We have to plant the seed - If there is a terrorist attack on the US

[zbdent]

(especially on the US soil)

then that represents a massive failure of Bush's policies of trying to protect the US from terrorism.

[kimchi]

1. Exactly.

If there is a terrorist attack, then we gave up our freedoms, our children's lives, and tons of money for nothing. George Bush is a miserable failure.

[michigandem2]

2. its so blatantly obvious if another attack

happens here...we ARE not safer..we are not protected and its time to get him out...but they will try to spin it as "see I told you so....we are in grave danger!" LOL!

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I agree fully

Following is a copy of a post I made on another thread about this. I am not saying another attack soon is inevitable or even likely, but it is certainly plausible that one could happen before Election Day. We can certainly fault this Administration for the way that they play politics with Terror Warnings, but we must also address their real current deficiencies in guarding America against an attack. Growing public awareness of Bush's failure to be adequately prepared prior to 9/11 put real dents in his National Security image armor. Now is the time to tarnish it again regarding our current state of readiness. While some may embrace theories that Republican operatives fabricate acts of Terror, I think we have real enemies who are not under the control of Bush's Administration. They will try to strike when they see fit, and we should position ourselves accordingly against that possible scenario.

"I think there is one area where we can not afford any delay in going negative on Bush, no matter what the overall strategy is. That is regarding his conduct of the War against Terror. There is one basic reason why I single this one area out. Events beyond our ability to manage could at any moment shut down all normal political discourse in this country. While I now think this election is Kerry's to win or lose, should a major terror attack occur on American soil the initiative will shift to Bush, and it will become his election to win or lose, depending on how he reacts and how the public then perceives his leadership, INDEPENDENT of any attempt by any Democrat to frame the issue for them in the wake of such an attack.

Terror is the Wild Card that can change how the Election deck is stacked, and I am not talking about stage managed fear jolts caused by shifting color codes or the releases of some new frightening information or disclosure of another Al Quada cell being broken. I am talking about the real thing, coordinated Al Quada attacks with large civilian casualties. Bush is not above playing the fear card to win an election, but Al Quada is independently and seriously all about the business of playing a genuine fear card on America. It doesn't matter if the probability of an Al Quada attack in America before Election Day is high or low, is is distinctly plausible, and it would, speaking of politics only for the moment, rip the ball right out of our hands. Any potential downside associated with attacking Bush now concerning his stewardship of domestic security is far outweighed by the fact that there may be a limited time window, due to factors beyond our control, during which we can directly attack him.

Should Terror strike before November, George Bush will become America's President again, not just a Republican incumbent running for reelection. He may be judged harshly, or he may be judged well, but Americans by and large won't be turning to Democrats or Republicans to inform those judgments. They will listen to Bush, turn to the media, and then to each other wherever people gather. If WE have points to make regarding Bush's efforts or lack of same to keep this country safe they have to be made before anything dramatic happens. Nothing may happen before the Election, but we can't know that. We can't know about next week.

There is so much ammunition Democrats can use against Bush in this area, but in the aftermath of a Terror strike the whole country will become a political no fire zone. The topic would be on everyone's minds, do we trust our President, but overt displays of partisanship would be the kiss of death. We have to lay the groundwork for the proper conclusions to be reached NOW, while that discussion is still politically acceptable."

[Imalittleteapot]

4. If there is an attack GWB will be re-elected.

Hogwash.

The seed is planted. No sensible person would come to any other conclusion but yours.

All of the attack hype is designed to make us think that GWB saved us from those evil doers, when the attack doesn't happen.:scared:

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. By most of our standards no sensible person will vote for Bush period

But we all know that tens of millions will anyway. How long did it take for a majority of people to not directly link Hussein with 9/11 despite the true facts being know for a year or more? I think the numbers would be close even today on that one.

If God forbid there were an attack, many people will not be reacting sensibly, they will react emotionally. Yes seeds of doubt have been planted about Bush and fighting Terror. Seeds of doubt have been planted about the economy also, and about the environment, and about all of the issues, but that doesn't mean we can stop the campaign now and just coast to victory. Like I said above, this is one issue where we possibly will not have control over when we can get our punches in, so we need to keep getting them in now.

I don't think it involves any fundamental change in strategy, it is a valid area of incompetence we should be hitting Bush on anyway even if we could somehow know there definitely will not be an attack. It is just prudent to be prepared. A terror attack is the only event that would significantly warp the nature of political coverage and restrict Kerry's ability to keep getting his own message out as planned.

[Redleg]

5. You are right.

Now how do we plant this seed so it will grow?

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Dig up all the ways Bush has short changed Homeland security...

...in order to give tax breaks to the Rich. For example , a while back, I think it was early this year, it came to light that in order to stay within their budget allotment for the fiscal year, major cutbacks were about to go into effect with the Air Marshall program, that would have taken Air Marshals off of many of the flights they had been flying. It would have quietly happened except some one caught it and brought it to the Press. Then of course the money was "found" to keep them flying at the same levels.

Bush has nickeled and dimed and dragged his heals funding all kinds of first responder initiatives. Clinton nailed him at the Convention over not allowing a small partial roll back of tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent of Americans that would have resulted in a $5,000 smaller refund going to them so that we could double the number of cargo containers entering our ports that get inspected.