Reply #13: Only a couple of those would make enough difference... [View All]

[belle]

Reagan may well die, and it'll tie up the news, but it shouldn't make enough difference to Bush either way. As for finding WMD's in Iraq: it's too late. Way too late. It'll have been two YEARS. and the thing is: most people don't care one way or the other by now. that cuts both ways. It sucks that the "no WMD's" isn't getting much traction in the news; but the flip side is, if they *do* find them, what difference will it make?

Osama, well, yeah, that would be a big feather in their cap. If they find him. I'm not totally convinced they *do* have a bead on him. For one thing, I just don't think they have sufficient patience to wait it out any more if they really have him in a cell somewhere: Bush's numbers are bad, and the boost of "finding" him would be sufficient for him to ride all the way to November, I rather think; certainly they could milk the "trial" from now till then.

And if they don't actually have him but do know exactly where he is, I rather think it'll be a big old mess to dig him out; he's quite likely over the border in Pakistan, which would be a total fucking disaster if they decide to invade (which they've already made rumblings about). I could be wrong. I hope so.

assasination attempt--well, anything's possible. Hey, it worked for Bob Roberts. Something that blatant could backfire, though. First of all, he's more closely guarded than Fort Knox, so anyone getting through just feels really unlikely. (people make attempts all the time). And I seriously doubt George has the acting ability to pull off a faked injury a la Bob Roberts, and he certainly wouldn't risk his precious bodily fluids in an actual injury, a la Reagan. So it'd be cheap media thrills for a few weeks or so. If timed just right, (i.e. three days before the election) it *could* work, but inevitably that'll arouse suspicion, too. And if he survived an "attempt" and immediately started calling for something like martial law--suspended elections or whatever--well, that's going to look pretty fucking obvious, even to us in our current state. There'd be huge protests. People are not willing to give up their rights just so that George can feel safer. and okay, yeah, they could invent some nefarious Islamic terrorist as a fall guy or something, I can invent the plot as I type this. i dunno, though. I think there'd be a lot of backlash. As long as people don't feel *personally* threatened, as they would with a mass terror attack, I think that they'd be more pissed than scared.

Which leads to the biggie: terrorism on U.S. soil. Well, yeah, I sure as fuck hope not. I think more false-alarm scares are more likely at this point--they're cheaper and easier. I personally am not that convinced that they orchestrated 9/11 from start to finish, although I know others here are. If they *did*, then obviously doing it again seems more plausible. Assuming they are able and willing to orchestrate an entire terror attack here, that's the most plausible way I can think of them sufficiently cowing people into staying home from the polls, questioning authority, with or without actually going to martial law. But even that's risky at this point: he's banked a lot on "making America safer." If we're attacked here again it's pretty damn clear that he and his administration have done a piss-poor job of protecting us these past three years, no matter how they try to spin it. And if there's *any* proof or even strong suspicion of the timing of the event--if it really does look like they "made it happen on purpose"--people will be howling for his blood.

Anyway, I think it's a mistake to underestimate Bush and what he/they are capable of; but I also think it's a mistake to overestimate them. They're not evil geniuses. Evil, yes; geniuses, hardly. If there's one thing we've seen, it's that they have a very limited selection of plays in their playbook. We'll see, anyway.