July 12, 2004

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov Vote in Case of Attack These guys will truly do anything to stay in power. Sickening. via Jonathon (in my comments section).
posted by Sullivan 20 years ago
  • We should vote now, before the attack.
  • Hey, good idea. It worked for Bremer in Iraq! Somehow I don't think the President's pollsters would agree, though...
  • We could vote two da... awww. too slow! Ha, ha. Seriously, where's the U.N. Monitors?
  • Grow up, people. We pay our government employees -- including the President -- lots of money to devise backup plans just in case. For instance -- if 9/11 had occurred on a Federal election day, there definitely would have been chaos as people wonderered how/if/where/when to vote, at least in the vicinity of New York City, Washington, D.C. and other major metro areas. That's all this article is talking about -- planning for a "worst case" scenario. It would be irresponsible for the administration NOT to consider how to proceed in case of a major terrorist attack.
  • On CNN HEadline news they just said that no matter what they would NOT change the voting day since not only would it require adjustments to the national constitution, but several state constitutions as well.
  • davidmsc: yeahbut, there was no contingency for the constitutional crisis in 2000. And it fell to activist judges to make a decision. I appreciate the need for contingency plans, really. I promise. As a former systems architect, my life was all about finding which oddball one in a million chance would cripple my IT systems. From the article: Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election. Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information. If the CIA provided bad information for the war, why should we trust their intelligence here? Well, because, what if it's right, I guess. But shit, why not get this stuff straightened out when this intel came out? If it's "old information", why did it take so long for people to decide to get a plan together? I'm not expecting a full-fledged plan to come out immediately, but how long between the chatter and this idea, huh? The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections. In his letter, Soaries wrote that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Over two years? For real?
  • Grasping at straws in....5...4...3..2...
  • Glad to see you've got something meaningful to add to the discussion, de Carabas.
  • I understand de C quite clearly. What are you trying to say, Rodger?
  • We should vote now, before the attack. Yes, an early secret handover of power helped Iraq avoid attacks by freedom fighters, I mean insurgents. Bush could save a lot of trouble by having an early secret election and just announcing the results.
  • Hands up who wants to go out and vote while the buildings are still collapsing on the TV, nobody's got a clue as to how many dead there are, and what happens next is completely unclear?
  • I believe that this is a bit alarmist. Let's think about this logically for a second. Even if there is a massive terrorist attack on the US on election day, it can only affect at most a handfull of metro areas - I seriously doubt that al Qaeda is capable of disrupting elections nationwide. The effect of an attack would be less significant in terms of preventing people from voting, yet far more significant in swinging the opinions of voters at the last minute. On one hand, a terrorist organization may deduce that an attack on election day would be to their benefit. (There's no guarantee this will happen though. Americans may rally around Bush, or they may defect in droves to Kerry. There's also no easy way to say which candidate would actually be more effective in eliminating terror, so this is really a crapshoot.) On the other hand, this could be an adminstration scare-tactic aimed at shoring up Bush's numbers. (Again, no guarantee this will work, but likely given that polls show Bush tends to lead in the "better at combating terror" question.) I doubt this is really an administration plot to manipulate the election. I also doubt that, so close to the election, the government suddenly decides it needs a contingency plan despite sitting on it's hands for the past 3 years. My guess: a little of column A, a little of column B. Of course, if I'm wrong, I hear New Zealand is pretty nice.
  • My hand is up, Wolof, if the choice is between vote now or vote sometime later when Bush & Co. decide it's "safe". They've trumped up this perpertual "War On Terror" to so it will never be "safe" enough.
  • Here is the proposed ballot: "Should President George W. Bush be given another four years in office? Yes or Yes? Please circle one."
  • Hands up who wants to go out and vote while the buildings are still collapsing on the TV, nobody's got a clue as to how many dead there are, and what happens next is completely unclear? Me, me! Isn't that the most important time to show that terrorism can't stop our democracy from working? What, we should all go out and shop to prove that terrorism doesn't affect us (as advised by Bush after 9/11), but we shouldn't vote?
