All over Left Blogistan I keep reading variations on the same theme:
A. A major terrorist attack will happen before the election and help Bush.
B. A major terrorist attack will happen before the election but hurt Bush.
(Note: a sub-theme is that Bushco will be behind the attack, especially if trailing in the polls.)
C. No terror attacks before the election and Bush rides the "we kept you safe from terra" meme to victory.
I have another fear:
Now, admittedly, this is tinfoil-hat thinking; but hear me out and then tell me, honestly, would you put it past this, you know, group of crooks and liars?
Come late October, the polls are still very close or even favor Kerry. Scenario C ain't happening. Bush needs something to guarantee victory (more than just Diebold, I mean). Staging an attack may help (Scenario A), but Scenario B can't be ruled out either. So with nothing to lose but the pResidency, the thinking goes, Bushco stages an attack.
My thought is, why risk Scenario B if you don't have to? Much more effective to claim to have thwarted an attack: Stage a shootout in Washington or LA (perhaps including a martyred FBI agent); film a parade of wounded, bloody swarthy Mediterranean types being dragged into Camp X-Ray (I'm sure the casting director at the ad agency behind the "Mohammed Horton" ad could supply the actors); endless photo ops showing off the "captured" bombs, blueprints, and "Kerry for President" bumper stickers from the conspirators' lair.
Game over.