If George W. Bush was running five points ahead (or more) three days prior to the election here, and God forbid there was an attack accompanied by terrorist warnings that this was reciprocity for Iraq, would it turn the election around for the less popular party (as it apparently turned the election around in Spain)…or would it cause Bush to win by an even wider margain?
PAD
• 
i think bush would win by a strong surge if there were a terrorist attack
but i think kerry has a chance as it stands right now
i have been wondering the terrorist plan is to attack allies in the war to make the US markets panic over a possible attack here in the states
a weakened economy means a defeat for bush
As a direct result of Iraq? Kerry in a landslide. Any other terror attack? Bush by a landslide.
But I’m one of those who thinks the administration will pull the Bin Laden rabbit out of their hat sometime in October, so…
Whether it is the right decision or not I say Bush wins huge when the big event hits three days before the election. I mean there is a past history of Americans sticking to the president and party during war (Lincoln & FDR for two if not others).
God bless America that either candidate is the right choice.
alex
It wasn’t Spains backing of the war that caused the governments defeat, it was there attempt to cover up the identity of the bombers. Within hours of the bombs going off the Spanish Prime Minister said it was clear that there was only one suspect: eta and that there was clear evidence to prove this. Of course this was nonsence, just like the clear evidence about wmd. Only this time time the truth came out faster than the government could spin and they were caught attempting to misslead there nation for political end. This is a crime that no government can ever be forgiven for and they were duely punished. Now however if the spanish prime minster had come out and said something along the lines This is why we went to war against terror, we must harden our resolve. terror/evil will never defeat freedom we will prevail. then i suspect they would have had a landslide victory
i also suspect that Bush would not hesitate to blame islamic groups if the same was to happen n the states. so i doubt he would be defeated in the same way as in Spain.
As a direct result of Iraq? Kerry in a landslide. Any other terror attack? Bush by a landslide.
Iraq would just be an excuse. Our enemies attacked us way before us going into Iraq and even if we pulled out, they still will attack us. It’s their way or no way.
Yeah, I love this new reason terrorists have for attacking people.
“We did it to avenge Iraq!” – Iranian Terrorist
“Oh! Whew! We understand! Ðámņ you America!”- The world
I’am from Madrid. Peter Sutton words are not true.
Vote in Spain was marked with Iraq War. A lot of people was against that war. (Not 90% like someone previously say, but more likely 60%).
Prime Minister don’t talk of any group. He only said “Terrorist Group”. Interior Minister was the one who said at first that all indicates that was Basque terrorist group ETA the responsable.
ETA has been the only terrorist group in Spain in more than 30 years. They have killed more than 850 people in those years. One ETA group was caught with half a ton of explosive in February and another was caught IN CHRISTMAS EVE when they have already set a bomb in one train in Madrid. JUST like happened last 11-M.
So it was logic to think it was ETA. And Interior Minister report the hints that leads to Al-Qaeda as soon as they were encountered. There were no cover up.
The oposition blame the goverment to be responsable of the attack for supporting Iraq War.
And THAT was what makes them win the elecction in my opinion.
There are Al-Qaeda reports that indicates that hitting Spain would lead them to retire their troops. And that would bring much pressure to Tony Blair, and it will be like domino.
Forgive my english.
As a european living in America I’ve been wondering about all that. What I don’t understand are the people that have an opinion, and then change that opinion over a single headline. If you support either Bush or Kerry now, why on earth would another attack of any kind change your mind on either of these men? We know the situation by now and we should have an opinion by now.
“Bush knew about 9-11 beforehand and let it happen to push war” or “Kerry former Nazi”….THAT would be headlines to change your mind over. But the merest sliver of useless info that changes nothing about the world situation as we know it seems to alter the general opinion.
The polls (dubious as they are)switch back and forth per newsbyte. Are so many people so uninformed, stupid and malleable??
Sadly Arco it seems yes… so many people are malleable and uninformed. Lots of people still think there one or more terrorists on the planes of 9-11 were from Iraq and were ordered there by Saddam. Many for some reason see Saddam and Osama as bosom buddies as was depicted in a recent tabloid cover. Most people here it seems don’t think for themselves anymore and are swayed by misinformation and lack of understanding.
