed sense of political humor.

After an offhand remark describing American Taliban John Walker Lindh as "some misguided Marin County hot-tubber," Bush found himself the target of furious protests scolding him for smearing the reputation of the wealthy, liberal enclave north of San Francisco.

His sarcastic letter of apology didn't help much...

Text of letter from former President Bush to IJ Executive Editor Jackie
Kerwin
By George Bush

Dear Ms. Kerwin,

Call off the dogs please. I surrender. I apologize. I am chastened and will never use "hot tub"and "Marin County" in the same sentence again. Though you yourself in "Reader's Forum" recognized that others have used the "hot tub"analogy, I shouldn't have done it.

But what's this talk of Peacock Feathers? As Dana Carvey might say "Didn't say Peacock Feathers. Wouldn't be prudent."

I won't even try to explain my position except to say I was and remain so offended by John Walker Lindh that I hurt other's feelings. In the opinion of your outraged letter writers I condemned all of Marin County with a hottub reference. Obviously I struck a nerve.

Now your readers have attacked me on my granddaughters, on my residence, on abortion, on Enron, on my being a Texan and on my pronunciation of Marin. You name it, a lot of angst has surfaced, and it's all my fault. Though I only garnered 23 percent of the vote in Marin in 1992, I was your President and I should have known better. I apologize to those who supported me that were offended, and I also apologize to the unenlightened who did not support me.

I will now soak in my own hot tub and try to be more sensitive to the
feelings of others - not John Walker Lindh, though.

Sincerely,

George Bush

My god, that guy is a major league asshole...

It's in CA. It is a city that much of the rest of the country thinks is "alien" to their beliefs.

But the #1 reason is that Arnold will be the one to save the day, to project as a strong leader, to show compassion for those lost.

And I happen to agree. I live here in the Bay Area and don't like to think about it... but that has been my guess...they want to make Arnold look like a REAL HERO, much as Gullianni did in NY on 9/11.

You understand our social reality is now being scripted, yes?

Homeland security in regards to ports is severly underfunded. Getting worked up over airline security is almost pointless now. Any terrorist attempting a hijacking will literally get his head ripped off by fellow passengers.


However if a unregistered ship(laden with explosive) makes into a costal port where there is petroluem, chemicals, or liquified natural gas stored the death toll could be several times worse than 9/11.

close enough to put a good scare into DC?

I'd limit that further to an area where there are also offshore natural gas or petroleum platforms, or where there are chemical plants near the coast. Maybe along the Gulf Coast between Louisiana and Galveston?

that will keep his support, going how about Kansas city Missouri or somewhere in Tex-ass. I suggest the mid-west if Bush and co are reading this.

Definately California this time. Either of these cities would be a good target because of their huge population and overwhelming support for Democrats. In LA, you might even take out some of those pesky celebrities that like to talk politics too.

the Hollywood Bunch has been at it again lately.

www.forbes.com/finance/lists/54/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=54&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=L9II&datatype=Person lists that as where he lives.

My sister lives there

Probably Greenwich Village or a heavily Jewish section of Brooklyn, like Brighton Beach, maybe Astoria. Possibly Harlem, in an attempt to kill Bill -- Clinton, that is.

Possible, but not probable: Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, Boston, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco.

However, DC is a difficult place to crack.

--bkl

Los Angeles is the obvious choice. By the way, I live in an LA suburb, about 10 miles from LAX. There are LOTS of Jewish people in LA. There are LOTS of middle American white people in LA too -- a target al Qaeda seems to relish.

There is a huge port, policed poorly, and (this is the one that haunts me) al Qaeda targeted LA once, at the Millenium, and the attack was foiled at the Canadian border. LAX is thus in the same category as the WTC after the 1993 attack -- a target al Qaeda didn't take out. Odds are they'll try again. Meanwhile, me and my family fly in and out of there regularly.

This whole piece of excrement is spinning out of control, while Nero Bush fiddles. And the coffins stream into Dover AFB, with no cameras to record the moment.

This is 1968 all over, mates.

cuz they failed the first time.

I still think it will be San Francisco. All those liberals, and gays too! Not to mention that persnickety mayor!

I love that city. My brother lives there.

. . . fits like old blue jeans, a white t-shirt and a leather jacket. Peets coffee on Chestnut Street, the fog rolling past the Mark Hopkins mansion on Nob Hill. Fettucine al carbonara at Enrico's on Broadway, followed by cappucino in a nameless Italian coffee bar on Washington Square. Jogging on the Marina Green, drinking in Perry's on Union Street, hot corned beef sandwiches at Tommy's on Van Ness. Singapore Slings at the Great American Music Hall on O'Farrell.

This is worse than 1968. There is no way Johnson or Nixon could have gotten away with the blatant crap Bush has been feeding the country. They both had to be far more subtle in their misdeeds. And the potential for things going really bad is even greater. We'll be living with this for a long, long time.

