Dude, where's my election?
According to a Newsweek article from July 12th, the Homeland Security Department is seeking legal means to postpone the November election in case of a terror attack by Al-Quaeda.
The agency’s spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine, plans are under review “to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election." ("Secure" the election for whom is the question.)
To cancel a presidential election for the first time in our history, in effect suspending the constitution, would be tantamount to allowing terrorism to triumph. (To Osama Bin Laden, America under Marshal Law would a dream come true.) Not even during the Civil War, still our nation’s worst crisis, did we ever take such a drastic step and we shouldn't’t now.
Abraham Lincoln was convinced he could not be reelected in 1864, but he insisted our most cherished rights, no matter the cost to his own political career, be preserved. He said, "we cannot have free government without elections…and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us."
Many countries around the world have suffered deadly terrorist bombings and have persevered, without recourse to suspending their freedoms.
In the aftermath of the terrible train bombings in Madrid on March 11th 2004, Spaniards were strong enough and brave enough to exercise their right to vote just three days later.
The voter's outrage engendered by the government’s cynical attempt to divert attention away from the real attackers, who could be connected to the ruling party’s support for the Iraq war, by blaming the Basque separatist group ETA instead, was the real reason behind the downfall of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.
It was by no means a victory for Al-Quaeda. The Spanish people heroically showed the world how to stand up to terrorism.
In not so heroic fashion, people such as conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his ilk would play on fear to score political points."Who do you think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country -- socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"
I think there is no question George W. Bush is very good for Al-Quaeda and the real purpose of any attack around election time would be intended to ensure their recruiter in chief remains in office.
According to the new book “Imperial Hubris,” written by a current CIA employee known only as Anonymous, "(terrorists) can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now. One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president.”
In the end, what would it take for the American people to sit idly by and watch their Constitution be shredded, an attack on an oil refinery? What type of event would be disastrous enough to cause more than two hundred years of the greatest democracy the world has ever seen to cease?
Instead of finding legal loopholes to prevent an election, president Bush ought to be guaranteeing to the American people our democratic institutions will survive no matter what terrorists might do.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to preserve our way of life, our liberties, our right to vote. Will we allow an administration that came into office without even winning the popular vote tell our enemies we’re too cowardly to vote?
If Benjamin Franklin were alive today he would still say, “they who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
The agency’s spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine, plans are under review “to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election." ("Secure" the election for whom is the question.)
To cancel a presidential election for the first time in our history, in effect suspending the constitution, would be tantamount to allowing terrorism to triumph. (To Osama Bin Laden, America under Marshal Law would a dream come true.) Not even during the Civil War, still our nation’s worst crisis, did we ever take such a drastic step and we shouldn't’t now.
Abraham Lincoln was convinced he could not be reelected in 1864, but he insisted our most cherished rights, no matter the cost to his own political career, be preserved. He said, "we cannot have free government without elections…and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us."
Many countries around the world have suffered deadly terrorist bombings and have persevered, without recourse to suspending their freedoms.
In the aftermath of the terrible train bombings in Madrid on March 11th 2004, Spaniards were strong enough and brave enough to exercise their right to vote just three days later.
The voter's outrage engendered by the government’s cynical attempt to divert attention away from the real attackers, who could be connected to the ruling party’s support for the Iraq war, by blaming the Basque separatist group ETA instead, was the real reason behind the downfall of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.
It was by no means a victory for Al-Quaeda. The Spanish people heroically showed the world how to stand up to terrorism.
In not so heroic fashion, people such as conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his ilk would play on fear to score political points."Who do you think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country -- socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"
I think there is no question George W. Bush is very good for Al-Quaeda and the real purpose of any attack around election time would be intended to ensure their recruiter in chief remains in office.
According to the new book “Imperial Hubris,” written by a current CIA employee known only as Anonymous, "(terrorists) can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now. One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president.”
In the end, what would it take for the American people to sit idly by and watch their Constitution be shredded, an attack on an oil refinery? What type of event would be disastrous enough to cause more than two hundred years of the greatest democracy the world has ever seen to cease?
Instead of finding legal loopholes to prevent an election, president Bush ought to be guaranteeing to the American people our democratic institutions will survive no matter what terrorists might do.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to preserve our way of life, our liberties, our right to vote. Will we allow an administration that came into office without even winning the popular vote tell our enemies we’re too cowardly to vote?
If Benjamin Franklin were alive today he would still say, “they who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
posted by William Duane at 10:19 PM
1 Comments:
Have no fear, all is well.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will not cancel or suspend the presidential election this November in the event of a terror attack or other catastrophic event, the government's top elections official said on Tuesday.
Individual states may suspend or reschedule elections if disaster strikes, but that would not change voting in other states, said DeForest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
"I can't conceive of any circumstances under which a presidential election could be postponed or canceled," Soaries told reporters after a commission hearing.
Election Assistance Commissioner Ray Martinez said he believed the Constitution gave states the power to reschedule presidential elections or even appoint electors directly in case of emergency."
Can you say "trail balloon?"
Post a Comment
<< Home