Liberty, Vigilance and the Writing on the Wall

[Guest guest]

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/07/far04023.html

 

July 14, 2004

 

Liberty, Vigilance and the Writing on the Wall

 

by Maureen Farrell

 

In April, I wrote a piece entitled " Will the 2004

Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts

Predict a Terrorist Attack by November. " At the time,

I wrestled with the headline, wondering if it might

not be too provocative. Would the Bush administration

actually try to cancel or postpone the election? And

would the American people actually let them get away

with thwarting their will yet again?

 

Ah, but just when a sense of fair-mindedness tugged at

my better nature, I realized that, like a gingerbread

man perched atop a fox's head, it’s best not to trust

the beast that’s been taking us down the river (and up

the proverbial creek) for the past three and a half

years. And sure enough, just three months later, a

trial balloon was sent forth.

 

Reiterating counterrorism officials' warnings of

" 'alarming' intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike

inside the United States this fall, " Monday’s issue of

Newsweek reports that the Department of Homeland

Security has 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. " Or, as Buzzflash put it:

" Bush Cartel Talks of Steps to Potentially Cancel

(‘Postpone’) the Presidential Election: This is For

Real Folks! "

 

Even President Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas

corpus and took other extra legal measures during the

Civil War, refused to tamper with the 1864

presidential election -- yet during a press conference

last Thursday, White House Press Secretary Scott

McClellan traced the writing on the wall. " I don’t

think anyone can make guarantees [that the elections

will be held in November], " he said, adding, " But the

full intention is to move forward and hold those

elections. " No guarantees? Though " the full intention "

is to hold the elections? Why does this administration

always act as if it is granting some sort of gift,

while describing rights guaranteed under the U.S.

Constitution?

 

At any rate, after responding " I don't think so " to

the question, " Can the President today guarantee

Americans that no terrorist attack can upset the U.S.

elections this November, that they will go ahead as

planned? " McClellan concluded his song and dance by

saying, " These are threats that we need to take

seriously, and that's why it's important to keep the

American people informed " -- sounding eerily similar

to John " be on the lookout " Ashcroft, whose recent

nonspecific terror warning " completely blindsided " the

Department of Homeland Security.

 

But, alas, when the media confronted the Attorney

General (and at long last began to question this

administration’s pattern of alarming the public

without due cause), Ashcroft said, " We believe the

public, like all of us, needs a reminder. "

 

Why, yes. Of course.

 

Though a cynic might deduce that this administration’s

game plan is to either scare the public into voting

for Bush or, barring that, to simply cancel or

manipulate the election, it’s important to remember

that eternal vigilance is, in fact, the price of

liberty. So, once again: Will the 2004 election be

called off?

 

As surreal as this sounds, for the first time in the

country’s history, it looks as if could be. Or it

could be postponed, while the administration and media

sell us God knows what.

 

With that in mind, here is a brief run down of

statements experts, pundits and regular Joes have been

making for months that suggest even more terror -- and

more unconstitutional clampdowns -- may be headed our

way:

 

1. " The ‘October surprise’ affecting the U.S. election

will be . . . a major terror attack in the United

States. " -- William Safire, ( " From Politics to Books,

My 2004 Picks, " New York Times, Dec. 31, 2003

 

2. " White House officials say they've got a ‘working

premise’ about terrorism and the presidential

election: It's going to happen. ‘We assume,’ says a

top administration official, ‘an attack will happen

leading up to the election.’ And, he added, ‘it will

happen here’. . . " From the White House, A Nightmare

Scenario, " U.S News and World Report, May 24, 2004

 

3. " [A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event

somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the

United States of America -- [would cause] our

population to question our own Constitution and to

begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a

repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. " --

Gen. Tommy Franks, Cigar Aficionado interview, Dec.

2003 issue, as quoted in Newsmax, Nov. 21, 2003

 

4. " One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a ‘dirty

nuke’ set off in a small town, may well prompt the

Bush regime. . . to suspend national elections for a

year while his government ensures stability. " -- John

Stanton and Wayne Madsen, " When the War Hits Home, "

Counterpunch, May 14, 2002

 

5. " Even before the bombings in Madrid, White House

officials were worrying that terrorists might strike

the United States before the November elections. Now,

with the Socialists' surprise election victory in

Spain, analysts believe the ballot box rebuke of one

of President Bush's closest allies in the war in Iraq

could embolden terrorists to try the same tactics in

the United States to create fear and chaos. " -

" Officials Worry of Pre-Election Attack, " USA Today,

March 15, 2004

 

6. " Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by CNBC of

more than 200 senior business and government

executives, many of whom are specialists in security

and terrorism related issues. Almost three-quarters of

them said it was likely the United States would see a

major terrorist strike before the end of 2004. . . It

was the sense of the group that such an attack was

likely to generate additional support for President

Bush. " -- David J. Rothkopf, " Terrorist Logic: Disrupt

the 2004 Election, " the Washington Post, Nov. 21, 2003

 

7. " A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack

against the United States in the near future is being

directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda

members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.

.. . The planned attack is ‘an effort to disrupt the

democratic process’ before November's elections, Ridge

said. " -- " Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against

U.S. Ridge: Terrorists' aim is to influence

presidential vote, " CNN, July 8, 2004

 

8. " In the wake of what happened in Madrid, we have to

be concerned about the possibility of terrorists

attempting to influence elections in the United States

by committing a terrorist act. " -- FBI Director Robert

Mueller, Associated Press interview, as reported by

CBS News, " FBI Chief Surveys Terror Horizon, " March

25, 2004

 

9. " To prepare [for a pre-election terror attack] the

administration has been holding secret antiterrorism

drills to make sure top officials know what to do.

