Since Spain has essentially surrendered in the WOT, these questions MUST be asked:

3/15/04 | Self

[GunnyB]

And since CFR has paseed SC scrutiny, there is no way for concerned citizens to buy ads to put them on the air.

I hope McCain rots in hell for that.

Absolutely! This is the worst possible scenario that I can conceive of. I hesitate to say this, but I am willing to bet that someone in the Dim hierarchy is praying (if anyone in the Dims actually does that anymore) for an attack here in the US to get a result like the one that occurred in Spain.

As for McCain rotting in Hell - yes, and double yes. CFR is such an egregious attack on our free speech that we would be at a serious disadvantage 60 days out. One only needs to look at how the liberal media has beaten up on our President over the last few months to see what the last 60 days of this campaign will look like. Add an attack, and we will see non-stop, wall-to-wall anti Bush "news" played at every opportunity. I pray that with conservative support and alot of luck that we could weather such an onslaught.

[steveegg]

I'll go with 24 seconds for DU/IndyMedia, 10 minutes for CNN/PMSNBC to repeat incessantly.

[weegee]

Chicago will be safe from attack. The Democrat machine is too successful at turning out the votes (dead, alive, fraud, et al).

If the terrorist attacked Chicago, who knows what sort of cog in the Democrat machine would be replaced? The replacement could be a whistle blower and shut down the whole operation.

The GOP Convention itself poses a target (if there is no candidate Bush, how ready is the public to accept "anybody but Kerry"?).

[RightWhale]

It's a good question, needs to be asked, and since there aren't any articles in the media so far that ask this question, it is correct to have a vanity thread for this. If there is a large attack just before the election, in the week before the election, the outcome depends entirely on how the leaders respond. If they respond as the Spanish leaders and accuse the wrong party of the attack, they will probably lose the election. If they respond quickly and with leadership, they should win comfortably.

[Blood of Tyrants]

but I am willing to bet that someone in the Dim hierarchy is praying (if anyone in the Dims actually does that anymore)

Actually, they present the corpses of aborted babies as sacrifices to their god.

[steveegg]

There would be only one potential Chi-town target not on the intermediary list, if the Islamists were concerned about local politics, the Richard J Daley Plaza (i.e. City Hall). Everything else, from the El, to Soldier Field, to the Sears Tower, is vulnerable.

[weegee]

Feel free to insert others. I added the 1993 sniper outside the CIA and the recent Madrid bombings when I posted this.

Mine may not be the latest version of this (I used google to help find it in an FR thread).

I may even put it on my "about me" page since I've recently had someone complain that I haven't put anything there.

[GigaDittos]

I'm sticking my neck out, but I don't think there will be an attack in the US before the election. It won't work in the US like it did in Spain. Why? Because when we got attacked the first time, up went the American flags, and forward went the troops. The terrorists don't want that. They keep attacking out allies. I think Poland will be next.

[RightWhale]

may I say at great risk, racially-unified

No it wasn't racially-unified at all. Segregation was the rule of the day.

[steveegg]

...(and, may I say at great risk, racially-unified)...

Well, except for Jim Crow laws, all-white/all-black military units with blacks explicitly excluded from the officer rank, Japanese interrment, etc,....

[weegee]

In fact, a leftward swing seems stupid given al-Qaeda's objectives of instigating an intensifying conflict between the West and Islam.

As AQ showed us COUNTLESS times in the 1990s, if you ignore "today's" attack, they will only come back with something more extreme tomorrow.

Faced with a tougher atmosphere in America today, AQ has taken to bombing Bali, Baghdad, Madrid, et al to show that they are still mighty and powerful.

Bombing Spain was not just a sign to Spain, but to Europe. Just as the 9.11.2001 attacks weren't just attacks on New York and Washington, D.C..

If the EU would rather claim that the Spanish bombings were local agitators (or lone nuts) and not a sign of a threat from EQ, then they are continuing to pull the wool over their own eyes.

If the EU would rather claim that the Spanish bombings are "local politics" then they may someday face AQ knocking on their door. Certainly England has seen much recruiting.

[ECM]

To paraphrase The Simpsons: 'Sangria-Sipping Surrender Monkies'?

[weegee]

Could there be an attack on an American interest not located in America? Like the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, et al?

There are violent and nonviolent efforts being made globally to affect the outcome of this Presidential election. I won't say overwhelmingly, but I will say visibly, the global opponents of George W. Bush are being more vocal about their opposition than his global supporters are being about their support.

George W. Bush has made National Security one of his top issues this campaign (and rightfully so). If the terrorists manage to get another major attack past the security "gates", his critics could say "see he trampled rights and didn't prevent the attack!". His critics will claim "he didn't make us safer". I am cognizant enough to recall some of the terrorist attacks, like the shoe bomber, that did not get carried to their conclusion. Just because Homeland Security isn't trumpeting up the successes, the FBI and CIA didn't disclose many Cold War close calls at the time either.

The change in National Security has made us safer but there are probably still some holes meaning that we are not and may never be completely safe without the eradication of the concept of terrorism. The Germans and Japanese both pledged to fight "to the last man" in WWII. It did not take that and neither nation poses an imperial threat to the US (although both were mightily fighting to expand their empires in WWII).

[proud American in Canada]

"Bookie, even (must've taken the "k" _ey off my main _eyboard already :-)"

LOL! I was wondering what a booie was. :)

[RightWhale]

Poland will be next

Poland will fight while fighting is still possible. On the Continent they are surrounded by enemies, and those enemies might gang up on Poland yet again. It is starting to look that way.

[American_Centurion]

You are correct in your assesment of Mexico and it's positions. However, you are forgetting that Fox has a good relationship with Bush and that will place Mexico on the target list for AQ&co.

The islamikazies desire to isolate our foreign policy, not just influence the GWOT.

Any friendly relationship with the US brings the possibility of AQ&co attacks, Mexico's proximity to CONUS is the factor that bumps them up the list.

[proud American in Canada]

"If the terrorists manage to get another major attack past the security "gates", his critics could say "see he trampled rights and didn't prevent the attack!". His critics will claim "he didn't make us safer"."

very true. Bush, like the U.S. in general (unless it's a Democrat in charge), is d*mned if he does, d*mned if he doesn't.

great tagline, btw.

[weegee]

I must give credit where credit is due. It came from Post #35 of this thread (and I notified the writer at the time that I was going to use it...)

[GigaDittos]

Anyone who tries to forward the argument that Bush failed to protect us will not become President or remain credible. The American people are not stupid, and will see it as a political ploy. Consequently they will be angry at this person for caring more about politics than security. Bush made this claim years ago, if you remember. Americans don't like wimps as their President, and they KNOW that Bush ain't no wimp.

[GigaDittos]

I think the Poles are tough.