Cancelling the Presidential Elections? is the link on MSNBC website tonight.
Thanks to Tom Ridge's psuedo-terrorist warning--I call it pseudo because the warning came with no specifics, wasn't backed by any tangible intelligence, nor was the terror level raised-- the news about delaying or postponing the election (in case of a terrorist attack) is making the rounds.
In fact, Newsweeks coverage of it in the Campaign 2004 section of the July 19th issue (which is the online link from MSNBC) brings the issue into the living rooms, front porches, and doctors offices of middle America. As I mentioned in June, this issue has been tossed around ever since the elections in Spain voted out the Bush-friendly government and put in the "appeasers." The Republicans don't want that happening here so their grand plan is to subvert the right to vote by cancelling the election in case of a terrorist attack.
Now, Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) "
[Reuters]
Right! And I'm the toothfairy.
Let me digress and talk about two points that concern me about allowing this Administration to create contingency plans that allow the postponement of the presidential election.
Can we trust intelligence managed by this Administration? With the findings of the recent intelligence report that stated, among other things, that the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence for the Iraq war was dysfunctional, and that the White House and other figures put pressure on the CIA to stylize the intelligence to substantiate a viable reason to invade Iraq, how much credit should be given to the "alarming intelligence" Tom Ridge warns points to election day attacks?
Why is so much being said about this warning when Ridge and "other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots."
How can intelligence be "alarming" if there is "no intel about any specific plots"? (Talk amongst yourselves.)
But Ridge gets plastered over the airwaves wearing a serious we're-gonna-be-dying-soon look that's broadcast over every top-of-the-hour-every-hour news programs as if the attacks are plotted and coming soon to your hometown, neighborhood Wal-Mart.
The cost of the Iraqi war depleted funds for building viable, working homeland security measures. If there is a terrorist attack, Bush and company should be voted out of office for neglecting homeland security by taking their war on terrorism to Iraq rather than concentrating their efforts on Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. As of September 30th, the Iraqi War will have cost the US $135 billion dollars. "This is the lowest estimate of what Congress has appropriated for the war in Iraq in two supplemental appropriations."
Furthermore, and not less important then the above point, the cost of this war has taken funds away from developing and maintaining a fully-staffed, fully-trained, and responsive homeland security (first responders and hazmat crews) for each state and major city.
Finally, there seems to be a logistical problem about the development of this contingency plan. It appears the only ones allowed to make any real significant input on it are Republicans. And, not surprising, it is void of details. Here are some of the questions/ideas that need to be addressed:
1. Who or what committee decides if a terrorist attack is grave enough to postpone the presidential election?
2. How long will the election be postponed? Is it a set number of days? Or is the new date subject to the whims of the threat of terrorism -- some magical calculation based off how secure someone or some committee feels America is?
Point 2 is most important. We have already seen how the threat of terrorism brought the House and Senate to its knees in support of an invasion of Iraq. We also know how many Americans have bought into the myth of the war on terror. As Orrin Hatch explained in a letter to me: "we are fighting a shadowy enemy that seeks to destroy our very way of life. The war against terror will last years, possibly decades...."
If the presidential election was postponed, it seems far too easy (based off of what we have seen and experienced) to spike up the threat of terrorism and postpone the election until the war on terror is won. And whether or not you have bought into the myth, you probably know that could "last years, possibly decades...."
3. Is there any feasibility to pass legislation (in this case) that only gives the president certain rights, powers, and privileges in the interem time until the scheduled election? This might insure that the president cannot do a power grab.
_______________________________________
I also wrote about this issue on June 30th.