‘There was a sense,’ says one official involved in the

drills, ‘of mass confusion on 9/11. Now we have a

sense of order.’ Unclear is the political impact,

though most Bushies think the nation would rally

around the president. ‘I can tell you one thing, adds

the official sternly, ‘we won't be like Spain. . . ’ "

-- U.S News and World Report (5/24/04)

 

10. " A delay in any election would create the

appearance of fascism. You think the left has ammo

now, wait till a delay in the election happened. " –

The Free Republic Web site, post #32, " Should the U.S

have elections if attacked? " March 16, 2004

 

11. " [The author of Imperial Hubris] thinks it quite

possible that another devastating strike against the

US could come during the election campaign, not with

the intention of changing the administration, as was

the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the

same one in place. " I’m very sure they can't have a

better administration for them than the one they have

now,’ he said. ‘One way to keep the Republicans in

power is to mount an attack that would rally the

country around the president.’ -- " Bush Told He Is

Playing Into Bin Laden’s Hands: Al-Qaida may 'reward'

American president with strike aimed at keeping him in

office, senior intelligence man says, " The Guardian,

June 19, 2004

 

12. " The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned

the Texas oil industry of potential attacks by Al

Qaeda on pipelines and refineries near the time of the

November presidential election, although it added that

the information it had received was uncorroborated. --

" F.B.I. Warns Texas Oil Companies of Potential Terror

Attack, " the New York Times, March 25, 2004

 

13. " Do [the terrorists] bide their time and wait, or

do they try to replicate their success in Spain here

in America before our election? . . . Who do you think

the terrorists would rather have in office in this

country -- socialists like those in Spain as

personified by John Kerry and his friends in the

Democratic Party, or George W. Bush? " – Rush Limbaugh,

on his radio show, soon after the Madrid train

bombing, transcript no longer available

 

14. " [T]he timing of any future attack is now the

subject of hallway conversations in the Pentagon and

the West Wing and at diplomatic dinner parties, where

current and former officials mingle. A highly

unscientific survey of those conversations revealed a

few common strands of logic among Bush and Kerry

advisers. Few doubt that an attack would bring the

country together behind the president, just as it did

after 9/11. " – David E. Sanger, " Damage Control:

Calculating the Politics of Catastrophe, " New York

Times, May 2, 2004

 

15. " Terrorists, too, can see that hard-liners tend to

win after terrorist attacks. So why would they want to

help them win? Perhaps because terrorists see the

attacks as a win-win. They can lash out against their

perceived enemies and empower the hard-liners, who in

turn empower them as terrorists. How? Hard-liners

strike back more broadly, making it easier for

terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and

their methods. " -- David J. Rothkopf (11/21/03)

 

16. " Given our country's current state, it shouldn't

be that hard to put two and two together. Why should

the 2004 Election, universally hailed as the most

important in a generation, occurring at a unique

moment when the stakes could not be higher, somehow be

immune to the trappings of history? Or from chicanery?

.. . . What evidence, in the three year old record of

this administration, suggests that any action taken by

this President would be anything other than assured,

autocratic and conveniently self-serving, regardless

of political skepticism or dissent? " – Dan Sullivan,

" Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me, " BuzzFlash, March 17,

2004

 

17. " The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to have advanced their

cause. Al-Qaeda may perceive that a large-scale attack

in the United States this summer or fall would lead to

similar consequences. " – John Ashcroft, press

conference, " Al Qaeda 90 Percent Ready to Attack on US

Soil This Summer, Ashcroft Says, " CNSNews.com May 26,

2004

 

18. " The hard thing about terrorism is that they only

have to be right once, and we have to be right 100

percent of the time. And nobody can be certain that

there won't be another attack. But of course we are

concerned about the election cycle. " – Condoleezza

Rice, " Aznar Warns of Attacks Preceding U.S.

Election, " The Washington Times, April 14, 2004

 

19. " If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days

before an election, does anyone doubt that the

American electorate would rally behind the president

or at least the most aggressively antiterror party? " --

David Brooks " Al Qaeda’s Wish List, " the New York

Times, March 16, 2004

 

20. " If we are attacked before our election like Spain

was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with the

election…We had better make plans now because it’s

going to happen. " -- Sean Hannity, March 16, 2004,

transcript unavailable

 

21. " Just because Hannity says something doesn't make

it right. The very thought of cancellation of

elections is disgusting. It would be an insult to the

American people . . . and it would undermine the core

values of our great Republic. " – The Free Republic,

post #112, " Should the U.S have elections if

attacked? " March 16, 2004

 

22. " U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an

emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to

postpone the November presidential election in case of

an attack by al Qaeda, Newsweek reported on Sunday. "

-- " U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of

Attack, " Reuters, July 11, 2004

 

23. " Should the US government cancel or postpone the

November election if we are attacked? " No offense, but

your trial balloon needs popping with a resounding

HELL NO! " – The Free Republic, post #208, " Should the

U.S have elections if attacked? " June 11, 2004

 

24. " U.S. officials have discussed the idea of

postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist

attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security

Department spokesman said Sunday. . . " -- " Officials

discuss how to delay Election Day, " CNN, July 11, 2004

 

25. " You see, the Bush Cartel could claim that they

have solid information of an imminent attack and

postpone the election because they don't want the

terrorists to influence the outcome, because, they

would argue, that would give a victory to the

terrorists.

 

Which is all another way of saying, the Republicans

don't plan on yielding power under any circumstances,

the will of the people be damned.

 

" Chilling beyond belief. " -- BuzzFlash News Analysis,

" Bush Cartel Talks of Steps to Potentially Cancel

( " Postpone " ) the Presidential Election: This is For

Real Folks! " BuzzFlash, July 12, 2004