How Would a Terrorist Attack Influence Our Elections?

[Jazzooo]

I think you will see a LOT of pro-Bush advocates advancing the notion that Osama is hoping to influence the election by attacking us this summer--I saw three on Fox News alone this morning while doing a 20-minute treadmill routine.

In addition to a lot of strong statements along the lines of "Well, we're not Spain, I can tell you that!", their main position, down to a man, was this: "If they think that attacking us will makes us vote Bush out of office, they're sorely mistaken!"

I think that line is a bit of slight of hand, frankly. First of all, they are assuming that Bush will win easily if there is no terrorist attack--maybe, but certainly not a given at this point.

Second, they are assuming that Osama and Al Qaeda would rather have Kerry than Bush in the White House. Exactly how do these experts know that? These guys are all just guessing...even though they are guessing from the same party line script. They have about as much chance of knowing what Al Qaeda *really* thinks as they do knowing who will win the 2010 World Series.

My informal guess is that Al Qaeda probably likes Bush right where he is, in the White House. He is the perfect foil--he gives them worldwide coverage in every speech. He mentions their names, over and over again. He alienates our friends, and makes new enemies around the world with every blunder of our forces, every scandal about prisoner abuse. And our new enemies are potential friends of Al Qaeda.

He is their Great Satan, their rallying point. They don't want him replaced right now. He obviously hasn't hurt them as badly as he hoped.

If they are hoping to influence the election, my guess is that they would do something that would make Bush look strong and leader-like so that he DOES win re-election, such as NOT attacking us after he's said they might. Then they will continue to evade him, embarrass him and attack us worldwide. They would chose the enemy they know, over an enemy they don't know.

[clinthopson]

I think the Bushies would love a lil' old terrorist attack.

I also think they have Osamababy in cold storage and will spring him on the public after Labor Day.

[Ron Thorne]

Let's hope that we don't find out the answer to this hypothetical question.

I can't argue with most of your logic, Doug. However, there's been some conjecture today that Bush would have a more favorable rating (as a "protector") with most Americans should an attack occur, thus ensuring his re-election.

Apparently, the Justice Department has had knowledge of the information disclosed in the press conference today for over a month. Why make this information public today? Why not earlier? Seems like another month for Americans (and others) to be on the lookout for the pictured suspects would be beneficial to our cause.

[Groovehigh]

Bush would win, if there'd be new attacks.

[crawjo]

Very hard to say. Unfortunately, I think there will be an attack this summer, in the U.S, or maybe right before the elections.

I don't know if they like having Bush in office or not, but I think they *love* the idea of fucking with our electoral system. I think that they would get a power rush just out of scoring a big hit on U.S. soil and proving that they can manipulate the outcome of elections. From AQ's perspective, I'm not sure if they really care who the president of the United States is.

As far as what the influence on the election would be, I think it plays to Bush's advantage, because the public sees him as better at fighting terrorism than Kerry. I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment, but that's the way it is. I think the electorate's gut reaction would be to stick with a Republican if the U.S. was attacked.

The other possibility is that they might try to pull off an assassination attempt on Bush himself (or, for that matter, Tony Blair.)

These are very dangerous times.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I think the electorate's gut reaction would be to stick with a Republican if the U.S. was attacked.

I agree.

Has anyone seriously pondered what this administration would morph into if given a second term? Try to imagine Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, et al in office, not worrying about re-election (I'm sure Rice has aspirations beyond 2008, but Rumsfeld and Cheney couldn't care less. After a second term, they're hitting the tees, or whatever they do for fun).

[tippy]

I think a terrorist attack would help Bush get re-elected.

