Officials Worry of Pre-Election Attack

AP ^ | 3-15-04 | TERENCE HUNT

[Indy Pendance]

WASHINGTON - Even before the bombings in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that terrorists might strike the United States before the November elections.

Now, with the Socialists' surprise election victory in Spain, analysts believe the ballot box rebuke of one of President Bush (news - web sites)'s closest allies in the war in Iraq (news - web sites) could embolden terrorists to try the same tactics in the United States to create fear and chaos.

"That's an amazing impact of a terrorist event, to change the party in power," said Jerrold Post, a former CIA (news - web sites) profiler who directs the political psychology program at George Washington University.

"The implications of this are fairly staggering," agreed political psychologist Stanley Renshon of City University of New York. "This is the first time that a terrorist act has influenced a democratic election. This is a gigantic, loud wakeup call. There's no one they'd like to have out of office more than George W. Bush."

In political terms, the question is whether an attack would cause Americans to rally around Bush or blame him for the nation's vulnerabilities.

Bush has made the war on terrorism his trademark issue, spending tens of billions of dollars at home and abroad in the name of fighting terrorists. Polls show it's his strongest suit in his re-election battle against Democrat John Kerry.

Traditionally, in times of peril, Americans have supported their president. After Sept. 11, 2001, Bush soared in the polls. That standing has softened over time but still remains strong, reinforced by the fact that America has not been hit again.

"People are critical of Bush in lots of ways but they still give him pretty good grades for dealing with the war on terrorism," said pollster Andy Kohut.

If there were an attack, he said, "the traditional effect is a rally."

But Kohut and others say the rally effect could diminish, particularly if Americans doubted Bush's ability to protect them or thought the war on Iraq played any part. His anti-terrorism standing might be weakened by other factors, too, such as doubts about his handling of the economy, analysts say.

How the Democrats responded to a possible attack would figure in as well.

"It has been made a political issue already," said Columbia University political scientist Robert Shapiro. "It's no longer the attack out of nowhere like 9-11 was," he said. "There's a context for it that's very different."

Kerry has been probing for Bush weaknesses on the international front, accusing the president of alienating allies at a time when the United States needed them the most. Kerry claims that some foreign leaders have told him privately that they would prefer him in the White House. The administration shot back Monday that Kerry ought to name names of foreign leaders, suggesting it would mean he lied if he failed to produce.

The administration has made no attempt to hide its concern about another attack.

"We live in an age of terror, in which ruthless enemies seek to destroy not only our nation and not only to destroy all free nations but to destroy freedom as a way of life," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said last week. She spoke of "our worst nightmare" of attack by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons at the hands of terrorists.

Bush regularly talks about the threat in his stump speeches. In his State of the Union address, he said it was tempting to think, after more than two years, that the danger was behind Americans. "That hope is understandable, comforting and false," Bush said.

Brookings Institution political analyst Stephen Hess said issues such as terrorist attacks are troublesome for campaigns because they represent the unknown.

"Nothing bothers a politician or a strategist as much as trying to contemplate the unknown, trying to factor it in, what would happen."

[FRgal4u]

God forbid if there is an attack right before the election. But in the very unfortunate event that we have one, say in Sept. or Oct., the prefect tactic for Bush is to play as a president, and NOT as a political campaigner running for re-election.

Let's face it, most of us would remember the words, the emotion, the call from Bush when he stood on top of the heap of WTC ruins. That was a picture perfect moment for the president and it brought tears to my eyes. Should there be another attack, he should display the regular guy, the genuine guy image.

He should proclaim - "ok, there is an election coming, I know people are interested in what I will do for the campaigns, but you know what, I sworn in to protect this country. To me, the number one priority is to catch the bad guys, wherever they are, and I am not willing to kick this problem downstairs to another president. As for the election, I look forward to hear from what the American people have to say in the polls, and in the event that I am heading back to Texas, all I can say is thank you, thank you for the opportunity to serve you, especially in times of crisis..."

If Bush being Presidential, there is very little the other side can do. Do they bitch and complain or do they go along quietly. Think about the Missouri Senate campaign in Oct 2000. Ashcroft was frozen out of the race after the Carnahan plane crash. There is a lesson to be learn there..hope the WH take note on this potential situation.

[Go Gordon]

The press would love an attack to drive out Bush

On the contrary. In 2000, the RATs lost because they couldn't get their message out. If there's an attack before the election and Bush goes on to win, their excuse will be the American people rallied behind the C-I-C, otherwise, Kerrry would have won. IOW, it will be a built in excuse for the RATs to lose.

