timberlandko wrote:Happy New Year to you, too, DTOM. I'm doin' just fine, thanks, and hope the same goes for you and yours.
Tell ya what, though - I think you might be very wrong about the effect another attack on the American Homeland might have on public sentiment, should in fact one occur.
While I do not discount the possibility of a successful attack - it is foolish in the extreme to assume one's enemy is incapable of doin' the unexpected - I see such an eventuality becoming ever more remote. Should, however, the unexpected happen, it very much is the nature of The American People to unite in outrage and rally behind their leaders in the face of external threat. Another attack might very well work handsomely to the benefit of The Ongoing Admistration and by extension to the benefit of The Republican Party. Its a lot easier to keep folks thinkin' its nescessary to defend against wolves if from time to time the flock suffers a little wolf damage.
naw, i don't discount it either, timber. i think that the odds are that we will experience terrorist mayhem in the future. just seems to be the way the world has worked for the last 30+ years. don't like the idea too much. i'm actually kinda surprised we were spared as long as we were.
as for whether it would benefit the administration or the republican party;
i don't think it would "benefit"
anyone. but, i know what you're sayin'.
the problem i have with the republican strategy was the "message" that while "we will most surely be attacked if you vote for the other guy". it just played on a primal fear that i feel was really exploitative.
truthfully, i don't think that bush is anymore or less committed to american safety than any other president would be. that's part of the job.
it's his methods that i don't agree with.