What is it good for? Absolutely

[cyrano]

Okay, I'm getting cranky listening to Certain Political Parties miscast the events in Spain.
Spain didn't pull out of Iraq because of the train bombing. The bombings undoubtably had an effect on the vote, but mostly because the government lied to the people and the people didn't like it. (Hrmmmmm.)
Spain pulled out of Iraq because the people who did win the election had been saying for months that being in Iraq was a bad idea and they wanted to pull the troops out.
However, I will say that I think the Phillipine government's decision to withdraw troops in hopes of getting their hostages released was an unfortunate decision and will probably end up getting more people killed.

I think a terrorist attack in the US this summer would have an effect on the November elections. And I think it would push G-Bu into the White House. And I also think that's what Al Qaeda wants. I also also think that's not what I want.

Comments

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

DISCLAIMER: The following is the opinion of someone who is a registered independent voter who does not know who she will vote for this November and currently dislikes both candidates and their respective cults equally.

I think a terrorist attack in the US this summer would have an effect on the November elections. And I think it would push G-Bu into the White House. And I also think that's what Al Qaeda wants.

My first reaction is, "How do you know?" Or, more politely, "What evidence has led you to this conclusion?" If you based your conclusions on the events in Spain and the Phillipines, I would remind you of the enormous differences in both countries to the United States in matters political, cultural, economical, and historical.

If there is an Al Qaeda attack before the election, it will be the best example of how we are not winning the War On Terror(TM), which is something every Republican I've read/listened/watched in the last two weeks is saying. It would be glaringly obvious that the G.W. Bush Adminstration was not effective in securing this country. How the Democrats could exploit this without drowning in the wave of quasi-religious patriotism that would occur after such an event would be the key to who would win.

And I'm not sure having G.W. Bush in office is what Al Qaeda wants. Beyond wanting every American dead or converted to their brand of Islam, I seriously doubt anyone outside their organization can really answer that question.

It may not matter to Al Qaeda who the next president is, just as long as his administration continues the partisan bickering and political turf wars and thereby fails to accomplish anything. Certainly the G.W. Bush administration seems, for the most part, to be fulfilling this wish admirably along with the added feature of alienating the international community.

What a Kerry presidency will do or not do seems to be completely unknown. All I've heard/read/seen in the last two weeks is Kerry's indication he will implement "most" of the 9-11 Commissions recommendations. What "most" means and what that implementation will look like were left undefined.

But there are a lot of activities in this fight that average citizens, like ourselves (unless you are leading a double life, my friend) and the media, do not, cannot, and should not know. That's why my language here is relentlessly equivocal. I don't really know, and I doubt anyone who could speak freely on the subject does either.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

The reason I think a terrorist attack this summer would put the incumbent back in the White House is that when people are afraid or feel under attack, they want stability. Don't change horses in mid Apocalypse.
And honestly, I think the Democrats are incompetent enough that they could completely fail to capitalize and translate into votes if it were reported on CNN that Karl Rove sacrificed Jewish babies in the pentagon basement and bathed in their blood. Which, if the Justice Department is reading this, I certainly do not believe is the truth.
And the reason I think that Al Qaeda wants Bush in office is that the past four years, while seeing much destruction of the group's infrastructure, have seen a great movement of solidarity in the Muslim world and a shift to anti-American sentiment.
And as far as the Kerry presidency goes, I have often lamented the fact that the Democrats decided not to choose a candidate to run in the '04 election.

I don't know much about the secrets of international terrorism, but I don't know much about the Nature of God either. That doesn't stop me from taking what information I do have, listening to what the Spanish public says, and postulating my thoughts on it.

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

And the reason I think that Al Qaeda wants Bush in office is that the past four years, while seeing much destruction of the group's infrastructure, have seen a great movement of solidarity in the Muslim world and a shift to anti-American sentiment.

I've been reading the 9-11 Commission's report, which is quite interesting, and according to it, the consolidation and shift you speak of started long before 2000. It has only appeared on the U.S.'s proverbial radar recently.

That doesn't stop me from taking what information I do have, listening to what the Spanish public says, and postulating my thoughts on it.

This isn't entirely clear, but if I'm interpreting it correctly, I find it improbable that Spanish reaction to terrorism will in any way resemble ours. There are too many dissimilarities in the two nations.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

If you are actually reading the report, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. (I may be able to pick it up at the library soon, and if I do then it'll probably jump up my reading list. But I still haven't finished the Pentagon Papers.)

And I think that it is highly unlikely that, if we're attacked by terrorists, our government will try to blame it on Basque separatists. (: But this was in fact one of the things that bugged me--people saying "Look! Look at what happened in Spain! That could happen here!" and me thinking "Well, no, I don't think it would."

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

Yup, I'm actually reading the thing. Downloaded the free PDF version. It's a little laborious reading on the computer screen, and cross referencing to the endnotes is a royal bitch, so I'm not.

I'm not particularly surprised with the broad themes presented so far (I'm about 1/4 of the way through): lack of inter-agency communication, preparedness for the wrong conflict, too few resources devoted to terrorism. But the details are fascinating, as is the historical context they are placed in. Not knowing all that much about al Qaeda, I found the chapter on their history fascinating as well.