Would a similar attack in the US increase support for Bush? Or would

[mondo joe]

it be the straw to break the camel's back?

Would it rally Americans to their "leader" in war? Or would it clinch Bush as ineffective and bungling?

[Junkdrawer]

1. Better question: Could we be made to believe that ...

a similar attack in the US increased support for Bush?

[BobRossi]

2. Straw.

He has said his policy is the reason there have been no more attacks on US soil.

[getmeouttahere]

3. Well, "would" and "should" are two very different things....

it should expose ONCE AGAIN that BushCo's policies are for shit, but with all the sheeple we still have, I'm betting on the "rallying around the flag" approach

[smoogatz]

4. I think the result would be anger at Bushco in general

and Bush in particular. His stature in the US has already declined a great deal; he's seen as ineffective on Social Security, energy, Iraq, stem cell research, and just about every issue other than terrorism. If a series of soft-target attacks took place in the US--and it's just a matter of time before they do--my sense is that Bush's remaining time as President would be very difficult, indeed.

[wtmusic]

5. Fear always wins

Americans would say, "see, Bush was right about the global war on terror".

And another blank check goes to defense contractors.

[newportdadde]

6. Logically it should hurt him but I think it would help him actually.

If you look at the campaign promises etc then essentially it would show him as a fraud for not being able to protect us. However, our country would pull together ala 911 in a heartbeat and as part of that pulling together we would squash any anti Bush talk as being unpatriotic.

I think you would see Bush poll numbers jump 30 points, Toby Keith would release another hillbilly ass kicking song and we would go into hyper patriot mode. At this point if linked to Iran properly by the media there would be a flirtation with the draft as well.

[mondo joe]

9. I suspect you're right. I don't understand what anyone could think of

that could INCREASE suppport for Bush, but it'd probably happen.

[theboss]

7. I think it hurts any leader at this point

The question is "Didn't you say Iraq would make us safer?"

I mean, there would be some initial rally 'round the leader stuff. But that would wear off rather quickly.

[spanone]

8. We've been told the world is safer. Uh, I don't think that is true.

When bush* talks about 'resolve', he should study the resolve of the terrorists. How many years did they lay low after the 1st WTC attacks??? That's resolve. And they will do it again on behalf of Gitmo, Abu Gharib, deaths of innocent civilians and on and on.

[acmejack]

10. It would further polarize the nation

Those of us who are blue would say the same thing we are saying now. The other side will be shouting louder and more vituperatively. They will blame liberals for lulling the sheeple into a state of decreased vigilance linking that to our attacks on the "Chief".

I worry a lot about using major event of that nature in this country to justify the imposition of martial law and the attendant suspension of civil liberties.

Hopefully, that is merely unjustified paranoid speculation...

[Zuni]

11. It is different now

After all the talk of how much safer Bush has made us, and him saying the increasingly unpopular war is what is protecting us---with a major terror attack coming after all that BS would cause him great problems

The first couple days, there might be a boost in his numbers, but I would say a rapid fall after people start thinking about how Bush hasn't really made them safer