I think that's a bit unfair. He's not saying terrorists will attack if Obama is elected. He's saying they'll attack regardless, just to fuck with the new guy.

To be honest, this thought has crossed my mind as well. Of course, I don't chair Homeland Security, so I assume* Joe's got some data to back this up other than a hunch.

*I don't actually assume this, but it'd be nice if we had elected officials with enough integrity where I could.

Ezra's right, folks: 2008 will reprise 2004. The GOP has nothing to offer except the idea that if you vote to elect a Democrat you'll die. Remember Cheney's similar statements in the fall of '04?

The Republicans will fight to the death to keep the White House, with no ideas in their arsenal except tax cuts for the ridiculously rich and fear, fear, fear. The latter may trump the former. Obama had better be prepared. We can all see it coming like a Cat 5 hurricane churning across the Gulf of Mexico.

Well said, BryklynLibrul.

I'm with scythia on this one, and I completely loathe Joe Lieberman. Some data would be good, but at least as I remember it the Madrid attacks were immediately pre-election (and thankfully did not help the conservatives, even though they tried to milk it), and there is a certain logic in attacking when there's a change in government, before the new administration is completely organized. Forcing a reaction throws an opponent off balance, after all.

Having said that, it's still [predictably] reprehensible for Holy Joe to insinuate that the GOP would be better at 'dealing with' an attack (translation: fire up the population and blow up some brown, Arab types). But I've long thought that given the current benefits of American entanglement in the ME from Al Qaeda's perspective, they'd almost certainly want to provoke a new administration enough to keep it going. Unfortunately, aside from keeping the Bushies in power forever-- or at least until they really do destroy the country beyond recovery-- our only option is to accept that risk, with McCain possibly symbolizing less massive immediate risks but near-certain continued decline, or a much better chance of Obama righting the ship and some more desperate AQ tactics.

After some months of thought on which adjective would best describe and therefore become a permanent part of the Joe's public persona, I've arrived at near perfection:

Loathsome Joe Lieberman.

Agree with both the loathsomeness of Lieberman, and the reasonableness of what he's saying. Recall that the airport attacks in Britain were Brown's first week in office. I do think there's a pattern here, and that the thinking behind it isn't that far removed from middle school.

Having said all that, I really do fucking hate Joe Lieberman.

Apparently, Lieberman believes international terrorism works something like the first day of middle school, when a bully pushes you into a locker to find out whether you'll push back.

IMHO, then I'm with Lieberman here. I seem to remember a moonbat piece back in 2004 about how a Kerry victory would mean another terrorist attack: basically, Bush & CO responded to 9/11 by, under the guise of "fighting terrorism" actually giving Al Qaeda pretty much everything it wanted; and the question would be how Kerry would respond.

In 2008 we face a similar issue -- no doubt that McCain will be Bush, term III, so why should the terrorists attack us? They know that we'll continue to impliment their agenda under Pres. McCain.

OTOH, most likely their agenda will not be implimented under Pres. BHO, so they would need to attack us. Of course, unlike post-9/11 where "even the liberal media" urged us to "rally around the President", the media will go after BHO big time as a terrorist aiding crypto-Muslim "Manchurian candidate" and push us back toward getting rid of BHO and going back to BushCO "anti-terrorism measures".

Thus, Holy Joe is right ... the terrorists have a lot to gain by attacking us if BHO is elected and a lot to loose by not attacking us in such a case ... but if we elect Sen. McCain, why should the terrorists have to attack us as we will remain terrorized.

I hate to be so cravenly political about it, but while I have no doubt that, in spite of his "inexperience", OBH will actually handle the terrorists well enough should they attack, he (and the spineless Dems. who ought to have his back) won't be able to handle the spin and navagate the political waters to keep power and not end up being forced back into disastrous BushCO patters of "terrorist fighting". I hope BHO is ready for a terrorist attack -- not only in terms of the actual response, but in terms of the spin management.

If he is ready in terms of the latter, maybe the terrorists won't attack. But if he looks politically weak, we might get some terrorist attacks just to knock BHO down and replace him with terrorist-friendly GOP rule.

Shorter me: what latts said.

There is no doubt that Al-Queda and others have not stopped their attempts to attack the US. No attacks have happened on President Bush's watch.

Thank you President Bush.

How odd that Lieberman failed to mention that the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing have been successfully prosecuted and imprisoned, while Osama bin Laden remains at large.

According to Wikipedia, a claim of responsibility letter written by one of the terrorists in the 1993 bombing went as follows: "We are, the Liberation Army fifth battalion, again. Unfortunately, our calculations were not very accurate this time. However, we promise you that next time it will be very precise and World Trade Center will continue to be one [of] our targets unless our demands have been met."

Guess which president took that threat seriously? Hint: he left office in January 2001.

Consider George W. Doofus's response to the 2001 attacks: he capitulated to bin Laden's principal demand--closing American military bases in Saudi Arabia--and he outsourced the search for bin Laden himself, resulting in bin Laden's escape from pursuit at Tora Bora.

I remain amazed that the Republicans have successfully spun the fear of terrorism to work in their favor.

In September 2000, the neocons at PNAC (Project for A New American Century) said what this country needed was a "new Pearl Harbor." It happened, the "T" word was born and we know all the rest....

For the moment, let's assume the PNAC would like to see McCain win the election. Hopefully they will not become TOO desperate.

So, who are the REAL terrorists and what do they really want?

Honesty, courage and engagement are needed to turn this corner - viva Obama.

Also, whatever we as individuals need to do to get quiet and peaceful inside, we need to start doing it NOW. This is the real solution.

dearing

Purchasing links london Rings at a lucrative price will satisfy your gift requirements as well as afford you an unforgettable place in the gift-giving department. With the Christmas approaching fast,

it is wise to place an order of links of london Rings at here.