[Indy Pendance]

We are dealing with a different kind of human. One that doesn't care for life. I've been holding out that our government has the intelligence we don't have, knows more than we do, but, more and more, I'm inclined to believe the only way to rid us of those who are out to destroy us permanently, with a billion at their disposal in their 'nation', is to remove them, permanently. I can understand the dilemma our country is facing, it's getting near that time to seriously consider the alternatives.

[raloxk]

whenever I see liberals like Joe Klien in the media, they seem almost gleeful about the possiblity of another attack

[Ichneumon]

I know from other threads that alot of freepers disagree, but I don't see a pre-election attack meaning that America would choose appeasement and go with Kerry. If most people wanted us to fold, Bush would have approval levels at 30% since all he has done is go on offense since 9/11.

But that's not the only dynamic. Think about how many Americans would think in the wake of a new 9/11, "Bush was supposed to protect us from this kind of thing happening again, and he obviously failed."

[Ichneumon]

Thanks, Spain! Due to your cowardice, every democracy must anticipate slaughter of their civilians before each election. Way to let 200 of your countrymen die in vain.

Or as Mark Steyn put it, "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the slain."

[Mo1]

IMHO we should be worried about an attack earlier rather than later.

We need to be prepare for an attack regardless of the timing and who is in office

Remember the WTC in 1993 .. these terrorists will try to kill regardless who is in office

The question comes down to .. who do the terrorist fear more ... A Republican President or a Democrat President

Considering they are hoping for Kerry to win .. My guess is they fear President Bush because he is doing every thing he can to stop them.. where as a Dem. President didn't do that because he lacked the spine to stand up to the enemy

[DBrow]

I respectfully disagree. An Al Quaeda nuke would go off in Israel, since that would be much more desabilizing and polarizing.

A nuke in the USA would immediately result in massive retaliation. A nuke in Israel? Massive discussions and controversy.

[Ciexyz]

Kick me Toréador

Good one!

[ladyinred]

The fact that the terrorists want President Bush out of office should be a wake up call for this nation. They want the appeasers like that lying Jf'n Kerry in office, a Socialist just as the new head of Spain is.

[oceanview]

well with that approach, Bush was doomed from the start. He should have resigned the presidency on 9/12 then, if only 100% perfection is acceptable to the electorate after 8 years of 0% perfection by Clinton. And at some point, if he finds that attitude is prevalent amongst the electorate as the election draws near, he ought to tell them point blank what fools they are. If he's going to go down, go down firing and telling the truth.

[Sam Cree]

"A nuke in Israel? Massive discussions and controversy."

Well, I think they'll set one off here in the US just out of pure hatred, 9/11 has convinced me of that...I don't consider them particularly rational.

However I agree that Israel would be a target too, though not necessarily of Al Qaeda. Iran, for instance has threatended them. If Israel is hit with a nuke, and I agree with you in considering them a likely target, I wonder what the actual Israeli response could be.

[yonif]

All non-Muslims are targets by the Militant Islamic terrorists, no matter where they are in the world. Al Queda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Authority, PLO, etc. all have this goal.

[Ichneumon]

well with that approach, Bush was doomed from the start.

Only if those sort of people outnumber the ones who would instead be more inclined to vote for President Bush in such a situation. I don't know if they do or not.

My only point was that another domestic terrorist attack would affect different people in different ways, the result would not *only* be increased support for the President, since some people would react to it by holding him responsible for not stopping it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

On another board, there is a liberal Democrat that actually twisted and turned until he convinced himself that Osama would vote for Bush because he (Osama) would be afraid of Kerry because he (OBL) didn't know what to expect from Kerry.

And THAT is the level of intellectual dishonesty that the Rats have even with themselves.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The 33% that didn't are hardcore Rats who will stick with the DNC no matter what.

[Finalapproach29er]

There really can't be a "side agreement" between parties to postpone elections for a week if something crazy happens Elect. day.

Election day is in the Constitution. Unchangable.

[cmotormac44]

and,the beginning of a far better "World Made New"--just as there are 'no atheists in foxholes' there will be many who pray fervently in the future and those who continue to deny God shall have their futures assured--think about it and do not be scared as it has been predicted for several thousand years

[Revel]

Stangely there is only one way to prevent this. It involves expelling a ceartin people from America. Unfortunately...It is not legal.

[WOSG]

Everybody who reads this message. Take off election day. Plan to be at the polls all day and work to make sure that 9/11 is not forgotten:

When you vote, remember 9/11

And of course,get people to support Bush.

We cannot afford a 9/10 candidate in a post-9/11 and post-3/11 world.