This article on CNN.com mentions the bombings in Madrid that may have helped lead to a ousting of the conservative government in Spain. But when I think of a large terrorist event happening in the USA in Aug., Sept. or Oct. I can only think that that would help re-elect G.W. Bush or, in other words, definitely NOT help oust a conservative government.
Is this what Al Qaeda wants? Another four years of Bush? Or do they think such an attack will lead voters to turn to Kerry? If they do, in my opinion, they are very, very wrong. Such an attack will re-elect Bush easily.
At least one alleged Al Qaeda group did say that’s what they want publicly. You can think of resaons they’d prefer either candidate. What they want most of all it to kill people.
Yes, but politically speaking, they must have a preference for who gets elected… I wonder… who do they prefer, (Bush or Kerry) and what will they do about it?
I say I agree with you. Americans are a stubborn, independent lot. They don’t mind bitching about themeselves and their own government, but when foreigners deign to interfere, Americans tend to come together with a big MYOB chip on their shoulders. And it really wouldn’t matter who the president was. If 9/11 had happened on Clinton’s watch, it would have been the same — spontaneous and defiant demonstrations from coast to coast, and expressions of support for the president.
A foiled Al Qaeda attack would DEFINITELY re-elect Bush, especially combined with the capture of Osama, the finding of Iraqi WMDs & a pile of money to finance the war debt.
??? Cite please that Al Qaeda terrorists had anything whatsoever to do with the Spanish bombings. All the reports from Spain in the investigation I have seen attribute to one of the standard Moroccan-based Jerk Groups that Spain’s been fighting with for decades.
I know that the Bushies immediately blamed their personal Jordanian “Mastermind” guy, but I’m looking for something coming from Spanish government reports, for example.
I think the Aznar government’s insistence that it was the ETA really hurt them, because as the evidence started coming out it began to look like either Al Qaeda or an ETA/AQ collaboration.
Regarding the OP: IANASPS (Spanish Political Scientist) but the simplified conventional wisdom on the Spanish Election, that the bombs cost Ansar’s party the election, leaves one major element out - right? Wasn’t the government sort of perceived to be trying to point the finger at ETA and that was what pissed people off in the last few days before the vote?
This is significant because in elections, terrorist attacks have traditionally helped the party that is perceived to be more hard-assed toward the terrorists – In Russia with Chechnya, in Israel and Sharon, India etc.
Given hsitory, as horrible as this is to say, I have little doubt that a major Terrorist Attack on the U.S. in the next 5 months, that act itself, would help Bush politically and probably would be the difference in the election – unless there are other factors (i.e. ‘he should have known’ “Planes again” or somehow is seen to have botched the aftermath).
Damn did I screw up and click on GD by mistake ? No I guess I didn’t.
Surprised no one has mentioned Bush suspending the elections and declaring martial law :rolleyes: .
I read an exceedingly good article on this subject that came from a Brit. It had to. Because his point was this: you Americans are incredibly vain. You think everything is about you.
And you know what? It’s true in this case. In all the talk about what Al Qaeda wants to accomplish, everyone assumes that it has to do with America. It doesn’t. Listen to their real discussions, to the people who know their real goals. And what are they? They are trying to build their cred in the Middle East. They don’t give a damn about what happens with us as long as it looks like they’re pushing us around somehow or taking us down a notch. They want to look cool, cause some rukus, show that they still got it against the Great Satan. End of story. It’s not as flattering to Americans, however, to realize this, so by and large Americans would prefer to think that jihadists care deeply about our electoral process and values on the mainland. I think in general the jihadists know that an attack would help Bush, but I doubt they care too much whether he’s re-elected for not. He handed them Iraq on a silver platter and is likely to miss the boat again, but also having him go after a successful attack would be a big propaganda win for them.
Bush and Kerry should have a joint conference in which they both re-iterate that no matter who gets elected, the terrorists are dead-enders that won’t find comfort or support anywhere in the world from America or its allies. They should both say that the idea that Americans will be swayed by terrorist interference is insulting: may the best man win, and terrorists can get the hell out of our system. It might not stop any attacks, but it will take some of the pressure off of both candidates to push the idea that one or the other is Al Qaeda’s pick. Of course, Bush stands to win a lot more than Kerry from Al Qaeda attacking, so I’m not holding my breath.
? No I guess I didn’t.