Wolf cry noted (not OUR wolf)
 

US News: Suspicions about a new terrorist attack have U.S. spies scrambling

Funny how the threat of an attack has the same effect as the attack itself - just diluted.

Every time I read a story like that, it reminds me not to take the subway and to only go to the Mall on off hours and to update the survival kits in the cars.

And since Al Queda basically determined the outcome of the elections in Spain, I'm wondering which candidate they would like to see in the White House next January and what means they will use to accomplish their goal. Seems if they were to lay low and "let the US win" for a while then people would feel safer which, I think, would tip the scales in Kerry's favor. If they attack us on our own soil again (before the election), Bush wins easily. I think Al Queda's Spain strategy would backfire in the US but wonder if they won't try it anyway.

Since November 2002, Al Qaida has known they can effect an election. Like Spain, the real question is how the government reacts to Al Qaida.

Funny how the threat of an attack has the same effect as the attack itself - just diluted.

This would be why I don't listen to the alerts, anymore. Useless, non-specific alerts do nothing more than disrupt normal, daily life -- just like terrorism. I also won't hesistate for a moment to say that I think there is a strong possibility that the government issues these alerts to keep the public scared.

Every time I read a story like that, it reminds me not to take the subway and to only go to the Mall on off hours and to update the survival kits in the cars.

Remember the alert about driving over bridges? Malls over the halloween holiday? Stolen UPS uniforms? Stolen emergency vehicles used as bombs? Suicide bombers on busses? I'm curious to know what precautions you took during those alerts.

Alerting the public doesn't do one ounce of good other than to cover the fed's ass when something does happen. These alerts do absolutely nothing for public safety.

he information pointed to two, perhaps three, targets, the sources say: New York, Washington, and Las Vegas.

Planned on going to Vegas next month, still going to Vegas next month. And I'm going to have a kick-ass time out there, too.

The overwhelming majority in Spain opposed their governments participation in Iraq. But International issues rarely contribute to how voters vote. But when an international issue created a domestic one - Madrid train bombing that resulted in a blundered attempted government coverup - then Spanish public suddenly discovered good reason to eliminate the current administration.

Bombing alone was not so much an influence. The government tried to get Basque separatists blamed for the attack when basic evidence clearly pointed to an Islamic terrorist organization. A government blunder that put the final straw on an angry public's back. Within 48 hours, obvious the Madrid train attack was Islamic terrorists. But the administration still tried to claim that Basque terrrorist *might* have done it. That lie was too much even for the man in the street who never reads news. Primary blame should mostly be applied to a government that screwed themselves out of office. They so feared a public backlash against the government for that bombing, that they instead created a public backlash by lying.

"Since Spain," says a Bush administration official, "al Qaeda has had the feeling of 'We can do this. We can affect an election.' "

So, what is Bush implying with this line? That Al Qaeda wants to terrorize the US so that people will vote for Kerry?

That's what I understood him to say, yes.

That's what I understood him to say, yes.

Nice. I love the underlying message in this terror alert: "A vote for Kerry means you are giving into the terrorists' demands!"

"It's not just the official [terrorist] websites but also the chat rooms and Web forums," says Gabriel Weimann, a scholar in residence at the U.S. Institute for Peace.

Can someone please point me to one of these "official terrorist websites"? I've been looking all over, including for the one that originally distributed the beheading video and I haven't had any luck at all...

It doesn't really matter what the Spanish voters thought. It only matters what the terrorists thought the Spanish voters thought. If they were convinced they made a difference, and one can't imagine it would convince them otherwise -- then they will believe they can influence an election, which makes it more likely they will try.

If you google "official terrorist website" this comes up first.

then they will believe they can influence an election, which makes it more likely they will try.

If they influence the election, what good does it do? The implied message is that the terrorists are planning to swing the election out of favor for Bush. If Kerry gets elected, how are the terrorists going to be treated any differently? How will the middle east change? We already know that Kerry isn't going to treat Iraq much differently than the plans Bush has for it.

I believe a successful or attempted or perhaps even a threatened terrorist attack on the US would/will work to raise Bush's numbers. Perhaps the "administration official" does too. That's what happened before. The fear factor would squelch the change factor.

You are looking at it too myopically. It really does not matter what the terrorist thought. After all, Allah wanted the electios of his man - not George Jr's. So he told those terrorists that god is great. Therefore terrorists understood to go after the non-believer in one of god's nations to show god how great he is. And so the great nation of god in Spain voted just as god wanted.

IOW, UT, I too can manipulate facts just like Rush Limbaugh. Irrelevant. The only relevant factor in Spain is what the Spanish people thought. And lets not forget that George Jr, god's choosen president, was also told by god to manipulate Spanish elections by invading Iraq .......

Or we could suddenly be logical and say the only thing that mattered in the Spanish presidental elections were the voters.

