The DU Plan to prevent future attacks helping Bush

[Dems2002]

Hi all,

There's a lot of speculation about terrorist attacks leading up to the election and how the Bush admin feel that they would benefit from them.

What we need to do is have a forum to compile every single link to a right-wing article or pundit commenting on this subject so we can compose the proper narrative in advance in order to be able to immediately spin the media in our direction.

We need to shout Wag the Dog at the top of our voice, but we also need to compile the easy to read narrative for reporters to have at their fingertips because heaven forbid they have to research this on their own.

At the top needs to be Al Qaida's support for Bush and the reason they support him. (Effective recruiting tool that he is)

There should also be a section on the politics of fear, and one on the reason Spain threw out their government, that the terrorists did not "win."

Let's do this folks, I know there are a lot of links and we probably need to put this in a place less popular than GD, but here's where it's likely to get the most press.

Best,

Dems

[Virginian]

1. US News and World Report - link

Washington Whispers
From the White House, a nightmare scenario
White House officials say they've got a "working premise" about terrorism and the presidential election: It's going to happen. "We assume," says a top administration official, "an attack will happen leading up to the election." And, he added, "it will happen here."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040524/whispers/24whisplead.htm

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

5. what?

why do you say that?

[Bandit]

3. We need a pre-emptive strike

If we have another terror attack it means Bush* can not protect us anymore now than he could in 2001. We need new leadership that can protect us. It will help nullify an attack especially one committed by the fascists.

[barbaraann]

4. I think we need designated protest places

because I think it will come to that. We needed those for the 2000 election and then maybe we could have stopped the coup.

[calimary]

6. Yes. ARM YOURSELVES with the facts.

A good anticipatory ploy would be this:

Make SURE to talk this up at every opportunity. If people KNOW, already, that the regime is considering or warning about some attack that might impact the election or some such thing, talk about that in advance. Like - NOW. If it's talked about, it's planted in the mind. The WAY you talk about it is to point out, while talking about it, how manipulative they are, and how they've screwed with the facts before to influence voters.

To prove this: All you have to do is bring up the McCain and Max Cleland debacles.

McCain was flayed alive BY INFERENCE, by fishy polling that was done in South Carolina when the bushies regarded him as a bigtime threat in 2000 (he'd yanked the New Hampshire primary out from under them and had all the momentum. They were desperate to derail him and were willing to stoop to all possible lows). They called people and asked them: would you vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered a black child out of wedlock? Now, they never specifically SAID that he had. All they had to do was plant a seed. And all anybody had to do was look at a family photo of McCain with wife and adopted child from Bangladesh, and THEY would connect the dots the way the bushies hoped they would.

Further, they snatched Max Cleland's Senate seat by questioning his patriotism (he's a triple amputee from Vietnam) so that a card-carrying CHICKENHAWK (Saxby Chambliss, who never wore his country's uniform and never saw combat, but sure as shit loved that invasion of Iraq) could beat him.

All you have to do to back up your assertion that republi-CONS LIE, STEAL AND CHEAT to get votes is to remind your listener of these two examples. OR JUST THE MCCAIN ONE. People love and respect John McCain and know, FULL WELL, what he want through in Vietnam. In light of this "support your troops" era, this really has traction.

THEN, you follow it with: "...if they can do THAT to JOHN MCCAIN, they can do and say anything and some people will buy it."

The inference YOU make is significant:

1) You debunk WHATEVER the party line is, and you DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SITE LINKS, quotes, or any other research. You're appealing to their emotions and their sense of fair play here.
2) You draw a subtle but unavoidably painful contrast between an icon they regard very positively (John McCain) and bush - while pointing out that the two are NOT the same and are NOT cut from the same cloth - the reminder that these two were opponents once. For good reason.
3) You underscore just how GENERALLY shitty, evil, mean-spirited and ruthless, manipulative, and DECEITFUL these people are.

Remember, too, that a lot of people allowed themselves to get bent out of shape about Clinton because of the lying aspect of the Monica mess. Remember "it's not the sex, it's the LYING." WELL, this throws that tizzy about truthtelling RIGHT BACK IN THEIR FACES. Because you illustrate conclusively how the bush folks LIED to ruin John McCain.

And you don't even have to hammer this one home that hard. A little goes a long way. Those here who caution that less is more - make a very good point. All you do is plant that little seed and let it sprout. And it will sprout into huge resentment and indignance toward the bushies for how mean they were to (Saint) John McCain. It's subtle, it's ALL perception, it's as smooth as silk, and the enemy never knows what hit 'em.

[Dems2002]

7. Why we do this

While I can't conceive that terrorist attacks would help Bush, the republican stoodges seem to believe this to be true.

There has been a lot of talk, much that I've read here, regarding this.

I recall Hannity discussing this subject after the Spain election, and most of the discussions have revolved around keeping Bush in power.

What I want to have is something to prevent the right from taking over the dialogue and writing the script should a terrorist attack happen.

Their script is going to be, electing Kerry is a vote for the terrorists, and I want to be able to send to all of our lazy media, proof that this is laughable, that Al Qada likes Bush and that the right have been planning to "use" a future terrorist attack to political advantage, "JUST LIKE THEY USED 9/11"

[Virginian]

8. Yes, the terrorists PREFER Bush.

1. He helps recruitment drives.
2. He only pretends to go after bin Laden.
3. He has friends in high Saudi places.
4. He helped them escape by helping them fly out of the Country after 9/11 among the innocents from Arab nations.

[PATRICK]

9. Juxtapose speeches and priorities

It was very revealing that the real tragedy in Spain was the fall of the right wing and its prop for Bush. NOT loss of life for an unpopular inclusion in Bush's hypocritical mercenaries. "It won't happen to us!" is total concentration on the harm terrorism might do to this particular regime NOT the preventable loss of life.

The same is true of policy. NO concern or concentration on security here compared to getting to the sources of terror abroad. Yet those sources have to have oil even if no links to terror to be taken seriously, must be conquered or antagonized into producing more terrorists. A failed plan as stated at least while underfunding of the bloated Homeland Security ducktape bureaucracy and more important measures continues to actually ADVERTISE our risk.

It's almost an invitation. Whether conscious or not, it matters little whether the WH is praying for an attack like a kid waiting for Santa Claus, or with hopeless impotence grimly has conceded our security to terrorism and will only bury us and invade the weak nations. Many advisers decry the terrorists "holding back" as this hurts their dooming defeatist/revenge agenda.

In the absence of the people being suitably "concerned" about "inevitable" terrorism, regular and gloomy attempts are made by all kinds of Bushistas to instill fear and lay the groundwork for hate and jingoism. At timely moments of maximum political benefit to themselves- NOT consistent with actual threats. This can be measured by how the drumbeats(or any alarm at all) was given in relation to actual substance of threats. Some went ignored, like early concerns about the Capitol WAY after 9/11 and the anthrax- until Ashcroft lost his cool with the "dirty bomber" scare. Ashcroft has in fact been the worst performer of the bunch. Only lately has the realization sunk in that Congress is a sitting target.

And they prepare for a speedy transition when we have a shadow government already in place. This is like someone feeling very sick going to a mortician for planning and counseling and not to the doctor.