Skip to comments.From the White House, a nightmare scenario (Election related terrorism)
Posted on 05/17/2004 2:52:40 PM PDT by Nexus
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." There are two worst-case scenarios, the official says.
The first posits an attack on Washington, possibly the Capitol, which was believed to be the target of the 9/11 jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.
Theory 2: smaller but more frequent attacks in Washington and other major cities leading up to the election.
To prepare, the administration has been holding secret antiterrorism drills to make sure top officials know what to do. "There was a sense," says one official involved in the drills, "of mass confusion on 9/11. Now we have a sense of order." Unclear is the political impact, though most Bushies think the nation would rally around the president. "I can tell you one thing," adds the official sternly, "we won't be like Spain," which tossed its government days after the Madrid train bombings.
Theory 2 is the most dangerous in terms of Bush's reelection.
Don't forget more domestic threats as well. There's an ugliness on the Left of late, with calls for physical violence becoming so common as to pass unnoticed.
AMEN to that!
I'd have to agree (unfortunately).
I don't think J.Q. Public can't take daily/weekly attacks on shopping malls, sporting events, and what-not for very long. I can hear the libs screaming now (Crisis, Bush's fault, what did he know and when...,), and they won't wait a few months like they did after 9/11.
Double Standard: Member for four days.
Poop for brains: Entire lifetime.
Are you INSANE?
An attack would not help Bush at all, moron!
Perhaps a simple case of 'projection'?
that is, you wouldn't weep too bitterly if an attack cost bush the election, and would blame it on bush's incompetence.
So, if we are not attacked, it's because Bush didn't think he needed the extra votes and sympathy. But if we ARE attacked, then Bush is incompetent and/or evil, depending on your needs at the moment.
Unafathomably stupid evil
I don't think J.Q. Public CAN Take (need coffee)
Bush will win, this year, and we'll gain a few seats in the Senate - but not enough to end a filibuster. So 2005 and 2006 the left will be even more obstructionist than they are now.
So we'll pick up a couple more Senate seats in 2006, and in 2007, when the GOP has the votes to pass cloture on a filibuster, and finally starts to confirm some decent judges, then we'll see the left resort to open violence.
The 2008 presidential campaign will be accompanied by far more violence than was that of 1968.
And its then that we will see whether the US will continue as a civil society, or if the American Experiment is over.
Best to take precautions against the election time terrorism by Democrats:
voting by the dead
voting by illegals
Thanks for removing that moderator.
I was going to tell them that they weren't even worthy of
BUSH AND HIS ADMINISTRATION I TRUST WILL ALWAYS DO WHAT
EVER IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY.
Whether it's in a few moths from now, or four years out, the point is: the LEFT is returning to its bomb-tossing roots.
Perhaps my tone was a little much, but I'd bet money nothing approaching coherence will ooze from that fool's mouth.
besides, calling a spade a spade never hurts.
And the dimocRATS will dance in the streets when either happens!
You got that right! I am more concerned about the Democrats.
From David Frums Diary, NOV. 19, 2002: GORE SPEAKS. The words are by Karenna Gore.
Ms Gore is talking about her father's comments. "We have to do what's best for the country, and it is not good for the country to have this kind of divisiveness. And he was on the phone, really calling off the dogs. There were people who wanted to fan the ... the flames of the racial issue and have real unrest. And he was on the phone asking them not to, because of what was best for the country not because of what was best for him politically. And that's really who he is. [end excerpt]
Will there be someone in the Party to stop it this time?
Yes, but the action won't be getting rid of Bush it will be over-whelming demand that Mecca and Medina be nuked.
Why do I have such a hard time believing this came from algore's mouth?
The man who prolonged the election of 2000 for over a month?
The man whose rants on the environment are confused with the writings of the Unabomber?
The man who screamed about Bush betraying the country?
That algore? The alphamale? Nope. Don't believe a word of it.
We need to pray real hard for wisdom and sobriety for our political leaders in the coming months.
No need for name calling here. We appreciate civil discourse. We welcome your opinions, but there is no need to insult others who may differ.
In the U.S. I think a terrorist attack would be the exact oppossite of Spain. Americans would vote the law and order party - Republicans.
The sad and sick part of all of this, I firmly believe that the media, Democrats and the Presidents enemies from the fringes are already planning on how to turn such an attack to their political advantage.
Daughter #2 just accepted a teaching job within the beltway for this fall. Something else for midwest father to worry about?!
He's not a bad man, just a bad scientist.
True, and i apologize for surrendering to the impulse.
(But sometimes they just seem to deserve it)
Still, will try to keep thiings 'civil', provocations notwithstanding.
Okay, but I don't think we have enough prayer if we include Teddy.
Does that make me a bad straight man? And you a bad comedian?
This is an interesting question.
We have received many appropriate warnings from former Spanish PM Aznar about this and I am also sure that many people have independently considered this possibility.
I don't think AQ could repeat the Spanish experience by attacking just before the elections. I think it's far more likely that they would have their maximum effect by doing a major strike (not little ones, but a significant strike) at least a month prior to the election.
The most important thing in Spain was not the attack, but the press reaction to the attack. It was highly orchestrated - because the press is leftist and had always hated Aznar - and was coordinated with the Socialists, other more extreme left-wing parties, and the "peace" movement.
