Could The Next Terrorist Attack Occur On A DEMOCRAT'S Watch?

[TheWatcher]

Here's something to toss about in your head.....

Let's say a miracle happens next year and these people give up Power Lawfully and Peacefully in a fair election.....I know, I know, about as likely Michael Jackson being drafted by the Bulls, but let's say it does happen.....

IF these people are what some think they are, including the tinfoilers, IF LIHOP/MIHOP is real, if somehow they cannot keep Power next year, would it be surprising if not probable something happened on U.S. Soil, equal or greater to 9/11 with the Democrat in power?.....

Perhaps thinking on a smaller scale, what if this illusory, completley non-existant, phony, bogus economic "recovery" that is being shoved down our throats every day, suddenly goes away after they leave Power?.....The Stock Market Crashes, and things completely go to Hell.....

What I am getting at is, if there is a poison this bad in our Government, if things have truly gone this far, would it not stand to reason that this cancer in our government will do everything they can to SABOTAGE the next administration, in an attempt to destroy that party and their viability as an alternative, once and for all.....

What if they don't give up?....What if they don't concede?....If they are what some think they are, why would they?....Why would they not destroy this country if they cannot have it for their own?.....

Even if we win, we could possibly lose....

Even if we win next year, despite these criminals, and despite the brain-dead public, we could still lose in the end.....

I worry that a simple election is not going to do the trick, my friends.....It may stop the bleeding, but treating the symptoms will not save the country from it's illness....

The tumor must be removed.....How do we do this without mass Public awareness and enlightenment, and accountability and punishment for these thugs?.....

Some people have compared the neo-cons to the Nazis.....If I remember correctly in history, the Nazi's weren't exactly voted out of office or democratically removed from power....

Can we truly expect to be victorious if the Democrat wins, and the consciousness of this country stays the same.....

If there is a Democratic winner on 11/03/04, I fear that the battle is not over.....

It has only just begun....

[RoeBear]

1. Well...

...there were terrorist attacks while Clinton was in office. No reason to think they'll stop if another Dem is elected.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. This is not tin foill but informed by

READNG experts on terrorlsm

There is going to be another attack... it is not IF but WHEN.

That does not mean BushCo should be using it to keep us scared.. read orange alerts...

Now whether this is part of a plot or not... that is what you can
mull over

[TheWatcher]

3. Exactly.....

This is all really hypothetical speculation at this point, but like I said, if some theories turned out to be correct, it would not surprise me if the losing neo-con's decided "If we can't have the country, NOBODY can".....

[HereSince1628]

12. Expect one at any time is the message of orange alert

so there seems a high risk of the next one in the US being within the next 12 months.

[moez]

4. Holy Crap!

I think a black helicopter just whizzed over my house!

[TheWatcher]

5. Look, let's keep the snide comments clear of this.....

If you can't wrap your thoughts around things like this fine, but this is something that at least warrants speculation.....

If they stole the election in 2000 and went to war based on a lie for fun and profit, do you really put anything past these people....You do so at your own peril.....

[moez]

7. No , really!

I think they were following the stickers on the road signs. This looks serious!

[TheWatcher]

9. Don't you have to be getting back to your Fox News.....

I know how you people HATE to miss a minute....

Run along now....Back to the meadow with you.....

[moez]

10. Is that it?

If I don't believe that the world as we know it is coming (or has come) to an end, then I'm a freeper lurker?

Look, let's just all take a couple of aspirin and calm down.

[TheWatcher]

11. A-S-P-I-R-I-N

First you try to frame the debate by putting words in someone elses mouth, then you don't even have the dignity to spell correctly.....

Show me where in the Post where I screamed the World is coming to an end....This is hypothetical...A Possibility to consider.....Not a definite statement of fact.....

Let me ask you this question....

If you are dealing with people that are willing to steal an election, go to War for profit based on lies, and then basically create an administration based on lies and secrecy that Orwell could only dream of, then throw in Black Box Voting, and everything they have said and done over the past three years.....

What do you put past them.....Is it not reasonable to consider they will NOT leave Power lawfully and peacefully?....Is it reasonable to consider if the actually lose the election they will not do everything in thier Power to sabatoge the next administration.....

Why WOULDN'T They?

Instead of wasting everyone's time with cute little remarks with absolutely no substance that add nothing to the discussion, why don't you actually participate instead of disrupting?....

On Edit: Well at least you went back and spelled Aspirin correctly

[aquart]

6. You just realized that?

Wow.