Whats more interesting to me though is this sort of political world war now going on between the liberal and consevative governments around the world. In one corner… Bush, Blair and company… in the other Kerry and his undisclosed foreign government supporters (Germany, France, Spain now maybe?)
But in the end… at election time… I sadly forsee Bush winning… Its hard to loose with Voting Machines made by freind with no papertrail to back up the vote…
Not to argue with “mi hermano” from Spain (I’m Portuguese), but my understanding is that *YES*, it was the (former) Spanish government’s handling of the attack that caused their defeat in the elections (and bravo to the Spanish people for flocking to the election boots, unafraid of exercising their right to vote in a Democracy). In the beginning, I agree, you couldn’t be blamed for pointing the finger at ETA – they’re murderous fanatics and just some time ago had planned something of this very nature. But come *thursday* the clues started to pile up and the evidence was too much to ignore – except, of course, the Spanish Defence Minister did just that, and said he was “morally convinced” it was ETA – the most convenient position for the Government, of course.
And before people claim that Zapatero’s vow to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq is an Al’Qaeda victory… Just remember, this was an electoral promise from the socialists, long before the bombings. Spanish opposition to this misguided, unfortunate, dangerous Iraq war was enormous. As it was here in Portugal, and unfortunately our PM chose to ignore the people’s opinion and side with the US against the UN. Now, in three months time, the European Soccer Championship is being held here, and we’re a target. Make no mistake – already on September 11th 2001, I was one of those that said, “bomb Afhganistan and get these murderers” – it made sense, they were *there*, it was a legitimate target in fighting terrorism. Iraq was a mistake – Saddam fell, yes, and THAT was the single good to come out of it. But to what price…? How much hatred of the US and the West is being groomed there? How probable is it that the region is marching for a civil war? Who doubts now that there were no WMD there as Blix said all along, that the GREAT MENACE defended by Bush and croonies was a lie – or, at best, a self-illusion by incompetent faith-driven fools?
To answer Peter David’s question, my opinion is that an attack on American soil shortly before November would aid Bush, not Kerry. If Al’Qaeda is smart and wishes to harm Bush’s standing, they’ll do something big, yes – but in *Iraq*, not the US.
My fellow Americans – because though I’m not American, we share so much in culture, values and history – do yourselves and the world at large a favour – come November, vote Kerry. Can’t be worse than what you have now.
And now for something completely different: mr. David, your writing has on many occasions gave me the oportunity to laugh out loud, to do some serious thinking, to marvel at the power of words. You wrote too many good stories for me to pick a favourite… But I remember an issue of “Web of Spider-Man”, I think – Spidey saves guy from being run by a truck, the Bugle writes a terrible story of it. The whole story is about analysing the several points of view of the main event and their distortions. Ends with Spiderman loosing his cool, barging into Jonah’s office and coming this close to beating him to a pulp. Fantastic stuff. Thanks for it -and lo, all those many other stories.
Pedro
As a european living in America I’ve been wondering about all that. What I don’t understand are the people that have an opinion, and then change that opinion over a single headline. If you support either Bush or Kerry now, why on earth would another attack of any kind change your mind on either of these men? We know the situation by now and we should have an opinion by now.
Two reasons. One, in the middle of a crisis, you don’t necessarily want to switch “captains,” even if you wish you could during a less volitable time. Second, (and this I think is even a greater factor), a terrorist attack would inspire more people to hit the voter booth than normal. And unless there is something the imply the president fell down on the job, it would probably rally more people to vote for him. (I think if a terrorist attack hit a month before the election, it would hurt him, because after the shock has past, people would be bringing up accusations that he failed to protect us. On the other hand, if the gov’t manages to prevent a terrorist attack right before the election, it would probably boost Bush in the polls.)
As a european living in America I’ve been wondering about all that. What I don’t understand are the people that have an opinion, and then change that opinion over a single headline. If you support either Bush or Kerry now, why on earth would another attack of any kind change your mind on either of these men? We know the situation by now and we should have an opinion by now.
