I wish I could believe this. But, I don’t buy it. Just like I doubt the sincerity of the people sporting “I support President Bush and our troops.” bumperstickers. If it were President Kerry, would they really be willing to have “I support President Kerry and the troops” stickers. Would they be as eager? I just don’t see it. Do you really think the slice of Americans who are the most rabidly and simplistically patriotic (who also tend to lean conservative Republican) would really be willing to put away their partisan knives for very long if it were a liberal Democrat?
What would happen if Nader wins? 
Statistically impossible. Especially since Nader apparently has decided that he can’t win without the help of the big bad corporations that happen to be getting his signatures for him, and publishing and promoting his book (a big bad corporation which just so happens to be News Corp., owned by one Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the F$#* News Network).
The most interesting question about this is, if a terrorist attack swung some votes back towards Bush, who would be first with the God-Damned Mother Effing Coward Americans pit thread?
Exactly. They don’t need to actually affect US policy to any degree at all to score credibility. The scary thing is that all Qaeda has to do is stage a successful attack somewhere in the US just prior to the election --even a small scale attack so long as it’s credited to them-- and regardless of the outcome, the world press will willingly spread the perception that the terrorist action has “influenced” or worse, “manipulated” the US electorate. Although I personally think al Q would be most pleased with a continued Bush regime, I have no doubt it’s a win-win situation for them.
But it’s not manipulation of free elections that makes al Q so dangerous; they really don’t yet have that ability. Their goal, IMO, is manipulation of the free press in order to foment the appearance that they possess the power to create major political change. Perception creates reality if enough people begin to believe it.
Let me be more precise, so I’m not misunderstood to be promoting some form of magical populism: In terms of political power, the perception that a particular group has influence reinforces the power of that group in reality.
Originally quoted by rjung
Now if that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black.
Bush has done a tremendous job at assisting the terrorists by destabilizing an entire region and turning a great many Muslims throughout the world against the USA. If there were a major attack inside of the USA, then there is a possibility that Bush might not be elected due to his hand in encouraging terrorism or due to his failure in protecting the USA.
The best way for the terrorists to ensure Bush is elected again would be to launch a minor attack inside of the USA so as to permit Bush to wrap himself in the American flag, or to launch a major attack outside of the USA so as to permit Bush to claim success in protecting the USA.
Cite?
(I’m not doubting you, I just want to read the article.)
Al Qaeda has already demonstrated a massive misunderstanding of American psycology by staging 9/11 in the first place. It is almost an article of faith among Muslim extremists that Americans are “decadent” and “cowardly”, etc. The result of the 9/11 attack? Thier safe haven government removed, and quite a few of them captured or killed. The rest are in hiding, with special forces soldiers poking around in caves looking for them even as we speak. Feel free to nitpick about the strategy and effectiveness of stamping out AQ, but the bottom line is that I don’t think the response they got from us was the one they expected.
The question is, will they make the same mistake twice? Only those who refuse to leave thier ideological zone of safety will dispute the fact that the results of the Spanish election emboldened those of a terrorist bent. Perhaps the terrorists are thinking that if an attack worked in Spain, it will work in the United States. If an attack does happen in the last week of October, I think that GWB will be re-elected by a landslide. Poll after poll confirms that the public perceives him as more effective in fighting terrorism than Kerry. GWB has already demonstrated a willingness to go after AQ. After an attack, American psycology would demand more of the same.
On the other hand, let’s give AQ leaders credit for learning from thier mistakes. Let’s say they want nothing more than the image of the USA killing arabs and they think that GWB is the perfect foil to provide them with that image. Many dopers have made much of this scenario in other threads. Let’s say they are correct. What better way to ensure four more years of GWB than a late October attack?
So it seems to me that a pre-election attack is likely…because whether the AQ folks are idiots or politically savvy, they will see a benefit from doing so.
Huh? As an act of war, Osama’s attack was a resounding success. I don’t think he intended it to be taken as a statement in a group therapy session.
Was the attack a success in the long run?
On the positive side for AQ:
Over 3000 American dead and millions of dollars of damage to the economy.
Goading the United States into attacking so the attack can be used as a recruiting tool to those who fall for Wahabbism.
On the negative side for AQ:
A united population, the vast majority of which still support the war on AQ.
Death or prison to many of the planners and top AQ leadership.
Life on the run for those who survive.
Helping to establish the policy of holding state sponsors of terror just as responsible as the terrorists themselves.
An increased defense budget and increased vigilance by the United States at home.
An increased intelligence budget. (Yes, mistakes have been made, but there is a lot of good that these agencies do that we never know about. To think otherwise is to demonstrate binary thinking that is not realistic.)
A change of government in Afghanistan.
Much like the attack on Pearl Harbor in WWII, the 9/11 attacks were an opening salvo that met with success. There may be other terrorist victories on the horizon…but the fact that the United States is willing to track terrorists down and shoot them is a victory for our side in itself. It took the outrage of 9/11 to make that possible.