Bush May Use Terrorism Excuse to Delay Elections
=================================================
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jul 12, 2004, 10:41

In what could be viewed as a desperation attempt to hold on to the presidency, the Bush administration is preparing plans to postpone the November presidential elections by claiming the threat of a terrorist attack would disupt the process.

Sources within the Department of Homeland Security confirm the agency is preparing "legal steps" to postpone the election and can do so at a moments notice when the orders come from the White House. Michael Isikoff of Newsweek magazine is also confirming this in this week's edition.


Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network may attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

DHS asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the election.

The department was asked to review a letter to Ridge from DeForest Soaries, who is the chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to the states to the replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries pointed out that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Soaries wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government such power.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse confirmed the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

-----------------------------------------------------
Second link to back up this one
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek

The fact is, there is currently is no statutory authority to re-schedule the elections if there WAS an attack immediately before or during election day.  I believe that it is simply rational for us to have a contingency plan in place.  This bit of news has been generally met with hysterical reactions and conspiracy theories such as the prior post, but I'd prefer to give this one the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that this is exactly what our government SHOULD be doing - develop a contingency plan in the event an attack DOES occur.  So long as the postponement is contingent on a REAL attack, Not some phantom threat, but an actual attack, we SHOULD have contingencies in place, and frankly, I was surprised that there WEREN'T any until now.  I'd suggest that so long as the law requires the elections to be re-scheduled within a short time frame, like, say 10 to no more than 30 days from the attack, it's simply a good idea.

Responding to this one is in the domain of constitutional scholars.  I know that the presidential elections have been historically held on the first Tuesday of November in the presidential election year, but I really do not know whether that date is mandated by the Constitution or what would be required (if anything) to change the date.
    Anyone who "really!!!" understands the Constitution and any provision it has concerning this issue care to weigh in?

The Constituton only requires that the election for President be held on the same day nationwide.  It is up to Congress to set the date for the election.   The President has no authority to change the date.

You brought quite a bit of insight along to support your post.  Thank you.  

Suppose there is a terrorist attack, and it happens right before the election.  The only thing Dumbya can say is, "See, I told you so.  Terrorism is still a threat to our way of life."  In reality, what would that say about Shrub's administration?  It would be the SECOND terrorist attack under his presidency.  U.S. intelligence agencies will have failed TWICE to stop these attacks.  The Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11, would be proven useless.  Bin Laden, the asshole responsible, still is at-large.  These are just a few of the failures Dumbya would have staring him square in his face.

Any voter with even the slightest bit of common sense would realize that there's something amiss here.  Allowing two successful terrorist attacks in a matter of 3 years would prove utter imcompetence prevails within the Shrub administration, and it is not fit to handle it in the future.  (We know it isn't capable of handling it now, but that's an obvious moot point.)  Add to that his failed economy and its related policies, and you tell me how a terrorist attack is going to help Dumbya.  But it wouldn't surprise me if the Shrub administration tried to create and execute a "terrorist" act itself for its own political benefit.

Now, Dumbya wants to perhaps postpone the election due to terrorist fears, saying it's a safety issue.  I agree it's a safety issue; a scheme to attempt to secure his safety in holding on to office.  Shrub stole 2000, now wants to scare 2004.  What a maggot.





-- Modified on 7/13/2004 1:30:02 AM

We can expect to see more of this before November.

A quote from a CNN article about Ridge's announcement:

"But the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Christopher Cox of California, said on "Late Edition" that he sees Ridge's request as part of a prudent effort to plan for "doomsday scenarios.""

Mark this day on your calenders: sdstud manages to get one right, and say something with which I agree.

I've got to say, though, that any delay unless under extraordinary circumstances (e.g., last summer's massive Northeast power outage) would be a bad idea.  It would simply lend aid and comfort to the likes of Michael Moore and his Moore-ons, who see conspiracy and a corporation behind every problem.

Given historical precedent, I would suggest that the only justification for delay is a happenstance which prevents voting.  Given that we held elections during World War II and the Civil War, I just can't see too many good reasons to interfere with the democratic process.

-- Modified on 7/14/2004 6:52:07 AM

Everything ELSE that's gone wrong under Bush's watch has been met with the standard, "It was Clinton's fault for getting a blowjob" response from the right wing, that I don't see how this would be any different.  After all, it will only have been 3 years and 9+ months into Bush's Presidency at that stage, so how could HE possibly be responsible?

10 seconds into Round 1!!!

How's SnowMOM39 doing?

RLTW

If a successful terrorist attack were to happen before the election, and:

1)  If it's discovered the administration had knowledge of it, but did not tell the American people of the threat before it occurred: yes, I'd be livid.  Agree with you there.

2)  If the administration had knowledge of it and did warn the American people of the threat before it occurred:  I'd be livid, but less so.  Being warned of the threat:  GOOD.  Having the threat become reality, not being able to prevent it:  BAD.

3)  If the administration had no knowledge of the attack whatsoever before it occurred:  it's time to go apeshit.

The key factor in all of this is the assumption of a successful terrorist attack.  Warned or not, if another terrorist attack is successful on U.S. soil, the administration is not doing its job in protecting us.

She's just fine.  Having problem with the kids though.