Two reasons. One, in the middle of a crisis, you don’t necessarily want to switch “captains,” even if you wish you could during a less volitable time. Second, (and this I think is even a greater factor), a terrorist attack would inspire more people to hit the voter booth than normal. And unless there is something the imply the president fell down on the job, it would probably rally more people to vote for him. (I think if a terrorist attack hit a month before the election, it would hurt him, because after the shock has past, people would be bringing up accusations that he failed to protect us. On the other hand, if the gov’t manages to prevent a terrorist attack right before the election, it would probably boost Bush in the polls.)
Hey sorry my message got thrown up there twice; the computer lied to me. (Life is bad when inanimate objects lie to you.)
But I’m one of those who thinks the administration will pull the Bin Laden rabbit out of their hat sometime in October, so…
Not Oct, but right in the middle of or right after the Democratic convention. If it happened in the middle of the convention, the news wouldn’t even show Kerry’s acceptance speech and if it happened in either place, it would kill the momenteum that comes out of the convention.
My gut reaction is that it would help Bush but so much may depend on the nature and magnitude of the attack. Imagine a bioattack days before the election, making people afraid to leave their homes. Or hearing on election day that several dozen polling places have been destroyed by suicide bombers. I think Americans would support the president if they had time, after the initial shock, to get pìššëd, but there may not be that time.
Now given this, does Kerry do the wise political thing and begin, right now, to anticipate such an event by defining any future attack on U.S. soil as evidence of failure for the administration? Even though such statements would practically be gold leafed invitations to Al Queda to do that very thing?
It will already be Bush in a landslide, but any attack will only help him and rally American’s behind him.
What’s the alternative? A guy who looks like Lurch who would cede all of America’s armies to the U.N. who couldn’t take any kind of action if their lives depended on it. He’s already admitted to raising taxes on people who make over $200k and people still cheer for him.
“Are so many people so uninformed, stupid and malleable??”
Arco, do you really need to ask?
Back in the late 80s, Canada was looking at making some changes to its Constitution. The provincial premiers were, as always, angling for MORE POWER. After a long, arduous process, an ‘entente’ was reached in the wee hours of the morning. It came to be known as the Meech Lake Accord – from the lovely lake next to which the sessions were held.
After a year, the Accord would be ratified by the premiers and that would be that. Except that, by then a couple of premiers had been voted out, and Canadians had a better look at the fine print and … well, it started to come unravelled and it looked very much as though the ratification would not occur after all (and, mercifully, that’s exactly what eventually happened – it did a richly deserved crash-and-burn). Which would effectively kill the deal.
The closer we came to the deadline, the more people in the province of Quebec started crying “foul” about the change of heart. In fact, a poll showed that 62% of people in that province felt the province should separate if the Accord fell through.
The relevant and interesting thing about that being that the very next day another poll showed that 52% of the people in that province didn’t even know what the Accord was about.
But, hey, “Let’s separate anyway” says they.
Yes, people can indeed be that ignorant and easy to manipulate. Feh.
I think it’s a hard call. If another terrorist attack were to occur, I think some people would blame Bush for his reckless actions in Iraq for bringing terror upon us once again. On the other hand, support for him could become more vocal among those that already support Bush, which could sway some undecided, vaguely disinterested voters.
On a completely unrelated topic, did you all know a bill was just introduced in the House that would allow Congress to overturn decicions made by the Supreme Court?
Now, it’s still in committee, but still… that’s scary.
Hello, everybody. I’m from M
If I was in Bush’s campaign (assuming I sold my soul to hellboy) I would fake an attack on the man himself ala FAMILY GUY when Peter fought the Chicken. A nice slugfest between the President and an unnamed assasin as they rolled over cars and fought over bridges might be the thing he needs to seal the deal. After the fight he would stand over the terrorist and say his catch phrase “The W stands for Whupass, suckah”
Perhaops one of the Constitutional scholars could answer this better, but doesn’t the Constitution already provide a way for Congress to overrule the Supreme Court as part of the whole “Checks & Balances” system? And I don’t mean just a Contitutional amendment…
Well, eight months from now, we’ll know for sure. The attack HAS been planned. Along with the planned “surprise” capture of Osama bin Laden, who has been captured and is being “groomed” for his official appearance.
The Bushies (not to say Bush, who’s too stupid to know how) found out how easy it is to steal a national election in 2000. We’ll have a repeat performance of their tawdry little drama in 2004, complete with incompetent, fraudulent computer ballots “delivered to the President,” as the computer maker bragged.
