It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terror strike before election....who wins? Bush/Kerry?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Ok, lets say there is a major (multi thousand killed/injured) terror strike in the USA before the election....Who do you think will then win the election?
How would a terror strike bennifit/hinder the candidates?

I feel that another major strike will be a landslide for Bush to win.
The overall anger in the USA after another strike would keep the US from going the Spain route and catering to the terrorists desires.

My fear is that if Kerry is elected, with or without a strike here, that the terrorists will be empowered by the perception that the USA people really dont have the long term vision and strength,and determination to engauge them. It wont matter to the terrorists the WHY you voted for Kerry, only that they can claim that they somehow influenced our election.

Which candidate do you think the terrorists want in the whitehouse?
Bush, as then they can keep pointing the finger at the trigger man for their grief?
or
Kerry, who will hopefully cave in and quit, pulling out of Iraq, and going back to alot of diplomatic talk with no credible threat?
I say they want Kerry, so that our governmnt will again be vulnerable as the FEDS all change chairs agian and the lag time between administrations, plus the new administration comming in and getting up to speed would be useful to them. Not to mention again, the PR victory of them claiming to have helped Bush get booted.




posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I think Kerry would win. If there is a Major Strike then all that Bush has been doing over the last 3 years would have been for nothing. A big waste of money that could have gone to help something else. The people want progress, they wouldnt be getting it with Bush then.

[Edited on 11-8-2004 by dreamlandmafia]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
The real queston you need to ask is what happens if there is an attempted major strike which is foiled because of Bush's policies?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
The real queston you need to ask is what happens if there is an attempted major strike which is foiled because of Bush's policies?


Good question mwm, of course you know half this board would just say he staged it, exagerated it or fabricated it though.

My guess is no matter what happens Bush is gonna take it. I just hope it's a bigger win this time.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Im reminded of a quote by I think Roosevelt
(paraphrased) If I walked acroos the surface of the potomac river on the way to work the haedlne in the papers the next day would read "The president can't swim"



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Im reminded of a quote by I think Roosevelt
(paraphrased) If I walked acroos the surface of the potomac river on the way to work the haedlne in the papers the next day would read "The president can't swim"


That is so damn true. I'm not a Bush fan but there was a thread yesterday about his varsity rugby activities in the 60's. What the hell does that have to do with this election? Say I was running in this election, the papers could say, "Candidate Intrepid soils himself in 1963." That would be acurate, I was a year old. Quit the mudslinging, are there no issues to deal with?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Bush is going to win either way...but if something does happen...like it was said...it could either hurt or help Bush...it can prove that Bush's tactics didnt effect a thing...or it can solidify his justification for the war on terrorirm...im thinking the latter...



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
The one that is still alive after the smoke clears. If Bush loses he will be back in 4, so does it really matter?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I think it's 50-50, because look what happened in Spain, terrorists (not even radical Islamic terrorsits like Al Qaida, but the ETA) attacked Spain's railroad network killing thousands. This created an unsuspected landslide victory for the incumbents' opponnent. Maybe this will happen this November, maybe not, we can't tell yet.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
No brainer Bush wins easily IMo then. The country rallies when attacks occur and would skyrocket Bush's approval rating to well over 80%. Look what happened on 9/11. I think people who think it will hurt him because he couldnt stop it are wrong. I think most "logical" thinking people realize that we are not going to be able to stop every attack.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
It all depends how how they play their cards... Sure bush will say we need ot rally under the current leader to solve to fight the war... but he's been doing this for 3 years and if there is a big attack it just shows that he has in fact done nothing effective excpet kill thousands of people...

I doubt bush will win coz it was marginal (assumiong you believe it was legit) last time, and he's made alot more enemies since... but if he does win i know that the US is going to continue down the road it is going down now, and its not a good road... in the past i didnt really care too much where your country went, but nowadays everythign you do directly influences the whoel world... and in the last few years there have been very very few positive things the USA has doen for the world...



