PDA

View Full Version : Liberty, Vigilance and the Writing on the Wall



FORD
07-14-2004, 02:55 PM
July 14, 2004

Liberty, Vigilance and the Writing on the Wall

by Maureen Farrell

In April, I wrote a piece entitled "Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November." At the time, I wrestled with the headline, wondering if it might not be too provocative. Would the Bush administration actually try to cancel or postpone the election? And would the American people actually let them get away with thwarting their will yet again?

Ah, but just when a sense of fair-mindedness tugged at my better nature, I realized that, like a gingerbread man perched atop a fox's head, it’s best not to trust the beast that’s been taking us down the river (and up the proverbial creek) for the past three and a half years. And sure enough, just three months later, a trial balloon was sent forth.

Reiterating counterrorism officials' warnings of "'alarming' intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall," Monday’s issue of Newsweek reports that the Department of Homeland Security has asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel "to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place." Or, as Buzzflash put it: "Bush Cartel Talks of Steps to Potentially Cancel (‘Postpone’) the Presidential Election: This is For Real Folks!"

Even President Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus and took other extra legal measures during the Civil War, refused to tamper with the 1864 presidential election -- yet during a press conference last Thursday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan traced the writing on the wall. "I don’t think anyone can make guarantees [that the elections will be held in November]," he said, adding, "But the full intention is to move forward and hold those elections." No guarantees? Though "the full intention" is to hold the elections? Why does this administration always act as if it is granting some sort of gift, while describing rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution?

At any rate, after responding "I don't think so" to the question, "Can the President today guarantee Americans that no terrorist attack can upset the U.S. elections this November, that they will go ahead as planned?" McClellan concluded his song and dance by saying, "These are threats that we need to take seriously, and that's why it's important to keep the American people informed" -- sounding eerily similar to John "be on the lookout" Ashcroft, whose recent nonspecific terror warning "completely blindsided" the Department of Homeland Security.

But, alas, when the media confronted the Attorney General (and at long last began to question this administration’s pattern of alarming the public without due cause), Ashcroft said, "We believe the public, like all of us, needs a reminder."

Why, yes. Of course.

Though a cynic might deduce that this administration’s game plan is to either scare the public into voting for Bush or, barring that, to simply cancel or manipulate the election, it’s important to remember that eternal vigilance is, in fact, the price of liberty. So, once again: Will the 2004 election be called off?

As surreal as this sounds, for the first time in the country’s history, it looks as if could be. Or it could be postponed, while the administration and media sell us God knows what.

With that in mind, here is a brief run down of statements experts, pundits and regular Joes have been making for months that suggest even more terror -- and more unconstitutional clampdowns -- may be headed our way:

1. "The ‘October surprise’ affecting the U.S. election will be . . . a major terror attack in the United States." -- William Safire, ("From Politics to Books, My 2004 Picks," New York Times, Dec. 31, 2003

2. "White House officials say they've got a ‘working premise’ about terrorism and the presidential election: It's going to happen. ‘We assume,’ says a top administration official, ‘an attack will happen leading up to the election.’ And, he added, ‘it will happen here’. . . "From the White House, A Nightmare Scenario," U.S News and World Report, May 24, 2004

3. "[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." -- Gen. Tommy Franks, Cigar Aficionado interview, Dec. 2003 issue, as quoted in Newsmax, Nov. 21, 2003

4. "One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a ‘dirty nuke’ set off in a small town, may well prompt the Bush regime. . . to suspend national elections for a year while his government ensures stability." -- John Stanton and Wayne Madsen, "When the War Hits Home," Counterpunch, May 14, 2002

5. "Even before the bombings in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that terrorists might strike the United States before the November elections. Now, with the Socialists' surprise election victory in Spain, analysts believe the ballot box rebuke of one of President Bush's closest allies in the war in Iraq could embolden terrorists to try the same tactics in the United States to create fear and chaos." - "Officials Worry of Pre-Election Attack," USA Today, March 15, 2004

6. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues. Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004. . . It was the sense of the group that such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President Bush." -- David J. Rothkopf, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004 Election," the Washington Post, Nov. 21, 2003

7. "A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday. . . The planned attack is ‘an effort to disrupt the democratic process’ before November's elections, Ridge said." -- "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S. Ridge: Terrorists' aim is to influence presidential vote," CNN, July 8, 2004

