Election Matters
by WILLIAM GREIDER
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...0712&s=greider
[from the July 12, 2004 issue]

The most intriguing story in Washington these days is a subterranean conflict that reporters cannot cover because some of them are involved. A potent guerrilla insurgency has formed in and around the Bush presidency--a revolt of old pros in government who strike from the shadows with devastating effect. They tell the truth. They explode big lies. They provide documentary evidence that undermines popular confidence in the Commander in Chief. They prod the media and the political community to ask penetrating questions of the Bush regime. Doubtless, these anonymous sources act from a mixture of motives--some noble, some self-interested--but in present circumstances one might think of them as "embedded patriots."
The business of leaks is an everyday thing in Washington and, arguably, the government could not function without them. It is a way to communicate official and unofficial information in a tentative fashion--nudging events in one direction or another without the need to take responsibility for what's communicated. Reporters participate enthusiastically in the traffic and call it "news." The process is sustained only because everyone can rely on the journalists' mock-heroic code of omert?: Never reveal the names of your secret sources--never--even if the revealed "information" turns out to be spurious.

But what has occurred during the past several months is not the normal commerce. A series of explosive leaks--closely held documents and well-informed tips--have altered the course of politics and might very well influence the outcome of this year's presidential election. Yet we don't know whom to thank. Who gave the Justice Department's "torture" memorandum to the Washington Post? Who provided the International Red Cross's letter of complaints on prisoner abuses to the Wall Street Journal? Who confirmed for the New York Times that Iyad Allawi, the newly appointed Prime Minister of Iraq, had supervised the CIA's terrorist bombing campaign in Baghdad a decade ago? Who informed U.S. News & World Report that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had authorized the holding of a "ghost prisoner" in violation of international law? Who--someone close to the President?--leaked the "torture" memo written by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales?

We don't need to know the identities to grasp that these and other over-the-transom "communications" provided forceful and well-timed contradictions to the White House line. It is also obvious that these leaks could not have come from the lower depths of the bureaucracy. The material is too sensitive for wide distribution. Not to take anything away from aggressive reporters, but the leakers clearly targeted the Post, Times and Journal to achieve maximum impact on Washington. The messages are not from some office crank at the Xerox machine but had to originate among sophisticated and highly placed officers of government.

My own surmise--corroborated in conversations with several long-experienced Washington reporters--is that we are probably talking about career military officers and senior civil servants at the Pentagon, Justice Department lawyers and professionals at the CIA or State Department. In practice, sensitive documents are sometimes passed off laterally to former colleagues no longer in government who provide them to the chosen reporters. Some risk to one's career is required, but these are smart people who know how to cover their tracks. Oddly enough, the brutally buttoned-down Bush White House has not invoked the usual official whine about irresponsible leaks, perhaps because the evidence nailed them so forcefully (and there's probably more to come). Or maybe the White House is inhibited by the embarrassing fact that its staff faces a grand jury investigation over leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame (even the President has consulted his own lawyer).

Cynical readers may resist this explanation, but the motivations within the permanent government are most likely grounded in principle and patriotism, not narrow partisanship. Among bureaucrats, there is always a current of low-level grumbling about the elected leadership, but career civil servants and military rarely take such provocative countermeasures. In this Administration, the level of disgust and alarm is more palpable because Bush has been willing to trash the accepted norms of behavior and to cross perilous thresholds, unaware of the dangers despite many warnings from the professionals. To people who will be in government long after Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have departed, the Bush crowd looks like the worst possible combination of qualities--it is both incompetent and ruthless.

"It's a wonderful country in a way," Walter Pincus, the Post's veteran investigative reporter, observes. "People in the government community are really concerned about what can happen. They get upset with themselves when they see things going wrong. So they are willing to raise questions. But I also think for some the failure to stand up before the war started is emboldening them now." The concerns of these anonymous truth-tellers were confirmed in public by the powerful statement issued recently by retired diplomats and military leaders, virtually calling for Bush's defeat this fall. "We need a change," they declared. The list of signers was striking because it was top-heavy with Republican and conservative professionals: Reagan's ambassador to Moscow and his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, George Bush Sr.'s ambassador to Israel and many others.

