Posted on 05/17/2004 2:52:40 PM PDT by Nexus
5/24/04
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." 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.
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.
What was the statement, and when was it made?
The left is neither equipped or has the stomach to fight the enemy of Islamofascism. They will roll over and kill us all before they fight back. It is as simple as that. The good old days of fighting Democrats are long gone with FDR, Truman, JFK and even LBJ. The rest are just pu$$ies.
Neighbor! We were up at the air show in Lake City about a week ago, giving away Bush-Cheney bumper stickers and generally having a good time.
I agree that there's a regional element in all this. I don't think that they're going to attack where people are going to fight back. Although, now that I've said this, I realize that most of the enemy views us as soft and easily intimindated, and probably nobody but an American would know that there's any part of the US where people WILL fight back.
So perhaps these idiots will attack some place outside of the major cities. I expect in that case that the local citizenry would be able to fight back quite handily.
But I still think that the national press would not come to our defense, and that in the big propaganda war that the left and Islam are waging against us, the rest of the country would not support us. But then again, maybe I'm being too gloomy for my own good.
btt
Agree, but I think the before/after date is 9/1.
Theory 2 is most dangerous in terms of everything. Bush's election will the least of our concerns.
Has anyone thought about the dedication of the WW-II memorial? A pretty large crowd is expected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.