Posted on 03/15/2004 6:19:08 PM PST by 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."
Volumes could not say more.
Look for a massive crackdown on any suspects...and by the way: John Kerry thinks the Patriot Act is a severe danger to America.
Al Qaeda? John Kerry says blame their attacks on George Bush.
I'll wager Kash N. Kerry will be preaching about how such a strike would not have been made unless the Iraq war happened. It's all Bush's fault.
He will conveniently forget 9/11 (no Iraq war then), or the Kenya bombings, or WTC 93, or....
"Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution."
"Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."
"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
Presumably, an election may be similarly suspended only in the event that it is impossible to conduct the election. From that moment, the government authority will no longer be exercised under the auspices of the U.S. Constitution.
I'm with you. I don't know anyone who would admit to wanting peace with Al Qaeda. I assume such people exist. I am sure this bloc will go 100 percent for Kerry, but I hope they are a distinct minority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.