Daily Kos blogger flogs us for inaction (rightly?)

[iconoclastic cat]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/12/153718/603

New Bush Options For The Election
by terry
Mon Jul 12th, 2004 at 15:37:18 EDT

The reaction to news regarding the Department of Homeland Security seeking a legal opinion regarding "postponement" of the November election has been met with a yawn, even among activists. This is disturbing, because it means that this trial balloon has achieved precisely what Karl Rove is seeking.

The reaction of News networks, political web sites and the blogging community has been almost unanimous - no one takes this seriously. Most of the better informed observers have correctly stated that there is no way powers to "postpone" a federal election will be given to the Bush/Cheney administration in the current atmosphere - so why worry.


Diaries :: terry's diary ::

Bush/Cheney & Rove know that there is not the time or the votes to get such a proposal through congress before the November election. But, that was never their plan. They just want to see how outraged the public would become at the suggestion. They now have their answer. Since the public is generally apathetic, they recognize that the have a viable new option, in the event they are lagging in the polls: A "red alert" Declared by the Department of Homeland Security. The Department's color code system has been a joke to many, however the highest level of alert is no joking matter. A red alert means there is a severe risk of terrorist attack.

As reported by Tom Baldwin of the Gannett State Bureau in New Jersey, during a briefing in 2003, Sid Caspersen, New Jersey's director of the office of counter terrorism explained that no terrorist attack would be required to go to the state of virtual martial law. A red alert would tear away virtually all personal freedoms to move about and associate. "Red means all non-critical functions cease," Caspersen said. "The state will restrict transportation and access to critical locations," says the state's new brochure on dealing with terrorism. "You must adhere to the restrictions announced by authorities and prepare to evacuate, if instructed. Stay alert for emergency messages."

Caspersen went further than the brochure. "The government agencies would run at a very low threshold," he said. "The state police and the emergency management people would take control over the highways. "You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are required to be out. No different than if you had a state of emergency with a snowstorm. The reason being is, what we're saying is, 'Everybody sit down!' "If you are left standing, you are probably a terrorist. And if you are not law enforcement or emergency response; That's how we're going to catch you. "You're not going to have a seat to go to." That is the basic premise of it."

On June 1, 2004, Ray McGovern, a 27 year CIA veteran, published an article called "Code Red".
Here is an excerpt:

"Bush administration leaders may even look on the prospect of a terrorist event in the United States in the coming months as a possible opportunity as well as a risk. I do not suggest they would be perverse enough to allow one to happen, or--still less--to orchestrate one. But there is ample reason to believe that they would take full political advantage of a terrorist attack--or even just the threat of one. Ashcroft's remarks last week might be regarded as the opening salvo in a campaign to condition the country for this.

No less a figure than Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the war on Iraq, went so far as to predict publicly last November that if terrorists attacked the United States with "weapons of mass destruction," the Constitution would probably be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

But, you say, that would mean a constitutional crisis without parallel in the history of our country. Perhaps. But was there not a good warm-up in the fall of 2002? Did we not then experience a constitutional crisis when Congress was duped into ceding to the president its constitutional power to declare war? And it was all accomplished by spreading the myth that Saddam Hussein was close to exploding a "mushroom cloud" over us--a myth based on a known forgery alleging that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Africa.

The key question for the next five months, then, becomes how far the administration will go. An elevated threat level justifying martial law and postponement of the election? No doubt such suggestions will seem too alarmist to those trusting that there is a moral line, somewhere, that the president and his senior advisers would not cross. I regret very much to note that their behavior over the past three years leaves me doubtful that there is such a line. If my doubts are justified, the sooner we all come to grips with this parlous situation the better."

So there you have the new Bush option in case he is facing defeat on November 2. No act of congress required, no declaration of martial law. Tom Ridge makes the call after meeting with Bush and Cheney and the election is simply one of many activities that are essentially cancelled.