How should Kerry respond to an al Qaeda attack on US soil?

Reuters reports:

DUBAI (Reuters) - A letter purporting to come from Osama bin Laden's militant Islamist al Qaeda network said a big attack on the United States was in the final stages of preparation, a london-based Arabic newspaper said on Thursday.

"We bring the good news to Muslims of the world that the expected 'Winds of Black Death' strike against America is now in its final stage...90 percent (ready) and God willing near," the letter said.

The letter, signed by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades which said it is part of al Qaeda, was sent to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. A copy of the letter was faxed to Reuters in Dubai.

It was not possible to independently authenticate the letter.

Its a given, if this were to occur, that Bush would exploit it. The two questions I have are:

1. In what specific ways will Bush exploit it?

2. How should Kerry respond to both to the attack and to Bush's exploitation?

•  If something happens...

  ...then the political ramifications will depend on how the terrorist attack happens.  Remember, Bush has now had three years to protect us against further attacks.   If the attack is related to the seaports, nuclear weapons, biological or chemical attack, bombs on trains or buses or buildings, dirty bombs or hijacked planes, then the public en masse will turn on Bush.

  If it is something not imagined to date (and ironically even I cannot imagine what else they could do), then the public will rally behind Bush.

  by Delaware Dem on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 11:49:40 PM PDT

  •  no way

    If Al-quaida is responsible than Bush is responsible.He had the oportunity and resources to crush Al-quida and OBL but chose to use those assets in a war that everyone knows now was totally unneccesary and bogus.If we are attacked than Bob Graham was correct in his assesment and deserves the VP slot.

    by ctkeith on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 11:56:09 PM PDT

    •  Don't we basically agree....

      ...if there is an imagined terrorist attack by al-Queda, then Bush is toast.  

      If it is not imagined, I think Bush will get a pass by the public and the media.  The rationale will be "Hey, we didn't think of it so how could we prevent it."

      I'm not saying that I agree with that rationale, but it will be the party line and the public and the media will swallow it.  

      by Delaware Dem on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 11:58:58 PM PDT

      •  basically yes we do agree

        but I don't give a shit if al-quida discovered little green men on mars and hired them to train frogs to kill americans in mass.My point is Al-quiada should have and could have been destroyed by now if W had put the resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan.Any attack that Al-quiada perpetrates,including todays in spain and all the others that have been perpetrated since the US armed forces were taken out of that front could more than likely have been avoided.

        by ctkeith on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 12:23:06 AM PDT

•  Winds of Black Death ?

  OMG ! Are they talking about plague ?

  by murphy on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 11:52:05 PM PDT

  •  No

    It's just a really big fan.

    by Cbal on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 11:54:48 PM PDT

  •  No, i think...

    I think that they know that a senior staff member of the white house has a serious body odor...

    Poll on who it is?  Ashcroft?

    </snark>

    by Demosthenes on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 12:24:22 AM PDT

•  Lets just hope it doesn't happen

  Bush will likely invade the wrong country (again) and give us lots of cowboy talk. I'd go so far as to suspect the repubs would call for a suspension of the election - with all the usual 'anyone who opposes this simple idea is a traitor'

  What we should demand as citizens, is a leader with a brain and a plan to get these bastards.

  Other than that, should a 2nd attack occur, two attacks in one term is not a good argument for more of the same.

  by JoeWPgh on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 11:53:05 PM PDT

  •  Short of declaring martial law and...

    ...suspending the Constitution (which will end our Republic), how is it possible for a President to suspend an election?  It is constitutionally mandated that an election be held every four years on the first tuesday of November and later for the Electoral college to meet on the third tuesday of December.  

    Back in 1944, there was talk of suspending the election due to the war, and Roosevelt said that he knew of no power he possessed to do such a thing.  

    by Delaware Dem on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:50 AM PDT

    •  I didn't say it would actually happen

      I was speculating that repubs would call for it - the way they called for 'Reagan for life'.
      I don't think it would actually happen, because as you say, they don't have the constitutional provision to do so.
      OTOH, everytime I think I am getting too cynical about this bunch, they prove me wrong. It's getting difficult to put anything past them.

      by JoeWPgh on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 12:11:58 AM PDT

•  What Clinton would have done

  I remember finally getting off work at 10 o'clock Sept. 11 and watching TV all night with my girlfriend. We were both just staggered by the fact that the American people were just vaguely aware of where their president was.