I witnessed a disturbing display of ignorance just last night in my neighborhood in Queens. I was crossing the street and these guys in a truck were stopped at the light, the passenger rolled down his window, I got a punky vibe from them and avoided their request for directions, but then I realized that they weren't talking to me anyway, but instead requesting directions from the two young Pakistani men standing on the corner and the passenger proceeded to ask, "Hey can you tell me how to get to the Taliban?" I had just passed the men on the corner and then I stopped in my tracks wondering whether I'd heard correctly or not, the men had the same sort of confused reaction, and the passenger asked again, "The Taliban. Can you tell me where the Taliban is?" I don't know what the men said as I was a few yards from them by now but I heard the asshole in the truck ask them, "Can you tell me where Osama Bin Laden is?" Anyway, thought of saying something but didn't because I thought it might not be my place and secondly, didn't know that having an exchange with rednecks was going to help anything anyway, so I just stood there and shook my head for a few moments. I still question whether I should have said something or not, but anyway that was discouraging to witness.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by tippy

I think a terrorist attack would help Bush get re-elected.

I witnessed a disturbing display of ignorance just last night in my neighborhood in Queens. I was crossing the street and these guys in a truck were stopped at the light, the passenger rolled down his window, I got a punky vibe from them and avoided their request for directions, but then I realized that they weren't talking to me anyway, but instead requesting directions from the two young Pakistani men standing on the corner and the passenger proceeded to ask, "Hey can you tell me how to get to the Taliban?" I had just passed the men on the corner and then I stopped in my tracks wondering whether I'd heard correctly or not, the men had the same sort of confused reaction, and the passenger asked again, "The Taliban. Can you tell me where the Taliban is?" I don't know what the men said as I was a few yards from them by now but I heard the asshole in the truck ask them, "Can you tell me where Osama Bin Laden is?" Anyway, thought of saying something but didn't because I thought it might not be my place and secondly, didn't know that having an exchange with rednecks was going to help anything anyway, so I just stood there and shook my head for a few moments. I still question whether I should have said something or not, but anyway that was discouraging to witness.

Nothing you could have said, Tip, but that was a disturbing window into the results of the daily planting of xenophobia and fear by the Bush Administration. Not unexpected, but very troubling.
The targets of that kind of ignorance stand out, by obviously being foreign, much the same way that Westerners stand out, by not being Iraqi, in Iraq. Maybe that's the lesson.

[tippy]

The chance is passed, but on second thought, I do wish I would have dispassionately asked these idiots to leave our neighborhood as an expression of loyalty to my community. We have large contingents of Greek, Cypriot, Russian, Ukranian (lots of former Soviet states), Pakistani, Bangladeshi that all manage to peacefully coexist. This truckfull were the foreigners.

[Jazzooo]

"Bush would win, if there'd be new attacks."

I hate to sound like a conspiracy nutcase, but how about this scenario:

The Bush administration, sensing the need to strengthen it's chances for re-election, makes an official announcement about possible terrorist attacks coming soon to a neighborhood near you. It's not that there is no threat--I think we all agree that there is always the threat and possiblity of more terrorist attacks on US soil--but pretend for a moment that there really isn't any truly compelling new data at this time (which might account for the vagueness in details, the questions about why this wasn't discussed sooner, or the refusal to elevate the color-coded warnings).

This way...if there IS no terrorist attack, Bush can say "We stopped 'em because they know we'll kick their asses if they attack us," which gets him the enhanced 'protector' status he would have gotten from an actual attack.

And if there is an actual attack, he can say 'It's not safe for America to switch leaders in the middle of this new crisis, and besides, you're not gonna let them think you're a bunch of pussies like Spain, are you?" and people would believe him.

Just random thoughts.

[Jazzooo]

Don't take this the wrong way, Tippy, but I too think you should have said something. I've done it myself in similar situations. It isn't that they learn anything from hearing me, but it's more about how I feel about myself...and the message it sends to the people who were getting harrassed. I remember how much hope it gave me when someone stood up for me as a kid when I was getting bullied. Don't worry--I'm sure you'll have other opportunities, unfortunately.

[tippy]

My worst random thought is that the election results will be "messed up" again. That was never resolved all the way, in my mind, as it should have been, which undermines the very foundation of our democracy. The Supreme Court did us a terrible disservice, the damage of which was too easily shuffled aside, in deciding for us. And it's looking like we're going to locked in another dead heat...