8. "In the wake of what happened in Madrid, we have to be concerned about the possibility of terrorists attempting to influence elections in the United States by committing a terrorist act." -- FBI Director Robert Mueller, Associated Press interview, as reported by CBS News, "FBI Chief Surveys Terror Horizon," March 25, 2004

9. "To prepare [for a pre-election terror attack] the administration has been holding secret antiterrorism drills to make sure top officials know what to do. ‘There was a sense,’ says one official involved in the drills, ‘of mass confusion on 9/11. Now we have a sense of order.’ Unclear is the political impact, though most Bushies think the nation would rally around the president. ‘I can tell you one thing, adds the official sternly, ‘we won't be like Spain. . . ’" -- U.S News and World Report (5/24/04)

10. "A delay in any election would create the appearance of fascism. You think the left has ammo now, wait till a delay in the election happened." – The Free Republic Web site, post #32, "Should the U.S have elections if attacked?" March 16, 2004

11. "[The author of Imperial Hubris] thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place. "I’m very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now,’ he said. ‘One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president.’ -- "Bush Told He Is Playing Into Bin Laden’s Hands: Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says," The Guardian, June 19, 2004

12. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned the Texas oil industry of potential attacks by Al Qaeda on pipelines and refineries near the time of the November presidential election, although it added that the information it had received was uncorroborated. -- "F.B.I. Warns Texas Oil Companies of Potential Terror Attack," the New York Times, March 25, 2004

13. "Do [the terrorists] bide their time and wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America before our election? . . . 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?" – Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, soon after the Madrid train bombing, transcript no longer available

14. "[T]he timing of any future attack is now the subject of hallway conversations in the Pentagon and the West Wing and at diplomatic dinner parties, where current and former officials mingle. A highly unscientific survey of those conversations revealed a few common strands of logic among Bush and Kerry advisers. Few doubt that an attack would bring the country together behind the president, just as it did after 9/11." – David E. Sanger, "Damage Control: Calculating the Politics of Catastrophe," New York Times, May 2, 2004

15. "Terrorists, too, can see that hard-liners tend to win after terrorist attacks. So why would they want to help them win? Perhaps because terrorists see the attacks as a win-win. They can lash out against their perceived enemies and empower the hard-liners, who in turn empower them as terrorists. How? Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and their methods." -- David J. Rothkopf (11/21/03)

16. "Given our country's current state, it shouldn't be that hard to put two and two together. Why should the 2004 Election, universally hailed as the most important in a generation, occurring at a unique moment when the stakes could not be higher, somehow be immune to the trappings of history? Or from chicanery? . . . What evidence, in the three year old record of this administration, suggests that any action taken by this President would be anything other than assured, autocratic and conveniently self-serving, regardless of political skepticism or dissent?" – Dan Sullivan, "Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me," BuzzFlash, March 17, 2004

17. "The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to have advanced their cause. Al-Qaeda may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences." – John Ashcroft, press conference, "Al Qaeda 90 Percent Ready to Attack on US Soil This Summer, Ashcroft Says," CNSNews.com May 26, 2004

18. "The hard thing about terrorism is that they only have to be right once, and we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And nobody can be certain that there won't be another attack. But of course we are concerned about the election cycle." – Condoleezza Rice, "Aznar Warns of Attacks Preceding U.S. Election," The Washington Times, April 14, 2004

19. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?"-- David Brooks "Al Qaeda’s Wish List," the New York Times, March 16, 2004

20. "If we are attacked before our election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with the election…We had better make plans now because it’s going to happen." -- Sean Hannity, March 16, 2004, transcript unavailable

21. "Just because Hannity says something doesn't make it right. The very thought of cancellation of elections is disgusting. It would be an insult to the American people . . . and it would undermine the core values of our great Republic." – The Free Republic, post #112, "Should the U.S have elections if attacked?" March 16, 2004

22. "U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda, Newsweek reported on Sunday." -- "U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack," Reuters, July 11, 2004

23. "Should the US government cancel or postpone the November election if we are attacked?" No offense, but your trial balloon needs popping with a resounding HELL NO!" – The Free Republic, post #208, "Should the U.S have elections if attacked?" June 11, 2004

24. "U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday. . ." -- "Officials discuss how to delay Election Day," CNN, July 11, 2004

25. "You see, the Bush Cartel could claim that they have solid information of an imminent attack and postpone the election because they don't want the terrorists to influence the outcome, because, they would argue, that would give a victory to the terrorists.

