Officials Worry of Pre-Election Attack

AP ^ | 3-15-04 | TERENCE HUNT

[freedom moose]

your post reminded me (that doesn't mean i'm agreeing with it) of something that i heard today several times. there is a lefty rumor circulating that says that the PP tried to call off the elections on Saturday and then tried on Sunday to have the reuslts discounted. It's gaining momentum over the internet and being discussed here on the radio.
p.s. ping Libius

[Lady Heron]

I can see the liberal areas of the country, the big cities, reacting that way. They will vote dem anyway so no big loss when those areas pull in more votes.

There is no way the red areas cower and give the election to a pansy appeasing dem when we are attacked, that is against every thing they have been taught makes a man, yes even union guys. That unwillingness to cower from bullies is the make up of the American spirit, that has the rest of the weak socialist world calling us cowboys. When they say it about Bush they think they are being deragatory, I and most of Americans just say amen. Unlike Europe Americans have been taught that there are some things worth fighting for, freedom being one.

[freedom moose]

but my gut reaction is the "moderate-soccer mom" types
again just a hunch
yes i would call that a hunch
or a lack of understanding of Spain

[DannyTN]

Sorry we would have done the same. ... Remember Reagan in Lebanon?"

I'd like to think we wouldn't have. But yes, I remember Reagan. Pulling out was a mistake and shelling the hills instead of the terrorist camps was a mistake too. There has been a combination of errors that led up to 9/11. And it included Carter's handling of Iran, Reagan's handling of Lebanon, Bush Sr's failure to remove Saddam the first time and Clinton's failure to respond to the first WTC bombing, the OKC bombing, the TWA flight bombing, and opportunities to catch Bin Laden.

Reagan's blasting of Libya and Bush Sr's driving Iraq out of Kuwait were the only bright spots.

[ThePythonicCow]

excellent point ... I hadn't thought of that.

Kind words ... but actually I recall you agreeing to just that, last week.

I wrote:

I think Hitlary is on our side for once.

You replied:

I know what you mean about Hitlary, but didn't you get the shivers or something when you typed that? Ugh!

To which I replied:

big time

You're too young to be forgetting stuff. Must be that Texas hospitality showing <grin>. Take care of your good self.

[texasflower]

Well, I do remember that exchange, but I guess I got even more insight out of this one!

See, you are just so wise that I learn something from all of your posts!

[Jumper]

Okay, so AQ decides to destroy a group of people.... Lets say they opt for mass casualities in a city by using Anthrax or a small nuclear device; or even a subway or metro train.... They will be killing, by and large those very folks who vote for democrats.

If America ever has a nuclear conflict, the democrats will lose cities and the republicans gain states in Presidential elections. Seems those who reside in the heartland and countryside vote republican while those who live in the squalor of their socialist cities vote democrat.

Flame me:) But demographics seem to indicate the democrats will be on the receiving end of any conflict in which mass casualities are the objective.

[metesky]

I have no problem with the destruction of Islam, I just don't think we need to throw nukes around to do it.

My post was meant more in reference to Kerry's cowardice.
:O(

[SendShaqtoIraq]

"What happens if an attack is @ noon,Election day?
If that were to happen, and it caused turnout to be severely depressed, and Bush emerged as the winner, I'm sure the Democrats would (eventually, maybe not the very next day) claim it was an illegitimate outcome."

And we could then say: Cowards who don't vote do not deserve to run my country.

[eno_]

Yes, Kerry would nuke some unpopulated hill in Afganistan and think himself a big man.

However, we are currently facing down a gang of mad mullahs with the bomb in Iran. Do we have the guts to nuke them before they nuke us?

[metesky]

Iran doesn't have the big one yet and if they don't get it by November 2nd, they never will.

IMO

[livius]

Interesting. I had heard that the board of elections (or its SP equivalent, at any rate) had filed a suit on behalf of the PP because of the demonstrations outside of its offices all over Spain on Saturday night, which, because they occurred during a time when campaigning was forbidden and in many cases seemed to be organized by other political parties (particularly in Andalucia) represented illegal manipulation.

