If we cancel the November election, the terrorists will have won. :evil: :evil:
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
- Posts
- 14,092
If we cancel the November election, the terrorists will have won. :evil: :evil:
And we will also know that Bush sees them as a political ally.Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
I notice that those posters who support Bush and intend to vote for him in this election (should there be one) have been silent on this proposed legislation. It would be interesting to hear whether or not Bush's supporters support him in this. Comments?
Looking over the Constitution, I don't see any impediment to Congress directly postponing an election, as the timing of federal elections is in Congress' control. Whether Congress can grant this power to the president is another question; other such grants of power have been ruled unconstitutional in the past. The real impediment to what we suspect is Bush's real intention is that he holds a four-year term that ends in January 2005. There is nothing in the Constitution that would allow him to extend that term of office, so if we have not elected a new president by the time his term ends, legally we would have no president at all. That's the part that would surely require a constitutional amendment.
OTOH, a less drastic and draconian use for such a power might be like this. Suppose Bush's poll numbers were in the toilet as election day approached. Suppose some event was on the close horizon that he expected to push him up in the polls. He might want to delay the election, not past his term, but merely to the point where he stood a better chance to win.
I am a Bush voter and I am flabbergasted by this...and not in a good sense.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/July/14%20o/The%20Truths%20That%20Can't%20Be%20Told%20By%20Jim %20Kirwan.htm
It would be the ultimate sign of weakness (ARE YOU LISTENING, HC???) to give in to this fear and cancel or postpone the election. This shouldn't even be open to discussion.
Thanks for these posts, Tom. Interesting to see that some Freepers are speaking out against this idea.
I would have to agree with you here (especially in the case of cancellation)... even though I agree with HC on what Turning it is
Why would there be talk of cancelling or postponing the elections now, when this didn't even happen in the midst of the Civil War of World War II. Besides, aren't the dates for our elections set by the Constitution, and if so, wouldn't an amendment be required to change them?
There will most definitely not be a quiet response to a cancellation of the November elections. I'm convinced that a wide variety of radical groups are going into full planning mode for "when" Bush has the election cancelled. Think WTO as an example. As someone who lived in Seattle during all that, it was no fun at all.
I also assume that those out in the "militia" fringe have been energized by this trial balloon from the administration and are thinking about their own plans.
If Bush does do this, I think we will have entered 4T.
On July 4th, I got together with a Silent couple who are close friends of my mother and were very close to my father (who is dead). These are sober, respectable people; they look very ordinary, live in a split-level built in the sixties, have grown children and grandchildren.
I was startled out of my mind when they told me they were seriously considering moving to Canada!
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Denial...anger....bargaining...and now.....acceptance. (The Silents, of course)
Bush vindicated (again); all must face the fact: it was Joe Wilson who lied
When 4T comes, it is MSNBCNNABCNPR that need to go against the wall. The fourth estate is rotten.
Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Robert Novak sez:
Wilson contradictions leave Democrat senators speechless
Like Sherlock Holmes' dog that did not bark, the most remarkable aspect of last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report is what its Democratic members did not say. They did not dissent from the committee's findings that Iraq apparently asked about buying yellowcake uranium from Niger. They neither agreed to a conclusion that former diplomat Joseph Wilson was suggested for a mission to Niger by his CIA employee wife nor defended his statements to the contrary.
Wilson's activities constituted the only aspects of the yearlong investigation for which the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, was unable to win unanimous agreement. According to committee sources, Roberts felt Wilson had been such a ''cause celebre'' for Democrats that they could not face the facts about him.
For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the Earth.
Because a Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating whether any crime was committed when my column first identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, on advice of counsel I have not written on the subject since October. However, I feel compelled to describe how the committee report treats the Niger-Wilson affair because it has received scant coverage except in a few media outlets. The unanimously approved report said, ''interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD (CIA counterproliferation division) employee, suggested his name for the trip.'' That's what I reported, and what Wilson flatly denied and still does.
Plame sent out an internal CIA memo saying ''my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'' A State Department analyst told the committee about an inter-agency meeting in 2002 that was ''apparently convened by [Wilson's] wife, who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.''
The committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings. That report ''did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.'' As far as his statement to the Washington Post about ''forged documents'' involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have ''misspoken.'' In fact, the intelligence community agreed that ''Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.''
''While there was no dispute with the underlying facts,'' Chairman Roberts wrote separately, ''my Democrat colleagues refused to allow'' two conclusions in the report. The first conclusion merely said that Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion. The second conclusion is devastating: ''Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.''
The normally mild Roberts is harsh in his condemnation: ''Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the president had lied to the American people, that the vice president had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. . . . [N]ot only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.'' Roberts called it ''important'' for the committee to declare much of what Wilson said ''had no basis in fact.'' In response, Democrats were silent.
Sopopo:
Did you see the "Joe Wilson Watch" thread that Monoghan posted? There's no need to repost Novak's column more than once -- we get it, already.
Considering all the slandering of the president that went on early this year, Novaks column should be shouted from the rooftops every day at noon and 8 PM for a week, Kiff.
Especially considering that it will never be mentioned by Peter Jennings et al.
We live in dark times, and it's the news media that are turning out the lights...
It is also the same old, same old, trademark lying propaganda from the Bush people. Goebbels is their god and they will repeat any lie until it becomes mistaken for fact (witness Cheney robotically repeating the absurd lies about Saddam's imminent destruction of the United States wherever he goes). Junior and Unka Dick have already retained defense counsel antipating indictment in this matter. Novak is in the cross-hairs because he compromised national security when he originally reported this leak from the White House. That is all that needs to be said.
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."
-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater
This is such a frickin non-issue, folks. You should be ashamed of wasting finger-muscles on it.And we will also know that Bush sees them as a political ally.
No election will ever be cancelled in the U.S. Ever. The worst that will happen is, the election will take place as scheduled, with extra days added to give people who are prevented from getting to the polls by an attack extra days to make it to the polls.
That's right, folks. It's just the opposite: an attack would lead to MORE democracy, not LESS.
Face it, this is yet another example of a run-of-the-mill government activity "thinking about the unthinkable" being blown out of proportion by a news media that desperately wants to avoid mentioning to the people that JOE WILSON LIED AND THE NEWS MEDIA LIED ABOUT IT FOR A WHOLE MONTH AND BUSH HAS BEEN YET AGAIN VINDICATED.
Next week in the news: a focus on dog owners who like John Edwards...
Lamers. Happily sucking up their lies and slant...
Goebbels is apparently Seadog's god, as he continues to believe the lies even when they have been so thoroughly exposed that Democrats admit it. Lame.
Seadog, I challenge you to indicate one single instance where Cheney said that Saddam was imminently about to destroy the U.S.
You can't because Cheney never said any such thing. You are a liar, driven by hatred, unable to see the truth because of your hatred.
The Bush administration said practically the opposite, and Cheney has always been very careful in his statements, and the press has never been able to catch him lying, despite years of trying, taking his quotes out of context, and a campaign of recklessly misquoting him.
Seadog is apparently not a decent man, as he obviously feels at home with the dominant political gang that equates Bush with Hitler.
Okey-dokey. 8) No more wasting of finger muscles from me. I got bigger fish to fry. And I'm sure the Dawg does, too.This is such a frickin non-issue, folks. You should be ashamed of wasting finger-muscles on it.And we will also know that Bush sees them as a political ally.
