Another terrorist attack? Why vote for Bush again?

I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet but I want everyone a question. Would you vote for Bush again if there was another terrorist attack on American soil? I say "No Way!" My mom and my sister say "yes" and I don't see the logic behind their reasoning. If there was another terrorist attack that would just prove that Bush can't protect from terrorist. So why vote for him again if it did happen? Your thoughts?

I guess it would matter what the exact attack would entail. If you call driving a Van full of explosives into a fed building a terrorist attack, then how can you say it's Bush's fault for letting something like that happen? That could happen any time, under any president with little planning. Now if your talking about a detailed terror attack that has been in operation for months/years that require the workings of several terrorist cells operating in America, then you have a valid point. It's all about context though.

Regarless of anything happening I am going to vote bush out.

Originally posted by mpeake
I guess it would matter what the exact attack would entail. If you call driving a Van full of explosives into a fed building a terrorist attack, then how can you say it's Bush's fault for letting something like that happen? That could happen any time, under any president with little planning. Now if your talking about a detailed terror attack that has been in operation for months/years that require the workings of several terrorist cells operating in America, then you have a valid point. It's all about context though.

That's true. In this instance let's say their was an attack on election day as we've been warned. In that instance it would be in operational planning months before it actually happened. We've already been warned that it will be Al Queda and it won't happend until November.

Originally posted by mrmulder
I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet but I want everyone a question. Would you vote for Bush again if there was another terrorist attack on American soil? I say "No Way!" My mom and my sister say "yes" and I don't see the logic behind their reasoning. If there was another terrorist attack that would just prove that Bush can't protect from terrorist. So why vote for him again if it did happen? Your thoughts?

and you think that kerry could do any better? he would fold faster than the french to the nazis. if kerry wins we're all scrwed. and if their is another terrorist itsnot shrubs fault. terrorist can adapt to the situation.

Originally posted by mrmulder
So why vote for him again if it did happen? Your thoughts?

I think people would vote for him again because he has proven to be a fierce Military Commander to get the terrorists. In the wake of another devastating mass-casualty terrorist attack, the people will look to their current leader, G. W. Bush, to keep on fighting those terrorists.

After all the inconsistencies of 9/11, there will be a few of us who will really know the truth.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by mrmulder
I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet but I want everyone a question. Would you vote for Bush again if there was another terrorist attack on American soil? I say "No Way!" My mom and my sister say "yes" and I don't see the logic behind their reasoning. If there was another terrorist attack that would just prove that Bush can't protect from terrorist. So why vote for him again if it did happen? Your thoughts?

and you think that kerry could do any better? he would fold faster than the french to the nazis. if kerry wins we're all scrwed. and if their is another terrorist itsnot shrubs fault. terrorist can adapt to the situation.

Oh, absolutely not. In fact I don't think any democrat is qualified to run for the Presidency right now but it really doesn't matter because either Bush stays in office or Kerry will take office. IMO Bush is a moron. I think Kerry is smarter than Bush. Other than that neither are qualified.

Originally posted by IMMORTAL
I think people would vote for him again because he has proven to be a fierce Military Commander to get the terrorists. In the wake of another devastating mass-casualty terrorist attack, the people will look to their current leader, G. W. Bush, to keep on fighting those terrorists.

You'd be correct IMO only if we weren't attacked again. If however our Military Commander has proven to get the terrorist then there should be no further terrorist attacks but if there were then to me that proves that our President is incapable of protecting us.

[edit on 19-7-2004 by mrmulder]

Here's the other point to be made, we will never hear about the "near misses" or the foiled attacks by terrorist under Bush's watch. We only get to hear the ones that happened. The CIA, for al thier faults, will never get credit for anything they get right, cause that is not allowed. We could have averted disaster several times and never have been the wiser.

As far as the possibility of an attack on election day from a well planned terrorist group/groups though, well, it may just be that whoever is elected president will have been killed and it won't really matter who won at that time. The nukes will have been released and the big show will have just begun.

I don't know much about Kerry's ability to defend. I know that we are in serious jeopardy of spreading ourselves too thin right now with our military, so whoever is in office should make sure that we are able to defend our homeland as well as the rest of the world.

I would vote for him. He has shown desire and willingness to chase down terrorist. The US government can not possibliy know everything there is to know.

It will also depend on how the terrorist get into this country.
If they fly in and maybe use planes coming from overseas, Bush will get the votes.

If we find out they came across say the Mexican border I think Bush is out. Even die hard republicans I know question the million or more people that are still allowed to walk across the border and why we did not deploy our National Guard to secure the border. To me this is the biggest mistake made by Bush following 9/11. He should have locked us down, who cares if we have to fingerprint and photograph people coming in the country. If they don't like it they could turn around and go home.

It's all about playing on fear, mrmulder. Lemmings will react in whatever way they are told to.