[tippy]

Jazzooo, I agree with you. I was flustered and admittedly had I acted last night, it would have come out in an angry manner and what confused me/held me back most was potentially appearing as a female defender of sorts which would not have been cool (in masochistic culture). But had I simply informed these people that they were not welcome here and should move along, I think that might have been a positive example of female expression.

[Jazzooo]

Wow, it wouldn't occur to me that speaking up as a female was anything other than dangerous, which would have been my first thought (and always is when I stand up to a rude person). I guess it helps to be a woman when figuring out all these angles!

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by tippy

Jazzooo, I agree with you. I was flustered and admittedly had I acted last night, it would have come out in an angry manner and what confused me/held me back most was potentially appearing as a female defender of sorts which would not have been cool (in masochistic culture). But had I simply informed these people that they were not welcome here and should move along, I think that might have been a positive example of female expression.

I understand your frustration and totally agree with the thrust of your last sentence, Tippy. Other things to always consider are (a) will it truly make a difference with these knotheads, and (b), am I placing myself in unnecessary physical danger by speaking up? In the heat of the moment we don't always think as clearly as we should. I'm speaking from personal experience, not assigning this characteristic to you.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Jazzooo

"Bush would win, if there'd be new attacks."

I hate to sound like a conspiracy nutcase, but how about this scenario:

The Bush administration, sensing the need to strengthen it's chances for re-election, makes an official announcement about possible terrorist attacks coming soon to a neighborhood near you. It's not that there is no threat--I think we all agree that there is always the threat and possiblity of more terrorist attacks on US soil--but pretend for a moment that there really isn't any truly compelling new data at this time (which might account for the vagueness in details, the questions about why this wasn't discussed sooner, or the refusal to elevate the color-coded warnings).

This way...if there IS no terrorist attack, Bush can say "We stopped 'em because they know we'll kick their asses if they attack us," which gets him the enhanced 'protector' status he would have gotten from an actual attack.

And if there is an actual attack, he can say 'It's not safe for America to switch leaders in the middle of this new crisis, and besides, you're not gonna let them think you're a bunch of pussies like Spain, are you?" and people would believe him.

Just random thoughts.

I don't think Bush would ever say that...If he did actually say that, the electorate would kill him for it. It would be political suicide. If there was an attack on the eve of elections, I think you would see a big show of unity between Kerry and Bush, with both saying that Americans should get out and vote, and not "let the terrorists win." I don't think either one would risk trying to use the attack for political gain. It would be incredibly stupid to do otherwise, in my opinion.

As for whether the administration might try and use fear of terrorism to their advantage in the scenario you describe above, I don't know. It's hard for me to say because I do believe the threat of an attack on U.S. soil is very real...and Madrid did set an ugly precedent for Al Qaeda and elections.

I guess I'm not that cynical. I tend to believe that most of the people working in the justice department are good people trying to do their jobs, and that if the higher ups started doing what you described above, i.e. raising warnings when there was no new intelligence, you'd see a lot of leaks to the media about how officials in the administration were overplaying the threat. I am sure that the Post, the Times, all have what they consider to be good contacts in the FBI, the CIA, that they trust to give it to them straight. If higher-level officials were playing on public fears to gain an edge in the election, these lower-level contacts would start talking to the press, (off the record, of course) and the strategy would backfire. That's what is good about having freedom of the press. So unless I read some report indicating otherwise, I am going to assume that these latest warnings are legitimate.

[kenny weir]

Originally Posted by crawjo

if the higher ups started doing what you described above, i.e. raising warnings when there was no new intelligence, you'd see a lot of leaks to the media about how officials in the administration were overplaying the threat. I am sure that the Post, the Times, all have what they consider to be good contacts in the FBI, the CIA, that they trust to give it to them straight. If higher-level officials were playing on public fears to gain an edge in the election, these lower-level contacts would start talking to the press, (off the record, of course) and the strategy would backfire. That's what is good about having freedom of the press. So unless I read some report indicating otherwise, I am going to assume that these latest warnings are legitimate.

