Newsweek reports that the Department of Homeland Security is looking into ways to postpone the November Presidential election in the case of an Al Qaeda attack.
But the success of March’s Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections—as well as intercepted “chatter” among Qaeda operatives—has led analysts to conclude “they want to interfere with the elections,” says one official.
Forcing a delay in elections is every bit as much interference, if not more so, as an attack which causes people to change their vote. This is so obvious that I have trouble believing that it’s escaped the Bush administration.
Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously—along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack.
Contingency plans are good. Legislation that could delay the election is bad. Sure, if something happens to LA the day of the election, it would be good to hold the results until the voters of Los Angeles can vote — but it does not make sense to keep the entire country from voting in a situation where they could reasonably get to the polls.
3 Comments
…and this is the worst-case scenario, exactly, that I have been afraid of since the Bush regime moved into office. Ted doesn’t believe the military will allow BushCo to delay or put off the elections. I desperately hope he’s right, but I don’t think he is.
Two words.
Buy. Ammunition.
I think Ted’s right. The military has no particular love for Bush at the moment; he certainly isn’t maintaining the traditional Republican lean of the military. Telling the generals to go blow when they say there’s a need for more troops is not exactly a recipe for support.
Put differently: Tom Clancy is coauthoring books by prominent generals which criticize Bush in no uncertain terms.