Whatever their intentions, the leakers have now raised the stakes for the country--posing grave implications that cannot be easily brushed aside. While Bush tries to explain away prisoner abuse in Iraq with the "few bad apples" argument, the White House, Pentagon and Justice Department memos justifying torture establish an official predicate for scandalous government actions that are more than embarrassing. Fundamentally, these are crimes--violations both of US law and of the Geneva Conventions, according to many legal experts. The President himself did not express alarm at these revelations. He turned aside questions as casually as his lieutenants dismissed the Constitution. Thus, an ominous warning light is now flashing for the Republic: the potential for criminal charges running far up the military chain of command, and for the lodging of impeachment charges against this President and for an international tribunal to examine American war crimes. The connecting facts are not yet visible to support these accusations, but a plausible outline for how they may be connected is well exposed. These matters, in other words, could lead to a constitutional crisis as momentous as Watergate, maybe more serious because the offenses are far more fundamental.

Did the President authorize illegal acts? Bad advice from his lawyers is not a defense. Did his Cabinet officers construct rationales to disobey long-settled law and common morality? We will not learn the answers unless responsible, independent investigations are initiated. Very few Americans may wish to go down that road, but the consequences of ignoring the warning light are far worse. The precedent of accepting lawless government and a corrupted constitutional order will lead inevitably to more of both.

All this talk of Bush, Kerry, suspension of elections, etc, is so quaint. Both Bush and Kerry are internationalists really if you look beyond just what they say. Bush clothes his internationalism with patriotism and talk of "spreading democracy" while Kerry, at least in the past, has been more overt in his expression of internationalist views (i.e. His 70's interview with the 'crimson'). What many people seem to miss is that these are simply different roads leading to the same destination, which is a world scale "democratic" union of nations; think of it with a U.N. with teeth. After the failure of The League post-WWI we saw the creation of the U.N post-WWII which has also proven a failure though not to the degree of the league. Each great war led to a renewed attempt at international cohesion through a pseudo-government body. Add to this the formation of bodies like the E.U., the African Union, OPEC, Nato, etc, and you see this policy of Macro government on a multinational scale gaining ground. In the aftermath of WWIII, which I hold to be inevitable, you will see another such effort. This will not lead to a "world government" in the illuminati paranoid style some expect but a form of it none the less. As I said, we will have an enhanced U.N. with teeth. It will, IMHO, take on a form similar to the U.S. government. There will be a centralized International structure, under which there will be regionalized structures in the tradition of the E.U. which will in turn be made up of nation-states.

Bush is advancing this trend mightily by his pre-emptive and basically unilateral military operations. If, and I believe more accurately when, this leads to a large scale regional, or world war, the end will see the world aching to avert the possibility of any such thing from happening again...enter the new U.N. I would be willing to wager that such a war will see the crippling or outright elimination of at least one or two of the countries involved, and a virtual decimation of the world economy.

As I see it, Kerry takes us the same route, but more likely sans the massively destructive war. He would more directly hand us over to such a system. I really don?t know if Bush even realizes that he is heading us in such a direction. I think he may indeed just be that blind. In any event, the outcome remains the same. The aftermath of this next fourth turning is highly likely to see a deepening commitment to citizenship in the 'world community'.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't actually agree that it's possible, Kevin. The American people are too dead set against it. Even if the military got behind Bush on this one (far from a certainty), widespread civil disobedience in the form of refusal to pay taxes, refusal to cooperate on the state level with the federal government, refusal to work in arms businesses, maybe even domestic terrorist activity, would result. No need to wait for the Awakening; we're in a social moment now -- or if not, we sure would be after that!

It would be a national disaster, of course. On par with the Civil War.

