Posted on 07/11/2004 9:00:19 AM PDT by ZeitgeistSurfer
July 19 issue - American counter-terrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Dumb question - but why not absentee ballots for everyone?
All counted and ready to be announced by "election day" so the day itself will already be a done deal???
Too expensive I guess - what about free postage for mailing them ???
Might be more legitimate than the polling booths which seem to outfox the Mensa Gang in Florida.
All it takes is an EO. Johnson considered this option in 1968.
Oops - I was just responding to "My comments" and thought you were on the current thead that FNC has reported that Libya had Iraq's WMD.
Geopolitics a little too complicated for you, eh?
Any large WMD attack on the USA this fall will mean no election.
"If voting is disrupted in NYC..."
Voting was disrupted in NYC on 9/11/01. It was actually the primary election that day. They re-held the election about a month later, I have a friend who actually voted twice. It is arguable that had 9/11 not happened Michael Bloomberg would not be mayor today, since it was the newly admired Rudy Giuliani's endorsement that carried him to victory.
Agreed. I think us spine and steel types win out. We always do in the end.
A contingency plan to delay the November election, in the event of some sort of catastrophic attack by the terrorists, is a smart move. A major attack will shut the leftist liberal types up for at least a period of time because it will impact them as assuredly as it will effect everyone else. Liberals, at least in my estimation, are essentially cowards by nature ... their philosophy of not provoking our enemies (in spite of 9-11) because if we don't make eye contact maybe they'll ignore us and not hurt us is tragically flawed ... especially when it comes to dealing with Islam fundamentalists.
No Way is right!
Have these people who need to write stories gone absolutely insane?
There are "white papers" for every possible contingency in the world. All these think tanks, Pentagon aides, college departments, etc. I am sure they even have a paper on what would happen if the MSM ever decided to REPORT the news and not SPIN the news! LOL
They're just writing future movie scripts!
It is an organic act of the sovereign in this land and should not be interfered with by our employees.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Excellent.
Why can't we do both at the same time? We fought a two-front war in WWII against a much larger (numerically) force than al-Qaeda and bin Laden. The idea that we have to fight the WOT on a serial basis, i.e., finish one task before moving to the next, is nonsense. Moreover, we are fighting a global enemy who has cells all over the world. The AQ bombings in Turkey, Bali, Spain, Kenya, etc. demonstrate that you can't focus on one physical location. Even if you get bin Laden, you still have to deal with the rest of AQ.
If Saddam were still in power, the US would be bogged down in maintaining the no-fly zones; the Oil for Food Program would still be operating fueling Saddam's aid to terrorists including AQ; Iraq would become more of a haven for AQ and other terrorists; and Saddam could purchase weapons from North Korea and provide them to terrorists to act as surrogates. We would have Iraq under Saddam followed by Uday and Qusay causing mahem in the region for decades.
Iraq is part of the WOT. It has been listed on the State Department's report of state sponsors of terrorism for over a decade. After 9/11 containment was no longer an option for Saddam.
Naw, we will just turn everything over to three judges from Massachusetts.
There was an election during the American Civil War.
There were elections during World War II.
We do not have a history of delaying elections. Otherwise, politicos would use events to controls elections. No. The date is set in the Constitution (amendment).
I wouldn't be surprised if the administration is reviewing a contingency plan to move the elections by a few days if we're attacked Nov 1 and we're thrown into chaos like 9/11. That would be a wise thing to be looking at. But Newsweak makes it sound like the President is some kind of mad dictator trying to circumvent the electoral process.
LOL. Sez who? We had elections during the Civil War and WWII. What kind of people do you think we are?
Reading this, I was reminded of the St. Louis snafu, where the RATs wanted the polls to remain open while they manufactured more Gore votes.
I can see it now---a harmless inert pipe bomb, a letter full of talcum powder, even a funny smell in specific polling places, then the call for postponement or extended hours. Since the "attack" would be in heavily dem precincts, they could scream about Republican "disenfranchisement" while they stuff the ballot box!
Of course!
The Islamofascist murderers obviously prefer the butt-squeezing Botox Boy and The Kid. They would make lovely, matching lamp shades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.