July 11, 2004

"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin. If you dared to express your nagging concern that the Bush administration, fearful of losing the White House, might be planning (or looking for a way) to suspend (or even cancel) the November election, you'd be laughed at, branded as a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy wacko. ... Right? ... Well, guess what?

Michael Isikoff, in the upcoming issue of Newsweek: "American counterterrorism 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 ... [Tom] Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place."

And this Reuters headline -- "US Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack" -- was posted this afternoon. ... This story first broke back on June 25: "The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission." (Also here) I notice that the idea of canceling the election has been dropped from the original story (probably best to keep that part hush-hush for now).

If I've learned anything about the Bush Cabal, it's to never say: "Oh, but they wouldn't do that!" It's common knowledge now that they milked 9/11 for all it was worth, enriching themselves and their friends with billions and billions of dollars. And they have the blood of nearly 1,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis (who were no more responsible for 9/11 than you or I) running through their oily hands. ... The question is not whether the Bush Cabal would take advantage of another terrorist attack, but would they do it again?

No comments: