If, God forbid, there's another terrorist attack, * will still find a way

[mot78]

to manipulate it.

Hannity and Rushbo will pull out the "you're unpatriotic" card the second we question * about intelligence leading up to the attack. Also, a lot of swing/mentally-challenged voters will be bombarded by MSRNC and Faux propaganda to the point where they'll be saying "I admire * for the way he handled the second 9/11".

This is EXACTLY what will happen if we have another attack. Even if the majority of Americans begin to question *, the media can always manufacture a majority out of propaganda and brainwashing.

[bluestateguy]

1. OK

Point well taken. But then the nominee can fire back and ask what the Administration did to prevent the attack. Bombing Iraq sure won't have worked, and it will have only intensifed opposition to the US in the Muslim world. Nor will the Bushbots and Fox News be able to pin blame on Bill Clinton, three years after he left office.

[zbdent]

4. No, they will not blame Clinton, they will blame the Dems for being

obstructive, and for "trying to get the people away from the message, thereby giving the terrorists the impression that they can get away with it."

Followed by calls for all liberals to be rounded up and shipped out to France (or so the story would go; where the liberals really end up, only the fishes will tell).

I hope that I get shipped out to Cape D'Agde.

[lovedems]

2. They will somehow find a way to blame Clinton

or the democratic nominee.

The stories I have been getting from the news tonight is, "this administration has a serious problem admitting fault". It was a common theme on the PBS political shows tonight.

[lastknowngood]

3. manipulate it he will have his staff

plan it.

[Vogon_Glory]

5. Questions Demos Need To Ask NOW Before the Unthinkable

I fear that Dubya and court jesters like Hannity and Limbaugh will nevertheless try to blame former president Clinton and Democrats in general for a future terrorist attack, despite the obvious fact that the Repugs have been in control of the House of Representatives since 1995 and the Senate for most of that time, and the White House since January, 2001.

Democrats should start asking the following questions and getting Republican/"conservative" answers written down and/or recorded NOW in case the unthinkable happens again:

How did using Homeland Security personnel and resources to track Texas state Democratic legislators safeguard the security of Texas and the rest of the United States?

How does diverting Homeland Security personnel and resources away from tracking terrorists like Al Quaeda to track American citizens visiting Cuba safeguard the security of the United States and reduce the risk of terrorist attacks?

If mere Democratic criticism of Bush the younger's administration somehow reduces US security and supports terrorism, what dire effects did Republican congressional actions taken against former president Clinton have on safeguarding the Republic and American citizens against terrorist attack? Republican efforts to bring down the elected president were distracting him from doing a better job, so shouldn't any Republican incumbent involved in those activities from 1993 to 2001 either resign immediately from public office or be removed by the voters?

It's time to hang the GOP's less-than-stellar record in pursuing terrorists around their Republican necks.

[arcane1]

6. Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

sorry for the NewsSlacks link

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Friday, Nov. 21, 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

...

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.


-snip-