This administration is capable of one thing, and one thing only: Rule through FEAR. They know they cannot win this election fairly. They will terrorize as many people as they have to. Look to the Republican Convention or to the Olympics.

One thing is certain: If another attack happens on Bush's watch, oh-so conveniently as to help him get elected, it proves Osama and al-Qaeda are working for BushCo.

At least the people of Spain could see through this Bu# and they threw their worm of a leader out on his a$$. I can only hope the American electorate is half as smart as our Spanish friends.

Kerry has got my vote no matter what. The GOP can spin it any way they want to - but I am no dummy. How much will it take for others to feel the same way. And its absolutely ludicrous for people to even make assumption Kerry will be weaker on defense. Remember, he touched the soil in Vietnam not Alabama.

if there was another terrorist attack, the bush would have yet another field day and play on our fear to get the patriot act 2 passed, so my answer is f@#$ no!!

[edit on 19-7-2004 by mutehalo]

after the dibacle in 2000 im even thinking to myself what is the point of voting? when i learned in high school about the e.c. i couldnt belive that our vote really doesnt matter. and really it doesent. i have voted the last 2 elections but im debating wether or not i will come election time. it is obvious to me that the general public opinion (vote) doesnt make a lickin' diffrence to the government, and frankly it doesnt really matter to who gets what state during the election. after the 2k election with the supposed not counting minority votes, and the big problem that happend with us millitary members votes, and how the president was "appointed". i seriously am debating not even voting. unless im the ceo of microsoft ratheon, enron, or G.E. my vote dont mean squat anyway. rant off.

I would of answered yes, before Iraq. I thought Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and Bush did it wisely. Granted, he wanted to invade Iraq, but we didn't know that at the time, and somehow we did the right thing, waited, didn''t do anything rash, and struck at the perpetrators. But after the whole Iraq thing? I was at Ft. Bragg loading up HUMVEES on a train (on my birthday, I was randomly picked for that detail) thinking, "Why in the hell are we going to Iraq? Obviously there are some serious misgivings about this whole thing." My point is, knowing of Bush's history, we could get attack, and then Bush could use it as an excuse to get us into another pointless war with people who had nothing to do with the attack, or even pose a threat to us. If we never went to Iraq, Bush may of gotten that second term his father couldn't.

i had an interesting conversation with an pro kerry person tryiin g to sign people up tp vote. the jist of it was ...i will not vote either side of the same coin...her response...a vote NOT for kerry is a vote for bush, do you want bush to stay in office?? me...i don't want either of them in office... her..if you do not vote for kerry you will be throwing away your vote and keeping bush in office...me....why do Americans only have 2 choices, A or a. that is part of the problem with the AMERICAN system of govt, i want somebody different in the white house. her so you are going to throw your vote away then???....me it is people like you that keep the AMERICAN system going. not looking at something other that A or a, someday you may understand. then i walked away. my point is that in AMERICA we do not have a real choice in appointing our states electoral vote to go towards who we would like. what is wrong with a majority vote?? granted i would not have wanted gore being pres...
AMERICA has become a nation of A or a...which side of the same coin do want...or will vote to go with a totaly different coin or not vote at all???????

Bush has done virtually nothing to locate, contain and aquire nuclear matterials on this planet. He invaded Iraq for phantom WMDs instead. Go figure. Do the math. I want someone who cares about Americans, not just super rich Americans. I don't agree with everything in Kerry's policies, but all things considered he's the best bet.

Originally posted by IMMORTAL

Originally posted by mrmulder
]I think people would vote for him again because he has proven to be a fierce Military Commander to get the terrorists. .

He is no fierce military commander, He is a coward who shot down an unarmed nation. He also used and endangered US men, money and materiel to prosecute a personal vengenance trip.

As stated in a few posts above, a terrorist attack can occur under any administration....sometimes a more publically popular president is more likely to create a larger and less-ignorable spur in the sides of those who despise him, thus making the risk greater for what could have been a non-active group...

The real question is boggeled down in the bureaucracy of our gov't, which the president can only minimally effect while in office.....it's these vague reports from HLS like "an attack may occur soon" or "keep your eye peeled for this or that" without giving any helpful information on the where, when and why....some may believe Bush is directly responsible for this enigma....and he may have some responsibility, but there are other fish in the sea who can see the shark coming and can point it out this injustice to Americans' safety - most of those who knew were afraid of losing their jobs - translaters who read and rephrase these warnings into English are the first to know and came forward before 9/11 to mute ears....now people are more willing to listen and it's those whistle-blowers we need! We need insiders who loose sleep at night over certain issues to come forward and make the public more aware

Of course this can also lead to mass hysteria and even dramatic civillian reactions to a threat that was a hoax....so those that come forward have to be able to make an educated descion

I still say we vote Bush out, but I don't think that will change a thing with regards to potential terrorist attacks