This one goes out to alierak

[hkellick]

Yesterday you suggested that it seemed like it was only the states not directly threatened by Al Qaeda (ie, the coasts, mostly) who had voted FOR Bush.
However, Al Qaeda is vowing war against only those states who voted for Bush.
I'm not sure if we can believe Bin Laden (I don't, not at face value), but it would be.. interesting.. if the next attack were aimed, not at New York and Washington, but at Ohio or Florida or even good old Texas.
It would be interesting indeed.

Comments

[alierak.livejournal.com]

Interesting is not the word you are looking for. Move along.

I don't want to see another attack, period. Those of us in the blue states already know it can happen on Bush's watch. I don't know quite how he convinces anyone that he can do anything about it, but I won't say that's just too bad for the red states.

[lite.livejournal.com]

I'm not looking forward to another attack, but I do believe one will happen. As I stated above, I'm not sure I believe Osama bin Laden at his word and, moreover, I'm not sure that if someone DID attack, say, Texas, that that wouldn't drive more people towards George Bush, our great war president, than away from him.
But I think I would be generally surprised if Osama bin Laden did keep his word and that the next attack WAS in Dallas, Tallahasee or Canton instead of more "obvious" targets like NYC, DC, San Fran or Chicago. Especially with the whole symbolism thing. Like it or hate it, NYC is, in a way, a symbol of everything America is.