  • Even if there is a massive terrorist attack on the US on election day, it can only affect at most a handfull of metro areas. Yes, but a "handful" of metro areas would affect literally MILLIONS of voters. NYC, LA, and Chicago areas, if attacked, could conceivably affect over 20 million voters -- which, IIRC, represents nearly 1/5 of all eligible US voters. Stunning figures. And it wouldn't necessarily require an "attack" such as 9/11 -- witness last summer's massive power-outage on the East coast. Again, tens of millions of people were affected. We live in very interesting times.
  • One man, one vote. Get out and quote!
  • I'm surprised there isn't already a contingency plan, and I think it's a good idea to have one. That said, I think the timing of this has less to do with any actual intelligence relating to a potential attack than with Bush, Ridge & Co. trying to maintain a seige mentality. In other words, the administration thinks they have a better chance of winning if people are scared.
  • Wolof: Lincoln pulled quite a few strokes during the Civil War, but (so far as we know) never evn contemplated postponing elections, even though it was definitely the aim of the Confederacy to make the war so expensive as to encourage voters into a candidate who would sue for peace on terms favourable to them. Given that the ANV had been within spitting distance of Washington, DC, during the war, and would (no doubt) have been happy to push again but for their cock-up at Gettysburg, how is this any different? Similarly, Roosevelt fought an election in 1940 on while the rest of the world went to hell in a handbasket. Should he have taken the opportunity to postpone the election?
  • davidmsc's right - it'd be totally irresponsible not to plan contingencies for terrorist attacks, and Spain has given other countries with impending elections reason to pause. You can be sure criticism would be coming in were it not to be the case. Delaying as a response to an attack is one thing. Delaying 'in case of' is another beast entirely. How many false alarms or close calls have their been to date? This has the potential to truly disrupt democratic process. However it's not like there was real democratic representation to begin with, so I am not sure what difference terrorist interference would make. [On another note: wasn't this the subject of this post, not three days ago?]
  • If the Golden Gate Bridge blew up November 1st, who would Joe Sixpack be voting for -- Bush or Kerry? They'd be a fool to suspend the elections.
  • This only makes any sense if there *is* actually a threat. Which is what nobody seems to be thinking about. And who's word do we have to take that there *is* actually a threat? And what's their track record? Hmmm? This is what is analogous, in theatrical magic, to the distraction from the real trick. You're looking at the guy's one hand waving while he's palming the coin with the other. Everyone is so stuck arguing about the pros & cons of the proposal that they miss the actual real question. Is there a true threat to the US and the election? The facts are that there are no credible threats, and the current administration is distinguished by its propensity to scare everyone every ten minutes by saying that there is. Ooh! Oooh! Watch out for the scary terrorists! Remember the promises on WMD, the Niger yellowcake. There weren't any. These people lie more than they breathe. We're listening to the same bunch of idiots who sat on their hands before 9-11 - and during - and who by admission act extremely on totally false intelligence. The same people, the same intelligence organisations, the same group-think. Ok? Remain calm, do not allow the fuckheads to alter your electoral process. Let nothing sway you from the job at hand. Keep your heads. Vote, and vote well. Let no one, under *any circumstances*, alter that process in any way. This has been a Nostrildamus prognostication.
  • Remain calm, do not allow the fuckheads to alter your electoral process. Good comment.
  • i don't get it. if mr. bush is doing so well fighting the war on terror, why are we still vulnerable to a terrorist attack during our elections? when the team can't do what it gets paid to do, it is perhaps time to pick a new coach here, folks. (we have seen the enemy, and he is in the white house?)
  • "I don't get it. if mr. bush is doing so well fighting the war on terror, why are we still vulnerable to a terrorist attack during our elections?" - Exactly. Exactamundo. Precisely. Ditto. What frogs sayeth. Run rings around us, logically. And no, they can't do the job, or even anything, for that matter, so yes, they need to be booted.
