Now, see, if 10000 Muscovites wanted to write letters to people in Clark County… they’d be in Russian.

Posted by: TBox at October 18, 2004 03:53 PM

So, let’s recap… to stop us from electing Bush, the terrorist will attack before the election… but if Bush wins, we’ll get retaliatory terrorist attacks after the election… but if we elect Kerry, we’ll get terrorist attacks after the election, too, because… the um… the terrorists want him to win… yeah!… so they’ll attack us when he does… but the whacko left say we might get attacks before the election to scare people into voting for Bush… unless of course we get attacks after the election, because the whacko right says Kerry is soft on terrorists…

I think I missed an attack or two there someplace…

Posted by: Solonor at October 18, 2004 04:42 PM

What is so hard about this?

So, let’s recap… to stop us from electing Bush, the terrorist will attack before the election No, to influence the election, not to necessarily stop us from electing Bush…thinking the same thing that happened in Spain will happen here. It won’t.… but if Bush wins, we’ll get retaliatory terrorist attacks after the election This implies that somehow we can avoid getting attacked by our behavior. It isn’t what we DO that precipitates attacks…its what we ARE that threatens them.… but if we elect Kerry, we’ll get terrorist attacks after the election, too, because… the um… the terrorists want him to win… yeah!the terrorists want him to win so they will be ABLE to attack us with impunity… so they’ll attack us when he does… but the whacko left say we might get attacks before the election to scare people into voting for Bush uh-huh… unless of course we get attacks after the election, because the whacko right says Kerry is soft on terrorists…

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at October 18, 2004 04:59 PM

Other than that, you were dead on. :)

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at October 18, 2004 05:00 PM

They’re not going to attack us to try to stop us from electing Bush but just to “influence the election”? What the hell does that mean?

And if we can’t affect the attacks by our behavior, why is Putin urging us to vote for Bush…?

The terrorists have already influenced the election. But it’s ok as long as the influence gets people to vote for Bush, right?

Posted by: Solonor at October 18, 2004 05:14 PM

People who like to kill will take any handy excuse (Bush is POTUS, Kerry is POTUS, they aren’t POTUS). The question isn’t if, it’s when. We need to get past the psychiatric shock of 9/11, and simply make plans for mass casualties from a worst case scenario attack. If we never get one, that’s great, and we’re well prepared for a flu pandemic, Cat 5 hurricane, or nuclear plant explosion. If we get a catastrophic attack, we have Disaster Recovery plans in place other than “run for your lives!” or “Get the duct tape and the plastic.”

Realistically, I think that over the next 15 years, we will be in a US where there will be isolated terrorism —suicide bombers in malls, randomly target violence at sporting events. Will it eventually kill more people per year than the flu (36,000 in 2003), assault (17,000 in 2001) suicide (30,000 in 2001) or fire (3,400 in 2001)? Probably not.

Posted by: Mona B. at October 18, 2004 05:19 PM

They’re not going to attack us to try to stop us from electing Bush but just to “influence the election”? What the hell does that mean?

What I mean, Solonor, is that we don’t know what their idea of “influencing the election” is. They will attack before the election if they think it will achieve the desired result, which would be to get GW out of office. That’s what Putin suggests. However, they will only do that if they think an attack will actually ACHIEVE that result, instead of turning the American public TOWARD Bush, which would be the more likely outcome.

And if we can’t affect the attacks by our behavior, why is Putin urging us to vote for Bush…?

This is what you seem to be having trouble understanding. Our behavior has no effect on whether they TRY to attack us, Solonor; it only has an effect on whether or not they SUCCEED. My opinion, since that was what seemed to offend you, is that they will be less likely to succeed with President Bush.

The terrorists have already influenced the election. But it’s ok as long as the influence gets people to vote for Bush, right?

Yeah, sure, Solonor, I’m suggesting that I don’t care about terrorism, as long as my party gets in. Y’know, I’ve seen your posts on other threads and respected your opinion. But I’d like to give you a sincere Fuck. You. for that last unwarranted comment. It deserves no more dignity than that. If the best you can do is suggest that I am so selfish that I would sacrifice our security for partisanship, then I was clearly wrong about you, and you can debate with someone else. Look back, I did not do the same. Our opinions may differ, but our intentions do not. To accuse me of else is extremely inappropriate.

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at October 18, 2004 05:50 PM

In addition, I’d also like to point out that in the title article, Putin actually specifically says that he is equally respectful of any decision the Americans take. I don’t think he is urging Americans to vote for Bush at all.

But his words betray what his personal opinion is; a personal opinion based on a reality that should be patently obvious: that the terrorists see Bush as an obstacle to them, not an aid.

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at October 18, 2004 06:04 PM

When Putin says “any unbiased observer understands,” he apparently forgot with whom he was dealing. He said in essence, if Bush loses, the terrorists will see that as a victory. His meaning should be obvious to anyone except maybe the AP (see their headline).

Posted by: grumpy at October 18, 2004 09:43 PM

“International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term… If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition,” Putin said

IOW, if Bush loses, the terrorists will have won.

So, while we shouldn’t base our actions on what terrorists want, just bear in mind that the (former) head of the KGB says if you vote for Kerry, the terrorists will win.

On the radio a while ago, I heard Dick Morris say that if there’s a terror attack before the elections it will help Bush.

I think we’re sending the completely wrong messages to our politicians.

Posted by: Lonewacko at October 19, 2004 12:29 AM

Sending messages to politicians? Are we, as americans being unclear? Why yes, we are. And that’s the way it is.

it seems that there are two camps (this is an oversimplification but hopefully it makes the point).

One camp believes that this is a war and it should be fought “over there”. These folks recognize that this is a long hard struggle.

The other camp is sorta borderline denial. To them, going “tit for tat” with the Taliban was all that was necessary (if even that). These people are complacent, the memory of 9/11 has faded and they want to talk about social programs and domestic policy.

If Bush loses, IMHO, it will be directly attributable to American Complacency. And that will be a shame because only another Beslan will shake them up.

Posted by: skip at October 19, 2004 04:42 PM

Putin is nothing if not a practical man. He was raised in the Soviet intelligence system.

He knows if the US quits the fight in Iraq, lots of resources will be coming north to help their Chetchen brethern.

Should Bush be defeated, you’ll see the same people dancing in the streets who were dancing in the streets…..

on September 11, 2001.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 19, 2004 10:11 PM

From a geopolitical point of view, Putin might be trying to shore up support for a group of “nations” that are on the front line against Iran.

As the torpedo man points out there are many who would be doing mischief in russia who are now dodging american bombs in Iraq. Forcing the fight makes sense unless one wants a Beslan every month.

If we can find a way to surround Iran with a combination of our forces and unfriendly neighbors we have a much better shot at a bloodless regime change there.

Perhaps Putin wasn’t really talking to us or to the various “stans”. Perhaps he was talking to the Mullahs in Iran.

Posted by: skip at October 20, 2004 10:31 AM