With all of Will Ferrells recent Anchorman publicity stunts it's possible you may have missed the following news, or what Newsweek calls an "exclusive".
American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack.
...while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election.
I can see where the case could be made for giving Bush this power but I have a hard time trusting the government right now. Especially when I know, that they know their buddy in Spain got the big boot after the horrible train bombing. There's no question about it, terrorism did play a role in the result of that election.
A successful terrorist attack on American soil would be the biggest sign of failure of the current administration and it's rhetoric, strategy, and tactics of the last three years. In short, a terrorist attack would be the ultimate litmus test of this administration — not that I am suggesting it would be a welcome one. Now that Karl Rove and company have seen what a small (when compared to 9/11) attack can do to a federal election, it's hard for me to believe they really have the protection and sanctity of democracy on the brain vs. basic survival instincts kickin' in.
I don't think it's fair of the administration to compare our current condition to that of September 11, 2001. We were so unprepared for the attack in New York and in Washington that for some of us just thinking straight was difficult, let alone participating in democracy. Everything about the attack was unprecedented in the history of humankind, it's hard to imagine any of us reacting differently.
But now that we have all weathered that storm and grown stronger I will not discount the fighting will of the American citizen. To vote is the one action that we can all take to fight against terror, it is perhaps the strongest and most powerful action we can make. And to suggest that we will all cower shows that our government has little faith in our resolve and ability to stand firm.
If George Bush wants to stay for another term then he should be doing everything he can to make sure we are not attacked successfully instead of asking Congress for a backdoor.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Greg, why do you hate America so much?
Beerzie,
I hope you are joking.
I'm sure Bush&Co are looking into every single border-line legal tactic possible that could tilt to their advantage — I wish I had confidence that anything is beyond them. At least it will likely be a state where the brother is not governor and the campaign manager is not the registrar of voters that will probably be the deciding factor in this one.
You don't often read a critic of America who appreciates America as much as Greg, I would think.
Why is it that when someone criticizes or questions the current administration, they're branded as "America Haters" or unpatriotic? I know this is a tired question, but I find it rather fascinating. It's as if the last fifty years of increasing free speech and democracy in the U.S. has suddenly flown out the window... or if the McCarthy years have suddenly returned in full force.
For what it's worth, Greg, I agree with what you're saying. But really, when has this current administration done everything it could to prevent another terrorism attack in the U.S.?
(I'm not saying they haven't done anything, but the sense that the administration was quickly distracted from the "war on terror" by another agenda is very strong.)
For the second time in two weeks my "why do you hate America" wisecrack has been taken seriously.
Is irony really that dead?
"There's no question about it, terrorism did play a role in the result of that election."
Is it completely impossible that the government was replaced because it lied to its people? Sure, their lies _concerned_ terrorism, but is it not possible that the people were outraged because of the _lies_ themselves, not as much about what these specific lies were about? I think it's possible, very possible.
One direct effect of the Madrid bombings on their election was a much greater turnout than previous years. This may be the what the Bush administration is most worried about.
As an Australian, I think every democracy should have compulsory voting like we do. Helps deter politicians from trying to take advantage of voter apathy.
Yeah, reminds me of the nineties when all the conservatives were warning about Clinton declaring marshall law.
Tomas, you're right the deception was likely the larger issue in the Spanish election but like Bruce points out the bombing had a direct impact on the results — a "last straw" as it were.
Beerzie: I got it.
Actually, I'm worried that we're seeing the political outcome of a potential terrorist attack through overly liberal-tinted lenses. Rather than showing how unsafe our foreign policy has made us, I think Dubya & Co would (successfully) use it to show that they need to stay in charge and stay the course. It's not as important that they would be full of crap and hurting us even more - the majority of people would be cowed by another attack and buy their line.
"But now that we have all weathered that storm and grown stronger I will not discount the fighting will of the American citizen." Sorry, I lost that faith in our citizenry when they elected this moron in the first place and then proceeded to publicly support his destructive unilateralism. Don't be fooled by Fahrenheit's box office results and confuse movie ticket sales with a political vote - the audience tends to self-select itself and I'm not reading about a massive defection of Republican voters in the newspapers. Come on, how forward-thinking is the average American citizen really? Our choice of future leader lies between one that's against gay marriage and willing to scratch up the Constitution, versus one that's against gay marriage and would rather the states sort it out? What's next, school segregation?
Ugh, this is the most cynical I've been in a while, but that's cool - we've all earned that right in the last few years.
My uncle (a naturalized citizen) asked me a couple of months ago whether I thought we would be attacked before the election and what I thought the reaction would be. I said that I felt that if it was within two weeks of the election it would favor Bush because of the natural tendency of Americans to pull together in a crisis. If, however, more than a couple of weeks passed I felt that reflection would lead to an overwhelming defeat of Bush. So my hypothesis was that Bin Laden would attack within a couple of weeks of the election in order to keep Bush in office (for obvious reasons).
I still fear that this is likely.
Is irony really that dead?
Uh...yeah. I think "irony" was about the first fatality in the War Against Terror. No wait, that was "truth", wasn't it?
Maybe, instead of postponing the election, it should be moved ahead without warning -- sorta like the handover in Iraq...
I personally think that postponing the elections in the event of an attack is the wrong option in this scenario. But, I can't help but think what people would be thinking and saying if it somehow came to light that the administartion did not have a plan for this kind of scenario. They already think that they failed to prevent 9/11 (whether you think it could have been prevented or not is not the issue here) so failing to have a plan for an attack on election day would be just as bad. Again, I think that postponing the election is not a good choice, but planning ahead is always prudent, and I hope they are pursuing alternative strategies as well.
I say call in 1-800 numbers like American Idol.
I can see it now...
