|
Granted, if Kerry made that 'sensitive war' statement I agree it was a stupid one. But analytically, as far as where another attack would put both parties, and as far as how both parties have issued statements on the issue of protecting America, well, those are 2 different issues yes? I admit they overlap, but keep with me... So let me bifurcate the issues of Kerry and Bush's statements/credentials regarding terrorism, and what another attack would do for the election respectively.
1. Let us not forget that there is a card Kerry has not played vehemently enough, and that is the one concerning a) our borders and our port security, i.e. the issue with Mexico and our borders and Bush's compromises therefrom, alongside Bush's lack of steadfastness in heightening security where material shipments into the U.S. are concerned, and I include b), the original posts' argument that Kerry has the option of highlighting how the war in Iraq has diverted our attention from Al-Qaeda. 2. I have heard from certain radio interviews that there are even disagreements between individual fundamentalists in Al-Qaeda about a) what party should* be kept in power in the first place and b) whether another attack would assure the leverage of one or the other.
I do not claim any factual basis here, as I cant remember who was interviewed, but I come to more anyways out of shear reflection.
Concerning a. of 2., Let us think, which party would be best in power for AL-Qaeda? A-Q may hold the viewpoint that Kerry will be 'softer' on terror. At the same time, A-Q may hold the viewpoint that Bush's more 'reckless' foreign policy in the long run helps fuel their arguments in the mid-east and likewise their recruiting. Concerning b. of 2, Which party an attack would help, we all know the postulated reason for why an attack might help Bush. I refer to number 1. of this post for how it would help Kerry. But I would assume that Kerry would focus on port security and Iraq before he focused on our borders (Mexico), for reasons we can figure well enough and well aligned traditionally with the donkey, e.g. what happened with the Gray Davis/immigrent issue in Caly. hmmmmmmm........now what would that say about us? But I swam far from shore a while ago with this...
In short, I think it foolish to prematurely assume any correspondence whatsoever between the implications of a terror attack here and what happened in Spain. Likewise we cannot rest content assuming an exact inverse. We are on the forefront of this war, like it or not, and just to put a kink in any grudge with the reader here, we very well know that a successful attack in Spain had no possibility whatsoever of being a victory for the conservatives, because the Iraq war was not supported in the majority or even close to 50/50. It is very different here. Here we stand alone on the implications of our own world power. But also the convolution of catch-22 advantages and advantages possibly wrested from presumed catch-22's on the other side because of it. See the tongue-tie? We already knew the iceburg, here's being on the tip, kid...
|