If terrorist strike this september...
I was just watching Fox (It amuses me to see how much of a shill they are for the pubs) and Wallace suggested that Al Queda might try to have the same effect on our elections as they did with Spain by attacking just prior to Nov 4. Condi picked up the que and acted like that was a serious concern of the administration.
Is there even one single person here who believes that such a strategically timed terrorist strike would do anything but help Bush Nov 4th?
We Americans have a totally different mentality. Strike us, we strike back. About the only flak Bush might get is for not being able to stop it, but as a whole we are a reactionary country and I don't think it would stick.
Lastly, although I don't mean to suggest that the Bush administration would happily allow an attack to occur, it is an unaviodable conclusion that they are prepared to accept a certain amount of American deaths to further there cause. That is, after all, a necessary calculation in going to war, one that Bush must have made when he took us to war with Iraq.
Is there even one single person here who believes that such a strategically timed terrorist strike would do anything but help Bush Nov 4th?
We Americans have a totally different mentality. Strike us, we strike back. About the only flak Bush might get is for not being able to stop it, but as a whole we are a reactionary country and I don't think it would stick.
Lastly, although I don't mean to suggest that the Bush administration would happily allow an attack to occur, it is an unaviodable conclusion that they are prepared to accept a certain amount of American deaths to further there cause. That is, after all, a necessary calculation in going to war, one that Bush must have made when he took us to war with Iraq.
Comments
think of this now... georgie's policies enhance the draw of terrorist organizations, why would osama or some other group not want him to be re-elected?
g
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I was just watching Fox (It amuses me to see how much of a shill they are for the pubs) and Wallace suggested that Al Queda might try to have the same effect on our elections as they did with Spain by attacking just prior to Nov 4. Condi picked up the que and acted like that was a serious concern of the administration.
Is there even one single person here who believes that such a strategically timed terrorist strike would do anything but help Bush Nov 4th?
We Americans have a totally different mentality. Strike us, we strike back. About the only flak Bush might get is for not being able to stop it, but as a whole we are a reactionary country and I don't think it would stick.
Lastly, although I don't mean to suggest that the Bush administration would happily allow an attack to occur, it is an unaviodable conclusion that they are prepared to accept a certain amount of American deaths to further there cause. That is, after all, a necessary calculation in going to war, one that Bush must have made when he took us to war with Iraq.
when tony snow was host then you MAY have had a point about foxnews sunday being a shill, but wallice? a republican? if that were true, then his conversion woulda been all over the NYT to discredit him
Originally posted by a_greer
when tony snow was host then you MAY have had a point about foxnews sunday being a shill, but wallice? a republican? if that were true, then his conversion woulda been all over the NYT to discredit him
Wallace's complicity does surprise me, and I would leave it at that- complicity, although I honestly don't know his politics. Nevertheless, during the time I watched, he tossed up 2 softballs- one straight from the pub's PR machine trying to blame a democrat on the 911 council for the attack because she simply clarified a law already on the books that limited intelligence sharing (the equivalent of blaming Ashcroft for abortion, if you ask me). The second was the topic of the thread.
Fox news is laughable.
He has to make that point now, because he most likely won't be able to do it if an attack happens. Anything he says at that point in time would be used against him. And at that point he'll have to rely on the media to repeat his message if they're in a bash Bush mood.
He should put Bush on the spot, and enforce Bush's responsibility.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Lastly, although I don't mean to suggest that the Bush administration would happily allow an attack to occur, it is an unaviodable conclusion that they are prepared to accept a certain amount of American deaths to further there cause. That is, after all, a necessary calculation in going to war, one that Bush must have made when he took us to war with Iraq.
Uh, me thinks there's a slight difference between losing US soldiers in battle and having your grandma killed at the supermarket by a terrorist
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
Uh, me thinks there's a slight difference between losing US soldiers in battle and having your grandma killed at the supermarket by a terrorist
Ok, I'm not sure there's any way to quantify the value of one life over another here. I suppose as a society we accept that a soldier in some way accepts the risk of death, trusting his/her commander in chief wouldn't sacrifice his/her life on a war we didn't need to fight.
If you were to press me into judging what was more tragic I would have to go with the 18 yr old soldier who joined for college money over the grandmother who had lived a full life, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway, the point was that since Bush obviously calculated that the war in Iraq IS worth several hundred American lives. I don't think it's a stretch to believe he could rationalize the acceptability of a few civilian deaths if it would keep the war going (i.e. keep him in power).
Also, Bush clearly doesn't mind killing civiliians for many other reasons (denying funding for generic HIV drugs, denying funding to third world clinics because they offer abortions, executing people in texas despite questionable trials, preventing life saving cures by halting stem cell studies).