Gee, cheerful sort, aren't I?

and I don't think you're being morose. Just realistic.

The reason I thought 1968 was mainly the feeling (which I dimly remember, I was only 15 years old) right after the Tet Offensive. How did they DO this? Why isn't our side WINNING? Why do they HATE us? Why are they KILLING OUR CHILDREN?

That's the part that reminds me of 1968. The feeling of a ferris wheel coming off its axle.

The wheels are coming off the cart. I was 12, but the tension of those years was inescapable ... even kids had to notice it. We've seen this kind of thing before, and we know what happens next, at least in broad, general terms.

I am curious to know though, what, if any, other countries could truly launch an attack from over seas.

Seems to me we are the ones with all the nuclear weapons. I know others have nuclear weapons, but having them and being able to launch and fire them on cities is a whole different ball game.

If they keep doing New York the rest of the country doesn't get the full effect. Chicago is the biggest city in the Mid-West, hugely populated and gives off more of a "we can get you anywhere" feel than New York. Or maybe scale it down a bit and take out a small town in Idaho or something. That would get the rural people up in arms too, right now they aren't all that scared because big cities are the targets. Maybe more than one small town in the same day for maximum scare effect. The possibilities are endless.

That way it's a short trip to go over and visit the damage and be back to the ranch in Crawford in no time.

...it's a "liberal stronghold" in the middle of Texas, and far enough inland that it'd frighten those in the "fly-over" states. The election would be cancelled, and well, it'd all pretty much suck from there on out.

It was the flashpoint of the anti-globalization movement (WTO) It is a hugely liberal city. Not only that, it has Microsoft and numerous military installations all around the area.


John

If a city like Seattle, sort of out of the way up there in the Pac Northwest, were to be the target of a "terrorist attack" people would start to think that ANY city could be attacked, including theirs! So extra points for fear.

during the Democratic Convention. Then blame it on North Korea and Invade Iran.

Nice Midwest target with a large population, tall buildings and a major financial center. Next best thing to hitting NYC again.

9/11, watching the 2nd plane fly N2 the WTC was,'OMG, is the Golden Gate being attacked?' I was terrified it would B.

Between the big red target painted over it and the earthquakes, I think I'll take a pass.

KNOW THAT I AM GONE!

:nuke:

I'd hardly call the Pentagon a liberal stronghold. A stronghold, yes. But not a liberal one.

Remember that the original target was the Capitol, not the Pentagon -- and DC is loaded with Dems.

The Bush family HATES Portland. Poppy Bush called Portland "little Beirut" after a massive protest against him when he was President.

Portland HATES the Bushes, too. The streets erupt every time any of them come to town.

There's almost 2 full decades of shared hate between this town and the Bushes.

Portland is inland, but is a huge shipping port via the Columbia River. Deep water, lots of traffic.

The only thing a Bushevik Monster hates worse than a Free Serf and an Uppity Negro are Homosexuals.

San Franciscans look out. Both the Busheviks and their friends in al-Qaeda hate you for pretty similar reasons.

I wouldn't want to be in San Francisco between now and November. Not at all.

on Flag Day.
The Spain terrorists (i.e. the CIA) said the next attack was 90% complete, which makes it around mid june.

Republican, Bush might actually have a shot at winning a presidential election for once.

But I really don't think the Bush team would attempt a Reichstag fire now. It would only make him look incompetent at this stage.

As for Al Qaeda, I think the Los Angeles area is their obvious choice, too. Either LAX, Los Angeles Harbor, Long Beach Harbor, or perhaps something like Disney Land.

More than likely California, as a way of both scaring us into voting for Bush, and punishing us for not having voted for him last time. (Personally, I suspect that the energy crisis, recall fiasco, and the current gas prices are also part of that "punishment"

I'd say a port city. Los Angeles would be the biggest target, San Francisco the most obvious, (also allowing the Religious Right to preach that an attack on SF was "God's Will and Punishment.) San Diego might also be a target - while SD is heavily Republican, an attack on SD would lock the military solidly behind Bush *and* possibly send a message to Mexico as well, (being a border city)

How many politicians will be vacationing?

Where is Dubya and his entourage scheduled to be?

with its own skyline, now somewhat deserted by the wise. Heartland, electoral troublespot. Huge hub and natural AlQaeda target. the fact is Bush has so ill-equipped the cities for defense he merely has to sit back at his ranch and wait for something. It is definitely LIHOP this time as far as the WH team is concerned and they have been publicly getting away with this ever since 911 if not before. Just look at the porous ports security left dangling for just one thing.

The Statue of Liberty is still tantalizing as a more bloodless symbol, but the ante has been in human lives for some time now.

In the heart of the gawd-fearing, white Christian south, the very folks who would certainly raise a call to arms, a "stars-and-bars jihad" if you will, if the U.S. were to be attacked. Which, I would think, would be the point in another attack if you're going with the LIHOP theory. Not to mention all those military installations, nuclear plants, and other great targets along the coast.