I was talking about this with my husband last night, and he brought up an interesting point--perhaps Al Qaeda might actually WANT Bush to get re-elected.

Stay with me here: if Kerry is elected, he will make some quick apologies to the world for what's been going on for the last four years, and begin "cleaning things up." Reality is, like Kitsune said, things won't progress much differently than they would have under Bush, but with a new face and a promise of change, I suspect forgiveness will be broad and a lot of anti-US sentiment will settle down in the non-Middle-Eastern parts of the world.

I think an ideal situation for Al Qaeda would be Bush still in the White House, but opposing leaders in every other country. Then, any further attacks on the US would be met with much more of the "you brought it on yourselves" attitude worldwide, and with another attack or two, where America has no international support AT ALL in fighting back, US policy towards Israel, etc. might actually begin to change (Al Qaeda hopes anyway.) More likely than Israeli policy changing under Kerry, I think.

a lot of anti-US sentiment will settle down in the non-Middle-Eastern parts of the world.

It didn't start with Bush and it won't end with Bush's departure, whenever that happens.

But see, that's a projection on your part. (I mean projecting as in projecting what you want to see on the situation.)

If we want to think about how a hypothetical terrorist attack on the US affects the November election, let's start by dividing the voters into a few camps and analyzing how the terrorist attack changes their votes.
[list=1][*]Democratic Loyalists. These people voted for Gore in 2000. They've been determined to vote against Bush ever since. It's hard to imagine what could make them vote FOR Bush, and a terrorist attack certainly won't do it. That would only confirm the belief of these voters that Bush has mishandled our foreign policy.[*]Republican Loyalists. These people elected Bush in 2000, and they'll do their damndest to elect him again in 2004. While some of them may have doubts about the current situation, they have no doubts that democrats are spineless pansies who lack the fortitude to defend America. A terrorist attack does not put these people in the mood to hand the oval office to Kerry.[*]Democratic Swing Voters. These people are pretty much democrats, but they can be convinced to vote Republican if they believe democrats who are in power are going in the wrong direction, or that republicans in power are doing a good job. Polling evidence suggests that, at least at the moment, these people don't feel Bush is doing a good job, so their natural tendency to vote Democrat in the absence of mitigating factors will probably hold. A terrorist attack is unlikely to convince people overnight that Bush is doing a good job.[*]Republican Swing Voters. Just like category 3, these voters are Republicans, but they can cast Democratic ballots under duress. One interesting question is how likely these people might be at this moment to vote against Bush. Barring a big change in Kerry's perceived positives, I feel these voters are more likely to sit home than actually vote for Kerry. A terrorist attack may scare them into voting for Bush if they buy into the "strong leader" meme, but again, a lot of polls suggest discontent in the ranks and it's not impossible that these folks wouldn't see an attack as the final straw for their increasing discontent.[*]Undecided Voters. I have to admit, I personally find it hard to believe this particular group really exists in great numbers, in spite of what they may tell the pollsters. But assuming they do exist, I don't think it's a lock which way an attack pushes them in terms of voting.[/list=1]
Feel free to poke holes in my analysis (if you can dignify it by calling it such), but from where I sit a terrorist attack is highly unlickely to change the way anybody will vote.

I'm in group 5. Today, I'm planning to vote for Kerry. A large terrorist attack in the US, pre-election, would probably sway my vote.

from where I sit a terrorist attack is highly unlickely to change the way anybody will vote.

I'm not so sure about that. I think if/when we have another terrorist attack that there will be another surge of "patriotism" and further backing of the US involving itself in the Middle East. Even the Nick Berg indicident caused the local radio stations to flood with callers demanding the public stop "whining about the war and get back to supporting our troops and fighting terror". For a few days, people were even shouting that we should continue to torture the Iraqis.

I agree with UT: it doesn't matter who is elected in this race, what is going on will continue.

I assume the only reason you'd change your mind would be because you thought a second Bush administration offered more protection against future attacks and/or more thorough retaliation against the perps. Is that an accurate assumption? If so, what is that belief based on?

Absolutely, but that doesn't lead indisputably to a vote for Bush. 2 years ago, sure. But I think that at the moment that enough doubts have surfaced about the Bush team's performance that "patriotism" will not be enough to make those who are going to vote against Bush change their minds. Let's face it, everybody who subscribes to the school of thought that Kerry is soft on terrorism is already voting for Bush. This whole morbid calculus that I'm engaging in isn't about who's voting for whom, it's about who can be convinced to change their vote.

Q.E.D. :(

I missed it UT. Sway in what direction? Away from Kerry or away from Bush?
Any big incident is going to play if big enough and visual enough. Finding Osama, an attack by anyone on anyone, a new management scandal, a viable Iraq government...

