Blogcritics: Comments on A Long, Hot Summer

Comment by Shark

Wed, 26 May 2004 12:15:33 EDT

Any truth to the rumor that an *Al Kayda operative was seen around Crawford Texas carrying a bag of pretzels and a moutain bike? *don't give me shit about the way I phonetically spell an Arabic word, 'kay? Everybody should follow my lead, 'cuz who ever heard of a Q not followed by a U?!

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 26 May 2004 12:13:25 EDT

If the public rallies around their Commander-In-Chief after another attack in a major US city, then the US public will have shown themselves to be made of stronger stuff than the Spanish electorate. Whether the US public shows it is made of stronger stuff than the Spanish electorate is irrelevant. If the public rallies behind the president after another attack, then the public will have played right into the terrorists hands. JUST like in Spain.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 26 May 2004 12:08:22 EDT

While the Madrid bombing showed that the terrorists can influence elections, and a pro-Bush government was removed from power (which is what the terrorists wanted), I think a terrorist attack in the U.S. would have the opposite effect, which is also what the terrorists want. The terrorist attack in Spain got voters to turn against their government. A terrorist attack in the U.S. would get voters to rally behind their government. Terrorists want an increasingly isolated U.S. to fight back. They WANT to make this an Islamic war vs. Christianity. It will strengthen their membership. Islamic youth will flock to Al Queda to defend their faith, even though our government will repeatedly say it isn't about religion. I do not think that a terrorist attack in the U.S. will hurt Bush. It will cause voters to rally behind him and his erroneously perceived correct 'path'. The perception of America in regards to the war on terror will only be pushed further along, down the path it is going, rather than switch directions as it did in Spain. Is it irony that a terrorist attack, on a countrys soil, regardless of whether it hurts that countrys government support or bolsters that governments support still ends up with the terrorists winning their agenda, no matter which way it goes?

Comment by JR

Wed, 26 May 2004 11:45:02 EDT

Spanish voters will have blood on their hands if an attack occurs. They showed the terrorists that the West is capable of being intimidated by mass-slaughter. I thought only the terrorists have blood on their hands. By your reasoning, I suppose Bush has blood on his hands for not taking the threat seriously before the WTC attacks. Such an attack on the US homeland would show the weakness of our current security measures, likely harming Bush. Rightfully so, wouldn't you think? I mean, he is supposed to be making us safer. If the public rallies around their Commander-In-Chief after another attack in a major US city, then the US public will have shown themselves to be made of stronger stuff than the Spanish electorate. If the American public rallies around a leader who has demonstrably failed to do his job, they will have shown themselves to be complete idiots. I agree that the Australians might respond differently. They are most likely less invested in the Iraq war and Bush's policies than Americans are. If they see it as a U.S. policy more than an Australian policy, they will be quicker to drop their support when they perceive it to cost more than they expected; just as we would be quicker to pull out of a U.N. effort after suffering unexpected casualties.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 26 May 2004 08:29:18 EDT

Interesting take RJ - why do you think Australia would respond differently from the US?