Terrorist to hit around election!!!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Or so says the PNAC supported Heritage Foundation.

Oooooh, scary kids!!!

This is absolutely hilarious!!! Two days after Hannity and Will spout off on a nationally syndicated neo-conservative radio show about America needing to feel some FEAR so the President will be re-elected this story comes out with a neo-conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, as the primary source outside the government. Are these clowns really this transparent? It appears so.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I just don't see any motive for staging a terrorist attack around the US election. There's nothing to be gained for Al-Qaeda by doing so.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I agree completely Dis. It makes no sense what so ever. What I find so amusing about the whole thing is that on Thursday Sean Hannity and George Will agreed that America needed to feel some fear. Low and behold the pre-eminent PNAC "think tank" comes out two days later with a report of a terrorist threat. Get theTerror Threat pushed up to high! America NEEDS to feel fear!!!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Didn't see/hear the show....but....

Could be poor wording for simply suggesting that it's not time for Americans to rest on their laurels. It's been 3 years now, and people have a short memory. We do need to continue to be vigilant.

Fear isn't the right word though, I'm not going to be afraid and I don't need to be afraid. That doesn't mean I'm safe either.

[Cowperson]

So . . . . if the USA election isn't a prime time for a terror attack on USA soil, when is a good time if you're a cunning terrorist looking to maximize effect and to show the infidels you are bent but not bowed?

Sometime between Sept. 11, 2001 and election day 2004?

The day of?

Or sometime thereafter?

Just asking. And while you're answering, I'm goin' to bed!!

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

I've got a question: Why is the Bush/Cheney pair seen as such an obvious "stronger" pair in regards to fighting terrorism? It's always mentioned on the US news, they run ads (with wolves now) portraying themselves as really tough, the polls show Bush ahead on the issue, it's seen as a "strength" for them. Why?

Is it because "liberal" is such a dirty word? Is there some sort of conception that they've had fabulous success fighting wars over the past three years?

On a related note, I don't think I'll ever understand how Kerry gets painted as an anti-war wimp when Bush and Cheney were so obviously anti-war as well.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 24 2004, 04:40 AM
So . . . . if the USA election isn't a prime time for a terror attack on USA soil, when is a good time if you're a cunning terrorist looking to maximize effect and to show the infidels you are bent but not bowed?

Sometime between Sept. 11, 2001 and election day 2004?

The day of?

Or sometime thereafter?

Just asking. And while you're answering, I'm goin' to bed!!

Cowperson

IMO, the attacks in Madrid were an attempt to sway Spanish voters to elect a government that would be less cooperative with the US in Iraq. Kerry bashers can say all they want about him, but anyone who thinks the US presence in Iraq will soften if he's elected is just naive. He's not stupid enough to believe that pulling out before the job is done is a good idea.

So I don't see the strategic point to an election time attack.

It's just as good as any other day though. although I would think a Christmas time attack would be more effective in causing terror.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2004, 04:44 AM
I've got a question: Why is the Bush/Cheney pair seen as such an obvious "stronger" pair in regards to fighting terrorism? It's always mentioned on the US news, they run ads (with wolves now) portraying themselves as really tough, the polls show Bush ahead on the issue, it's seen as a "strength" for them. Why?

Is it because "liberal" is such a dirty word? Is there some sort of conception that they've had fabulous success fighting wars over the past three years?

On a related note, I don't think I'll ever understand how Kerry gets painted as an anti-war wimp when Bush and Cheney were so obviously anti-war as well.

Seen by who?

Of course they are going to portray themselves as tough on terrorism. They've got a record to run on. They can also point to Kerry's record as a Senator and his obvious disdain for spending money on defense.

That, however, was before 9/11 for the most part.

I think that anyone who believes that Kerry won't be tough on terror is naive to the nth degree. He HAS to be.

You can't blame the incumbents for their campaign approach though.

[Cowperson]

The New York Times on the potential of an election-eve attack.

And now I'm going to bed and sleeping well since the threat is low.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics...artner=homepage

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 23 2004, 10:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 23 2004, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2004, 04:44 AM
I've got a question: Why is the Bush/Cheney pair seen as such an obvious "stronger" pair in regards to fighting terrorism? It's always mentioned on the US news, they run ads (with wolves now) portraying themselves as really tough, the polls show Bush ahead on the issue, it's seen as a "strength" for them. Why?

Is it because "liberal" is such a dirty word? Is there some sort of conception that they've had fabulous success fighting wars over the past three years?

On a related note, I don't think I'll ever understand how Kerry gets painted as an anti-war wimp when Bush and Cheney were so obviously anti-war as well.

Seen by who?

Of course they are going to portray themselves as tough on terrorism. They've got a record to run on. They can also point to Kerry's record as a Senator and his obvious disdain for spending money on defense.

