The entire Clarke episode is a win-win for the Democrats!

[Gman]

Think about it. If Bush ends up swaying public opinion that he's done such a bang-up job on terrorism the Dems win because this takes an October surprise completely out of play. After all, if Bush is doing such a great job how could we possibly get attacked? I think the Dem surrogates could go on the attack with the line of "We're not safe with Bush and we need to get rid of him now. We can't believe a word he says. Terrorism is getting worse." Or some other similar lines to point out all that is going on right now and how Condi, Bush, et al lied to the 9/11 commission and the American people.

Of course the other win is Bush and Condi have their credibility seriously and irreparably damaged because of these hearinigs and we've taken away their one and only campaign issue, 9/11 and how tough they are on terrorism.

[tabasco]

1. I tend to agree.

There are many who over-react to the latest polls from the Propaganda Ministry. To anyone with a shred of objectivity, Clarke comes off as a man of principle and honesty, whereas the administration is being revealed as secretive and mendacious.

[TheBlob]

2. If an attack occurs a week or two before the election

your theory would be shot to Hell.

It's all about timing, and a week or two would not be enough time to sway the public out of it's inevitable "Fear Coma" that would accompany another 9/11-level event.

However, if an attack were to occur a couple months before the election, your theory would be possible.

"It's all about timing"

[Gman]

5. I would like to think the "Madrid Effect" would take over

i.e. the current government got us into this mess and we need to have someone new fix it now. Of course it would be hard to make people see this above the cacophony of "never appease, ad nauseum". People would have to, (shudder), think for theirselves. Perhaps this is where my theory falls flat on its face.

[Brotherjohn]

3. I don't think the "October Surprise" scenario would include an attack.

I think it's more likely to be the "capture" of Osama, or some other such "success" in the war on terror. In that respect, I don't think the Clarke testimony has any effect on that possibility. I do believe, however, that Clarke's testimony is damaging to Bush no matter what comes of it. People now openly question whether Bush did enough before or after 9-11 to protect us. His credibility has now come even more into question (it was already suffering due to the lack of WMDs in Iraq).

I think if an attack occurs ANYTIME before the election, including immediately before, it will be very bad for the Bush administration. Look at what happened in Spain. Those people were not "giving in" to the terrorists. They were already fed up with the deception by their administration re their own version of the war on terror and their participation in Iraq. Being attacked was the final straw, especially since their government continued to deceive to the point of trying to make it look as though it were NOT an Al Qaeda attack, despite the evidence.

The Bush administration claims they are winning the war on terror. If we are attacked again, it will instantly prove them wrong. This time, they would have no excuses for failing to protect us. And if they try to downplay Al Qaeda involvement, as Spain's leaders did, no one will believe them (whether it is true or not; their credibility is shot). If we are attacked again, people will doubt Bush like never before, and I think most of them will plainly see that something isn't working. If the Bush administration tried to tell them that voting him out would be a win for the terrorists, I think the response from the people will be a big "F*** YOU". People don't like to be told how to vote.

If we are attacked, and if Bush then loses, it would not be a "victory for the terrorists". It would be a victory for America, as we would finally realize that Bush is making us LESS safe, not more.

[calimary]

4. Doesn't seem to have helped much, so far...

Sorry. Don't mean to be a wet blanket. But those polls just stun me. bush is AHEAD again?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!??! After a whole week of Richard Clarke??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!? People are buying those warm-fuzzy bush commercials??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!????!???!?!

I wish you were correct, but I'm just rather discouraged today.

[lancdem]

9. Just that CNN poll

which was done over the weekend (and has his approval rating at 53, 4 points higher than any other recent poll). The Rasmussen tracking
poll today has Kerry ahead by 2.

[NewJeffCT]

6. It could backfire

Remember, every Clinton scandal rallied the Democrats... it could be the same for Bushco, even though their scandals are legit and Clinton's were a pack of lies.

[Woodstock]

7. I had a Rethug come over and gloat that Bush gained in polls

not lost because of Clarke. I wish I understood this. The man is a 30 year career aide, who worked for Reagan and Bush Sr., and is only the latest in a line of Republicans speaking out against Bush. Why would his intelligent and thoughtful testimony make them like Bush more? The $15 million in commercials that sound like the propaganda we were shown that Russia used during the cold war? Are the polls a sham? Are the people stark raving mad?

[Brotherjohn]

8. Bush has (very slightly) bounced up b/c of his ads and attacks on Kerry.

And Kerry's clinched the nom, so not as in the limelight as he was during the primaries.

It's not because of anything having to do with Clarke or the 9-11 commission. Those things take more time to sink in, but they will.

Besides, Bush's "bump" is barely statistically significant, if it is at all. His overall trend is still unmercifully downward.

[lancdem]

10. Am I missing something?

Isn't it just one poll? Why do people keep referring to it in the plural?

BTW, tell your "friend" the latest Rasmussen poll, done after CNN, has Bush trailing by 2.

[lancdem]

11. BTW, Clarke's testimony hasn't helped Bush

Otherwise they wouldn't be forced to let Condi testify.

[Kimber Scott]

12. I don't think anybody can keep us safe from "terrists"

without first addressing the source of the hate - our hypocritical foreign policy. So, since that's not being done, the fact there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 probably has more to do with the terrorist's itinerary than anything we've done, or not done, so far. I think what I am trying to say is, the terrorists will attack when they are ready, unless we get lucky law enforcement-wise and catch them in time, which may have happened pre-9/11, if somebody were paying attention.

I think it's folly to assume the terrorists really care who our president is. They've attacked under the leadership of both parties. They did not attack us on 9/11 because George Bush is an idiot. (Obviously, I don't subscribe to the MIHOP theory, or even the LIHOP theory. I subscribe to the Arrogant Asshole Theory.) I think something big is on the horizon. Whether, or not, the terrorists do it around the election, or not, has nothing to do with their "politics." It will have everything to do with how much destruction they can do to this country, physically, socially and economically. They won't be asking for our voter registration cards before they decide whether to kill us, or not, and when Kerry wins the election, I can guarantee you they won't say, "Oh, well we like this guy, so let's be nice to them now."

Thanks to Clarke and a lot of other people, George Bush cannot claim he can keep us safe from "terrists." (Although, I always wondered why he tried, when it was under his watch, we were attacked. Whether is was his "fault" or not, he was steering the boat. He shouldn't be able to brag about that, period.)

What I'm trying to get to, though, and maybe I took a long way to it, is we have to be careful not to fall into an "enemy of my enemy" trap. Which is the impression I get from a lot of the posts on here. I don't think anybody here sides with terrorists, but sometimes it sounds like we'd take some kind of joy in another attack. Like it proved us "right," or something. I don't want to be attacked by terrorists again, no matter who the president is and they will attack us, no matter who the president is. Does that make sense? I hate George Bush with every cell of my being, but I hate terrorists more. Let's not take any false comfort in thinking they're on "our side."

edited for spelling

[Gman]

13. Its OBL's MO

to let a considerable amount of time elapse between attacks so you are correct that the fact that we haven't been attacked has more to do with the terrorists' timeline rather than ours.

And I do agree it doesn't matter to the terrorists who is prez. They attacked the WTC when Bill was prez and they brought it down when Bush was prez.

My point in this thread is that the likelihood of a MIHOP or LIHOP right before the election is considerably less now than it was before. Should the terrorists actually succeed in pulling off an attack the effect on Bush would be the same.

[Kimber Scott]

14. Understood.

nt