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Ok, I'm not sure there's any way to quantify the value of one life over another here. I suppose as a society we accept that a soldier in some way accepts the risk of death, trusting his/her commander in chief wouldn't sacrifice his/her life on a war we didn't need to fight.
If you were to press me into judging what was more tragic I would have to go with the 18 yr old soldier who joined for college money over the grandmother who had lived a full life, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway, the point was that since Bush obviously calculated that the war in Iraq IS worth several hundred American lives. I don't think it's a stretch to believe he could rationalize the acceptability of a few civilian deaths if it would keep the war going (i.e. keep him in power).
Also, Bush clearly doesn't mind killing civilians for many other reasons (denying funding for generic HIV drugs, denying funding to third world clinics because they offer abortions, executing people in texas despite questionable trials, preventing life saving cures by halting stem cell studies).
But Bush didn't calculate the loss of several hundred lives in Iraq. Rumsfeld said as much the other day during a press conference http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...2823-7145r.htm .
Remember these chuckle-heads expected a ticker-tape parade as they marched into Baghdad not people fighting us tooth and nail. They expected the Republican guard to simple surrender not to fade into the crowd and become guerrilla fighters.
I believe the admin didn't use sound judgment in invading Iraq, and that will come back to bite them should we have another attack. I don't think Kerry or the media will be cowed this time. I think if this does happen the question "Why did we go into Iraq when the bad guy was in Afghanistan?" will be raised. I don't think electing another official means the terrorists win either. I think it means we as a nation decided the current leadership needed to go for what ever reason. Hell, the admin stopped attacking Kerry's stance on national defense when McCain came to Kerry's rescue. That argument was wrested from Rove by two republicans.
Also, the 911 commission report is supposed to be released before the elections. The WH will probably try to hold onto it until after but I dare say public uproar will cause them to change their tune on yet another issue. I don't think the report will be favorable to either the Bush or Clinton admins; however, Clinton is long out of office so the only person who will truely be troubled will be Bush.
This idea that we can't change leadership following an attack is simplistic. If Bush is running on a national defense platform then he should, and will, be held to task should we be attacked again.
The average bus bombing or small scale attack will do nothing to Bush because no President will ever be able to stop that kind of thing, short of making this a true police state (headed that direction anyway, but that's another story).
A VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY IS A VOTE FOR BIN LADEN
Rinse and repeat:
A VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY IS A VOTE FOR BIN LADEN
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Ok, I'm not sure there's any way to quantify the value of one life over another here. I suppose as a society we accept that a soldier in some way accepts the risk of death, trusting his/her commander in chief wouldn't sacrifice his/her life on a war we didn't need to fight.
If you were to press me into judging what was more tragic I would have to go with the 18 yr old soldier who joined for college money over the grandmother who had lived a full life, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway, the point was that since Bush obviously calculated that the war in Iraq IS worth several hundred American lives. I don't think it's a stretch to believe he could rationalize the acceptability of a few civilian deaths if it would keep the war going (i.e. keep him in power).
Also, Bush clearly doesn't mind killing civiliians for many other reasons (denying funding for generic HIV drugs, denying funding to third world clinics because they offer abortions, executing people in texas despite questionable trials, preventing life saving cures by halting stem cell studies).
Wow... I mean WOW.
Not able to see the difference in the life of a soldier in a war zone and your grandma shopping for groceries is very scary to me.
I suppose we should institute a manditory draft fro everyone 55 and up. Send them to Iraq to fight, they got nothing to loose right?
I will say it again... WOW.
Originally posted by Moogs
I think if it were a massive attack like 9/11.. particularly one of the types that has been written and talked about to death since 2001 (i.e. the type we've had plenty of chance to prepare for)... it would hurt Bush badly. And rightly so.
The average bus bombing or small scale attack will do nothing to Bush because no President will ever be able to stop that kind of thing, short of making this a true police state (headed that direction anyway, but that's another story).
Exactly my thoughts.
Originally posted by Aquatic
In an intelligent country Bush should be run out on a rail if they attack again. Know where all those Arab Language Army units are? In Iraq. Know where all Al Quaeda is/was before we attacked Iraq? Afghanistan. Know where OBL and the boys planning attacks are? Not where most of our Arab Language units are...They're in Afghanistan, we're in Iraq making money for Dick Cheney and Halliburton.
Boy! Then I guess it's a good thing that those left-over non-Arabic language Units, you know the ones that speak Dari, Pashto, and Farsi, are in Afghanistan and not vice versa. I mean, imagine how silly it would be to have the "Arab Language Army Units" in Afghanistan where hardly anybody speaks Arabic. Good thing they're in Iraq instead where the people actually speak Arabic, Farsi, and Kurdi. Whew! We sure got lucky there! [/END SARCASTIC RANT]