I don't know about that at all, Crawjo. The NY Times apology re the war leadup lends new levels of scepticism to my already jaundiced view of the media role in all this mess. In the US, and very much in Australia, the media basically failed by being all to keen to run with what they were being told.

Both in the media and in your opinions on public servants and their pollie bosses - where and when would you be prepared to calll a crock a crock? - I am tending to think of you as an innocent.

[Dan G]

Not sure how another attack would affect the election, but the outcome of the election will probably affect the terrorist situation. If Bush wins, it would pretty well guarantee more attacks.

I think that because the president of the US is often refered to (by Americans, not anyone else) as the 'leader of the free world' those of us outside the US, who are greatly affected by your foreign policy, should also have a vote in the presidential election. You'd have one hell of a different country.

[john williams]

Originally Posted by Dan G

I think that because the president of the US is often refered to (by Americans, not anyone else) as the 'leader of the free world' those of us outside the US, who are greatly affected by your foreign policy, should also have a vote in the presidential election. You'd have one hell of a different country.

Excellent point Dan. Australia is sucked in to US foreign policy cock-ups regularly and Iraq is just the latest in a long line.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by kenny weir

I don't know about that at all, Crawjo. The NY Times apology re the war leadup lends new levels of scepticism to my already jaundiced view of the media role in all this mess. In the US, and very much in Australia, the media basically failed by being all to keen to run with what they were being told.

Both in the media and in your opinions on public servants and their pollie bosses - where and when would you be prepared to calll a crock a crock? - I am tending to think of you as an innocent.

I think "naive" is the word you are looking for.

I haven't yet read the NY Times apology, but I think in that case what you had was a disagreement within the intelligence community over how to interpret actual evidence. What I was saying was that if the higher-ups started saying they had new evidence when in fact there was NO NEW EVIDENCE, someone would blow the whistle.

EDIT: I just skimmed the NY Times piece. In it, they say that the most "problematic" articles were those that relied on Iraqi informants like Chalabi. That doesn't seem to address the Justice Department issue.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Dan G

Not sure how another attack would affect the election, but the outcome of the election will probably affect the terrorist situation. If Bush wins, it would pretty well guarantee more attacks.

I think that because the president of the US is often refered to (by Americans, not anyone else) as the 'leader of the free world' those of us outside the US, who are greatly affected by your foreign policy, should also have a vote in the presidential election. You'd have one hell of a different country.

Well, if nobody besides Americans thinks of the president as the leader of the free world, why should non-Americans get to vote? And does this mean that Americans can vote on the leader of your country? And can all the world vote on the leader of North Korea now? China? America is of course the most powerful country in the world in terms of its influence, but America is also impacted by the foreign policy of other nations. It is a two-way street.

[kenny weir]

Originally Posted by crawjo

America is of course the most powerful country in the world in terms of its influence, but America is also impacted by the foreign policy of other nations. It is a two-way street.

Ha! It's just that it's a lot narrower one than the other!

Australia is in the throes of entering into a so-called "free trade agreement" (geeez - talk about mangling/misuse of the language!) with the US. Of which the sceptics (of which I am definitely one) wonder: If this what they do for their friends, who needs enemies? I am especially cynical about what it may do to the availability and pricing of pharmaceuticals in Australia. As one wag put it last week, a free trade agreement should and could amount to about three paragraphs at most. This mother weighs in at 1000 or so pages. Smelly!

Originally Posted by Jazzooo

He obviously hasn't hurt them as badly as he hoped.

You may be right, Doug. But lets look at this in an honest way. How DO you "badly" hurt something like the al Qaeda? You may be able to track down certain members, even small factions through use of intel. But where do they live? Where are their headquarters?

