Republican logic -- or the painful lack thereof
Over at Talking Points Memo at the moment, Josh Marshall has two short pieces referring to two Republican spin points that seem to make little sense when you try to believe both of them at the same time and not have your head explode into flames.
The two claims:
1) Kerry election victory will bring devastating terrorist attack.
2) Terrorists hope to disrupt elections.
Let's deal with number 2 first. So the terrorists want to disrupt the election? In what way? What outcome would they be looking for? The current right-wing spin is that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism -- that the terrorists want Kerry to win because ... I'm not sure, because he'd be softer on the terrorists? That's the only conclusion that even remotely makes sense. So we have to conclude that what the Republicans are proposing is that the terrorists want to disrupt the election to ensure a Kerry victory.
In that case, how can it make any sense that a Kerry election victory would provoke a terrorist attack, if the terrorists want Kerry to win in the first place? What message are the terrorists allegedly trying to send? "As terrorists, we support John Kerry and want you to elect him. Of course, if you do, we will attack you unmercifully."
Talk about a mixed message.