"Which is all another way of saying, the Republicans don't plan on yielding power under any circumstances, the will of the people be damned.

"Chilling beyond belief." -- BuzzFlash News Analysis, "Bush Cartel Talks of Steps to Potentially Cancel ("Postpone") the Presidential Election: This is For Real Folks!" BuzzFlash, July 12, 2004

Sgt Schultz
07-14-2004, 03:39 PM
More lies from chickendove liberal shitbags **YAWN**

FORD
07-14-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
More lies from chickendove liberal shitbags **YAWN**



1. "The ‘October surprise’ affecting the U.S. election will be . . . a major terror attack in the United States." -- William Safire, ("From Politics to Books, My 2004 Picks," New York Times, Dec. 31, 2003


3. "[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." -- Gen. Tommy Franks, Cigar Aficionado interview, Dec. 2003 issue, as quoted in Newsmax, Nov. 21, 2003

6. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues. Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004. . . It was the sense of the group that such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President Bush." -- David J. Rothkopf, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004 Election," the Washington Post, Nov. 21, 2003

8. "In the wake of what happened in Madrid, we have to be concerned about the possibility of terrorists attempting to influence elections in the United States by committing a terrorist act." -- FBI Director Robert Mueller, Associated Press interview, as reported by CBS News, "FBI Chief Surveys Terror Horizon," March 25, 2004

9. "To prepare [for a pre-election terror attack] the administration has been holding secret antiterrorism drills to make sure top officials know what to do. ‘There was a sense,’ says one official involved in the drills, ‘of mass confusion on 9/11. Now we have a sense of order.’ Unclear is the political impact, though most Bushies think the nation would rally around the president. ‘I can tell you one thing, adds the official sternly, ‘we won't be like Spain. . . ’" -- U.S News and World Report (5/24/04)

10. "A delay in any election would create the appearance of fascism. You think the left has ammo now, wait till a delay in the election happened." – The Free Republic Web site, post #32, "Should the U.S have elections if attacked?" March 16, 2004

12. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned the Texas oil industry of potential attacks by Al Qaeda on pipelines and refineries near the time of the November presidential election, although it added that the information it had received was uncorroborated. -- "F.B.I. Warns Texas Oil Companies of Potential Terror Attack," the New York Times, March 25, 2004

13. "Do [the terrorists] bide their time and wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America before our election? . . . 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?" – Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, soon after the Madrid train bombing, transcript no longer available

17. "The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to have advanced their cause. Al-Qaeda may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences." – John Ashcroft, press conference, "Al Qaeda 90 Percent Ready to Attack on US Soil This Summer, Ashcroft Says," CNSNews.com May 26, 2004

18. "The hard thing about terrorism is that they only have to be right once, and we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And nobody can be certain that there won't be another attack. But of course we are concerned about the election cycle." – Condoleezza Rice, "Aznar Warns of Attacks Preceding U.S. Election," The Washington Times, April 14, 2004

19. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?"-- David Brooks "Al Qaeda’s Wish List," the New York Times, March 16, 2004

20. "If we are attacked before our election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with the election…We had better make plans now because it’s going to happen." -- Sean Hannity, March 16, 2004, transcript unavailable

21. "Just because Hannity says something doesn't make it right. The very thought of cancellation of elections is disgusting. It would be an insult to the American people . . . and it would undermine the core values of our great Republic." – The Free Republic, post #112, "Should the U.S have elections if attacked?" March 16, 2004

23. "Should the US government cancel or postpone the November election if we are attacked?" No offense, but your trial balloon needs popping with a resounding HELL NO!" – The Free Republic, post #208, "Should the U.S have elections if attacked?" June 11, 2004

Liberals, you say? :confused:

ELVIS
07-14-2004, 04:25 PM
Where's that crap from ??

Ally_Kat
07-14-2004, 05:34 PM
Can the President today guarantee Americans that no terrorist attack can upset the U.S. elections this November, that they will go ahead as planned?

No. No president could.

I don't really care for McClellan. I don't think he does press briefings as good as he could. I mean, I don't know what goes on in the Office of the Press Secretary, nor do I know what is contained in meetings with the Prez, but I think he could elabortate more than 'I don't know' or 'I don't think so.' I hear that often from him.

What he should have said that that we don't know what exactly to expect and it's aftermath, if anything. And, depending where we are hit and how bad it is, it might hinder elections if such an attack occurs near that time. The Spain train bombing happened shortly before their elections. Now, it was on a train and not in the middle of a city where the city needed to be closed, so they were able to go ahead as planned. That might not be the case here if something happens. If, Godforbid, something happens and it happens in a major city, well obviously the election is kinda messed up if it occurs during or a day or two before. If something happens and it hinders the ability for people to vote or causes panic where people will not want to come to vote, the election may need to be resheduled.


We're not talking them turning around and going, "We're on red alert, so no election today." Doesn't happen that way. Hasn't happened here since 9/11. We did have to cancel and reshedule the primary we were having though. NY has been on the highest alert since everything went down. We still have elections.

As for the call off stuff, that is crap. I dont care who the president is amd I don't care what party he is. Any president pulled a scenerio where he was calling off the election and sitting himself at the reigns -- there aren't many people who will take that sitting down. Calling off the election isn't going to happen, ever. Sometimes I think that people who oppose Bush secretly want it so they can stand, point, and go, "see. I told you he was an evil mastermind."

The worse that will happen is that the election will be postponed, but there will be an election. People are being chicken litte with this.

steve
07-15-2004, 02:26 PM
Between now and election time, there are going to be dozens of polls taken where they ask folks, "If there is a terrorist attack leading up to the election, who would that push you to vote for?".

Based on those polls, Ashcroft and Tom Ridge are gonna either put off the election or not...IMHO.

The problem not being talked about here is POWER...and exactly who has the authority to "postpone" the election.

If the decision is made by the executive branch, then it is a major conflict of interest...to say the least. We could be looking at MASSIVE revolt in this country - regardless of if the election is delayed a couple months or a couple years.

Jail Bush/Cheney 2004!

Ally_Kat
07-15-2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by steve

The problem not being talked about here is POWER...and exactly who has the authority to "postpone" the election.



Ours was for mayor and wouldn't ya know it, he was the one who ordered the polls closed, the votes casted to be invalid, and resheduled the election.

Why? All the thousands of people walking over the bridges covered in dust -- do you really think they were going to stop in on their way home and cast a ballot?

And if this happens during a national election, what to do? That's what they are planning right now.

knuckleboner
07-15-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
If something happens and it hinders the ability for people to vote or causes panic where people will not want to come to vote, the election may need to be resheduled.




one could make a strong argument that if the vote stood and the people in attacked peoria, IL were largely unable to vote, that it was a violation of their right to vote and the one-man, one-vote principal.

it's a fine line and a real gray area. is a closed street enough? a suicide jumper tying up traffic on a bridge? your own headcold? tornado?

but i could definitely make a decent case if there was a 9/11-style attack in a city, that the 14th amendment was violated if the vote went on as planned and people in the town were largely unable to cast ballots.

steve
07-15-2004, 03:36 PM
But what of a minor terrorist attack that primarily causes pandemonium on the news and not in a physical sense?

At that point...assuming the Dept. of Homeland Security is in charge of determining whether to postpone the election or not...do they look at the polls, which by the time the election comes around may or may not show an advantage to one cantidate or another based upon an attack, and delay the elecation...in the meantime giving President Bush a month of photo ops and looking tough and giving 20 State of Terror addresses on national television?

If ...and that is a major if...the entity choosing whether or not to delay an election and for how long if so...is the executive branch...those who have a vested interest in such an election...than there is a MAJOR conflict of interest.

You both have brought up good points, but neither addresses this.

Would it be possible to form a "non-partisan" voting commitee to make such a decision?

In the news report 3 days ago, it was said that Mr. Ridge was asking for AUTHORITY to be the decision maker. I'm sorry, but that is pretty fucked up.

Ally_Kat
07-15-2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by steve
But what of a minor terrorist attack that primarily causes pandemonium on the news and not in a physical sense?

At that point...assuming the Dept. of Homeland Security is in charge of determining whether to postpone the election or not...do they look at the polls, which by the time the election comes around may or may not show an advantage to one cantidate or another based upon an attack, and delay the elecation...in the meantime giving President Bush a month of photo ops and looking tough and giving 20 State of Terror addresses on national television?

Unless you have a multiple point attack with a threat of more attacks (ie 9/11 and the PA plane incident), the entire nation will not be closed for business on election day.