Your only hope to have a vote cast for anyone but Bush is to cast an absentee ballot in advance. Probably safer, too, especially for black people who were hustled, cheated and ejected from the polls in 2000.
I’ve turned this around in my head a hundred times already, and much as I hate to admit it, I can’t seem it doing anything but helping Bush. As some news analysts have pointed out after the bombings in Spain, the people would rally around their head of State but hold their head of government accountable. In America, our head of government and head of state are one in the same, so the people would rally around him in the short terms and hold him accountable later on. At that point, Bush would already be re-elected and it would be too late.
Personally, the conspiracy nut part of me wouldn’t be too surprised if recent reports on Iranian TV turned out to be true and bin Laden is already in custody somewhere and is put on ice for a pre-election reveal. Paranoid? Yeah, four years of a Bush White House will do that to you.
There’s an important question I haven’t heard anyone ask yet.
Was the election won because more people of the Socialist Party voted, or was it because people crossed party lines?
I suspect that more Socialist turned out than were expected. A five-point margin isn’t that difficult to overcome. Also, I would question the polling process and determine how accurate they are.
Hello, i’m from Madrid and i have voted Socialist, i haven’t voted them because i blame Aznar of terrorist attack, i have decided my vote months ago. I think the key of socialist victory isn’t that PP voters have changed their oppinion, is that after the bombs the level of participation has beeen really high, right voter always participate (almost in Spain) but left voter usually don’t participate, in Spain a lot of people go to vote as an act against terror so the left wins because people that in other case won’t vote voted them. I think that is a important factor but i know that also some right voter coul have changed theri minds
On a completely unrelated topic, did you all know a bill was just introduced in the House that would allow Congress to overturn decicions made by the Supreme Court?
Now, it’s still in committee, but still… that’s scary.
Congress already has that power. It’s called a Constitutional Amendment. Because technically all the Supreme Court can do is to declare something “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” and to uphold or not uphold a lower court’s ruling.
Congress isn’t likely to get a bill passed to overturn the Court’s decisions since that in itself would be struck down as “unconstitutional” and rightly so. It’s also not likely to get an Amendment ratified, (much harder to get than a bill) since in effect, you would be eliminating one of the governmental checks and balances now in place.
“Well, eight months from now, we’ll know for sure. The attack HAS been planned. Along with the planned “surprise” capture of Osama bin Laden, who has been captured and is being “groomed” for his official appearance.”
Good heavens! You should send your proof to the media! Surely SOME outlet will be brave enough to print or broadcast this news, despite the political officer Bush has installed in every newsroom in the country as part of the War On Dissent (TM)!
The lesson terrorists will take from Spain is
attacks before an election work,
why not try this in the US.
For the safety and good of the American people
Kerry should be man enough to get on national TV
to say something such as
Bush is the wrong man for the job
and the murders in Spain were absolutely evil.
BUT, if terrorists think that life will be easier
with him as President they will be very wrong.
In fact he’ll make terrorists long for how
easy they had it under Bush.
He can clarify just what his policys will be
later, but a strong message needs to be sent to
terrorists that setting bombs off during election
time will NOT work in America.
Thomas,
Hear the black helicoptors coming for you yet? Or are they busy hiding the aliens….
But hey, keep on talking this way. It discredits everyone on the left, sort of how when the republicans kept attacking Clinton for stupid stuff, and pretty soon whenever I heard about some scandel, I just ignored it…
So keep claiming huge conspiracies, and complex plots. Ignore the fact that France almost captured Ossama a couple of days ago, but he got away (but of course, the French, being such friends of Bush, probably lied to help Bush). And don’t forget the implant chips that Ashcroft wants to implant all americans with, right before he starts sending all left handers to internment camps!
Jerry
PAD wrote: >>If George W. Bush was running five points ahead (or more) three days prior to the election here, and God forbid there was an attack accompanied by terrorist warnings that this was reciprocity for Iraq, would it turn the election around for the less popular party (as it apparently turned the election around in Spain)…or would it cause Bush to win by an even wider margain?
