Another Terrorist Attack

Lets assume that the speculation comes true and that Bin Laden and his forces are successful with another major devestating attack on the continental U.S. Lets also assume that it is as destructive as the WTC attacks (lost of lives and $).
If this were to occur, do you think Bush would immediately stop war efforts in IRAQ and tend to these new domestic problems and emphasize money and manpower on catching the terrorists or would he continue his war campaign against IRAQ, perhaps taking out his frustrations on them.

There it is! Those are the exacts words that make this an IMHO question!

–mod-in-training (MIT)

I think that Bush would use that as the excuse and launch immediate war on Iraq on the grounds that they were helping al-Quada. The same ploy was successful against Afghanistan. It didn’t dismantle al-Quada, nor even substantially wound it, but it got lots of showy publicity and roused public approval.

It’s a heckuva lot easier to fight a conventional war against a conventional enemy government than to actually try to do something to stop terrorists. (Israel is in much the same position, IMHO.)

And I agree with Jayrot.

Yeah, he would just look for another reason to attack Iraq & use that. Then Korea would see that & we would have to fight off an attack from Korea. Then Russia would see we are under attack & find it the time to attack us too.

are you kidding? we would blame the whole thing on Sadam…
and nuke Iraq…

Yeah, I agree that Bush is trying to sell us on the idea that it’s Sadam, when its OBL. That’s been going on for a few months now.

" How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America’s anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear."

UK Times Online,,482-543296,00.html

one in two? 60 minutes said it was 2 in 3 a few weeks ago. Seems we’re slipping . . .