The US gets attacked, the election is postponed and Bush stays for another year. In the meantime, the budget for defense increases, Armed Forces get stronger and bills are passed giving them more authority. They start policing the streets, people's freedoms start to diminish, but everyone "feels" safe.
Then one day, Bush decides that in the best interests of security for the United States, that he should be given emergency powers to govern while this crisis is at hand...
Reminds me of Star Wars: Episode I.
Few people know this, but there were three White House codenames for Bush's war on terror:
-The War on Irony
-The Tenth Crusade
-Four More Years
It would make for the ultimate October Surprise:
No election in November.
I agree (with Al Abut & Stefan) that another attack could easily result in more support for the Bush administration rather than less. It would justify all the fearmongering and infringements on civil liberties. One of the things that constantly amazes me is how successful this administration is at manipulating rhetoric (related, I'm sure to its strategies of 'information management')...but this usually passes without comment. Any reemergence of McCarthyism we're seeing is thanks to the administration's own willingness to publicly question people's 'patriotism' (i.e. complacency). Just a few short years ago the irony of Beerzie's comment would probably have been a given, but not now.
Beerzie: You're typing. There is no sarcasm or irony.
Saith Walker Hamilton: Beerzie: You're typing. There is no sarcasm or irony.
Walker: I guess you just have to know Beerzie. :-)
I forget where I read/heard it, but someone commented elsewhere yesterday that if Dubya truly believed that his little war had made us safer, we wouldn't be making contingency plans for election day.
And oh yes, another thing about the Spain analogy that's mistaken in a hopeful idealist kind of way - the population didn't support the war, the whole continent was against it in fact, and therefore the voters were just finally getting to show their true colors. Can't say the same about America, unfortunately.
Re: Beerzie's comment I can only say
"Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was getting tired of being stared at."
No matter what way you slice it, with or without terrorist activity in the US this fall, the election is going to be a nasty, nasty mess. I know times are bad when my neighbor (who routinely condemns me for my negativity) is cynical about the outcome.
I agree that we can't trust the current administration one iota. From capitalizing on the extreme patriotism (bordering on Nationalism) in the wake of September 11th, the administration managed to browbeat congress into essentially giving the administration unchecked power to "combat terrorism", to the outing of Valerie Plame in what was a blatant personal attack on Ambassador Joe Wilson, to the tacit approval of a no-bid contract to Cheney's former company Halliburton (tell me he divested when he left the company...). This is a nasty, vindictive administration that has done nothing but betray the world's trust with a smile (or grimace) on it's face, and it's hand in our wallets. But I don't really have an opinion on the matter.
For those of you who think Bush "stole" the 2000 election, what do you think Al Gore would have done after 9/11? I'll tell you what he would have done...He would have issued a warrant for Bin Laden's arrest, and the war on terrorism would now be just like the war on drugs....pointless and ineffective. There are two strategies to fighting terrorism: 1) Fight it using law enforcement, international "law", etc. and try not to piss off the terrorists with our "immoral foreign policy" or 2) Go after them on THEIR turf and any other turf that's friendly to them, while simultaneously strengthening our borders.
I don't agree with everything Bush has done (especially regarding the lack of north/south border security), but the surest way to failure is to appease the terrorists and treat them like the coke dealer up the street (which was Clinton's strategy). We don't need to "understand" the terrorists, we need to dispose of them. Unfortunately, Spain chose the former course of action, and Europe will feel the consequences of that in the long-term. Islamo-fascist culture will always hate Western culture and seek to destroy us, and no amount of "pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top" will change that.
Chris -
First off - I don't condemn the war on terror. What I condemn is the use of the "war on terror" as an excuse to invade a sovreign nation, after arguably failing to complete the initial task in Afghanistan, where we knew bin Laden to be.
Consider the justifications for the incursion into Iraq:
Weapons of Mass Destruction - as yet to be found. That's not to say that Pakistan, who DO have a working nuclear program, didn't happen to sell some of that nuclear technology to North Korea...but why would we have any problems with a military dictatorship? They're friendly to us?
Harboring Terrorists - Again, it's not like there isn't some question of Pakistan harboring terrorists in the mountainous border region adjacent to Afghanistan. And how many of the September 11th terrorists were Iraqi? How many were from our good friend Saudi Arabia?
Liberation from an Opressive Regime - This is just try number 3 to justify the action when the first two justifications failed to take hold. There are any number of opressive regimes that we are friendly with, including Saudi Arabia.
Now that's not to say that I don't think that a) Saddam Hussein was an evil thug (that we put into power in the first place) or that b) there was a need for him (and his family) to ultimately be removed from power. However, I don't think that has any bearing on the war on terror, and our unilateral incursion into Iraq could really do nothing but foster animosity toward the US among Islamic states (including those friendly to us, like Saudi Arabia). Oh, wait, we had the Brits along for the ride, remembering their heyday as a colonial powerhouse and their own previous failed occupation of that region...
As far as the war on drugs, it's an equally asinine concept that dates back twenty-odd years (or longer). It'd make much more sense to legalize the less offensive ones (like pot), tax them, and use the tax revenues (and tax savings from a reduced burden on law enforcement and the prison systems) to fund education and abuse treatment.
Greg, sorry for co-opting this thread as my soapbox.
Chris posted
"We don't need to "understand" the terrorists, we need to dispose of them."
My only response is: "Know your enemy."
The main problem I have with Bush's Republican Guard on it's post 911 'war on terror' is its total failure in singling out Afghanistan as the main terror base. Lets not forget that the US administration didn't go to war with Al Qaeda but with the Taliban.
If they had wanted to avenge the terrorist attack surely they should have attacked Saudi Arabia as 19 of the terrorists were from Saudi.