Instead of getting all bent out of shape about people expressing their lack of respect for our fearless leader maybe you can give us some insight.  

I for one would like to know - just how is the invasion of Iraq a war on terror ? And if elected to another 4 years, what dictatorship is on the menu in those 4 years.  Damn, too bad there is a term limit - only 1 dictator/4 yrs.  Or, was the ``mission accomplished'' and I just am too full of hatred to see the truth.

-- Modified on 7/14/2004 12:36:35 PM

Perhaps a clearer test of whether this admistration is using the politics of fear will be the extent to which general statements (rather than specific threat warnings) are made about the dangers of terrorist attacks.

He probably didn't care for the maggot adjective I used to describe GWB, either.

If Shrub keeps a generalized threat up front for a prolonged period of time without anything specific to back it up, then he's just attempting to instill fear in the minds of the American public.  Political manipulation written all over it.

of course, even a blind squirrel stumbles across an acorn once in a while.

people-

Let's just assume there are gonna be more attacks.  Here and abroad. More people will die.  Ours, theirs.

Can we freakin' move on now?

Americans are almost weanier than the french, at least the french are honest about being self absorbed.

In the same amount of time, over 45000 Americans have been killed by handguns (over 11,000 per year)

Over 200,000 Americans have been killed in auto accidents (over 50K per year).

Over 2.8 Million Americans died of heart disease (over 700K per year)

Over 2.3 Million Americans died of cancer  (over 580K per year)

Over 280,000 Americans have been killed by diabetes (over 70K per year)

Over 55,000 Americans died of AIDS  (nearly 14K per year)

Over 120,000 Americans committed suicide (over 30K per year)



The point being, Terrorism is nowhere NEAR as great a problem for our nation as these other things.  We need to continue to live our lives, without fundamentally altering our value system as a response to the terrorist threat.

-- Modified on 7/16/2004 2:34:14 AM

I also think I don't know squat about the inner workings of intelligence agencies or the incredible difficulty obtaining specific details from scattered Al Qaida cells.  Maybe you can do a better job of intelligence work, but I think you probably just like throwing venomous comments onto a board from a comfy room.  At least I respect those who choice to put themselves in harm's warm for our protection.

You are more like by far to be killed in an auto accident on the way home from work that be killed by a terrorist.  I plan a business trip to NYC at the end of September, and I really don't fear the terrorists.

Dude-  they were created to deal witrh States. I forgive them for taking some time to adjust to the new threat paradigm.  Note that while I hate Bush and his cabal, I never attack him on 9/11 itself.  The reaction has been disastrous and he is to blame for that up to a point, but I did not expect him to personally guarantee every yank's life.  I knew stuff like this could and might happen.

I don't expect our intelligence agencies to find out 100% of everything that's going on.  That is incredibly unrealistic.  But I do expect them to do a better job than they did with 9/11 or the infamous WMDs that Iraq supposedly had, but did not.

Two other points:

1)  Why aren't you using your regular TER handle, whoever you are?  You're hiding behind an alias.  You obviously don't have the balls to show who you really are.  Post under your TER handle; show all of us who you really are.  Aaahhh, you don't anyone to know who you are, for fear of retribution from the TER members.  Talk about hiding from inside a "comfy room"!!!  Hypocrisy rears its ugly head once again.

2)  You're also wrong about thinking before you type.  It's "CHOOSE", not "choice"!!!  And BTW, what is "harm's warm"?

Just keep quiet.  You keep making things worse for yourself.

LMFAO!!!

-- Modified on 7/17/2004 3:16:15 AM

-- Modified on 7/17/2004 3:38:33 AM

'harm's warm' was a typo for 'harm's way'.  Do you ever make typo's?  Can you only attack people, instead of have a civil discussion?  Or do you resort to personal attacks when your points are weak?  Wow, you'd think this was the United Nations, instead of a silly board on a prostitution site.  You need to not take yourself so seriously, unless you happen to be a Senator (are you really Kerry?  I doubt it, because he rarely shows any emotion, even irrational hate.  Must be the Botox).
 Is your TER handle your real name?  Did your parents name you KCSHYGUY?  (If they did, that may be why you are shy).  Or are TER handles and various aliases all false names so people won't know who is soliciting prostitutes?
 Again, chill out and don't take things so seriously.  You'll have a stroke or a heart attack or just live an unpleasant life, or be unpleasant to others.  And you will probably really be livid if and when Bush/Cheney get reelected.
P.S. If you wish to write some hate mail, my real handle is DaleGribble_86.  Flame away, Dude.  I'm putting on my asbestos gloves so the computer won't burn.

intelligence agencies who are involved in a difficult human endeavour.  I'm sure some revamping is in order, but do you really think most terrorist attacks can be prevented?  Can Israel prevent all attacks?  They are a much smaller country, and they employ strong-arm tactics that Americans would never allow (like razing down the homes of suicide-bombers' families).  IF ISRAEL CAN'T STOP THEM ALL, WE CAN'T EITHER.  I'm amazed we haven't had another Al Qaida domestic attack since 9/11.  ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE BUSH AND THE CIA ANY PROPS FOR THAT? Maybe you guys have better intelligence methods than the pros.  If so, give them a call and apply for a job.