In the case of a minor terrorist attack -- a lone suicide bomber on some city's mass transportation, a car bomb outside some building -- it depends on how severe. With how polling places are laid out, an incident can happen at one and leave the closest one unaffected. What could happen in a case where some incident like that occurs is that the people who normally vote in the effected polling place can go to the other one and vote by affidavit or absentee ballot (whichever those who write the election law agree to). The board woudl send down standby workers to man the extra tables that would need to be set up and all is set.

Now, if something happens, say a building is completely taken down, then the entire city surrounding it might need to be cancelled for the day.

But if the terrorist attack is some guy sitting on a rug flashing a homemade bomb of a frying pan and some bolts, nothing's going to be done. The police will come and do their job and the polls stay openned.



If ...and that is a major if...the entity choosing whether or not to delay an election and for how long if so...is the executive branch...those who have a vested interest in such an election...than there is a MAJOR conflict of interest.

You both have brought up good points, but neither addresses this.

Would it be possible to form a "non-partisan" voting commitee to make such a decision?

In the news report 3 days ago, it was said that Mr. Ridge was asking for AUTHORITY to be the decision maker. I'm sorry, but that is pretty fucked up.


Would it be possible to form a "non-partisan" voting commitee to make such a decision?

You mean the Board of Elections? We could, but we need a plan of action or an official election law in order to do it on our own. We don't have one. Why? There's none on the books. We enforce election law, which is made by state legislature. On 9/11 we were told that the election would be postponed and were given the order to close up shop. We then took it into our hands. But, we couldn't do that on our own just randomly.

This all isn't just going to happen with one guy. Doesn't work that way with something taken as election law. The courts deffy need to review it -- checks and balances and all.

That's why I support creating a plan. We here at NY still don't have one and I find that discomforting, esp since we lived thru an election without such a plan and felt helpless. If there's a plan, then people know what is expected to be done and can work on that instead of running around, calling random people, and asking what is legal for them to do.

If we don't have a plan, the task of making a decision may end up in executive hands and in executive hands only. And at a time were you are under attack similar to 9/11, no matter who is at the helm, he might shut down shop for the day in what he thinks his in the best interest.

steve
07-15-2004, 09:56 PM
Response:

You're very trusting of our Executive Branch.

I am not.

The End.

Ally_Kat
07-16-2004, 12:47 AM
response:

I know about the insides of elections and what happens in the months before the polls open and after they close.

You don't.

The End.

ELVIS
07-16-2004, 12:53 AM
LMAO!


Ally to the rescue!

:elvis:

knuckleboner
07-16-2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by steve
But what of a minor terrorist attack that primarily causes pandemonium on the news and not in a physical sense?

At that point...assuming the Dept. of Homeland Security is in charge of determining whether to postpone the election or not...do they look at the polls, which by the time the election comes around may or may not show an advantage to one cantidate or another based upon an attack, and delay the elecation...in the meantime giving President Bush a month of photo ops and looking tough and giving 20 State of Terror addresses on national television?

If ...and that is a major if...the entity choosing whether or not to delay an election and for how long if so...is the executive branch...those who have a vested interest in such an election...than there is a MAJOR conflict of interest.

You both have brought up good points, but neither addresses this.

Would it be possible to form a "non-partisan" voting commitee to make such a decision?

In the news report 3 days ago, it was said that Mr. Ridge was asking for AUTHORITY to be the decision maker. I'm sorry, but that is pretty fucked up.


which is exactly why it should be studied now and a set of criteria figured out.

i don't really distrust the administration when making that decision. but i'm also all for figuring out the best way to do it. a bipartisan commission would be just as good. but CERTAINLY, a bipartisan and judicial commission should be used to figure out the policy and the criteria.

steve
07-16-2004, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
response:

I know about the insides of elections and what happens in the months before the polls open and after they close.

You don't.

The End.
Oh, give me a break...stop being a braggart and just stick to the discussion. . I could give a rats ass whether you are the commisioner for elections for New York City or if you're a homeless hooker with a WiFi connection typing through your Eddie Van Halen gloves to the tune of a Starbucks Manager kicking your bum-ass out of his store. Either way, you've haven't backed up what you've said.

Basically, all you've said so far is that you have much faith in the executive branch...nothing more. Just admit this is the difference.

For some reason, you're optimistic about Mr. Ashcroft's/Mr. Ridge's ability to be non-partisan - that's all you've said here...but you have not given any reason to convince one who disagrees with you why.

Not many of us trust those lying losers very much any more.

I envy your ability to sleep soundly knowing the Bush administration is on the watch - I sure as hell don't.