  • i don't get it. if mr. bush is doing so well fighting the war on terror, why are we still vulnerable to a terrorist attack during our elections? I don't get it. If the Chinese are so good at population control, why is there still about billion of 'em in the United States? /logical equivalent
  • Glad to see you've got something meaningful to add to the discussion, de Carabas. I'm terribly sorry, you're right. There aren't enough legitimate criticisms of the current administration, so it's only natural that we reach for hysteria to make our points. Also, we could really use more posts on how shitty George W. Bush is. We haven't heard enough about that, and we only have five more months to hear about Dubya's shittiness before election day. Hey, has anyone made a FPP on Farenheit 9/11 lately?
  • f8x- since the current _total_ population of the US is ~300 million, I can only assume that your billion remark is intended to be tongue in cheek. Which isn't very bright, and we all know that you are capable of better. The logical equivalency of terrorism and population naturally leads us to a discussion of rates. Is the Chinese approach to population control leading to a change in the populating rate? Are a given set of policies leading to a change in the terrorism rate? Estimated Chinese population statistics Terror rates: original State Department release Powell not happy
  • poly, if the WoT is a long-term thing, you really think two years' data is going to accurately represent the long-term effects of actions against terrorists and terrorism? That's the problem with a lot of people who are opposed to the war in Iraq, or skeptical of the WoT--there's very little patience, just a lot of speculation and doomsaying. Bush may not be the best person to fight terrorism, but he's certainly not the worst. Whether in spite of his actions or because of them, terrorists will still exist. So caution's point is still disingenuous.
  • So, f8x, you are saying that if you find something is a bad idea two years into it you should be sure to continue for four more?
  • Bush may not be the best person to fight terrorism, but he's certainly not the worst. Hee! George W Bush. May not be the best person to fight terrorism. May not be an idiot. May not have gone AWOL. If you don't vote for him, the terrorists may win.
  • f8x- my views on the WoT start with getting rid of the W. (no pun intended! ;-) Calling it a war is great if you use that word as shorthand for "consistent, focussed and unrelenting aggression". It's lousy if it gets used as shorthand for "let's use lots of troops and invade lots of places which look to be geographically related to some of our objectives". As it happens, no, I don't think that 2 years worth of data will adequately represent what's going on. Especially when that data is so readily skewed by a handful of events. That leaves aside the fact that that report was originally released to show that the WoT was going great guns. It's bogus either way.
  • "I don't get it. If the Chinese are so good at population control, why is there still about billion of 'em in the United States? /logical equivalent" This appears to be an invalid syllogism. For starters, you are assuming that the Chinese *are* good at population control. Literalist Xtians should not try to debate logic. "Bush may not be the best person to fight terrorism, but he's certainly not the worst." I would say that the evidence so far tends to indicate that he is very, very bad at fighting terrorism - if not the worst, then quite close to it, due to the fact that he hasn't caught the planners/instigators of the 9-11 atrocities, and he has increased sympathy for fundamentalist-Islamic causes in the mid-east with his messy Afghanistan campaign (which didn't succeed in erasing the Taliban) and of course his illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. Even the last government report indicates that terrorism has *increased* in the world. So, really, I'd say you're completely wrong. For all intents and purposes, Bush really is the worst guy to fight terrorism, by dint of the fact few others have a shot at Presidency. If you want to fight terrorism, you don't hire a guy who is corrupt, a moral & physical coward, & who has failed at everything he's ever done in his life. You hire a competent guy who can get things done. I would say that Bush is indeed corrupt, on the evidence, and that he's quite clearly massively incompetent. He can't even chew a pretzel properly (if you actually believe that story), and his past is replete with failure at everything but amassing money for himself.
  • But he's just so damn cute!
  • What Cali said, and what CLF said.
  • Literalist Xtians should not try to debate logic. It's so cute when you puff out your feathers like that... he hasn't caught the planners/instigators of the 9-11 atrocities We never caught the Zodiac killer either, what's your point? increased sympathy for fundamentalist-Islamic causes in the mid-east with his messy Afghanistan campaign (which didn't succeed in erasing the Taliban) We're doing quite well in Afghanistan, thanks. And again, I'm not so sure fundamentalists need a guy like Bush to spur them into terrorist actions. and of course his illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. Of course. How silly of me to disagree. and his past is replete with failure at everything but amassing money for himself. Is that what this grudge is about? He has more money than you? /Sorry, snark begets snark. I'll be better, I promise.