..which is why I used the qualifier "if they can somehow pull off the coup in the first place". I would agree that yours is the most likely scenario should the Bush Adminstration actually try. But I'm not totally convinced that 50% or more of voters won't meekly nod their heads (fucking sheep!) and go along with Bush should it happen. I hope not.

An article which appeared this morning in the Portland Oregonian is perhaps instructive. In the article, Governor Ted Kulongoski -- an ex-Marine -- expressed extreme concern that so much of Oregon's National Guard (his NG, as he put it) is being deployed to Iraq, that the State is actually in danger of being unable to cope with in-state emergencies.

I can easily picture the Governor's concerns evolving into a variation of S&H's Federal Income Tax 4T scenario. Perhaps sometime before November, Gov. K will stand up and say "An emergency situation has arisen in regard to the extensive forest fires in Eastern Oregon. As such, I am hereby excersising my personal authority as Commander-In-Chief of the Oregon National Guard, and will allow no more of my units deployed outside the country. Furthermore, I am recalling all ONG unit stationed overseas home, in order to help fight the fires and protect the citizenry, for the duration of the emergency".

The President declares this an act of seccession, refuses to allow ONG troops in Iraq to return to home, and threatens to cut off all Federal funds to Oregon. But the Governor stands firm and refuses to back down. President Bush begins to deploy National Guard units from other states toward the Oregon state line.

Oregon is then joined by Washington, California and Nevada in halting deployment of their own troops overseas; in response, the President declares martial law for the entire Western third of the United States. Battle lines begin to form along the borders with Idaho, Utah and Arizona. Bush orders the Air Force to bomb "enemy" positions on the western side of the line...a schizm develops between the Generals and everyone else as the Air Force pilots, many of whom are from the West Coast, refuse to do so. California, Oregon and Washington formally declare secession from the United States and institute their own draft to protect the Western homeland. The Dominion of Canada closes its border with the U.S. east of British Columbia; the Canadian military offers reinforcmenent of Western troops with Canadian military personnel, and extends an offer to Oregon and Washington to join Canada.

Far-fetched? Sure. But far less so that this time yesterday.

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

..which is why I used the qualifier "if they can somehow pull off the coup in the first place". I would agree that yours is the most likely scenario should the Bush Adminstration actually try. But I'm not totally convinced that 50% or more of voters won't meekly nod their heads (fucking sheep!) and go along with Bush should it happen. I hope not.

Most Republicans wouldn't stand for it, let alone Democrats and Independents.

More importantly, however, it doesn't matter how many civilians go along with it. Even if I believed that this represents some sort of attempt by the President to seize power in some sort of Hitlerian masterstroke--which I most emphatically do not--he would have to have the support of both the military and the political establishment (Republicans and Democrats both).

I don't haunt the halls of Congress and I'm not friendly with any Senators, but I'm having trouble imagining that even other Republicans would stand for such a scheme. I know that the popular message board wisdom these days suggests that Republicans are willing to stop at nothing to seize power, and so on, but there's very little supporting evidence for it. It strikes me as more of a paranoid delusion or, in some instances, a classic case of projection.

While I may not be making the rounds in DC, I do happen to know a lot of military types. While there is a lot of support for Bush, the support isn't the kind of personal fealty that would be required for them to forget that their duty is to the Constitution and not the President himself.

The more I read posts like this, the more I wonder whether or not the posters live in the same America I do. I'm not simply talking Red State/Blue State, or GOP/Dems here, either. I'm talking about something far more fundamental: an understanding of the way the nation works.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

An article which appeared this morning in the Portland Oregonian is perhaps instructive. In the article, Governor Ted Kulongoski -- an ex-Marine -- expressed extreme concern that so much of Oregon's National Guard (his NG, as he put it) is being deployed to Iraq, that the State is actually in danger of being unable to cope with in-state emergencies.