It's like mosquitos, you know? After it rains, the folks drive around in their trucks with their sprayers spitting out noxious stuff into the air, and they often spray the surface of standing water as well. But guess what, still the mosquitos come, do they not? And if they suck on the right animals before they suck on you, you could die, or at least get real sick.

I think the al Qaeda have learned a lot from mosquitos.

Ugh, I've been readin too much Tippy lately.

Originally Posted by Crawjo

From AQ's perspective, I'm not sure if they really care who the president of the United States is.

Absolutely. They just plain ole hate the U.S. I would think that they don't view Kerry any differently than Bush, or any other American for that matter.

And I also agree that the "fact" that Kerry is soft on national defense is a bit overblown as well.

Originally Posted by Patricia

Nothing you could have said, Tip, but that was a disturbing window into the results of the daily planting of xenophobia and fear by the Bush Administration.

Ah, now you see, THIS is a great example of how far I've come in reforming myself as a poster here.

A few months ago I would have read this statement and immediately busted loose at the seams. I would have mocked Patricia, I would have cussed and yelled and used lots and lots of exclamation marks at the end of each sentence. I would have called her all sorts of unsavory names, and would have later received either a stern PM from Mone concerning my behavior, or may have enjoyed an all expenses paid vacation courtesy of the admin here.

But now I will only say this. Patricia, this is an incredibly insulting comment, and one that I feel is completely unfounded and a blatant case of simple mean spiritedness.

If you truly feel this way, then I think thats a shame. But I would like to know how you can defend this statement.

Originally Posted by Dan G

If Bush wins, it would pretty well guarantee more attacks.

All the al Qaeda attacks during the Clinton administration obviously weren't lost on you, eh Dan?

Once again, it doesn't matter WHO is President. If Chris A were President, we'd still be attacked. They hate us and want us dead, I didn't realize that was such a difficult premise.

Jazzooo, your conspiracy theories are well thought out. Although it doesn't change what they are.

It reminds me of my two favorites. The one that our good friend Clint already addressed in his first post, that they might already have Bin Laden and are just waiting until further into the election year to spring it on the American public.

The second being that "suddenly" WMD will be found in Iraq in mass quantities.

I can honestly tell you this, were either of these to happen, I would be the first in line to vote for Kerry. It would just be too obvious and blatant, and simply won't happen as far as I'm concerned. Even the most "hardcore Bushie" would have a hard time swallowing either of those scenarios as genuine.

[Dan G]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Well, if nobody besides Americans thinks of the president as the leader of the free world, why should non-Americans get to vote? And does this mean that Americans can vote on the leader of your country? And can all the world vote on the leader of North Korea now? China? America is of course the most powerful country in the world in terms of its influence, but America is also impacted by the foreign policy of other nations. It is a two-way street.

The rest of the world looks at the us president as the schoolyard bully who, thorough US foreign policy, imposing its values on the rest of the world. Would you want to vote for a Canadian gov't? Why? Very little we do (or most other countries, such as Australia or most Europeans) affect anything outside of out borders, whereas the US gov't takes it upon itself to make decisions that affect everyone. As for voting for who runs N. Korea, that's part of what your next election may be about. The last one was about who runs Iraq (and very little else, since GWB has a one track mind).

Would you kind folks from other countries give me some examples of how U.S. policy directly affects you and your countries?

I've heard this before, but I've always wondered about the specifics.

[kenny weir]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Would you kind folks from other countries give me some examples of how U.S. policy directly affects you and your countries?

I've heard this before, but I've always wondered about the specifics.

I don't have the time or the skills to lay it out in any detail, but just for starters ...

Australia, courtesy of the Howard government, has followed to the letter the whole Bush/Iraq game plan, without (many of us believe) really thinking it through for ourselves. This may be, at least in some part, because many Australians feel our allegiance with the US is of such overwhelming importance that it requires obediance rather than the robust, honest conversation of two good friends. This may also explain why Howard is in a helluva lot less trouble than Blair - in Europe/UK, they seem to feel less beholden to and dependant on the US.

