I disagree, McGrath. I mean to say, I agree with what you say at first, that the Spanish situation was NOT an example of terrorists achieving their end by changing the outcome of an election, it was an example of the outgoing government shooting itself in the foot by trying to take advantage of the situation and getting caught.

What I disagree with is the idea that Americans will automatically stand behind the President. Last time, the attack made people realize that even under adverse circumstances, the country would not fall apart just because Bush was in office. Bush at that time was unpopular because he had won on a technicality, and people were calling him incompetent and stupid. The 9-11 attacks proved that this didn't matter, that he could still be a reassuring daddy figure, which is what many people want in such cicumstances, and that his people would keep things running. So about 5-10 percent of the people who had voted for Gore began to "approve" of Bush, giving him strong approval ratings. Remember, all it takes is a relatively small shift like this in US politics, where 50-50 is a tie and 60-40 is a massive landslide.

What has happened since 2001 is that many of those people who began approving of Bush got screwed. Bush has slammed a hard-right agenda through Congress, deceived our elderly with a bogus medical bill, declared a war that many of us didn't want and pursued it in a way that no one can fathom, etc. Some people cling to the idea that we have pursued this course to make ourselves safer. Another terror attack will make those people say "all this, and he STILL can't prevent another attack?" (As Bush so memorably put it: "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and...I...can't get fooled again, can't get fooled again!") Other voters are already shifting, as the polls show.

I think a terror attack would be disastrous for Bush, but dragging up Osama Bin Laden or trumping up some phony WMD evidence in Iraq could once again reassure people that he is a good daddy, and win him the election.