I can easily picture the Governor's concerns evolving into a variation of S&H's Federal Income Tax 4T scenario. Perhaps sometime before November, Gov. K will stand up and say "An emergency situation has arisen in regard to the extensive forest fires in Eastern Oregon. As such, I am hereby excersising my personal authority as Commander-In-Chief of the Oregon National Guard, and will allow no more of my units deployed outside the country. Furthermore, I am recalling all ONG unit stationed overseas home, in order to help fight the fires and protect the citizenry, for the duration of the emergency".

The President declares this an act of seccession, refuses to allow ONG troops in Iraq to return to home, and threatens to cut off all Federal funds to Oregon. But the Governor stands firm and refuses to back down. President Bush begins to deploy National Guard units from other states toward the Oregon state line.

This scenario makes the assumption that Governor Kulongoski is a complete dolt. An olympic level dolt. Since I refuse to believe that he could become the governor of Oregon by being a complete and utter moron, that assumption appears to be invalid.

Governor Kulongoski would certainly realize that the very training facilities that allow him to have a National Guard at all are on Regular Army bases. His infantrymen still go to the Benning School for Wayward Boys, his tankers still go to Fort Knox, his intel people still go to Fort Huachuca, and so on. The same point could be made for his Air National Guard.

Realistically, Governor Kulongoski would request emergency assistance from the federal government, and would receive it, in the form of money and assets from other States. FEMA would coordinate the movement of various firefighting assets into the area--and would be able to do a far better job of defeating the fires than infantrymen and tankers anyway.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Oregon is then joined by Washington, California and Nevada in halting deployment of their own troops overseas; in response, the President declares martial law for the entire Western third of the United States. Battle lines begin to form along the borders with Idaho, Utah and Arizona. Bush orders the Air Force to bomb "enemy" positions on the western side of the line...a schizm develops between the Generals and everyone else as the Air Force pilots, many of whom are from the West Coast, refuse to do so. California, Oregon and Washington formally declare secession from the United States and institute their own draft to protect the Western homeland.

Is there some sort of hot States' rights issue that I'm unaware of which is driving a wedge between the Western States and the rest of the Union? I fail to see why, for example, the Governator would throw in his lot with the (apparently insane) governor of Oregon.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

The Dominion of Canada closes its border with the U.S. east of British Columbia; the Canadian military offers reinforcmenent of Western troops with Canadian military personnel, and extends an offer to Oregon and Washington to join Canada.

So you're basically saying that Canada would declare war on the United States in this scenario? My mind is incapable of processing a purportedly realistic scenario in which Canada voluntarily enters into a war with the United States. It makes no sense and, on top of that, it would be suicide.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Far-fetched? Sure. But far less so that this time yesterday.

Geez, dude, chill out!

Virtually the entire premise of this website is speculation on how various aspects of the 4T might manifest. I was outlining a scenario in which the governor might use an in-state emergency as a ruse to withdraw the Oregon National Guard from a war which he opposes...and how the Law of Unintended Consequences might come into play. Like S&H's Federal Tax seizure scenario from T4T, obviously the one I outlined will probably never happen, and even if it did, certainly not in that precise manner. They never do. However some of the elements of it certainly could occur, if things got completely out of hand...which generally does happen in 4Ts.

Back to the election postponement trial balloon...the real questions are: Would most Republicans go along with the President postponing elections if it meant either giving him the benefit of the doubt and/or keeping the Democrats from taking back the White House? Would many Democrats in Congress (particularly the Silent ones) meekly go along in order to keep the peace with their compadres across the aisle? I believe the answers to both of these questions are: well, maybe.

Scenario 1:
Terrorists atteck polling places in several closely contested states. The election goes forward as well as possible, and Kerry wins in those states and narrowly wins the election. However, it becomes apparent that Bush "actually" won in the days following, and several electors change their votes as "faithless electors", which would give Presidency to Bush.
Scenario 2:
Same as scenario 1, except that the positions are reversed...the election "changes" from Bush to Kerry.
Scenario 3:
Terrorists manage to pull off a "one-shot" at the final debate on the eve of the election, killing a) Bush b) Kerry c) both.
Comment on the results of these scenarios.

