CNN) -- Several U.S. officials said Tuesday that unnamed terrorists, possibly al Qaeda operatives, are in the United States and planning a "major attack" on U.S. soil this summer.

Officials said the attacks might take place before the November presidential election in an attempt to affect the outcome, similar to the way the Madrid train bombings influenced Spanish elections.

First of all, I think you could make the arguement that the decision of the Spanish electorate was governed as much by the bungling way the Spanish Government attempted to deflect the blame away from al Qaida and onto ETA, as it was to the bombing itself.

Second, you left off the "That's a great question, Colin" (otherwise known as the "How the Fuck Do I know") option.

It would kinda blow the whole "Bush has made America safer from terrorists" arguement. Still in all, I think that the results of a major terrorist attack between now and the election would probably HELP Bush more than hurt him.

Not sure if the CNN article has this but the Fox News article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120875,00.html that talks about this very same attack scenario also says that Al Qaeda has FULLY reconstituted itself and is as stroing as ever and growing with new recruits.

THAT bothers me greatly because it suggests that progress in the war on terror is not being made. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of how Bush has handled the war on terror if true.

Oh, and to the original question in the thread I'll say it depends. The tendency is to rally around the president and I think that is by far the most likely outcome BUT a lot would depend on how stuff like I mentioned above is viewed by the public and whether the public thinks Bush has done a good job at handling terrorism.

I would also point out, like PD did, that the governments stupid attempt at spin did FAR more to damage the conservatives chance to win in the election than did the bomb itself. I can't think of anything that would piss me, or anyone else who gave a damn about an honest governemt, off more than right after a bomb went off and killed tons of people a party tried to lie and bullshit to me about it for political reasons.

it definatelly would hurt Bush.

The act itself, the timing and response would probably all change the answer.

An attack in the early summer would probably have a different effect than one a week before election.

And what could the response be anyway? (People like responses. And Justice for All). We're already in Afghanistan.

So I like PD's option D. "How the Fuck Do I know"

Ashcroft!

Strange.

"Despite that, the official said there was no immediate plan to raise the country's terrorism threat level from yellow, or elevated, to orange, or high. The threat level has been at yellow -- midpoint on the five-colour scale -- since January."

Curiouser and curiouser...

I think it would help him. I overheard some people talking about this exact subject last night at the ballpark and one said, "I would vote for Kerry if things calmed down with the terrorists, I don't want a democrat in there if a war is still going on." The other nodded in agreement.

I wonder how many people feel that way?

I'm fine with Kerry as president during a war or his potential response to terrorism. I have no worries.

It might hurt the huge Bush Basque Block vote. :huh:

I have to agree with Serge.

Kerry could very easily point to the Billions spent on Homland Security, and many more Billions on 2 wars, the patriot act, etc and in all thruthfulness say that it accomplished nothing (if a terrorist attack happens)

Does not even need to be on the scale of 9/11 - 100 people killed in a train explosion like in Spain and there is very convincing eveidence that the current policy is not working.

Add that to the fact that 9-11 happened on W's watch (I know there were many years of dumbfuckedness in that area before) and it could be easily argued that W is incapable of "protecting" our borders.

Only the "FEAR" of an impending attack can help Bush in this election, an actual attack would devistate him

I have to agree with Serge.

Kerry could very easily point to the Billions spent on Homland Security, and many more Billions on 2 wars, the patriot act, etc and in all thruthfulness say that it accomplished nothing (if a terrorist attack happens)

Does not even need to be on the scale of 9/11 - 100 people killed in a train explosion like in Spain and there is very convincing eveidence that the current policy is not working.

Add that to the fact that 9-11 happened on W's watch (I know there were many years of dumbfuckedness in that area before) and it could be easily argued that W is incapable of "protecting" our borders.

Only the "FEAR" of an impending attack can help Bush in this election, an actual attack would devistate him[/b][/quote]
Jeff,
you summed my sentiment presizely