The Democrats will eventually get to have it both ways, downplaying the terrorist threat for now, since it hurts their chances in 2004 to focus on it, but at the same time being ready to turn on a dime and rate it as being their own personal key issue should any sort of attack on American soil occur. (Should nothing happen until after next year's elections, then it will be the candidates for 2008 who will run with the attacks, irregardless of their previous position on the issue)

On the other hand, should the terrorists turn their attention to a major strike on a target in a country that has denegrated the war on terror -- France or Germany come to mind -- then those opposed to Bush will have a hard time justifying their own positions, either downgrading the threat, or outright opposing any agressive action in the effort to combat terrorism.

Blame will come - from the fearful and the irrational - but the deeper problem will be anger and the lust for revenge. Another 'major' attack will have people howling for immediate retaliation, instead of the continuation of any process already underway. That is the real danger, not any second and third-guessing from the likes of Howard Dean (whose poll numbers would disappear with any attack resulting in 1000 dead Americans) or Peter Jennings.

What the left fails to consider is that without the leadership Tony Blankley describes, about all any President would be able to do in response to future attacks is go wail in the UN General Assembly, or launch missiles at Mecca. Both options are disgusting.

If a European country suffers a terror attack, I don't see why it won't simply blame Bush and Sharon for exacerbating world wide tensions.

The real question then becomes, how will it respond after a second attack?

The US now has ops centers in the terrorists' front yards. That provides access to future terrorist plans.

I think a major terror attack here at home would put Bush out of office. The democrats have all seeded the debate with "he's not doing enough for homeland security," even as they try to block anything the Patriot Act may try to accomplish.

That's why I think the terrorists, eager to get Bush out of office, will be making a play for the US this year. Something big that will make Bush look like he's asleep at the wheel.

AQ says a big one is coming during Ramadan, but we don't know where.

To think that another major attack would put Bush out is believing that the public at large would trust any of the 9 dim echoes with national security more than Bush. I just don't how that is possible. People may clamor for Schwartzkopf, John McCain, or even Colin Powell to assume the Oval Office, but Dick Gephardt? John Edwards? Spare me.

NKR -

I've been pondering this very question. Your scenoario is pretty obvious.... "You are supposed to protect us, Mr. Bush.... you didn't."

I see the teeth there. But wait.

That will hold for about 72 hours. Once people move onto the second stage of the aftermath, they will be asking Mr.'s Dean, Kerry, and Co.... "OK, Bush screwed us, now.... WHAT are YOU gonna do? No more pissing and moaning, WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU GONNA DO????"

A: "Um, give more money to cops and fireman so they can pick up the bodies faster on the THIRD hit?"

I don't think so. Secure our ports, etc? Sure. But what else, and what does that really mean? Lock down the borders and literally start machine gunning anyone who tries to cross? Reduce immigration radically? Implement everything about the Patriot Act that they've been condemning, and then some? Make John Ashcroft look like Phil Donahue? Racially profile? "Stand over there, sir, for an intensive search and questioning." "You're just doing that because I'm Arab!" You're damn right.... anything about that you don't understand? Oh, and the next flight outta the country is thataway if you don't like it. Matter of fact, we ain't asking anymore. Hit the road." ??? Or worst of worst, heaven forfend, decide that we should, I dunno, PRE-EMPTIVELY attack those who would carry out a third, fourth and fifth such attack? Golly, there's a thought.

Are Democrats prepared to do that? To even think along those lines, that is, jettisoning "fairness", "respect for cultures", "international opinion" blah blah.... all of that out the window in order to ensure the survival of the nation, no matter what the cost? Are they?

If they do, they themselves will have killed the Democratic Party as we know it.

I honestly can't say if such an attack would hurt the President badly long term or not, unless someone ran hard to his right, and that scares even me. But I simply cannot imagine today't Democrats doing the above, or even considering it. And by two weeks after such an attack, that rules them out a serious players.

It another major attack happens here - it's simple really. The American public will call for bombs over Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia. Lots of them. If Bush does not deliver, he is toast...period. Here down south people are still wondering why we are not pressuring these nations militarily with all the terrorists coming in from those places.

I think there will be another major terrorist attack within the US.

Instead of the scenario by NKR above, I'd say it's just before the presidential election next year. We Americans sometimes have a 24 minute attention span (including 6 minutes for commercials).