Does anyone agree with me that a terrorist attack in the US will

actually hurt Bush? I see a lot of talk about how it will help him if he decides to try and stall the elections. I see it as more of a pointing to his continuing failures and that the american people won't stand for it, nor will they sit idle with the suggestion of not having elections.

I understand there will be a certain group of people that think withholding elections would be a good thing, but I think many more on both sides of the fence will see it as a huge smack in the face of democracy, freepers, Du'ers, and everyone in between. Seriously, I would think one of the first things people think about when talking about democracy, is voting.

Now, with that being said, I don't want this to happen at the expense of the american people.

A terrorist attack will help bush. The people in large cities will be scared to leave their houses, apartments and other such residences. They will not vote in numbers they usually do. Flyover country, which is never affected by much, will pour out in its great retarded masses and vote bush.

the peasants are not happy, and * is losing support even in deep red states, such as the one I live in now.

The economy is whip sawing farmers, and the latest efforts to block
a Kansas meat packer from competeing for the Japanese market mark serious opportunities for Dems this year.

This is not going to be the cakewalk that Rove dreams it will be.
A terrorist incident, if we can take off the pink tu tu, could be like Madrid's effect on Spain. We just have to connect the dots between the * conspiracy to invade Iraq without any damn good reason at all, and increased risk from terrorists.

What I mean is: which of his failures are seen as such? 9/11 probably not. (If you believe in LIHOP, it wasn't a failure, naturally). Iraq? Most Americans are convinced that it is good that Saddam is captured.

the doubt that many people are dealing with about this administration. Perhaps it's not "failures" as we here at DU see it, but the kernel of doubt that many people are beginning to take heed of, if that makes sense.

I'd like to know how Kerry will handle it. He balked when voting for the Iraqi Invasion......He will have to demonstrate outstanding leadership and *bush will fight him all the way as will the media...they will focus on *bush 24/7........ Kery won't be able to speak.

If we allow it, like we allowed an election to be determined by an arbitrary judge, then yes, Bush will stoop as low as he can go to maintain supreme power. He's determined not to allow the people to vote him out and be just like daddy...the Bush's just never get the hint, most Americans can't stand them and wish the whole family would just go dictate some little oil rich country. He knows he's on the way out, and even "terra" might not save him.

we now know from various sources that he was obsessed with Saddam and diverted resources from Afghanistan instead of taking out obl.

that's the whole gameplan.

Sure it will hurt his popularity, but it WON'T MATTER

do you think that the people in congress and the senate, who don't have term limits, are willing to go to bat for a short term goal like keeping him as president for a few more months?

I seriously think that would be the straw that broke the camels back, I see a lot more people crying foul on this issue than on some of the others. Talk about setting a precedent, I feel that this is one issue that would compartamentalize the neocons from their more traditional republican bretheren.

This is what I've come to believe.

Prior to 9/11 the media has led us to believe that a major terrorist attack would likely occur in the United States. Then, on 9/11, when the events unfolded, it was natural for us to assume that, indeed, America was under attack.

What is truly weird here is that no CONCRETE EVIDENCE has been made public which proves a) that the events of 9/11 were a "terrorist" attack and b) that the perpetrators of this attack were OBL and al Quida. YET, we have been told this over and over and over by people in government using the media to broadcast this point of view. Most people even here at DU reading this paragraph will think I'm nuts because they "saw" what happened and have been "told" how to interpret what they saw, and "believe" that what they've been told is the truth. "What other explanation could there be?"

Yet, if one digs into the matter even a little bit, what one finds is layer upon layer of "strangeness." Yes, there were some mostly Saudi men with peculiar backgrounds at least appearing to learn to fly. The FBI, CIA and the administration say they had no idea they were going to do this, and yet within 72 hours of the events, we had names and pictures to show the public that "these were the perps." Yes, the FBI says they hijacked the planes and used them as bombs and yet, strangely, they have offered almost NO EVIDENCE to support that contention. In fact, although the media mostly let it pass, the director of the FBI has himself publicly stated, "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot."

THE POINT I'M GETTING AT IS THIS: We, the people of the United States, do not actually know WHAT happened on 9/11, much less WHO perpetrated it. And yet, 9/11 has been used TWICE to launch aggressive military attacks against other nations.

Now imagine that "someone" wants an all out war in the middle east--wants to "permanantly rearange the political map" so to speak. Now, along with this, imagine that a 'small nuclear devise' is detonated in the down town area of any major city in the United States. What are we going to be told happened? What are we all going to believe happened? With possibly a half million dead and twice that many injured and property losses in the hundreds of billions--with 24/7 coverage of the horror for days on end--do you really believe there will not be an "outcry" for RETALIATION on a scale greater than this event? And what president, Bush, Kerry, Gore--I don't care WHO it is--would be able to reign in such an outcry IF WE BELIEVED THAT IT WAS A "TERROIST" ATTACK (and not an accident or a covert operation or whatever else it could be).

Now we have our National Security Advisor telling Face the Nation that another "terrorist attack" could occur between now and the election. And we have General Tommy Franks telling us that a significant attack on America could result in martial law. I say "hurt Bush" or "help Bush" IS IRRELEVANT. What we're dealing with is MUCH BIGGER THAN BUSH.

Ya gotta think like a Bush supporter - No one can possibily predict what those crafty, death loving, freedom-hating Arabs will do, so George "Regular Guy" Bush can't be expected to stop their every move. Plus, he could have stopped them if the liberals hadn't interfered by supporting the rights of criminals, AS USUAL. Bush will go after those camel jockeys and bomb them back to the Stone Age, unlike wimpy liberals, who think that Saddam is a good guy. He did it in Afghanistan, he did it in Iraq, and he'll do it again to teach those guys a lesson.