At the risk of pissing off Delenn, let's consider the notion that al-Qaeda wants to influence the US elections from their perspective from a moment.
First of all, which candidate would they even want? Kerry would be less likely than Bush to extend the practice of invading Middle East regimes, but he wouldn't bail on the notion that the US has vital security interests there. He wouldn't yank troops from Iraq and he would probably pay more attention to actually disrupting al-Qaeda and hunting down their leadership. Bush in some ways has been the best al-Qaeda recruiting poster.
Also to consider is which way an attack would influence elections? Unlike Spain, the electorate is not overwhelmingly in opposition to the president's Iraq policy, and isn't likely to change their vote to someone who will make them safer through withdrawal and non-provocation of the terrorists. Karl Rove et al. would no doubt spin the attacks as a reason we need to keep the
As a side note, I can't say I'm encouraged that some Democrats are accusing the administration of talking this threat up to distract from the Edwards VP news. That may be the case, but it looks petty for the Democratic leadership to say it. Leave the conspiracy theories to the internet.
These are not very fully formed thoughts, so I'm hoping for your comments on these issues..
5 comments:
I don't personally care if they bring up this alert crap during the VP announcement or not. It is no different then when the alert status went up earlier in the year when the President's poll numbers were first getting low. It ain't going to make a lick of difference in the end, so let them waste their time and energy. Reminds me of the idiots who raised such a fuss about Michael Moore's documentary, ensuring that it would be a big success. The more they cry wolf, the worst it is going to reflect on them.
An actual attack is interesting, though. It could sway the elections either way, really. One could consider that we'd be in less danger had Bush not been so gung-ho about getting us into Iraq, and obviously he would be a failure in protecting us if an attack happened again so soon. Odds are, however, an attack before the election would get Bush re-elected. It is just the mindset our our people, generally speaking of course, that they would unify behind the dummy. Compare the situation to when Bush's numbers skyrocketed to record highs after 9/11 like somehow the attacks made him a better President.
The thing is that in other countries an attack actually could result in a favorable election for the terrorists or insurgents, as with what happened in Spain. How well does Al Quaeda really know our country's political psychology? They might actually think it would make a difference to them. In the end, it won't help them out at all, regardless of who gets elected. My personal opinion is that any new attacks on America will not be affected by the election at all. They'll hit us whenever they get a chance to.
So I say, though I know nothing.
--shane
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/
Check this out. Here is my worst fear about the election. Notice Tom Ridge does not specify how long such a postponement would last.
-Don
I hyperventilate with anger when I hear that they have election postponement contingency plans in the works. It sounds like they'd need serious changes in state, local, and federal election laws and probably a Constitutional amendment to do it... or martial law. That would be the end, either of this administration or of the US as we know it.
-goatdog
I think I speculated a couple of years ago that they might use an attack as an excuse to suspend elections and withhold a transfer of power. This was, of course, in a paranoid moment.
I'm actually much less concerned that they want a Congressionally approved legislative remedy in the first place. If there's a clear procedure we can argue whether it's well thought out and/or fair.
The article makes it sound like the states have the authority to make emergency alterations to their own elections. I don't know off of the top of my head where the Constitutional authority for Federeal elections stems from--but I would think Congress could make contingency plans and delegate to an authority (Homeland Security?) without an Amendment.
I don't believe for a moment that a significant delay in the election would happen because of an attack. But if an attack happened on election day, they probably WOULD need to delay it, and would need a plan to do it. I don't personally think this administration is really willing to or capable of a significant delay in the election process. Won't happen. It is easy to over-react due to the other bone-headed and manipulative things they have done, but if they really intended on stealing another election they wouldn't advertise it ahead of time.
So I think, though I still know nothing.
--shane
Post a Comment