What if they missed the WTC but scored direct hits on the Pentagon and the Capitol?

today | epluribus_2

[epluribus_2]

What if instead of 24 hour coverage of two enterprise buildings in flames/crumbling, the world was fixated on the smoking remains of the seat of the government of the United States, and it the fiery end of the central control of it's armed forces? This WAS the original plan, was it not? There was a credible threat to Air Force One, too but the others are confessed targets. Would the prime minister of Germany be hemming and hawing about how America has no right to unilaterally preempt potential terror plans of Baghdad or would Canada's Cretien be saying how he must have proof that Saddam not only has but intends to use WMD? Would there be "BUSH KNEW" protests by semi-illiterate DU types or would the DNC be plotting strategies in how to "counter" the political threats of Bush successes in the war on terror? As we remember 9/11 - we need to find someone in the cube to the right or left of us and tell them to WAKE-UP, WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE ARE AT WAR. We have been for a long time only we haven't been fighting back until 9/11. Democrats who still are bent on dividing this country, trying to scare seniors and children about the dangers of Republican rule need to do a reality check about the world we are living in. They want to talk about Enron (but might not really want to go there) but should spend some time this week pondering a country with No-Senate, No-House, No-Supreme Court, a military in (hopefully temporary) disarray, marshall law, internment camps, rationing, long lines for fuel, and prolonged fear. Then ponder and remember that we are lucky. We are strong. We have wise leaders. We have brave men and women in are armed forces. But the rainbow is behind a storm cloud now and the Bridge to the 21st century lies in a crumbled ruin - we can't go back to 9/10 ever again.

[epluribus_2]

tick tick tick (my heart).

[Tomalak]

I'm pretty sure that if the military targets had been hit and the civilians missed, there would be much less sympathy for the US, and more whining from the euro-weenies about US military power and foreign policy.

---

---

[Skwidd]

Based on our experiences with the Cole, I'd say a Pentagon attack without a WTC attack would have gotten about a month of TV coverage. Remember, it's not murder unless it happens to civilians!

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

I am going to re-introduce a notion I warned about at the proper time.

Clinton's happy use of remotely controlled flying bombs to hit things such as a TV station, designating it as a legitimate target because, in his view, it was spreading pro-Serb propaganda in Serbia caused us to lose much of our moral high ground when confronted with terrorists - try to explain them why we call them terrorists and we call ourselves 'good guys'. (Incidentally, this was exactly the logic McVeigh used to justify his target during his own 'war' on the U.S. gov't.)

The various congressmen, senators and other cheerleaders hailing our hitting the TV station and other civilian targets in Serbia projected a rather 'evil' face of Uncle Sam to the world. I can still remember Sen. McConnell happy but disgusting comments on how we would hit the Serbs' electrical, fuel distribution and water networks and cause them to wake up in the morning dark, cold, hungry with no TV.

As for the 'what if' question, there is no question that the other 'governments' would have supported us more if our gov't aparatchicks were hit instead of ordinary people. They really hate to see 'the officials' hurt.

[ffrancone]

Would the prime minister of Germany be hemming and hawing about how America has no right to unilaterally preempt potential terror plans of Baghdad or would Canada's Cretien be saying how he must have proof that Saddam not only has but intends to use WMD?

Probably.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

It brings up a couple of 'what-if' scenarios I have been mulling recently. Firstly, what if the towers had not collapsed? Would the outrage have been as great, since most likely a lot fewer people would have been killed (the ones crushed BELOW the crash point, such as firemen and people in stairwells)? Also, in a larger sense, if we manage to stop a nuclear bomb from detonating by mere minutes, in, say, New York City or Washington, do you think our response will be as severe as it would if it DID go off and kill tens of thousands?

I ask this second question because I think we should be just as severe with retaliation for unsuccessful attacks as we are for those that do succeed. Just because Richard Reid failed, doesn't mean we shouldn't respond as though he succeeded. We shouldn't be giving the terrorists a break for incompetence.

[Miss Marple]

I think you make an excellent point. The effort to strike us, whether successful or not, should be the benchmark.

[brityank]

WARNING:
It is dangerous to be right,
when your Government is wrong!

[finnman69]

Very interesting hypothesis. I have not thought of this before. Let me throw this into the mix. What if dozens of members of congress had been killed? How would that affect the political climate here in the US for action?

[dead]

I think we should be just as severe with retaliation for unsuccessful attacks as we are for those that do succeed.

I agree.

I never got the logic of giving less prison time to somebody convicted of “attempted murder” than we do for “murder”.

We should not be rewarding somebody who is evil, just because they are incompetent as well.

[epluribus_2]

If most of congress had been killed, there would have had to had been new elections so anything would have been possible. (try saying that in french/german). Hopefully Bush and Cheney would have survived and southern command might have been able to prosecute a war (with SAC). But any country aiding/harboring or even the least bit supportive of terror groups would have been toast. Still might be someday.

[Paleo Conservative]

I think we should be just as severe with retaliation for unsuccessful attacks as we are for those that do succeed. I agree.

I never got the logic of giving less prison time to somebody convicted of “attempted murder” than we do for “murder”.

We should not be rewarding somebody who is evil, just because they are incompetent as well.

I absolutely agree. I have long believed that someone who attempts murder should not get off just because a trauma surgeon is able to save the life of his victim. Also due to the ability modern trauma surgeons to save lives, many of the intended murder victims are left with serious disabilities and paralysis. I especially think anyone who attempts murder of elected office holders should be given the death penalty.

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

Debt of Honor ended with Tom Clancy's most shocking conclusion ever; a joint session of Congress destroyed, the President dead, most of the Cabinet and the Congress dead, the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs likewise. Dazed and confused, the man who only minutes before had been confirmed as the new Vice-President of the United States is told that he is now President...