Originally Posted by sopopo

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.

You're not one of Marc Lamb's "personalities", are you? You know, the one that protected him from his father's "episodes"?

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by sopopo

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

"A decent man should always be somewhat alienated from the herd, from the age he lives in, from the dominant political gangs. When you feel at home in a world that has gone wrong, you?ve gone wrong too." -- Joseph Sobran

Seadog is apparently not a decent man, as he obviously feels at home with the dominant political gang that equates Bush with Hitler.

1.) I performed a Google search on "sopopo". Here's what I found:

a.) a poster from Kwangyang, South Korea on a guestbook for a travel web page and on a Korea tribute page on a Japanese web site;

b.) a throwaway mention in a college parody of Pravda;

c.) a term mentioned in a paper in French from the Purdue Math Department;

d.) a surname found in the records of Caldwell County and Bexar County, TEXAS; and

e.) part of the Laotian name for Laos.

2.) Does anyone think any of these have anything to do with our most recent member? Or has anyone else noticed that his posts:

a.) betray a history of lurking at this site, or being told by a regular here what to look for; and

b.) coincide with Marc Lamb not posting here as Devil's Advocate?

Hmmm...

:idea:

3. Or could we have been infiltrated by an agent of the



Republican Noise Machine?

Do you think Devil Advocate's recent, relative quiescence on this board has nothing to do with film work for the GOP and everything to do with a, hem, "tour" in Indochina? :wink:

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Scenario 1:
Terrorists atteck polling places in several closely contested states. The election goes forward as well as possible, and Kerry wins in those states and narrowly wins the election. However, it becomes apparent that Bush "actually" won in the days following, and several electors change their votes as "faithless electors", which would give Presidency to Bush.
Scenario 2:
Same as scenario 1, except that the positions are reversed...the election "changes" from Bush to Kerry.
Scenario 3:
Terrorists manage to pull off a "one-shot" at the final debate on the eve of the election, killing a) Bush b) Kerry c) both.
Comment on the results of these scenarios.

By talking about various emergency election scenarios, our government has (inadvertently?) indicated to Al Qaeda that if they REALLY want to screw us up, they should hit us on Election Day. It's almost an advertisement.

Now, since 3/11 (Madrid) makes such contingency planning a good idea, it is ironic that we would send out such a signal. Going a (paranoid) step further, what if all of this was Osama's plan all along?

Think about it. His plan is twofold. One, create Helter Skelter between the West and the Islamic world. Two, cause as much friction within Western societies so as to expose their weak "pagan" foundations and topple them (like the USSR).

Number one is rolling along nicely. Seeding the US with worries after 3/11 so that an Election Day attack would have maximum effect would greatly further number two. And Bush would be as perfect a dupe as he could want.

[Note-I have an authoritarian father]

I don't believe that, on a gut level, the authoritarian person gets it. Oh, they may pay lip service to freedom/democracy because of the milieu they were raised in. A litmus test is to see how they react to dissent.

Consider:

1. Canceling an election eliminates the semblance of legitamacy.

2. Canceling an election effectively disenfranchises not only those who disagreed with you, but also those who supported you during the last election-a slap in the face.

3. Napoleon rose from the turmoil of the French revolution; Hitler came to power with the humiliation of Versaille and the despair of the Great Depression. I believe that Julius Ceasar also came to power after a period of turmoil. These sorts of conditions are lacking, at least at present. (S & H wrote that the Millenial Saeculum has been one of relative peace and prosperity). The nation is not motivated to turn power over to a dictator.

The Government in Washington City didn't cancel the 1864 elections during the War Between the States, even though it looked as though President Lincoln, elected in 1860 with a minority of the popular vote, would not win re-election. Americans accepted the convoluted outcome of the 1876 elections. Americans even accepted the convoluted outcome of the 2000 elections! The current government in Washington, DC won't cancel the election this fall.

The Rabid Isalmicists don?t need any help to generate terror scenarios. They?ve been war-gaming terror strikes for decades. I'd bet that they have examined and discarded more scenarios than anyone on this forum has even remotely entertained.

