Election Time Terror Attack

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 10:11pm

I really hate to start such a morbid thread, but I really want to hear what some of you think about this. I just saw a poll on Cnn.com asking if you believe there will be a terror attack before the elections--much like what just happened in Spain. My question is not only whether or not this is likely, but who stands to lose from this--Bush or Kerry? The sad part is that in any event we all lose something.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 9:43am

well, jrb, for better or worse (i happen to think it's worse), spain has handed al qaeda a victory. let me use the analogy of a hostage taking.

it's the publicly stated policy that the united states will not deal with terrorists who take hostages. now if it's your mom or dad or uncle or brother, etc., who's being held that seems like a particularly callous policy. however, to deal with such people gives what the p-shrinks like to call positive reinforcement. by dealing with them and giving them what they want, you encourage this kind of behavior.

now, it's one thing for a kidnapper to demand a million dollars of a wealthy individual to ransom a relative or friend. on the other hand, when an idealogical or theological organization takes hostages and demands wholesale changes in the foreign policy of a nation or group of nations, that's different.

in effect, that's what happened here. a group wanted to see aznar's gov't sent packing for its support of the invasion of iraq. they committed a particulary heinous and brazen attack that claimed many lives and shocked the world. they then used the media to clearly define their rationale for the attack: to punish spain for its involvement in iraq. they chose a date that would be clearly identified with the 2nd world trade center attack, 9/11, specifically for the fact that it would tie the events together in the people's minds. as a result, the aznar gov't (which was leading all in every single poll before the attack) is blamed and subsequently punished.

the end result is that al aqeda sees that they can by use of brutal force (which is the trademark of current terrorists, as opposed to those in the 70's and 80's, but that's another discussion) influence the internal politics of a country in their favor. which cannot be a good thing by any stretch of the imagination because it opens up the entire world and every democracy to an increased risk to election by massacre.

now there are people who are going to spin this every direction from here to sunday. they'll tell you that it was the aznar gov't blaming eta that led to their fall. they'll tell you that the people of spain were tired of the direction in which their country was headed. they'll tell you that the gov't would have fallen regardless of the attack. but the numbers don't lie. aznar's folks had this one sewn up until somebody started blowing up trains.

what does this mean to us? it means that i would expect a major, and i mean major, terrorist attack on u.s. soil either at one of the party conventions or in the last days before the election. who will it benefit? that i think depends on the timing and how kerry comes across immediately afterwards. if he manages to build the case prior to the event that bush is not acting to secure america from attack and is able to in the aftermath appear gracious, patriotic but just critical enough to let folks know he would have made a difference, it'll help him. the chances of that are, i think, pretty minimal. the american public trusts gw to protect them, for better or for worse, and it's true in every poll that's been taken. whether you agree with it or not, public perception is that gw's the guy to lead the country through a war, but that jfk2 is more concerned about their economic future.

thus, i expect that an attack would throw the election more towards bush, but i believe that it will already be tipped heavily in that direction before any such atttack. now, it is possible that if the attack occurs far enough away from the election that the constant negative media coverage of the president that will follow might negate kerry's own ability to stuff both of his feet into his mouth at once and provide a bit of a bounce for him. but in the end his own record will be his undoing as the public already sees him as a guy who votes not with his heart or his head, but based on what he thinks will help that most important constituent, john f. kerry.

p.s. france is now dealing with this first hand as a group has demanded the repeal of their (to my mind ridiculously racist and anti-religious) law banning religious symbols in public schools. how long do you think it will be before things start going boom in surrender monkey-land? then we'll see if they will stand by their (to my mind wrong-headed) convictions.

Updated On: 3/17/04 at 09:43 AM

[ckeaton]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 10:38am

Papa,

You're one of the few people who I would read that much for... but that was an excellently worded, and well thought out post.

Bravo.

Now let's hope you're wrong about that attack.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 10:43am

thanks, ck, and yep, i do hope and pray everyday that i am wrong. but i am also a firm believer that a rosary and one hand and a .45 in the other will get ya further than the rosary alone.

[thirdrowcenter]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 10:48am

Papa good job

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 11:15am

What makes things worse is that I saw a headline that Spain is pulling out of Iraq? If this is true, then that is going to fuel attacks even further.

I think you are so correct in public perception of Bush and the war on terror. People seem to think he is the man to protect them. I think you know that I don't buy into that. I don't think that attacks have anything to do with who is sitting in the oval office. The only exception to this is that perhaps (like with Aznar) Al Qaeda wants Bush defeated for all the same reasons.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 12:23pm

Zapatero announced he will pull Spanish troops out of Iraq July 1 if the UN does not take control of the Iraqi occupation.

[Jarico]

Posted: 3/18/04 at 7:06am

Well, I don't belive that when we talk about politics, or social behaviours we can always find the right explanation, but I have to say something about this topic.

About Zapatero and his announcement about the troops out of Iraq: It was a promise that he made in his program and the program was made months ago.

About Al Quaeda winning the elections that is just simlpy nonsense.

Spain was a country where most of the people was against the war and we didn't want our country involved. If you want figures I can say that more than 90% of the people thought that way. But 1 person AZNAR made the decission, he didn't even discuss it in the Congress.

And too many things happened in Spain in just 2 days that I think it will take a long time to know all of them, so maybe from far the analysis is simple, but as usual, simple analysis are wrong.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/18/04 at 8:03am

And as usual, perception matters at least as much, if not more, than factual analysis. If the world press has Zapatero's election spun as a victory for al Qaeda, then it is perceived as a victory. It doesn't matter that the vote reflects what most Spaniards felt even before the attack.

I've been against US involvement in Iraq since the beginning, but as events happen, "the spin" will probably lump me in catagories to which I don't accurately belong. This is all very complicated; very messy. And making it even worse is that no one knows exactly who "they" are or what, specifically, "they" want (aside from the mass anihilation of all things Western, of course).

papa's election scenario is sadly very realistic. I'm normally an optimistic person, but even I feel a profound sense of dread about what the rest of 2004 may hold in store for us.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/18/04 at 9:33am

i quote from tom friedman's ny times column today..."as a friend in cairo e-mailed me, a spanish pullout from iraq would only bring to mind churchill's remark after chamberlain returned from signing the munich pact with hitler: 'you were given the choice between war and dishonor. you chose dishonor and you will have war.'"

bin laden has said time and again that spain belongs to islam and that it will be returned to the umma. but i'm sure that if we just give them what they want they'll go away and play nicely with some other folks. pretend that talking will get you somewhere with nihilistic murderers and i'll come to your funeral and praise your idealism while loading my rifle.

the world needs opposition and discussion, but appeasement is as it is seen and it's not the press and the media that i worry about. it's the dark circles that lurk in the shadows who meet after listening to an imam call for sacrifice and death and a return to the ascendency of the caliphate and worldwide sharia law. they are the ones who have declared victory here. and they are the ones who will wield with terrible skill their newly assumed power.

give in to the murderers, make excuses for them, blame bush and america, call them freedom fighters and excuse their deeds as the acts of a people denied...just remember to brush up on your knowledge of the qu'ran while you do.

Updated On: 3/18/04 at 09:33 AM

[mprince]

Posted: 3/19/04 at 2:15am

Big bump to that, Papa.

"give in to the murderers, make excuses for them, blame bush and america, call them freedom fighters and excuse their deeds as the acts of a people denied...just remember to brush up on your knowledge of the qu'ran while you do."

No thanks on that gig. For me, I'd rather brush up on up on my knowledge of the .45 caliber, and that age-old prayer, "deliver us from evil."

A missile a day keeps the terrorists away.