On a more basic, bread-and-butter level - and less to do with foreign policy - Greenspan, the Federal Reserve and their various prognostications have a huge effect on our interest rates and ecomomy. And as a mortgage man, I can tell you for sure that that counts in very real ways.

I realise these aren't the sort of answers you are looking for. I believe the truth is - and thank you for making me think it through a little - the US DOES have a mammoth affect on how Australia and Australians behave and think, but there are nuances and complexities that are most likely beyond me to really nail down.

[kenny weir]

My instincts tell me that any AQ attack would be aimed at increasing the chances of Bush & Co staying in power.

Thanks Kenny.

I know you well enough to know that you aren't through with your answer to my question. But lets just say that the things you layed out for the most part has nothing truly to do with U.S. policy, but more to do with how your own leadership follows it. Lets point the finger in the proper direction here.

Lets look at it hypothetically. Lets say that Great Britain is the "leader of the free world"(whatever that means). Lets imagine that the U.S. government blindly followed whatever GB said and did. I would look like an enormous fool to sit here and blame GB for the direction MY country has gone in.

My country, as is yours, is perfectly capable of governing itself, is it not? I'm not fully aware of the founding and the history of your country, but I don't think it's intent was to follow others just for the hell of it.

Blame American policy if you want, perhaps thats exactly what your leaders want you to do.

If Australia allows us to govern them, then who's fault is that?

[kenny weir]

Yes, at least in the Iraq/terrorism - and there's an implied/accepted linkage that lies at the base of many frustrations and anger - the fault lies largely with the Australian government.

There has been much written and said in the past couple of years about the nature of true friendship, with those against the war and Bush saying Australia's obsequiousness and the US administration's perceived inability to brook dissension ("You're with us or against us") as being a real betrayal of the bond between our two countries.

Just as important, though, are the unseen, often pervasive and undefined ways in which US policy and - yes, I know I'm broadening the topic quite a bit here - culture, moral and ethical approach, trade policies and so on affect the rest of the world.

As you seem to sense, I'm being cautious - this is a topic that I suspect is difficult for anyone, either in the US or Australia/elsewhere, to explain or define.

That doens't mean it isn't happening, though.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Dan G

The rest of the world looks at the us president as the schoolyard bully who, thorough US foreign policy, imposing its values on the rest of the world. Would you want to vote for a Canadian gov't? Why? Very little we do (or most other countries, such as Australia or most Europeans) affect anything outside of out borders, whereas the US gov't takes it upon itself to make decisions that affect everyone. As for voting for who runs N. Korea, that's part of what your next election may be about. The last one was about who runs Iraq (and very little else, since GWB has a one track mind).

It doesn't seem fair that the rest of the world would see the U.S. as a bully. Despite our (many) mistakes, the U.S. has done a lot to advance the cause of human freedom in the last half-century; in Eastern Europe, Japan, and Germany to name three important examples. The Cold War wasn't so long ago, and back then I'm not sure if "the world" looked at the U.S. as a bully. In the last fifty years, American taxpayers have also sent an awful lot of money to other governments, and we spent a lot of money to rebuild Europe after WW II. Also, it seems to me that when the chips are down the "world" usually looks to the U.S. for leadership. Why was it the United States' responsibility to organize a coalition to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1990-1991? Why did it require U.S. action to end the genocide in Yugoslavia? If "the world" just wants the U.S. to retreat into its cave, why does it always seem to be waiting for the U.S. to do something when a problem arises?

EDIT: Do you honestly believe that the U.S. is looking to "run" North Korea? If the U.S. had imperalist aims, there would be no transfer of power in Iraq, and Canada would be our 51st state. Most Americans are strongly anti-imperialist. In fact, there is a strong strand of isolationism that runs through this country, and if it had become dominant in the 20th century, the world would have been an uglier place. It was U.S. intervention that ultimately proved decisive in both World Wars, and it was U.S. power that offered the only effective counterweight to Soviet-style communism.