A few scenarios that Democrats must be ready for in 2006:

[Ignacio Upton]

There are a few surprise scenarios that may threaten to hurt our chances in 2006 and ultimately drive Bush job approval back up. They are:

1. A brand-spanking new terrorist attack on American soil. Just think of how "strong" and "resiliant" Bush will look in the aftermath of a subway bombing in NYC or DC? Just think of how "decisive" Bush will look in his half-witted verbal response. A slew of ribbon-magnets will appears on cars saying "Never Forget __/__/06! Support the Troops!" Even though many people are skeptical of Bush, they rally like sheep in a moment of fear.

2. The capture of Osama Bin Laden. This possibility has been discussed in 2002 and 2004, with no results. However, we still must expect this scenario, as the public's attention span will make it impossible for them to recall Tora Bora or how we could have caught Osama back in 2001! This bounce, IMHO, will be short-lasting than the first.

Now what can Reid, Dean, and Pelosi do to prevent these two incidents from restoring Bush's lofty "War President" status in the public's eyes? Well, for starters, we need to point out his national and DOMESTIC security failures. We need to pound the public with tv Ads showing how the Iraq War has made global terrorism even STRONGER, and how at home, Bush is willing to neglect our ports (see DP Ports World) and chemical plants. Talk of how the 9/11 Commission gave him a list of bad grades for how he has handled terrorism. Also, talk about how FEMA and DHS's handling of Hurricane Katrina are indicative of their performance in terrorism.
On the issue of Osama, we should be running ads showing Tora Bora non stop. We must also show how capturing him today will not make us safer, unlike in 2001 when it would have made a difference.

We MUST run ads of these sort pre-emptively, or else you'll hear Tweety and Wofl talk of how Bush 60+% job approval numbers will lead to a filibust-proof, 60 seat Republican caucus in the Senate, and the loss of 30 seats for us in the House of Representatives.

[hedgehog]

1. Make the counterpoint: What has Bush done to make us safer?

If anything, we're in worse shape than we were 9/10/01. One little burp in the oil supply and our economy goes into the garbage can.

[Chevy]

2. Agreed

Pre-emtive strikes against Rove now would be a good plan even as far as accusing allies of Rove secretly plotting a terrorist attack on American soil before the November election.
Let them try to deflect a negative for a change.

[Ignacio Upton]

3. We don't have to allege MIHOP

That will HURT us politically by making us look nuts. However, we need to attack Bush supposed "strengh" on national security, so that in the event of another terrorist attack or in event of Osama's capture, the public won't rally around him, trusting everything he says even if it's bullshit.

[Chevy]

7. Not if

it`s done by some left wing group that is not affiliated with the democratic party and the Democratic leaders could just shoot the charge down as reckleess and nonsense. But the point is it would be out there.

[napi21]

4. You're right about an unexpected terrorist attack. HOWEVER,

I would think the way to handle something like that would be to replay the "We're going to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" statement, and ALL of the ones saying how GREAT a job Shrub has done since we haven't had any more attacks here!

An even like that pretty much links directly to the lies and misconnseptions they've been blabbering for several years now!

[iamjoy]

5. Don't Forget War With Iran

I mean, maybe it isn't going to happen, after all, Dubya says they're considering all options. Oh wait....

we're going to attack Iran. I bet it's "penciled in" for October 24

[Ignacio Upton]

6. I don't think that Iran will help him

Maybe for a few days, but ultimately, if Iranian troops working with the Iraqi Shiites, cross the border into the Iraq, then "Dien Bien Phu in the Desert" will bury Bush because of his stupidity. Another terrorist attack by Al Qaida or Bin Laden's capture will.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. Thats the one that scares the hell out of me...

I certainly hope I am wrong. I desperately hope I am wrong.

If they already want military action against Iran anyway; or perhaps somewhere else for that matter. But other factors make them think twice. But they realize that a properly timed military strike "could" (that is might) save their skin during the upcoming midterm elections--is it not wholly plausible that this could contribute to a decision to go ahead and strike?

The lapdog media will do its duty. They realize that much of the American public will in spite of misgiving feel its their patriotic duty to "support the troops". They realize that most but not all key Democrats will support the move at least initially--either because they agree with it or because they are afraid of being labeled "week on defense", "soft on terrorism", or being part of the "blame America first crowd".

I certainly hope I am wrong. but I would not put it past these people.
And as I always say NEVER, NEVER, NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE WAR PROPAGANDA MACHINE..

Here is just one example. Now forget what you know about the reality of the situation. Forget what facts you know. Imagine you are just Jane Doe or John Q. Public living in Anytown, USA:



http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7955

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state. (Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites.)

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

8. This Country Is Doomed

If the Democrats don't get control of at least 1 part of Congress this year, we'll never make it to 2008. It will be the end of the U.S. as we know it for at least the next generation. It will be a dark 2 decades for the Baby Boomers.

I think we may already be past the point of no return, but if these criminals keep control of all branches for another 2 years, it's all over.

I will seriously consider leaving the country prior to 2008 if this occurs.

[abluelady]

9. I Can't See How Another Attack Will Help Him

It will show him as the failure he is. He was unable to keep us safe after all. And if Osama shows up, we need to throw Bush's words back in his face "I'm not that worried about him." That way we can say, big deal, you caught Osama. If the Dems would smarten up, this could all be turned around in Bush's face.

[Ignacio Upton]

10. Don't overestimate the public

They have a VERY short attention-span. People have a impulse the rally behind the President in the event of disaster, and Bush will certainly benefit from another terrorist attack, at least temporarily. We must make sure that we pre-empt this scenario, so the public don't take the bait.

[abluelady]

11. You're Right. I Forgot

it is called the dumbing down of America.

[OneBlueSky]

13. I think your #1 is pretty much a certainty . . .

BushCo has nowhere else to turn . . . they MUST scare the shit out of the populace if they are to survive . . . and even then they probably won't . . .