Whoever gets the BushMess is going to be mired in shit. No sane person would want the job, trust me, it will be the journey into hell.

A replaced Congress might help, but we still have the creeps on the court.

And if we look to the corporations for help, we will be totally screwed, because they are not patriots, not democracies, not loyal to this nation or its people.

But then, I'm the sweetie who thinks energy and water are too important not to be nationalized resources. Just like the health of our people.

Corporations are anti-democratic institutions. They're killing us. And the next President will be dogmeat.

But I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice a willing Democrat in this cause. You're not?

[TheWatcher]

8. You completely misunderstand

"But I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice a willing Democrat in this cause. You're not?"

WHERE did I say this.....

How in the world do you people GET notions like that.....

For your information, I happen to think that we MUST win next year, or this country is finished for sure....You can bank on that....A Democratic win will at least give us a FIGHTING chance, but I am worried that some people may think that if our candiate wins, then things will start to get better on their own....

If the BFEE is as dastardly as they appear to be, this is NOT the case....I don't happen to think that there will be a fair election next year, and i do not subscribe to the belief that these people are WILLING to leave Power Lawfully and peacefully, but if for some reason they do, is it reasonably responsible to assume or speculate that they will not go quietly into the night and will do everything in their power for revenge?....


They STOLE the election.....They went to WAR for profit.....

These are not the actions of a band who will play by ANY rules whatsoever.....

The Democratic candidate MUST win next year, and if it can happen, we must be prepared for a bittter fight afterwards I believe.....Am I willing to sacrifice a Democrat?

Please, dear friend, I am willing to sacrifice A LOT more than that.....

Are you?....

[Hippo_Tron]

13. But 2004 is huge compared to other elections because...

The Republican party had not controlled the white house and congress for some 70 years since 2002.

[JasonDeter]

14. I doubt the republicans would be as gracious to a Democratic Prez

as Democrats were to this pResident.

[Beam Me Up]

15. 9/11 wouldn't have happened . . .

or even have been necessary if Clinton had done what PNAC wanted in 1998:

Open Letter to the President
19 February 1998

Dear Mr. President,

Many of us were involved in organizing the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf in 1990 to support President Bush's policy of expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Seven years later, Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad. And despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the determined effort of UN inspectors to fetter out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop biological and chemical munitions. To underscore the threat posed by these deadly devices, the Secretaries of State and Defense have said that these weapons could be used against our own people. And you have said that this issue is about "the challenges of the 21st Century."

Iraq's position is unacceptable. While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them -- not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.

It is clear that this danger cannot be eliminated as long as our objective is simply "containment," and the means of achieving it are limited to sanctions and exhortations. As the crisis of recent weeks has demonstrated, these static policies are bound to erode, opening the way to Saddam's eventual return to a position of power and influence in the region. Only a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad will bring the Iraqi crisis to a satisfactory conclusion.

For years, the United States has tried to remove Saddam by encouraging coups and internal conspiracies. These attempts have all failed. Saddam is more wily, brutal and conspiratorial than any likely conspiracy the United States might mobilize against him. Saddam must be overpowered; he will not be brought down by a coup d'etat. But Saddam has an Achilles' heel: lacking popular support, he rules by terror. The same brutality which makes it unlikely that any coups or conspiracies can succeed, makes him hated by his own people and the rank and file of his military. Iraq today is ripe for a broad-based insurrection. We must exploit this opportunity.

Saddam's long record of treaty violations, deception, and violence shows that diplomacy and arms control will not constrain him. In the absence of a broader strategy, even extensive air strikes would be ineffective in dealing with Saddam and eliminating the threat his regime poses. We believe that the problem is not only the specifics of Saddam's actions, but the continued existence of the regime itself.

What is needed now is a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime. It will not be easy -- and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to:

• Recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) that is representative of all the peoples of Iraq.
• Restore and enhance the safe haven in northern Iraq to allow the provisional government to extend its authority there and establish a zone in southern Iraq from which Saddam's ground forces would also be excluded.
• Lift sanctions in liberated areas. Sanctions are instruments of war against Saddam's regime, but they should be quickly lifted on those who have freed themselves from it. Also, the oil resources and products of the liberated areas should help fund the provisional government's insurrection and humanitarian relief for the people of liberated Iraq.
• Release frozen Iraqi assets -- which amount to $1.6 billion in the United States and Britain alone -- to the control of the provisional government to fund its insurrection. This could be done gradually and so long as the provisional government continues to promote a democratic Iraq.
• Facilitate broadcasts from U.S. transmitters immediately and establish a Radio Free Iraq.
• Help expand liberated areas of Iraq by assisting the provisional government's offensive against Saddam Hussein's regime logistically and through other means.
• Remove any vestiges of Saddam's claim to "legitimacy" by, among other things, bringing a war crimes indictment against the dictator and his lieutenants and challenging Saddam's credentials to fill the Iraqi seat at the United Nations.
• Launch a systematic air campaign against the pillars of his power -- the Republican Guard divisions which prop him up and the military infrastructure that sustains him.
• Position U.S. ground force equipment in the region so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to protect and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern parts of Iraq.

Once you make it unambiguously clear that we are serious about eliminating the threat posed by Saddam, and are not just engaged in tactical bombing attacks unrelated to a larger strategy designed to topple the regime, we believe that such countries as Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, whose cooperation would be important for the implementation of this strategy, will give us the political and logistical support to succeed.

In the present climate in Washington, some may misunderstand and misinterpret strong American action against Iraq as having ulterior political motives. We believe, on the contrary, that strong American action against Saddam is overwhelmingly in the national interest, that it must be supported, and that it must succeed. Saddam must not become the beneficiary of an American domestic political controversy.

We are confident that were you to launch an initiative along these line, the Congress and the country would see it as a timely and justifiable response to Iraq's continued intransigence. We urge you to provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Solarz
Former Member, Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. House of Representatives

Hon. Richard Perle
Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Former Assistant Secretary of Defense


Hon. Elliot Abrams
President, Ethics & Public Policy Center; Former Assistant Secretary of State

Richard V. Allen
Former National Security Advisor

Hon. Richard Armitage
President, Armitage Associates, L.C.; Former Assistant Secretary of Defense

Jeffrey T. Bergner
President, Bergner, Bockorny, Clough & Brain; Former Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Hon. John Bolton
Senior Vice President, American Enterprise Institute; Former Assistant Secretary of State

Stephen Bryen
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

Hon. Richard Burt
Chairman, IEP Advisors, Inc.; Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany; Former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs

Hon. Frank Carlucci
Former Secretary of Defense

Hon. Judge William Clark
Former National Security Advisor

Paula J. Dobriansky
Vice President, Director of Washington Office, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Member, National Security Council

Doug Feith
Managing Attorney, Feith & Zell P.C.; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy

Frank Gaffney
Director, Center for Security Policy; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces

Jeffrey Gedmin
Executive Director, New Atlantic Initiative; Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Hon. Fred C. Ikle
Former Undersecretary of Defense

Robert Kagan
Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Zalmay M. Khalilzad
Director, Strategy and Doctrine, RAND Corporation

Sven F. Kraemer
Former Director of Arms Control, National Security Council

William Kristol
Editor, The Weekly Standard

Michael Ledeen
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Former Special Advisor to the Secretary of State

Bernard Lewis
Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern and Ottoman Studies, Princeton University

R. Admiral Frederick L. Lewis
U.S. Navy, Retired

Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch
U.S. Marine Corps, Retired

Hon. Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor

Joshua Muravchik
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Robert A. Pastor
Former Special Assistant to President Carter for Inter-American Affairs

Martin Peretz
Editor-in-Chief, The New Republic

Roger Robinson
Former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Peter Rodman
Director of National Security Programs, Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom; Former Director, Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State

Hon. Peter Rosenblatt
Former Ambassador to the Trust Territories of the Pacific

Hon. Donald Rumsfeld
Former Secretary of Defense

Gary Schmitt
Executive Director, Project for the New American Century; Former Executive Director, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Max Singer
President, The Potomac Organization; Former President, The Hudson Institute

Hon. Helmut Sonnenfeldt
Guest Scholar, The Brookings Institution; Former Counsellor, U.S. Department of State

Hon. Caspar Weinberger
Former Secretary of Defense

Leon Wienseltier
Literary Editor, The New Republic

Hon. Paul Wolfowitz
Dean, Johns Hopkins SAIS; Former Undersecretary of Defense

David Wurmser
Director, Middle East Program, AEI; Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Dov S. Zakheim
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense

On Edit: Bullets and formatting

[BackDoorMan]

16. These are true world conquering and world dominating fascist,..

they are NOT going to relinquish power.

[RBHam]

17. They'll set up another 9-11 just to declare martial law...

If they seriously think they may not be able to steal election 2004...