  • We're doing quite well in Afghanistan, thanks. I'll take the high road...
  • We never caught the Zodiac killer either, what's your point? Let's compare, eh? 37 killings for the Zodiac Killer, only seven have been verified as linked to him. September 11th organizers? 3000 deaths and billions in property damage. When you boil it down, the Zodiac Killer is just a serial killer. The organizers of the 9/11 attacks are threats to national security, and the capture of these people *should* be priority #1, but it ain't.
  • High road, low road, it's all the same to me. Afghanistan is still rocked by explosions on a nearly daily basis, warlords and their militias, and abundant drug trade, women being threatened or killed for registering to vote, and the objectives for going there in the first place have in the most optimistic terms barely been met.
  • More than 76 people die daily here in the states because of handgun accidents. More than 120 die daily due to automobile accidents from drunk driving. My God, it's been nearly over two hundred years since we got our independence, why can't we get it right?
  • I'm not saying Afghanistan's not without its problems. But come on.
  • Population of the US: 293 million Population of Afghanistan: 28.5 million (via CIA Factbook) Come on? Is there a number of deaths due to paramilitary raids, suicide bombers, and land mines at which is becomes a problem instead of regular day to day activity? Also, how many people in the US daily die from those things listed above? Compare apples to apples if your going to compare.
  • Eek. Pardon the grammar. Things like that make me forget there's a preview button.
  • From shawnj's 'objectives' link, above: The short term goals of the military action included the capture of Osama bin Laden [NO]and other al Qaeda leaders[YES], the prevention of further attacks by al Qaeda[UNKNOWN], the end of Afghanistan's harboring of terrorists[YES], their training camps and infrastructure[YES], and the removal of Mullah Omar and the Taliban Regime[YES]. Long term goals include the end of terrorism[NO], the deterrence of state sponsorship of terrorism[PROBABLY], and the reintigration of Afghanistan into the international community[YES]. Not 100% successful, but not bad, IMHO.
  • the prevention of further attacks by al Qaeda[UNKNOWN] er, there's been quite a few al qaeda attacks since the afghan war.
  • True, but how many would there have been if al Qaeda was still operating in Afghanistan? Hence the [UNKNOWN].
  • That's all well and good, except that the objective was to prevent further attacks, not to maybe kinda sorta stop some. In that respect it's about a clear a [NO]> as the end of terrorism.
  • We're doing quite well in Afghanistan, thanks. And again, I'm not so sure fundamentalists need a guy like Bush to spur them into terrorist actions. Oh, really. I - think - not. Of course there is the fact that we are so committed to rebuilding Afghanistan that we can't even buy the kiddies pen. We're not counting the kids sold into slavery. Let's see. Afghanistan has the warlords running everything outside Kabul. Inside Kabul terrorist attacks are still going on. There's no money and not enough U.S. and NATO troops. Also, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are back in. We're doing quite well in Afghanistan, thanks. Finally, from the liberal rag The Weekly Standard.
    The trouble is that today's varied missions require lots of manpower. The failure to complete the victory in Afghanistan is partly due to the administration's reluctance to send in sufficient numbers of U.S. troops and keep them there. Any campaign in Iraq will pose similar challenges. Even the victory in the Balkans remains at issue because of doubts among local factions about our willingness to keep troops there in sufficient numbers.
    We're doing quite well in Afghanistan, thanks. Yes we are. There is one guy that wants Bush to win because of a terrorist attack.
  • Rocket, FX I'd be interested to know how you'll judge when this 'War on Terror' will be won. Cos it seems to me that the answer to that question is 'when you can guarantee that there will be no more terror attacks' which given: the prevention of further attacks by al Qaeda[UNKNOWN] is surely impossible.
  • The War on Terror is a sham and a crock. Terrorism is here to stay. It can't be eradicated, but it may be minimized. I think the attack on Afghanistan was justified. (That, I think, is the extent of my agreement with F8x) The Taliban was instrumental in allowing al Qaeda to pull off many of it's attacks, including 9/11. Because of the invasion, they are no longer in power and al Qaeda is arguably weaker than they once were. Osama wasn't caught (yet), but we can't have everything.