John Ashcroft
07-16-2004, 08:58 AM
What I find amazing is that the libs were more than willing to cry foul, bitch, whine, complain, and outright cry over supposed "voter disenfranchisement" in Floriduh, and were willing to tear the whole system down because their guy lost. But it's now unacceptable to them to have any contengiency plan should a terrorist attack "disenfranchise" a possible hundred thousand or so voters...

Which is it? Oh yeah, it depends who's guy's winning and losing with you guys. System be damned.

Oh, and I also seem to remember the Clinton Admin. toying with the idea of delaying the 2000 election should Clinton invade Iraq (as urged to by both houses of Congress, by both Democrats and Republicans). Were you libs as outraged then?

On the delay of the election, can you blame the gov. for having a plan? If we have a terrorist attack, in let's say California (San Francisco and L.A.), that results in no ballots being counted in those districts... handing California to Bush. And he wins. Does that mean we have to listen to your whining and complaining about illegitimacy for the following 4 years??? Are we going to hear from you clowns that "a plan should've been in place to prevent this!!!???? You bet your asses we will. You motives are sooooooo transparent, I'm actually suprised you still try to hide them behind any kind of reason! And you libs are supposedly the "intellectuals"???

FORD
07-16-2004, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
What I find amazing is that the libs were more than willing to cry foul, bitch, whine, complain, and outright cry over supposed "voter disenfranchisement" in Floriduh, and were willing to tear the whole system down because their guy lost.

Well, actually he didn't lose. That's why it was a problem. Not to mention Junior's brother and his state campaign chief being in charge of counting the Florida vote - where's the precedent for THAT?

But it's now unacceptable to them to have any contengiency plan should a terrorist attack "disenfranchise" a possible hundred thousand or so voters...

Which is it? Oh yeah, it depends who's guy's winning and losing with you guys. System be damned.

The pattern of the BCE is that they never do anything that isn't politically motivated. If they declare some sort of emergency, short of complete martial law itself, it would be to skew the results to their favor. i.e. cut off west coast voting after all the "red states" have voted already.

Oh, and I also seem to remember the Clinton Admin. toying with the idea of delaying the 2000 election should Clinton invade Iraq (as urged to by both houses of Congress, by both Democrats and Republicans). Were you libs as outraged then?

No, because that never happenned. It was a rumor started by a desperate Oxycontin addict who was despondent over losing his favorite target. Guess the drugs were better then we thought. Three years later, he's still blaming Clinton for everything.


On the delay of the election, can you blame the gov. for having a plan? If we have a terrorist attack, in let's say California (San Francisco and L.A.), that results in no ballots being counted in those districts... handing California to Bush. And he wins. Does that mean we have to listen to your whining and complaining about illegitimacy for the following 4 years??? Are we going to hear from you clowns that "a plan should've been in place to prevent this!!!???? You bet your asses we will. You motives are sooooooo transparent, I'm actually suprised you still try to hide them behind any kind of reason! And you libs are supposedly the "intellectuals"???

It's the BCE whose motives are transparent. Notice how they weren't concerned about election day "terra attacks" until Kerry took a decisive lead in the polls.

John Ashcroft
07-16-2004, 09:45 AM
Uh, which decisive lead??? All polls I've seen put both candidate in the margin of error. In fact, the funny thing is Kerry actually dropped after Moore's movie came out. It also didn't rise with the announcement of a running mate.

Also, which recount did Algore win again? And I suppose it's a conspiracy that the voters of Floriduh elected Jeb Bush in preparation for the 2000 election, right? Those crafty devils! And to imagine, a bunch of them can't even figure out a punch-card ballot...

And the Clinton thing was in the hard press. It wasn't just a "rumor" propogated by Rush Limbaugh. Also, his listenership actually rose after Clinton left office. I know, I know, facts have no place when "reasoning" with you...

Now, will you bitch and complain should an even like I've described happen if there's no contengiency plan in place?

And for the record, I don't believe the election will be postponed even in the event of a terrorist attack. I believe that Kerry is going to lose by a wide enough margin that you all will be eating crow. Kinda like with Ahhhhhnold in California. Remember that? Yep, you had all of the usual suspects there for that election. Ready to file a fucking lawsuit even before the election. How'd that all turn out? I forget, did Ahhhhnold win by a large margin?

