Replies

OK, one really has to wonder here..

What on earth could be so bad (in terms of an attack) that they are talking about how the election could possibly/legally be postponed?

9/11 (for all the horror of the day) wouldn't have done this. Elections could have conceivably continued.

It would have to be something an order of magnitude larger, wouldn't it?

I'm for one taking this as another "dot" in the "they have suitcase nukes or other WMD and could conceivably use them" category.

As someone said..watch what they (the govt) says..not what they do. Add this to Ridge cancelling his visit with Sharon this week, and Daschle's comments (plus Boxers lack of comments), the warning from the Muslims in this weekend's Arabic paper from London ("leave the West..NOW") and something REALLY seems to be up. And it sure sounds like it's pretty significant.

"As someone said..watch what they (the govt) says..not what they do. "

I think I know what you really meant to say, and I agree. This is a BIG dot. I wish I knew what they know.

Nukes or no nukes, they must have information that a strategic and immense attack is being planned that will significantly disrupt the electoral process.

What happens if the terrorists anounce they will randomly attack voters as they go to the polls? Or if they succesfully incapacitate our infrastructure while taking out several key politicians?

"As someone said..watch what they (the govt) says..not what they do. Add this to Ridge cancelling his visit with Sharon this week, and Daschle's comments (plus Boxers lack of comments), the warning from the Muslims in this weekend's Arabic paper from London ("leave the West..NOW") and something REALLY seems to be up. And it sure sounds like it's pretty significant."

Agreed. The AQ threats say that 1/3 of the US will be uninhabitable after their attack. IMO- that implies nuclear detonations. Bio and Chem would recede, IMO, radiation would not.

I pray I am wrong

Well it might not be something on the level of a nuclear attack that has them worried. It could be something as (relatively) small as a few bombs on trains in one city just before the election like Spain. An emotionally charged atmosphere might cause the ever-present "undecideds" to throw their vote to someone they would not have otherwise voted for. Furthermore, if whatever-it-is happens on a city-wide scale or affects several large cities, there may be great difficulty in arranging logistics for the election in those particular places. Sure the rest of us could still vote, but then what do we do about everyone else? Let them vote later, after the results have been reported for the rest of the country?

I can see some rational reasons for delaying the election. Doesn't mean I'd be happy about it though. Who's to say that under another administration a localized natural disaster wouldn't be grounds for a delay. Or under a particularly corrupt administration, that a "disaster" couldn't be manufactured to buy time for a candidate for some reason or other.

Something to ponder.

Iraq Says Zarqawi Likely Seeking WMD Materials
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5636989

***Libya Expected To Announce in September Report That Iraqi WMD DID Exist And Were Develped THERE**
Fox News
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169244/posts

>>>>9/11 (for all the horror of the day) wouldn't have done this. Elections could have conceivably continued.

Didnt 9/11 disrupt elections in NYC that day? Being the liberal mecca that it is, libs would immediately sue for a do-over election.