  "Fuck Bush," she said. "Clinton would have been there this afternoon."

  "Yeah," I said, "and he would have brought a bucket."

  I think I said this right about the same time as the steelworkers local that built the WTC showed up uninvited and said "We built it, we'll help fix it." That moved me more than anything I saw that day, and I think it reminded me of Clinton.

  The thing I loved about Clinton is that he was willing to share what we were experiencing. He was willing to be genuinely moved by people or events. Bush has none of that capacity.

  If something truly horrible does happen again, Bush is going to whisked away to Nebraska (or maybe Kansas this time).

  Kerry needs to be there trying to help, sharing it with us. Hell, just bring some coffee. Anything. Don't try to be a candidate that day. Be an American.

  by Cbal on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 12:01:25 AM PDT

  •  Great answer

    I think that's the best possible thing he can do, it would show the John Kerry is a human and cares about people (and is not a terrorist), and it would completely contrast with what Bush did on September 11.

    by Fran for Dean on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 12:31:01 AM PDT

  •  empathy, the man oozed it

    bush has none and when he trys to show any that stupid smirk always tells you he didn't really mean it.

    by ctkeith on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:38 AM PDT

•  If this were to happen

  It would be a tragedy, first and foremost.  For 2 weeks to two months afterward, politics would be put aside and solidarity would follow.  

  THEN, The Shoe would drop hard on BushCo.  In his attack ads just out tonight, he claims that Kerry can't protect the US from Terrorists.  God forbid, Allah that means you too!, if this were to happen, it would nuder that arguement and send Bush out of office.

  by Steven R on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 12:27:41 AM PDT

•  Don't change horses in the middle of a race

  I think Bush would play another attack to the hilt, explaining the need to stay tough, to smoke 'em out outta their caves, and he would try to scare the shit out of Americans by saying there is intelligence about more evil attacks that only Bush can defend us against.  Then he'd say Kerry isn't man enough to rid the world of evil and he's a liberal and kinda French and he just isn't bold and decisive enough to fight the evil terrorists.  The American public would eat this shit up.

  Kerry needs to respond immediately by pointing out that Bush had his entire first term to build America's defenses against another terrorists attack, yet he squandered half the term by invading a non-Al Quaeda state, Iraq, and he squandered America's military resources on Iraq instead of on fighting Al Quaeda.  He should say that Bush hyped the threat posed by a two-bit dictator who barely had a conventional military let alone nuclear or even chemical capability, yet he didn't hype the threat posed by Al Quaeda enough.  He should point out that if Saddam were still in power, he wouldn't be a threat to us, and we could have spent the time and resources wasted in Iraq on tracking down Al Quaeda members.  

  He should say, before this new terrorist attack, Bush handled the war on terrorism incompetently.  Now Americans have paid for his incompetence with their lives, and now Bush has blood on his incompetent hands.  

  Eh, I don't think he'll say much of that, but it's nice to imagine!

  by Subterranean on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 01:02:32 AM PDT

  •  He needs to start now.

    Anything that he can point out that's not right about how America is set up to handle terrorism, he should point out.  Nice solid "I've done my homework unlike this guy playing with his toy soldiers" facts, like "George Bush said he would protect our ports.  When he said that, only 5% of shipping containers were being scanned on entry.  Today, three years later, only 5% of shipping containers are being scanned on entry."  Or whatever turns out to be true.  Pick the most damning facts and bang that drum like the ocean pounding on the beach.

    If al Qaida stays in their little holes, then, Kerry will look knowledgeable and strong on terror.  On the other hand, if there is another attack, the groundwork for "Bush betrayed us all" will have been laid.

    And, of course, when Kerry becomes president, he needs to actually fix all this shoddy shit Bush has left half-done while running ahead to his next toy.  "Really protecting America from terror" would be a good thing to title the tax-cut repeal.

    by Madeline on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 01:23:24 AM PDT