Ally_Kat
07-16-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by steve
Oh, give me a break...stop being a braggart and just stick to the discussion. . I could give a rats ass whether you are the commisioner for elections for New York City or if you're a homeless hooker with a WiFi connection typing through your Eddie Van Halen gloves to the tune of a Starbucks Manager kicking your bum-ass out of his store. Either way, you've haven't backed up what you've said.

Basically, all you've said so far is that you have much faith in the executive branch...nothing more. Just admit this is the difference.

For some reason, you're optimistic about Mr. Ashcroft's/Mr. Ridge's ability to be non-partisan - that's all you've said here...but you have not given any reason to convince one who disagrees with you why.

Not many of us trust those lying losers very much any more.

I envy your ability to sleep soundly knowing the Bush administration is on the watch - I sure as hell don't.


You must have missed the news about the committee made up to review and come up with plans.

You must have missed the news that Ashcroft and Ridge were not part of that committee.

You must have missed the news where they are talking to people at the board here who worked thru that mess.

You must have missed the news where it said if they deem it necessary (which they will) they will tell Congress that it might be a good idea to come up with some election laws for this.

You must have missed the news about the checks and balances systems and how the judicial part comes into play.


And I don't think it's really a matter of me having too much trust in the government. I think you are just a little too paranoid.

steve
07-16-2004, 12:55 PM
Yawn.

Did you miss the news where Ridge was asking for the Homeland Security Department to be in charge of making such a decision (to delay the Presidential election)?

I think you read very selectively.

Ally_Kat
07-16-2004, 12:59 PM
I read that, and I don't see that happening or how it would work. If that does, I'll be watching it and reading how they plan to do that carefully.

Phil theStalker
07-16-2004, 01:09 PM
You can postpone elections, you can impose Marshal law, but the end will not be very sweet. Ask any German.


P

Satan
07-16-2004, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft


Also, which recount did Algore win again? And I suppose it's a conspiracy that the voters of Floriduh elected Jeb Bush in preparation for the 2000 election, right? Those crafty devils!

Hey! Watch it with the personal attacks, Asscrotch, or I send up the calico cat legion! :mad:

Phil theStalker
07-16-2004, 01:11 PM
Stop arguing back and forth.

They told us to stop shooting at you guys in 1945. When the word goes out to start shooting at you guys again you are going to get the same results.

You know who you are.


P

Phil theStalker
07-16-2004, 01:12 PM
You can postpone elections, you can impose Marshal law, but the end will not be very sweet. Ask any German.


P

Sgt Schultz
07-16-2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Stop arguing back and forth.

They told us to stop shooting at you guys in 1945. When the word goes out to start shooting at you guys again you are going to get the same results.

You know who you are.


P

Umm are you threatening to shoot people that disagree with you? Treading on thin ice here.

Satan
07-16-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Umm are you threatening to shoot people that disagree with you? Treading on thin ice here.

Well, he is a stalker.... ;)

Big Train
07-16-2004, 01:22 PM
Posted by Ford:
No, because that never happenned. It was a rumor started by a desperate Oxycontin addict who was despondent over losing his favorite target. Guess the drugs were better then we thought. Three years later, he's still blaming Clinton for everything.

I LOVE it. Not saying ford is a drug addict, if you take that part out and subsitute Bush for Clinton...pot calling the kettle....

Phil theStalker
07-16-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Umm are you threatening to shoot people that disagree with you? Treading on thin ice here.
Not at all.. and before everybodies boss at werk asks you to be an informant are you going to ask how much more you're going to be paid for the extra werk and are you going to ask your boss at werk "wot happuns t2o informants?" i.e., if you're dumb enough to need to ask what happens to informants.. read history, read novels, read police investigations around the werld about what happens to informants.. take care.


P

Sgt Schultz
07-16-2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Not at all.. and before everybodies boss at werk asks you to be an informant are you going to ask how much more you're going to be paid for the extra werk and are you going to ask your boss at werk "wot happuns t2o informants?" i.e., if you're dumb enough to need to ask what happens to informants.. read history, read novels, read police investigations around the werld about what happens to informants.. take care.


P

OK Phil, that makes perfect sense. And thanks for the negative vote by the way.

Phil theStalker
07-16-2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
OK Phil, that makes perfect sense. And thanks for the negative vote by the way.
<marquee scrollamount=9 direction=down>


GIT A LIFE!


5 FAKKING VOTES


YOU ONLY HAVE


..nazi's nazi's nazi's



=PtS=
:spank:
</marquee>