I don’t know how it would affect the U.S. presidential election, but because of Spain’s knee-jerk reaction to the horrific terrorist train attack there, the U.S. and other countries around the world are probably going to see just how PAD’s “what if?” scenario will play out.
Regardless of their political stance, I think the correct response for the newly elected Spanish leader should have been a quiet and gradual pullout of Spain’s troops from Iraq. He and his party clearly won the election — what difference would it have made?
But to publicly appease the terrorists responsible for this horrible crime? This can only encourage every other heartless fanatic out there with an axe to grind to further their cause by killing more innocent people. I don’t care if you are a liberal, conservative, socialist or whatever — such a short-sighted response by a world leader just boggles the mind.
The October Surprise isn’t really about paranoia. There’s a long and proud history of that sort of thing in American politics.
Now, I’m not saying OBL has already been captured and the Bushies are waiting on the right time to announce, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that were the case. I just don’t know the truth of it.
Should terrorists attack immediately prior to the election, it could only benefit the Unelected Fraud, no question about it. Americans have a long history of rallying around the flag and, like it or not, the president represents the flag in these cases. It also helps that the So-Called Liberal Media, which isn’t really, has basically given the Accountability Candidate a complete pass on actually being, you know, accountable for his actions.
I just wanted to thank the posters from Spain and Portugal for stepping up and giving us their first-hand impressions of what happened. Far too often in this country, we rely on American ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ for insight on every foreign policy situation, and ignore the informed opinions of people who actually live where the situation is occurring. I also wanted to congratulate the people of Spain for turning out in such large numbers to vote in spite of the terrorist threat — the percentage turnout should shame us here in the U.S.A.
“Balder,” on Kerry: “A guy who looks like Lurch…”
And how does THIS, exactly, have anything to do with his possible leadership abilities?
Besides, Kerry looks more like someone whose face has already been carved on Mt. Rushmore, then transplanted back onto a human being. 😉
“He’s already admitted to raising taxes on people who make over $200k and people still cheer for him.”
Well, don’t the vast majority of people in the U.S. make LESS than $200k a year? Thus, it becomes a matter of “MY taxes won’t get raised, only THEIR taxes will.” Sounds like the kind of tactic I’d use on the general populace were I trying to get elected to a high office.
TPE
BUT, if terrorists think that life will be easier
with him as President they will be very wrong.
In fact he’ll make terrorists long for how
easy they had it under Bush
Then, the terrorists would just bust out laughing because they would know that he was only kidding because they have him in their pockets!
Don’t you know that one of the foreign leaders that he was boasting about was Osama!
While Spain’s involvement in Iraq and support of the U.S. may have spurred the attacks in Madrid, Spain would have been on the Islamic Fundamentalist hit list anyway. And, while Spains reaction may move them down the list, they shouldn’t feel safe in the long run.
It seems that the materials the bombers left behind included a rant that mentioned Spanish participation in the Crusades.
For extremists there is no “that’s history.” There is no “That was a long time ago.”
There are people whose minds are seething with thoughts of retribution for transgressions committed by people who have long since turned to dust.
I don’t know how to reason with that mindset, but I don’t think saying “we’ll get out of your way if you kill the other guy first” will work.
The Republicans are trying very hard to spin this into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation:
If there are no attacks between now and the election, then Bush has defended us from terror and deserves re-election.
If there is an attack between now and the election, then voting for Kerry would be appeasement.
Personally, I look at it as the exact opposite:
If there are no attacks between now and the election, then let’s look at the rest of his record, including his big distraction in Iraq. Horrible. Dump him.
If there is an attack between now and the election, then Bush has failed to protect us from terrorists. AGAIN. Dump him even faster.
Yeah Glenn, I agree with the basics.
If there is an attack before the election, it’s proff that Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft’s “War against teh American People and the Constitution” failed to protect us…
If there is no attack, vote Bush out for giving out tons of tax breaks, mostly to the rich, NOT eliminating the AMT, and for spending billions to rebuild the nations he destroyed… How can you spend billions on a war, lower taxes, and then spend billions more on rebuilding the conquered lands?
These idiots need to learn to live within OUR means, since our taxes pay for these idiots and the evil they do….