A possible scenario is detonation of a suitcase nuke in Philadelphia early on the morning of 11/2. That would disrupt big-city voting on part of the East Coast, the area along the old PRR mainline east from Philadelphia. Likely rural voting would continue. Then PA, and perhaps NJ and NY might tilt to Bush. That would be a bigger sore than the 2000 Florida fiasco. The Rabid Isalmicists might well figure that such a disruption would fatally weaken the US Government. I?d bet that they?d be wrong.

Americans are a political people, i.e., they concentrate on compromise. They recognize that there?s always another chance in the next election cycle. The only disruption that would upset them would be the end of the cycle of elections.

I'll stay out of Philadelphia.

SAY WHAT!?

http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

Regime change in Iran now in Bush?s sights




By Jenifer Johnston

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

And yet North Korea is the one that is an actual threat to us.

As you've shown us in frightening post after post. BTW, any news on that situation recently from your sources?

Hey, now we're sending a member of the old Silent generation to go over and fight in Iraq (although he's going as a badly needed psychiatrist, because too many Millie kids are freaking out over there).

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Hey, now we're sending a member of the old Silent generation to go over and fight in Iraq (although he's going as a badly needed psychiatrist, because too many Millie kids are freaking out over there).

--Croaker

And they say there'll be no draft next year . . .

Published on Monday, July 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-15.htm

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

And yet North Korea is the one that is an actual threat to us.

As you've shown us in frightening post after post. BTW, any news on that situation recently from your sources?

Your wish is my command...go over to the Korea thread.

The Missionaries were classified as "less radical" while the Boomers have been classified as "more radical."

The fireworks may be more spectacular this time around.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

The Missionaries were classified as "less radical" while the Boomers have been classified as "more radical."

The fireworks may be more spectacular this time around.

And don't forget...the firecrackers are much bigger!

Dr. Vince, do you have an alibi?

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/3548529/detail.html

(Standard disclaimers)


Man In Superman Costume Attacks Motorists

Attack Reportedly Leads To Street Brawl

POSTED: 7:30 p.m. EDT July 19, 2004
UPDATED: 7:52 p.m. EDT July 19, 2004
Police say a 21-year-old man dressed as Superman attacked some motorists in Ann Arbor early Sunday. A group of men stopped their car to talk to some friends outside an Ann Arbor home when the alleged attacker jumped out from behind some bushes and into the vehicle, Local 4 reported.

"I guess this young man jumped in the back seat of the victim's vehicle and just started hitting him and when the victim attempted to call using his cell phone, (Superman) grabbed the cell phone and he stomped on it," said Sgt. Angella Abrams, of the Ann Arbor Police Department.

The victims said when they got out of the car, people from the house party came toward the car, and a large street fight broke out, according to The Ann Arbor News. No one was fighting when officers arrived, but two witnesses were able to show digital pictures they took of the alleged attacker, police told the paper. Officers spotted the man in the crowd -- wearing a red spandex Superman costume -- and arrested him, the paper reported. "He was in costume, and it was a pretty terrible Superman costume at that," said Mark Majewski, who witnessed the incident. The motive for the attack was not known, according to police. The identity of the man wearing the Superman costume was being withheld pending possible charges of assault and battery.

This is big-time tinfoil hat stuff, but you never know. :shock:

If the pre-election internal tracking polls and public opinion polls show the Kerry-Edwards ticket leading in key battleground states, the Bush team will begin to implement their plan to announce an imminent terrorist alert for the West Coast for November 2 sometime during the mid afternoon Pacific Standard Time. At 2:00 PST, the polls in Kentucky and Indiana will be one hour from closing (5:00 PM EST ? the polls close in Indiana and Kentucky at 6:00 PM EST). Exit polls in both states will be known to the Bush people by that time and if Kentucky (not likely Indiana) looks too close to call or leaning to Kerry-Edwards, the California plan will be implemented. A Bush problem in Kentucky at 6:00 PM EST would mean that problems could be expected in neighboring states and that plans to declare a state of emergency in California would begin in earnest at 3:00 PM PST.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

