Basically, Bush is looking into ways to find out whether he can postpone the elections if there is a terror attack on or near the date.
The second articel notes that
In banana republics, when the Generalissimo or El Presidente for Life announces that the vote has been “postponed,” it’s a polite word for “cancelled.”
CAN he do this? I didn’t think, after everything that’s happened, he’d be allowed to, but I know nothing about how the US government functions. Thoughts?
it is a little bit old news, but I severely doubt that it is possible. I the unlikely event that he gets the balls to actually try it, public outcry would be so great that it wouldn’t even be funny. He might not have to wait till the election to find his way out of office.
The first article has all parties basically saying that any postponement would not happen except in the case of absolute calamity (ie nuclear holocaust)… Which would make sense if the country was forced into martial law (although the odds of that happening are just about nothing). Even in that scenario, the article makes it sound like the Bush administration would be extremely hesitant (and rightfully so). Basically, it’s mostly speculation. It’s not going to happen.
I can’t tell if the second article is supposed to be funny or if it’s just extremely biased, left-wing, Moore-esque propaganda. Either way, I wouldn’t take a single word that article says seriously.
They’re afraid that a terrorist attack right before the election would influence the voters too much, like in Spain. Bush is the one who’s afraid he’ll be ousted if there is an attack right before the election. I think postponing the eleciton even in the event of a terrorist attack would be a mistake. Maybe if half of Congress is wiped out…
The administration has tried hard to divert people’s attention to terrorism, and to convince people that they were busy stopping it. If a terrorist attack came before the elections, it would not only show that the administration’s “efforts” to fight terrorism have been fruitless; but moreover, that those efforts had resulted in a terrorist attack when we never would have had one otherwise. Few voters would miss the irony.
Basically, Bush is looking into ways to find out whether he can postpone the elections if there is a terror attack on or near the date.
Why do I get the feeling that there just might be, conveniently, an “accidental,” maybe, terrorist attack, before the election?
Bush cannot afford a successful terrorist attack, after his repeated claims to be fighting terrorism - particularly with an upcoming election. This is why it may be “necessary” to postpone the election: Bush would almost undoubtedly lose. The administration wants the ability to postpone the election as a safeguard against this possibility. Then it would have time to assure people it was hunting the terrorists, etc., and thereby salvage its reputation.
However, if the terrorist attack failed, Bush’s claim to be fighting terrorism would gain massive leverage - nevermind that his administration would have been largely responsible for that terrorism.
The administration hopes to produce a win-win situation, where neither a successful nor failed terrorist attack would harm its chances at reelection.
A terrorists attack before the election could either help a lot or hurt him a lot. On the one hand, it would scare people again and he could speak about he has taken aciton against the terrorists and make people question if they want to take a chance with someone else’s action against terrorists. On the other hand, it could back fire and get people thinking that desite the war on terrorism, terrorism in the US is still strong and throw it to Kerry since it would seem like Bush isn’t doing anything or being very effective.
I know there’s a lot of Bush hate and all, but I highly doubt it’d go that far. Whether elections were postponed or not, the fallout from a successful terrorist attack would cause Bush to lose the re-election no matter what. The administration supposedly backing a false attack in America would not only hurt the administration but would be found out quite quickly. Now presidents and administrations don’t get brought up for trials for war crimes and stuff, but if this sort of situation happened, and the people found out, I wouldn’t be surprised if something of that nature occurred.
I’m pretty far to the left on the political spectrum, but I think you guys that think Bush and co would do something like this have gone just a wee bit too far.
Watch “911-The Road to Tyranny” by Alex Jones and you’ll see that Bush could very likely pull of a terrorists act. Alex Jones isn’t partisan either. In his movies prior to Bush being elected when Clinton was still President, he speaks very harshly on Clinton. It makes it so that his message about Bush isnt just ebcause he hates Bush, but because he actually has some very good evidence.
Yeah, it can be said it’s likely since he has a vast array of government resources to pull one off, but it wouldn’t end in some sick dictatorship grab for power. People won’t support that. I guarantee there’s nothing to worry about in this regard.
It is to instill fear to accomplish an agenda, which has been happening for centuries all over the world. It isn’t new to Bush. In fact, you can read and hear about a lot of it on regular news sources, they just make it sound good. It isn’t about bringing a dictatorship, it is about bringing a “new world order.” Alex Joens has enough evidence to show that Clinton was the head of the Oklohoma City bombing, that we would have gone to war with Russia during the Cold War if it wasn’t for Kennedy, and that Pearl Harbor happened to accomplish the same mission…a new world order. They knew about Hitler’s Blitzkrieg, but used to it to unite to country since nothing unites a nation like war. Hell, it is commonly known and is reported now that Roosevelt knew abotu Pearl Harbor. Just watch it. What I’m sayign may sound bogus, but that is just it. The points Alex Jones makes do sound bogus at face value, but he manages to prove them by showing actual documents, interviews, and news sources. Hell, he evens shows that Iraq isn’t solely about oil or WMDs, it is about setting a precedent of attacking soverign nations. That is why you hear about Iran, North Korea, and the like.
Also, I doubt that there will be a terrorists attack, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there was one.