  • wow this is an interesting derailment - one of the best things about MoFi IMMO. Still though, don't we have a thread for Afghanistan? to dogpile: I'd like it if news media et. al. would stop using the "newspeak" War on Terror (or for that matter, War on Hunger). I understand a "War on Violent Islamic Fundamentalists" won't work either but naming something that's clearly unwinnable doesn't seem like such a great thing.
  • Afghanistan was justified That is what I never got about the bogus justification during the run up to the Iraq war. The best way to get to Osama bi Laden is not to go after Saddam Hussein. It's to keep going after Osama bin Laden. I wouldn't of had a problem if the Bush administration said that they wanted to go into Pakistan. That country has terrorists and WMDs. I'm not against working with Pakistan, but why are the Bushies offering f-14s? NO! NO! NO!
  • Sullivan: How did you jump from Afghanistan to Iraq? You lost me there...
  • Sully, I think that Karzai has tried to buy some stability by engaging the warlords and attempting to bring some of the Taliban into the government fold. It's a risky proposition, but it's also not without its merits. I'm not sure how it will play out, but the idea behind it isn't as willy-nilly as it's made out to be. Believe it or not, I'm not a huge proponent of the WoT terminology, but I definitely back the idea behind engaging the enemy. I think the sit-on-our-hands policy, and the coddle-the-wicked policy failed. Then again, we've had over 25 years to learn that. Not much chance is being given to this new policy of engaging the enemy head-on. I just think a little patience is in order.
  • How did you jump from Afghanistan to Iraq? War on Terror. d'oh! f8x, isn't that a little bit like "diplomacy didn't work, let's just attack"? I agree that coddling the wicked is not a great policy decision but pre-emptive strikes have to be limited and precise to work - occupying foreign countries is bad news all around.
  • pete, agreed, but generally that rule applies to those nations who occupy to rule. We occupied Germany for several years after WWII, but with the intention of rebuilding and restoring. I find our motives for Afghanistan and Iraq to be of a similar nature.
  • Think about Bush trying to postpone the elections because of potential terror attacks for a moment. I found this. The hysterical thing is it was written by a Freeper. FAKE TERROR - THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
    In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan. Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom. Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome. Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army and even though Pompey took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year. With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome. The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.
  • I find our motives for Afghanistan and Iraq to be of a similar nature. Iraq will not become a democracy. The country is too tribal. There is also no seperation between church and state. Or respect for laws. Paul Wolfowitz is wrong. Democracy can't be imposed. Who is "our." That's vague.
  • North Korea probably needs some rebuilding too. Heck, Russia needs a ton of rebuilding. Starting with Georgia. -oh, the terrorism thing, right. Make it Chechnya. *dusts off overalls, puts on workin' hat*
  • I agree with Pete on Georgia. Has anyone been in that state lately? Jeez. And the bad diners and speed traps. Someone send the U.N. in ASAP.
  • Georgia is peachy.
  • Well, if you guys can't agree on which country to invade next, I don't see how you're ever going to take over the world.
  • Hey, can you invade us next. Its what the UKIP want, anyway. /cutting edge satire
  • Georgia has terrorists and enemies of Israel there.
  • Don't think this has been posted here yet, so FYI for US monkeys: There's a public meeting tomorrow about this at 1:00pm at 1225 New York Ave, N.W., Suite 1100 in Washington, D.C. Those of you who can be there, go and make your voice heard. Those of you who can't make it can e-mail HAVAinfo[at]eac.gov and tell 'em what you think. Make some noise, brother and sister monkeys.
  • F8x, you had your arse handed to you even before I could return to the thread. /feather puff
  • I did? I thought that burning sensation was just good salsa.
  • (Back to the election topic) maybe everyone should sign up for absentee ballots. At least in Calif., you don't have to actually be absent. And, it's paper and pencil, so I don't think the electronic voting issues impinge, plus you fill out your ballot before election day and mail it in. It'd be kind of funny if they gave an elections and nobody came, but voted anyway.