Well, there are really only two choices, Orange and Yellow.
I say that because Red will only be declared if we are in the midst of an ongoing terror attack (OK, so this is possible, I admit-- but not that likely for any given day–even election day), and anything below Yellow will never be declared again as long as this Terror Warning System is in use.
Of the two reasonable choices, I think Orange is more likely. I’d put it at about a 60% chance; Yellow at 37%; Red at 2.8%; and all the other colors combined for .2%.
Because its a specially formulated bioweapon that targets anyone who is a Kerry supporter, of course. Karl is a made genuis. If you even watched and liked The Munsters in fact, you are dead meat.
And if anyone here tries to ‘feel me’, you are gona lose a paw.
Back to reality, my bet is Orange as the prudent thing.
My own terror color on election day might well be the brown of my underpants, depending on how strong the possibility appears that Bush will get a second term. Which he would spend going after Iran, Syria, North Korea . . .
After reading these posts, I’m thinking orange sounds about right. I can see Bush declaring this about one week before the election using what happened in Spain as justification of why we have to be on higher alert. The side benefit of this to Bush is that it will bring the question of terrorism into the forefront of some fence-sitter’s minds, which he would hope would lead to more votes for him.
Well I am vastly relieved, (particularly to learn that Ms. Fogerty is on the job.)
And, as I said above, I have always been impressed with the practical difficfulties confronting the eager coup participant.
That said,there are a range of “thumbonscale” manipulations of the popular apprehension available, up to and including, I guess
[foilon}an actual ersatz attack staged to send people scurrying for the protectioni only the wise and powerful Oz, i mean W can provide.[foiloff]
It’s no skin off Bin Laden’s nose if Saddam is taken out, and it gave terrorists the chance to set up in Iraq in addition to making other countries angry at the US. Also, I think Bin Laden would be quite pleased if a religious government - especially one friendly to the nuts in Iran - took over Iraq.
Hey alaric, how do you know an attack close to the eleciton wouldn’t hurt W? Maybe people would think “Geez, the economy’s not so great, Iraq is a mess, and we’re still being attacked by terrorists? Screw this guy.” Do you think Rove is conducting polls to check?
I’ve never been in the armed forces but there’s something about those photos coming out of Abu Ghraib that tells me that we do have an army of robots who weren’t raised with the same sort of values as me and my fellow citizens. Expliquez s’il vous plait. :dubious:
If Bush (or Rove, perhaps) is smart: Green or yellow, depending on what the terrorist alert level actually should be based on the actual threat. Artificially raising the alert color carries three risks:
1.) It inspires commentary such as “this sudden, sharp rise in the terror alert status was not forseen by most foreign policy and national security analysts, so far as we know…any thoughts, Bob?” Manipulating the terrorism level on election day would be blatantly obvious, unless there really was a clear threat or actual incident (for example, pipe bombs on the Mall.)
2.) People not inclined to think the President is actively lying to the public might think that he’s simply ineffective in the war on terror. That is, the thinking might be “He wants us to re-elect him to fight the war on terror, and he’s made us no safer from terrorists by election day than we were on 9/11? To heck with that.”
3.) The “boy who cried wolf” problem. Drastically raising the terror alert level without cause might reduce responsiveness to the next alert when it actually is warrented.
On the other hand, Bush strategists might think that the people inclined to think along the lines of problem #1 aren’t likely to vote for Bush anyway. The strategists might also count on Bush ads playing up the war-leader angle to convince the public once they’re scared on election day that Kerry might have some good points, but Bush is the best shot for keeping them safe. In other words, they might be counting on an electorate that’s not looking at the situation critically. And finally, the Bush campaign might simply decide that the “cried Wolf” problem can be fixed after re-election.
So on balance, I’ll put my $10 on “yellow, with indications it might jump to orange.”
By the way, is this thread making anyone else want to go ogle pictures of Seven of Nine? Or is that just me?
Curb thy choler, gentle Brutus,
and encompass thy reproof.
These empty streets
These cowering millions
Are not the signal emblems of
turnout cruelly choked.
Nay, Brutus
thy justified amaze comes close upon
a call to stretch beyond all human limit
the imagination of calamity.
like mad prophets in times square
we “reprazent” the gonzo fringe
elections that are wholly cancelled,
not held and counted close.
As for my colloquial embrace
Thy pardon I entreat.
It is withal
an existential invitation to agree–
a search for one simpatico
as in another vein
the sissies o’er the channel
will issue forth
with “nessy-pas”
Looks like we’ll get a good indication of the Election Day terror color in the next couple of weeks. Even if they don’t jack up the color during the newser scheduled for 1800 UTC today, this new terrorist alert should give RoveCo a good idea of what such an alert can do for the incumbant’s poll numbers. If Bush gets, say, a five-point boost this week, then it’s all-too possible we’ll see an “October Surprise Alert”; otherwise not.
