9/30/2004 07:39:06 AM|||Nathan Moore|||

James Robbins of NRO is convinced that there will at least be an attempted attack by Al Qaeda on an American target prior to November 2nd. I tend to agree - Spain is enough proof for me to take the prospect of election altering attempts by Al Qaeda seriously. Though, in the case of the United States, I am also equally certain that any attempts to alter the direction of the American electorate will fail abysmally.

An attack prior to the general election would return the focus entirely, not mostly, to the issue of terrorism, an issue where Bush continues to enjoy a stronger and stronger advantage in every poll that asks the question. Part of this conclusion comes from sheer fact - Bush has acted decisively to attack those who attacked us, and who may in the future attack us. The second part goes to the Kerry campaign's strategy. Their strategy of bifurcating Iraq from the greater war on terror will have negative political consequences if an attack is attempted. Though I realize it shortsighted to go off the cliff at this point attacking the progress in Iraq (we haven't been there all that long), I will also admit that a skilled Democratic political strategist, who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, could make a case that we are in the midst of, say, a quagmire. The polls for awhile showed this to be true, though people on this issue are now trending back to the President.

The Democratic attacks on Bush's handling of terrorism have not proven as convincing. This decision to make two issues out of what is really one - can you say with any certainty that Saddam Hussein would not provide WMD's to Al Qaeda operatives? - was an act of desperation to begin with, and became all the more important when John Kerry began bungling his Vietnam service record (or, perhaps, when he came back from Vietnam and through his Vietnam service record over the White House fence). Since only Andropov would have been proud of John Kerry's Senate votes on defense, this left the campaign in a quandry for which they had no answer. Complete bifurcation was supposed to save the day. Other Dems had made the pitch before that Iraq was separate from the War on Terror, but the mantra had not governed Kerry campaign strategy until just recently.

With no other grounds for credibility on national defense, this was the answer. Whether it works well enough to win will be answered shortly. Kerry staking his entire campaign on Iraq seems risky to me. But I'm sure Kerry will answer all our questions on this issue in the debate tonight. Whether he answers clearly, decisively, without "nuance" and, let's face it, such complete incoherence that only a crank addicted chimp could comprehend, is anyone's guess.

|||109654884670860993|||Terrorism and Timing