This is big-time tinfoil hat stuff, but you never know. :shock:

If the pre-election internal tracking polls and public opinion polls show the Kerry-Edwards ticket leading in key battleground states, the Bush team will begin to implement their plan to announce an imminent terrorist alert for the West Coast for November 2 sometime during the mid afternoon Pacific Standard Time. At 2:00 PST, the polls in Kentucky and Indiana will be one hour from closing (5:00 PM EST ? the polls close in Indiana and Kentucky at 6:00 PM EST). Exit polls in both states will be known to the Bush people by that time and if Kentucky (not likely Indiana) looks too close to call or leaning to Kerry-Edwards, the California plan will be implemented. A Bush problem in Kentucky at 6:00 PM EST would mean that problems could be expected in neighboring states and that plans to declare a state of emergency in California would begin in earnest at 3:00 PM PST.

Agreed it's a little tinfoilish, but not quite at Kathaksung's level. :wink:

Actually, Sean, it's pretty seriously tinfoilish. People outside this state maybe have an excuse, but you know perfectly well that Schwarzenneger's election was not a coup by Republicans, and that he's not a Bushbot. And come on, those butterfly ballots weren't a Bush ploy! That was just an old-fashioned snafu.

It's an interesting scenario but I don't see how it can be done. The shenanigans in Florida worked because Florida was close. A few thousand African-American votes denied and voila! Instant recount territory. California is not a battleground state. There is nothing Bush can do, legitimate or otherwise, that will put this state in his column. Republicans in California may as well not bother voting (for president), because they will in effect be voting for Kerry whichever buttons they push. It's a done deal.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

This is big-time tinfoil hat stuff, but you never know. :shock:

If the pre-election internal tracking polls and public opinion polls show the Kerry-Edwards ticket leading in key battleground states, the Bush team will begin to implement their plan to announce an imminent terrorist alert for the West Coast for November 2 sometime during the mid afternoon Pacific Standard Time. At 2:00 PST, the polls in Kentucky and Indiana will be one hour from closing (5:00 PM EST – the polls close in Indiana and Kentucky at 6:00 PM EST). Exit polls in both states will be known to the Bush people by that time and if Kentucky (not likely Indiana) looks too close to call or leaning to Kerry-Edwards, the California plan will be implemented. A Bush problem in Kentucky at 6:00 PM EST would mean that problems could be expected in neighboring states and that plans to declare a state of emergency in California would begin in earnest at 3:00 PM PST.

Agreed it's a little tinfoilish, but not quite at Kathaksung's level. :wink:

It doesn't sound so tinfoilish to me. I can actually see such a scenario coming to pass. This time last month I'd have said it was crazy. But with this election postponement trial balloon sent up by Bush last week, It's obvious to me what is on his mind. This would be Bush Plan B...he wouldn't even have to try to cancel the elections if enough people stay home out of fear to throw the election his way.

But, you know, I suspect it would backfire. If such an announcement of an "Imminent Terrorist Attack" were made, I'll bet the majority of people who'd take it seriously and stay home are Republicans. The Democrats are so determined to get rid of Mr. Bush that most of them would come to the polls anyway, with the fatalistic attitude that if there is an attack and they are killed, so be it. And the independents who are sitting on the fence until the last minute just might say..."hey, this is all wrong...what are the odds???"....and vote Kerry.

I've lurked on these forums from time to time, and I've read The Fourth Turning, of course. But you know, although I've intuitively felt we entered a 4T on or around the time of 9/11, I keep seeing crap like this:

A Boston hotel has a room just like Britney Spears's bedroom:
http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/...px?news=164792

What the hell? Is this not evidence of still being stuck in 3T sensibilities? There seems to be so much evidence to go either way. Maybe this means we're still on the cusp. What do y'all think?

Fishy