[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.

[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?

[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...