Incinerate them with this one...

[Must_B_Free]

The whole question of the next attack become "why" - in what way are the terrorists trying to influence the next election? What do they hope to accomplish?

"If you were Al Qaida, who would you want for president of the US?"

This is like the logic parodox that Spock destroyed the Mark 5 with, There are two answers:

If they answer "John Kerry", it begs - Why would they attack at all then? It would just play to into Bush's hands. Wouldn't it just make Bush stronger for them to attack again? Why not just do nothing and help get rid of Bush?

If they answer "George Bush" it evokes the question, Why would they want the stronger one who is going to route them out? And why are you supporting the one the terrorists wan anyway?

Something tells me there's going to be no terror attack. The talk of one plays up Bush, but the event of one would damage him completely. He would have failed us once again. But a foiled attack would really be good for Bush, it would show him as a success while reinforcing the fear factor.

[LiberalVoice]

1. I'm sure they will "foil an attack"...

At this point all they have to do is make up a couple Arabic sounding names, take a few pictures of some land marks, and have one of their arab interpritors scribble something in arabic on a piece of college ruled notebook paper to convince us they stopped the terra.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. Then again they might have little or no interest in the election.

I don't think they are operating on any time table of ours. If/when they attack it will be a target they choose at a time of their choosing. They are more interested in causing economic disruption then changing the outcome of the election. They want to hurt us all not just Bush or Kerry.

[jay-3d]

7. true

They told us why they attacked. shouldn't we know our enemy? They want us out of the middle east. I think they know Bush is doing more to advance there cause, even though he has attack them. The more we sacrifice or solders,trashier,freedoms and so on, the more they win. We have done more damage to our selves then they did on 911. So it's working very well for them. They have more incentive now to attack again, because they see how we can self implode. to fight terrorism we have to be brave not fearfully. Or they win

[Speck Tater]

3. Another attack would prove that Bush has failed to make us safe

thus it would be disaterous for him at the polls.

[kentuck]

4. A day or two before election, Bush will gamble....

and he will say, "See, we have protected this nation and we will continue to protect this nation. Do you want to bet on the other guy?"

[enki23]

5. doesn't work.

they'll point to spain, and pretend that it is somehow believable to say the reaction here would be similar.

and where in hell do you get the idea that a terrorist attack would hurt bush? it would in no way hurt bush. it would all but guarantee him a second term. hordes of democrats would follow the weak-kneed mayor of st paul minnesota, and bellow "continutity of government" at the top of their yellow little lungs.

in short, no. none of that is useful.

[ant]

6. the whole issue is ridiculous

I can't really figure out how the public might react to an attack. On the one hand, there could be a rallying around the president again, making an attack a good thing for Bush. On the other hand, the public might view another attack as a failure on the part of Bush, making an attack a good thing for Kerry. It really could go either way, I think, especially if you factor in how quickly one side or the other gets their spin to become the accepted story. That's not something we - or the terrorists - can really predict.

I think saying the terrorists believe one of the two candidates would be "better" for them at all is rather absurd. Are we to believe the terrorists think Kerry will stop pursuing them? Have the terrorists bought the GOP spin that the Dems are soft on defense, or do they think a second Bush term will help to further alienate the US and therefore make the war abroad more difficult?

And no matter what they believe, are they right?

I don't know how well the relevant terrorists follow US politics, how well they understand Americans and their possible reactions, or to what extent all of those issues influence their behavior. The one thing I know for sure is that they want to kill Americans (and others), and Americans need to decide which of the two candidates can fight that threat more effectively, not which of the two candidates the terrorists want them to vote for (and then vote the other way).

Anyone who even brings this up should simply be asked why she would let what (she thinks) terrorists think influence her vote. Seems like it would just be easier to evaluate the candidates' positions and then, you know, think for yourself.

[knitter4democracy]

9. Interesting thought in the Atlantic Monthly this week

How can we fight an enemy we know so little about? What do they define as the ultimate victory? How do they plan for that? What are they trying to accomplish with each attack? In Spain, were they really trying to force a change in government, get the troops out of Iraq, or were they just trying to kill as many people as possible and scare the hell out of Europe?

We can't make any decisions on how to respond until we know more about the enemy.

[ant]

11. thanks for pointing me to that

Sounds interesting - I'll have to check it out.

[democrat_patriot]

8. If the terrorists want * They would say they want Kerry.

Sounds twisted, but...

Al Qaeda say " We want Kerry..." People freak out and elect *.

Al Qaeda gets what they want...

[ant]

10. but if they know we know that...

...then they would say they want Bush, because then we would think they're just saying that to make us vote for Kerry and so really we should all vote for Bush....I think. What if they know that we know that they know?

As I said, absurd. People should vote for who they want and fuck the terrorists - we can't know for sure what terrorists want on this issue anway. And really, we shouldn't care. The terrorists will have won, etc.

[democratreformed]

12. Yeah, I'm about sick of the "they are trying to disrupt democracy" line.

It sounds like total bullshit and it IS total bullshit. They are not angry with individual Americans, per say, they are angry with our government.

[radwriter0555]

13. bush hasn't 'routed out' (as opposed to rousted) one SINGLE terrorist

yet, what makes you think he's stronger????

The bush's war on terror is a dismal failure.