The Big Bang theory -- again

Homeland Security head Tom Ridge is predicting a massive terror attack. There have been many such prophecies, and most of us have learned to ignore them. Not a few of us believe that Bush uses these warnings to foster fear, fear being one of his chief weapons. (Apologies to Monty Python.)

Nota bene: Ridge claims that the motive for this new attack is to disrupt the elections and to undermine the nation's resolve. Translation: Ridge hopes to convince us that Osama wants Kerry to win.

Once again, I must point out that in the only purported Al Qaeda communication to address the elections, the terrorists expressed a desire for Bush to win, because they consider him a fool.

Granted, this message came to us via those happy funsters at the Abu Mafs Al Hasri Brigades, whose antics we have followed for some time now. Experts have expressed doubt as to whether this group has any real link to Al Qaeda. At this point, frankly, I'm not sure what to think on that score. I will note, though, that Tony Blair once quoted an "Abu Hafs" missive during Parliamentary questioning. So we can conclude, at the very least, that the group possesses credibility in his eyes -- at least when they say something that the pro-war faction can use to its advantage.

Ridge hopes you won't notice one obvious point: Osama Bin Laden knows damn well that a new strike will probably give Bush a landslide victory. So when Ridge warns that the new attack will benefit Kerry -- be (as they say) very afraid. You have just witnessed a classic example of before-the-fact spin.

They would not be offering pre-event propaganda unless they knew that an event was coming.

Question: How do they know? The administration may not want to give even a hint in public as to the nature of their intelligence, but they can certainly give a general idea to the appropriate committees of Congress. Not that I expect Congress to demand oversight on this issue.

I am predicting a nuclear event in Chicago. I'm not saying it will happen before the election. After it happens, if it happens, I'll tell you how I knew.

Incidentally, this issue is the primary reason why I hoped Kerry would pick General Clark. I like Edwards, but after another episode of mass death, the people will want to vote for a high-ranking military figure.

After the event, Democratic forces must not give into the temptation to rally around the President. The theme should be: "Bush could not protect us." That rallying cry may not be enough to swing the election in Kerry's favor -- but what other approach has even a slim chance of prevailing?