This is exactly what would happen here. But we seem to do things in increments, so I think it would take about a month for the press and the left to blame the whole thing on Bush, set Fat Teddy out to squeal, call on Fat Michael (Moore) for some deluded paranoid ravings (as Almodovar did in Spain after March 11),and get the starlets out to lead a "peace" parade. Then Kerry would walk into the job.
They allow half the world in here, millions of them illegally from God knows where, and now they tell us, "An attack will happen". LOL. I presume it wont be from the Iraqi Air Force. Sheesh......
"an attack would not help Bush at all..."
How would it help an unproven commodity like Kerry? We know that Bush wouldn't roll over like Clinton (and Kerry). He would strike back and harder.
Perhaps I'm both too cynical and too pessimistic, but I wouldn't be so sure. The election is now under six months away. One thing we can be sure of: the President's enemies will lay it on thicker and thicker and thicker as the months and weeks tick down. So far this year, the so-called mainstream media have carried their shilling for the Dems to new lows, and most Dems have carried their lust for power to near depravity. Who knows who may be manipulating what behind the scenes of the oil and stock markets in order to affect our election. And, of course, we can count on the terrorists to try to repeat their Spanish "success."
Very, very scary times, indeed, and my faith is weak that the American electorate will stay the course.
Depends on where the attacks occur. If they hit New Jersey or San Francisco or the granola crunchers in Seattle, I'd bet you'd be right. But let them try that crap in Texas, or Georgia or here in Florida and see what happens when a citizen with a CCW permit cuts them down. That's a certainty. At some point, somebody is going to forcefully show the RATS the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment and maybe the rest of the country will come to their senses. Unless, of course they fall victim to liberal whining about "assault weapons."
They are gonna try and kill Bush. I'm convinced of that.
Does this mean that if there is a terrorist strike that Hitlery had prior knowledge of it's plan?
IF something does happen will she be looked at as a co-conspirator?
Shall I quote him before he says it?
"This administartion has failed, yet again, to take the steps necessary to protect our nation from terrorist attacks on our own soil. Twice now, Bush has stood by while Americans are killed, choosing instead to alienate our allies and the international community with our unilateral etc, etc..."
And on the networks, much the same sort of thing.
An attack would hurt all of America, but there's a good chance that the Left would be better poised to take advantage of it.
"Bush's policies are not working; we need a new, etc, etc."
The problem is that the terrorists never put themselves anywhere where we can fight back. In the case of suicide bombers (such as the 9/11 terrorists), they're dead, and all links with their sponsors are also dead or at any rate very hard to track.
I'm not sure that we'd know where to look for the guilty parties in a new terrorist attack. (It would be tempting, and I live in FL too, so I know what you mean.)
But I think Americans in general, not only on the Krunchy Koasts, but just the average Americans you work with, have been so undermined by the press, particularly in the last year, that I honestly don't think we'd see the same unified reaction this time that we saw to 9/11.
Granted, I may be excessively pessimistic about this, but that's my sense of things. The Dems have done everything possible to destroy Americans' self-respect, independence, and courage, and unfortunately, I think they've done a very good job of it.
That's what happened, exactly. Would the election have been such a blowout if the gov't had appeared more competent?
The Demon-cats on the far left are almost as "scary"
as the Evil ones in the Far East
Why do we need Terrorists?....The Democrats are doing a pretty good job of messing us up!
There is an element to this that none have considered. While I too believe that an attack would rally people to the President, it would probably tank the U.S. economy in a big way, at least in the short term. The DOW would probably much of it's value almost overnight and economic uncertainty and chaos would ensue. In such a situation, it's hard to predict who the voters would blame.
I don't think I can agree with you. Suicide bombers are bad but they can be stopped by alert armed citizens as Israel has proven many times. Courage in this country seems to be regional and closely correlates with religious affiliations. Witness the number of country boys who sign up for the military to kill the enemies of their country instead of a free ride to college. For example in the inner city school where I teach, the military has a ripe recruiting ground, but the kids are all angling for jobs as REMFs in the rear areas or CONUS. They want nothing to do with "combat," and care little for this country except what "it can do for them."
"That's what happened, exactly. Would the election have been such a blowout if the gov't had appeared more competent?"
That's the way I see it. I think Aznar would have won. Problem was he flat out lied and looked like he was trying to cover his butt. I am sure enough Spanish people would have understood that a terrorist attack is not his fault to return him to office (he was winning by wide margins in the polls). Instead, he made up the ETA thing because he worried people would link the attack to his Iraq policy and not vote for him. They probably would have linked it anyway but wouldn't have not voted for him had he not lied.
It might do that. A lot would depend on how many attacks were attempted and how many were successful. If they actually wanted to influence the election they would already be attacking smaller targets. Whether they could pull off another WTC911 and achieve the same shock value is doubtful. It cannot be done again exactly because it has already been done, not to say they can't bring down another building or train, but it wouldn't have the impact. Also, if they have another large attack it would be like the Tet offensive. They wouldn't ever be able to do anything again.
Or perhaps this scenario:
"They plan kidnappings in the U.S., too, warn the experts. But they will not be seeking ransoms. Analysts point out that all scenarios involving prisoners and hostages ended in execution. None included plans for negotiated settlements for escape by terrorists."
The Berg tape is a training video.