Frankly, they should have postponed the elections for a week. There were elections going on in New York on 9/11, but they simply halted them and held them later.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the info.

[ThePythonicCow]

[texasflower]

LOL!!

[B-Cause]

An Open Letter to the People of Spain

by Laura Mansfield, Analyst - NE Intelligence Network

The terrorist attack that massacred 200 of your countrymen, and injured over a thousand, was a horrific act. The world grieves with you. We all know it could have happened to our people in our countries just as easily as it happened in Madrid last Thursday.

But no matter how tragic and horrible that act was, it was not a victory for the terrorists.

The victory for the terrorists in Spain came on Sunday.

The professed goal of the attack, according to numerous Al Qaeda communiques, was to punish Spain for its support of the United States in the war against Iraq.

Sunday, in your free elections, you voted to place the communist party in power. This morning your new leadership announced that it would withdraw the Spanish troops from Iraq, and in effect abandon the coalition.

Your actions proved beyond the shadow of a doubt to Al Qaeda that if they kill enough people in a mass casualty attack that they can swing the popular vote. You've proved that they can influence elections.

You have just guaranteed that the United States will sustain a mass casualty terrorist action on our soil before our November elections. After all, maybe we too can be frightened into a policy of isolationalism. You probably also doomed Tony Blair's government in England to the same fate. How many will die in terror attacks in the United States and England in order for the terrorists to try and intimidate us?

In 1937, your countryman Pablo Picasso created a masterpiece depicting the horrors of wars in Guernica.

That same year, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made this statement: "We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will." He entered into a policy of appeasement with Germany, instead of taking a stand and drawing a line in the sands of time. The end result was that Adolf Hitler had more time to strengthen his hold on power and perpetrate a holocaust not just on the Jews of Germany, but on much of Europe.

At the same time, your countrymen were giving their lives in a struggle for freedom in Spain.

You were not afraid in 1937. Where is the courage of 1937?

The message you sent to Al Qaeda yesterday was clear. "Please don't threaten us; please don't kill our people; we'll do what you want us to do."

Why are you allowing the terrorists to intimidate you now? Why do you let them win?

What happened?

I leave you now with the words "Hasta la Vista". Call us when you need us. You will be calling; your actions in response to the Madrid terrorism attack guaranteed it. And when you call us, we will come and help. Even if Al Qaeda threatens us and attacks us. We don't let fear cower us into appeasement or surrender. That's the kind of people we are.

[Hollywoodghost]

The People of the USA would fold if the Attack was in Iraq. If there was a high body count or if some US soldiers were captured (female would be best)and held. It would have to be something big like what happened in Beirut. Triple digets only. Then the Dimocrats would say we must pull out--and Kerry would pull em after he is (Sic) elected President of the US of A. Kerry would be Clinton II only without the charm.

[VadeRetro]

In our post-Vietnam conflicts, we altered tactics to keep casualties down and have become somewhat spoiled, true. We've come to expect an easy slicing and dicing of the foe with amazingly low losses for our own side. Mostly, we aren't disappointed. Where we once took hundreds of military deaths in our national stride, the occasions in which such figures occur are now a calamity. But Iraq isn't our little Beirut adventure of the eighties. The latter was before Sept. 11, 2001.

People realize that the point of keeping the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is so that it isn't being fought here anymore. I don't think a folding of the tent would be popular.

[jslade]

There is no question. This is a cultural and religious war. A Christian can practice his religion anywhere. In his home, on the job, in church. But Islamist must have their prayer rugs wherever in order to pray their five times a day. Where do they pray. Mecca. If the shrines of their barbaric religion were vaporized, what direction would they raise their asses five times a day? Game over!

[mathurine]

Fortunately, were that to occur, Bush would still be president for six weeks, and if he has any hair where most men have some, he can nuke as much of Islam as is cost-effective. The day the United States is ruled by Islamic terrorists is never coming, and the day that Islam is dead meat hopefully is not long to be awaited. Islam sucks.