Ham, you have violated a modern corollary to Godwin’s Law. Also, your argument is both specious and spurious. Congratulations – it’s not that easy to hit both at once. All you needed was to throw in a slippery slope, or argumentum ad hominem, and you’d have hit the illogicality hat-trick!
i also suspect that Bush would not hesitate to blame islamic groups if the same was to happen n the states. so i doubt he would be defeated in the same way as in Spain.
Unless it weren’t an islamic group…he instantly blamed Islamic groups parallel to what Spanish Govt is alleged to have done..,and then it was quickly revealed to be someone else.
(Kind of like what happened in 1995 when everyone was blaming Arabs for the Oklahoma City bombing, and it turned out to be McVeigh and Nichols)
Hey, with all this talk of terrorist attacks, October surprises, and bin Laden…
Wouldn’t it be ironic if terrorists blew up a train in the US in October, unaware that the train had been transporting bin Laden to Washington to reveal he’d been captured? So the government would be saying, “We had bin Laden! Really! But the terrorists blew him up!” And everyone’s going, “Yeah, yeah, right…”
PAD
Here’s a summary of the bill in question:
H.R. 3920
Title: Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004
From the bill: “. . . The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
Thinking about the meaning of this raises an interesting scenario.
Bill passes..becomes law…Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional (which it is…since it **should** require an ammendment to revise the balance of powers)…So congress reverses the Supreme Court decision, basing their act on the law the Supreme Court just declared unconstitutional.
Ham, you have violated a modern corollary to Godwin’s Law. Also, your argument is both specious and spurious.
So Osama is now part of Godwin’s Law? Because he is easily equated to Hitler?
Oh, and you forgot to mention that it was humorous and inciteful!
Personally, I think Kerry is going to self-destruct before the election. As it is, other than the I-Hate-Bush vote, I can’t imagine why anyone would vote for the pancake man.
Funny, from where I’m sitting, other than the I-Love-Bush-No-Matter-What vote, I can’t imagine why anyone would vote for the empty-headed Texan.
Economy? Great for the billionares, bad for everyone else.
Unemployment? Three million jobs lost that aren’t coming back.
Terrorism? Like ignoring Osama bin Laden for two years, because Bush was eager to go to Iraq?
Iraq? A useless war fought for false reasons, all to make Bush’s oil croneys richer.
International diplomacy? Only if “pìššìņg øff the rest of the world” counts.
Health care? Not even on the radar.
At this point in the game, the typical burger-flipper at McDonalds would be a better President than George W. Bush. There’s no way John Kerry could be worse than who we have now.
I don’t the government already has bin Laden, but I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that they announced that they had stepped up efforts to find him just last month, pulling resources that had been diverted from finding him two years ago so as to prepare for Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake. Now that the WMD search has been a bust, Bush very much wants bin Laden’s head mounted next to Saddam’s by October.
As for whether an early November terrorist attack would help Bush or Kerry. I’d say Bush. His handlers have an amazing ability to spin any bad news so that everything is all Clinton’s fault, but Bush will hold us together.
Oh, and no, the Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court ruling by any means other than a constitutional amendment. If they could, abortion and flag burning would be illegal in this country. That bill will probably never pass because the SC will strike it down faster than Clinton’s shorts drop in front of an intern. You think they’re going to just give up that power? I doubt if it will ever pass. The sponsors (including Joe Pitts from Pa, who, incidentally, is running for the Senate) probably introduced it just so that they can brag about trying to limit “activist judges” (meaning any judge who issued a ruling they don’t like) during their election campaign.
Economy? It is on the up-turn after the severe blow it took thanks to 9-11
Unemployment? 5.5%. That is an low figure.
Terrorism? Fightin it at all conceivable levels. At home and overseas.
Iraq? A war that has deposed one dictator and influenced others to quit manufacturing WMDs.
International diplomacy? Doing what is best and not what is liked by all.
Health care? A Democrat issue that always kills jobs in the health-care industry. For the sake of the economy, it is best left alone. It works, the only ones who complain are those who want something for nothing. There is few hospitals in this nation that will turn away a patient in dire need.
“Then, the terrorists would just bust out laughing because they would know that he was only kidding because they have him in their pockets!
Don’t you know that one of the foreign leaders that he was boasting about was Osama!”
