![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One hundred men to cripple a nation
Jun. 12th, 2004 06:11 amOn Thursday the State department got a very ugly black eye when it was forced to recant as inaccurate the much touted April report which claimed that 2003 had fewer terror attacks than any year since 1969. [More Info] Bush & Co. cited this report as proof that the war on terrorism was working. Any attack inside the US would be have a devastating effect on public perception and seriously damage Bush's credibility as "someone who can protect us" with the average American, but an attack within the next month or two would increase that effect enormously as both the image of Bush saying "We are winning the war on terror" and the subsequent recanting of the report used to substantiate that statement would be fresh in peoples minds.
In the time since 9/11 we have become complacent with the many "false starts" of the terror warning/alert system. However in recent months, a much broader range of intelligence has not only reinforced al Qaeda's commitment to carrying out strikes within the US borders but increasingly shown signs that they intend to do so within the next few months. I believe we will see several attempted strikes (which may or may not be successful) in the US before November's election, with the goal of influencing the election. I have seen and heard many arguments which debate whether Bush would be helped by or sunk by a terrorist attack in the run up to the election. I believe it will depend primarily on the severity of the attacks. I think another 9/11 scale attack would likely sink Bush, but smaller more targeted attacks would aid him as the American public tends to fly their most patriotic colors when we are being attacked. The American public has in the past 33 months become accustomed to the danger of attacks in so called primary target areas like New York, DC, and L.A, so if the attacks were limited to our first tier cities and fairly limited in scope, it would not shake the average American's faith in their own security a great deal. It is precisely that faith which al Qaeda desires to shake and if they were successful in doing so, it would hurt Bush tremendously in the election.
( How Al Qaeda can really hurt us )
In the time since 9/11 we have become complacent with the many "false starts" of the terror warning/alert system. However in recent months, a much broader range of intelligence has not only reinforced al Qaeda's commitment to carrying out strikes within the US borders but increasingly shown signs that they intend to do so within the next few months. I believe we will see several attempted strikes (which may or may not be successful) in the US before November's election, with the goal of influencing the election. I have seen and heard many arguments which debate whether Bush would be helped by or sunk by a terrorist attack in the run up to the election. I believe it will depend primarily on the severity of the attacks. I think another 9/11 scale attack would likely sink Bush, but smaller more targeted attacks would aid him as the American public tends to fly their most patriotic colors when we are being attacked. The American public has in the past 33 months become accustomed to the danger of attacks in so called primary target areas like New York, DC, and L.A, so if the attacks were limited to our first tier cities and fairly limited in scope, it would not shake the average American's faith in their own security a great deal. It is precisely that faith which al Qaeda desires to shake and if they were successful in doing so, it would hurt Bush tremendously in the election.
( How Al Qaeda can really hurt us )