UT, you are a thoughtful, attentive undecided voter. (And to any others who may fit this bill.) What has led you to support Kerry at this point? I know you supported the humanitarian and WMD justification for Iraq. And the bigger goal of reimagining the Mid East. I think you support Bush's economic plans, right? And there seem to be upturns... For you, what has been the most damaging to your previous support of Bush policy? What events have swayed you recently? Have the culture wars been a factor? I'm curious how the gay marriage issue will be played.

I would like to protect America from the rising storm, but if it doesn't resemble America to start, what's the point? The turning point to me was the over-reach of a constitutional amendment actively denying rights to homosexuals for a purely political play. Don't even try to change the document that defines what America is, to use it to take rights away.

The failure to keep the public on target wrt the war on terror is a leadership failure. Some of this comes down to: are we in a war or aren't we? The right is claiming all sorts of reach on the basis that we're at war - but at the same time, putting Tommy Chong in jail? Addressing steroids in sports? Going to fucking Mars? Letting Ashcroft run anything? Going into deficit spending to make political gains? No, if we're really at war, these things are nonsense.

Then there are all sorts of policy oddities such as defunding No Child Left Behind. I don't get it. We admit public education is failing, we have tried funding it better and that didn't work, so we decide to reform it - and then de-fund parts of the reforming? I don't get it.

Economically speaking the spending is what's really alarming. I do not believe the "tax cuts for the rich" are all bad at all -- the dividends approach was getting rid of a "double taxation" and healthy for the market and good for investors, and the capital gains tax was always dumb. But continuing to spend during these cuts and/or during a war? You can't do that! If you're going to spend for political purposes, you should lose the voters who care about economic responsibility.

I think that Kerry faced with a Republican house might be the best of both worlds, where the basically Conservative house keeps spending in check while a basically Liberal president makes hard decisions about priorities and nominates the Supremes.

I think it would be interesting if the Ds reformed along the lines of economic responsibility. I know the progressive argument is that people should enjoy being taxed up the wazoo, well, *my* progressive argument is that a better government could do everything this one tries to do with about half the money, if it did a better job of it. Look at what privatization did for the cities. Look how welfare reform didn't lead to starving welfare moms like y'all thought it would. We had an economic boom instead!

BUT, all that said, I gues protecting the country is still the first priority -- but Kerry wants to turn too much of that job over to the UN. Still, if there isn't another attack it means that ironically Bush can afford to be replaced - because enough of the WoT has already been won?

I dunno, it's pretty hard to figure.

The medicare debaucle is pretty wierd too. The gov actuary was suppressed, the infoganda used- illegal?, the 3 hour, Rep led high pressured vote...a gaggle of pissed AARP members can sway an election if they peak before November.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I beleive John Ashcroft and those that think like him are a bigger long-term threat to life and liberty in the U.S. than any terrorist. Anyone that is willing to systematically deny U.S. citizens and other humans "certain inalienable rights" in thier zeal to hunt the target of their obsession is doing more damage to this country than good for it.

Steering back sort of on topic...But it was the 911 attacks and the fear wave that enabled, swayed support for the Patriot act and Ashcrofts powers. The national reaction to attack has, formerly, been to "get tough" "bring em on". I think, even in light of the recent Bush slide, that if there was a renewed wave of homeland fear, revisiting Us vs. Them, it would actually serve to rally Bush not Kerry.

Right, and then the medicare, it turned out to cost some $60B more than it was going to...? Or some amount? After the fact? "Oops oh my it's going to cost 30% more, we only just now figured that out, sorry." What kind of crap is that?

NeoCon economic policy is virtually an oxymoron, it emobdies the worst excesses of greed, heartlessness and shortsightedness not to mention short term political gain and the cost of long term fiscal viability. The thing is, so far the US has been lucky, damn lucky, Asian central banks have had a varocious desire for US treasury bonds, particularly japan to keep their own currencies in check. In the short term, Japan is looking up and it`s odd (but effective) system of basically printing money and buying bonds with it (little more complicated in that but if you boil it down..) is coming to an end and as asian currencies float in the longer term, demand for US bonds will plummet. Yeilds are going to have to rise and servicing that debt is only going to get more and more painful.

Internal financial planning appears to be little more than a poitical sham, this admin has taken the nazi philosophy to propaganda - if you`re gonna lie, you may as well go the whole hog. God help the poor bastard who has to try and clear the mess up afterwards.

Most parts of the Patriot II act that was shelved, are wending their way through Congress right now, as separate articles attached to other legislation.

Sure, Kerry is ROMAN Catholic. Everybody knows the Romans killed Jesus Christ, one of the more famous Jews.;)

Increasing the chance, and at least the feeling, that it was strictly a political thing.

The threat level was not raised because they neglected to tell Tom Ridge. That very morning Tom was on TV playing down the threat. Stinks of politics for sure.:(