Um … Kerry’s not the one who gave the bin Laden family safe passage out of the U.S. right after 9/11.
Just FYI. Happy to help.
How would Kerry deal with a terrorist threat? Honestly, I don’t think any of us is really in a position to know. (Posture, yes, since we’re all so very good at that.) I can’t imagine he’d do much worse at the job than the current resident of the Oval Office, though — and I’m quite confident that he’d be an improvement on the domestic front.
TWL
(Posture, yes, since we’re all so very good at that.)
I dunno – my posture’s pretty poor…
😉
“Economy? It is on the up-turn after the severe blow it took thanks to 9-11”
Still a net loss of more than two million jobs since Bush took office. That sounds significantly unlike an upturn to me.
(And exactly when does the opportunity to blame 9/11 for everything stop, Ken? November 3rd?)
” Unemployment? 5.5%. That is an low figure.”
Only if you ignore the fact that people who have given up and stopped looking don’t count in the unemployment percentage. If you look at the actual employment numbers, the job situation is pretty high on the Not-Good scale.
” Terrorism? Fightin it at all conceivable levels. At home and overseas.”
Bull. Al-Qaeda is still doing just fine. The Saudi madrassas are still generating extremists by the bushel. The invasion of Iraq has encouraged extremism, not set it back.
” Iraq? A war that has deposed one dictator and influenced others to quit manufacturing WMDs. “
A war that was conducted on the basis of lies to the American people and which has turned up absolutely no trace of the reason we were told it was necessary.
A war which has resulted in thousands of dead Iraqis, hundreds of dead Americans with thousands more wounded (and losing veterans’ benefits, thanks so much), and a country where the best method of keeping time is by counting the explosions targeting and killing aid workers.
And, of course, a war which we were told was necessary “in the wake of 9/11” … while the stonewalling to avoid looking at what actually HAPPENED on 9/11 continues to the point of subpoenas.
Yeah … helluva war ya got there, Ken.
” International diplomacy? Doing what is best and not what is liked by all. “
“What is best” for whom? BushCo, perhaps — as far as I’m concerned, actions which make me have to duck for cover when I’m traveling is not doing me any favors. (Nor do actions which make me feel as though I need to constantly apologize for being American.)
Honestly, Ken … can you define “what is best” here? Poll after poll shows that our standing in the world absolutely sucks beyond measure right now. Can you name half a dozen countries whose population supports American foreign policy? Not the leaders — the populations.
” Health care? A Democrat issue that always kills jobs in the health-care industry. For the sake of the economy, it is best left alone. It works, the only ones who complain are those who want something for nothing.”
Bright green St. Patrick’s day bûllšhìŧ.
“For the sake of the economy”… how about for the sake of people’s health? That is, after all, the intended purpose of health care.
Yes, hospitals will generally accept someone in dire need even without insurance — but immediately thereafter, rates go up so that those of us who do have insurance have to cover the costs. It’s not like the hospitals just eat the costs.
Why this country seems incapable of seeing that a single-payer system works well and works efficiently is utterly beyond me.
TWL
Tim wrote: >>A war that was conducted on the basis of lies to the American people and which has turned up absolutely no trace of the reason we were told it was necessary.
Aw, Tim, forget that angle already. It has been clearly established that darn near everybody in Washington (and around the world) thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hëll, even Saddam was fooled, and it was his freakin’ country. Check out Snopes, for cryin’ out loud: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
If you don’t like Bush, fine. Just make sure what you argue are his flaws can be backed up with the facts. Otherwise, the overall weight of your arguments — even when some of your points are right — will be undermined.
Russ Maheras
While I think that the folks who are claiming tat we already have Bin Laden and are waiting until Kerry gives his acceptance speach to announce it need a checkup from the neckup, I DO hope they wait a bit after capturing/killing him.
I’m no military strategist but wouldn’t it be pretty useful to pull a few fingernails worth of information out of him and maybe send a coded message out on the camel express or whatever saying “Hey! Big meeting! Everybody show up at Abdul’s on Friday! BYOB!” and then when they do you drop a few bombs on them and make sure they are the kind that whistle on the way down so maybe one of our spy drone planes can capture the “Oh Shiite!” expressions on their faces.
Well, that’s what I’D do anyway, but nobody asked.