If there is another terrorist attack...

...then Bush is boned, if the Democrat knows how to exploit the situation. The Democrat basically needs to tell Bush, "You have failed your duty to protect the people in this nation. You were given a mandate to do whatever you wanted to do in defense of America right after 9/11, and what did we get from that? Nothing. What measures have you taken to ensure that this attack would never happen again, apart from politically exploiting the tragedy? Nothing. What reassurances can you give to the American people that they are safe? Nothing." IMO, someone should've done that on 9/12/2001, lambasting the American governments for failing their duty - preferably Pataki, threatening to secede if there was no reassurance that this would never happen again.

I can tell you with complete honesty that I would MUCH rather lose the election with no attack than win it because there was one. I don't play politics with American blood.

...and I don't play politics with non-American blood. I am saying two things in my post:

1. Since a second terrorist attack can spell doom for the GOP in 2004, there is no chance that they will stage any

2. The United States and its government must always protect the people, not vice versa

I don't know if you've read my reply to Will Pitt's worst moment in American history thread (I think it's #80 but I'm not sure). In a nutshell, I said that 9/11 showed how the United States failed its duty to protect the people. Personally, I think that such an attack is sufficient grounds for dissolution of the Union, no politicking intended, but failing that it requires complete restructuring of intelligence gathering and processing.

I agree with you about the not wanting to win with American blood, but we can't lose sight of the fact that we are up against people who have shown they are perfectly willing to do just that.