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
.
Initially on first reaction I think people would reach for Bush. Stress tends to have people grabbing what they know. After they thought about it and weighed GW Bush's accomplishments and failures, I think most of that knee-jerk support would quickly diminish. He took down the Taliban,+5, He went to war with Iraq,-7, He was incharge when the arab world was enraged by Abu-Grabe,-5, He has done virtually nothing to locate, secure and acquire nuclear materials around the globe, -17

I personally will feel much safer with Kerry in the Whitehouse.
.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
Initially on first reaction I think people would reach for Bush. Stress tends to have people grabbing what they know. After they thought about it and weighed GW Bush's accomplishments and failures, I think most of that knee-jerk support would quickly diminish. He took down the Taliban,+5, He went to war with Iraq,-7, He was incharge when the arab world was enraged by Abu-Grabe,-5, He has done virtually nothing to locate, secure and acquire nuclear materials around the globe, -17

I personally will feel much safer with Kerry in the Whitehouse.
.


Dont forget he's no-where near finding Osama -5, and he's pissed off more people than previously were pissed off, by destroying their homes and kiling their families, thus driving more people to terrorism... -7...

-29 total...

I think the whole world would feel safer without bush



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Bush's credibility is riding on the fact that the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001. If the U.S. were attacked before the elections -- especially if it's an attack of the size or larger than the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were -- then Bush would completely lose his credibility. He'd lose the election in a landslide.

If there is no terrorist attack in the U.S. before the elections, then I think it will be a very close election, like the 2000 Presidential election was.

Here's a good question, though: What do you think will happen if Kerry is elected, then, shortly (a few days to a few months) after he's inagurated, then the U.S. is attacked by terrorists again? How would Kerry, most Americans, and the rest of the world react then?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
These latests warnings have my mind racing. Here's something that is possible, but not likely.

The RNC is one place that is attacked, Bush is not harmed. The Bin Laden video released prior. So it looks like Bin Laden did this attack, but actually it will be Bush cleaning office. The US citizens will back Bush when he announces he will get Bin Laden and they will sing "God Bless America" and thank God that Bush bearly missed being killed in the attack. Mean while the stock market has collasped. A few weeks later president Bush announces the capture of Bin Laden, the people cheer, the stock market rallies and the final outcome is Bush is re-elected for another 4 years.


OK, flame me Bush supporters




Now a new warning that Laden is going to assassinate Bush. It's headed that way



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Ycon, that is very very likely scenario...

Thundercloud previously said that since 9/11 there has been no attacks on US soil and bushes credibility is riding on this... how many attacks where there in the three years preceding 9/11... none... so really its a false credibility.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
It sounds like a great movie Bush nearly escapes bombing of RNC. In the end everything looks good for Bush when he captures the big bad terrorist and wins his second term as president.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ycon
It sounds like a great movie Bush nearly escapes bombing of RNC. In the end everything looks good for Bush when he captures the big bad terrorist and wins his second term as president.


Great movie yes... real life no... any story where bush wins is a very very sad ending... But of course at the end of the movie you'll see Osama's son flying into DC with a very shifty look on his face... that would be the end, thus paving the way for a sequel



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   
LOL yea there you go. I personally would look forward to seeing the sequal more then I would the original.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 03:34 AM
link   
AsianX says,


if there is a big attack it just shows that he (Bush) has in fact done nothing effective excpet kill thousands of people...


Thundercloud expresses similar ideas,


Bush's credibility is riding on the fact that the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001. If the U.S. were attacked before the elections -- especially if it's an attack of the size or larger than the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were -- then Bush would completely lose his credibility. He'd lose the election in a landslide.


The administration as well as the 9-11 commission and many in congress have repeatedly said that there is no way, unless they get a "hot tip" that they can prevent anyone who is determined from causing terrorism.

The Condi Rice line about "we need to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists only have to be right once." shows the difficulty in adopting any strategy that says you can prevent terrorism.

It seems the administration has made it clear that we remain vulnerable to strikes....so with all of these heads up statements...how can you extrapolate that Bush will lose credibillity for not stopping another attack?
Wouldnt this be more of Bush gaining the "i told you so" factor?

As far as no attacks on USA soil, no there has not been, but havent there been situations that have been diffused? (the LA airport plot?)
Also to answer Asianx question,


how many attacks where there in the three years preceding 9/11...

twin african embassy bombings in Kenya/Tanzania aug 7, 98'
the USS Cole attack Oct 12
I can hear it already, "But those werent attacks on USA soil"
Hmm, well, our embassies are considered USA soil within the compound walls and an attack on a millitary ship is pretty much a declaration of war...
I think these both qualify as attacks against the USA.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join