That, however, was before 9/11 for the most part.

I think that anyone who believes that Kerry won't be tough on terror is naive to the nth degree. He HAS to be.

You can't blame the incumbents for their campaign approach though. [/b][/quote]
I don't blame them for the approach because it seems to be working. I've seen poll numbers saying Bush is stronger on this issue than Kerry and Lou Dobbs on CNN yakked about that ad with the wolves on Friday and he said something like "playing on an obvious strength of Bush/Cheney ticket". It seems to be a given on mainstream media that Bush/Cheney are better/toughe/stronger on this issue.

Maybe I'll look it up.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Well, they certainly can't be seen as weaker can they? That's the key.

Kerry hasn't talked much about fighting terrorism to be honest. He's focussed on Iraq being a mistake and on domestic issues.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 23 2004, 11:07 PM
Well, they certainly can't be seen as weaker can they? That's the key.

Hmm, I don't know how to take that. Are you saying "they don't want to appear weaker on terrorism" or "it's impossible to be weaker than Kerry"?

[BlackArcher101]

The best time to attack is when you aren't expecting it. Like a nice monday spring morning in April. Not around any major holidays or events.

I except to be on the CIA watch list now because I said that.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 24 2004, 05:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 24 2004, 05:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 23 2004, 11:07 PM
Well, they certainly can't be seen as weaker can they? That's the key.

Hmm, I don't know how to take that. Are you saying "they don't want to appear weaker on terrorism" or "it's impossible to be weaker than Kerry"? [/b][/quote]
Neither.

I'm saying, if you compare the two on terrorism, there's no way you can come to the conclusion that Bush/Cheney is weaker on terrorism.

Like I said before, they have a record of fighting terrorism to run on. That's an advantage.

I already said I didn't think Kerry would be weak on terrorism.

[RougeUnderoos]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=13699

Sheesh, I looked around a bit but I got tired of it quick. You gotta pay for Gallup if you want anymore than the blurb I linked to . Who the hell do they think they are?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2004, 05:22 AM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=13699

Sheesh, I looked around a bit but I got tired of it quick. You gotta pay for Gallup if you want anymore than the blurb I linked to . Who the hell do they think they are?

lol....

Reminds me of the infamous Farley/Swayze Chippendale's audition skit and Kevin Nealon's masterful portrayal of the head Chippendale's judge after saying he wished they could just choose them both and be done with it....

"We can't. We're Chippendale's."

Brilliant.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 23 2004, 11:21 PM

Like I said before, they have a record of fighting terrorism to run on. That's an advantage.

Okay fair enough. You and I both know where this would go if I were to say something like "they have a record on fighting terrorism that they can run on"? so I won't say it. Oooops, I just did. Ha!

It's the same old story though -- I don't see that the current team has been particularly good on this currently rather large issue.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2004, 05:29 AM

Okay fair enough. You and I both know where this would go if I were to say something like "they have a record on fighting terrorism that they can run on"? so I won't say it. Oooops, I just did. Ha!

It's the same old story though -- I don't see that the current team has been particularly good on this currently rather large issue.

Come on now....

1. No attack on American soil since 9/11
2. Tons of arrests...including many high profile targets

Is there room for improvement? Of course, but to say they've been weak in fighting terrorism is just to turn a blind eye.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm just wondering what exactly is Bush's tough stance on terrorism.

He let himself get distracted from capturing Osama bin Laden, and twice has said he doesn't care about him.

He has ignored and continued to be buddy-buddy with the Saudis.

And worst of all, he has started a war that is proving to antagonize a nation that before was no threat to America. You know, sooner or later, these people who started beheading Americans in Iraq after the invasion are going to make there way overseas if this thing does not get solved.

I just don't see where he gets off using the war on terrorism as something positive he has done.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 23 2004, 11:31 PM
Come on now....

1. No attack on American soil since 9/11

That's true, but several attacks on American soil since 9/10*

Perhaps they haven't been weak on fighting terror, but they made one pretty serious blunder with that big ol' war they had with Iraq. We've drawn our lines in the sand over that one though so we probably don't have to get into it there.

I don't know what I mean, it's just that from what I see on all the American news I watch, Bush/Cheney are seen as real steely-eyed manly men while Kerry/Edwards are not. Maybe I'm reading too much into it (or maybe I'm not reading enough, or maybe I'm biased, or maybe I'm bored) but that's how I see it. Bush/Cheney = Tough while Kerry/Edwards = Weak-kneed.

Oh yeah and thanks alot for not taking the "Bush and Cheney were against the Vietnam War" bait. That one was especially for you but you ignored it.



*that sounds terrible, but I'm sure you get the point