Delay the US election?

Yikes

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda.

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

"I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information.

Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.

The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries wrote that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress.

"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."

[edit] oh. [/edit]

Thankyou, Monqui

It's short for Representative in that case, not republican.

I have to admit that even to me the administration's strategy seems more and more like a joke every time I hear something like this.

<DIV>I don't know what you people in the US hear, but out here, Bush is portrayed as somewhat of an idiot, whereas Mike Moore is portrayed as an angry genius. Guess who most people listen to?</DIV>
<DIV>Cant say I exactly like Bush's policies myself, from what I have heard... but then again, its so easy to buy a campaign in the USA.</DIV>

moore is a dumbass who twists words to gain profit. Nothing more.

LOL! Moore is right, in his book, he says that no WoMD have been found, which is correct, i cannot see how this is twisting words. IMHO there is no solid ground for going to war with iraq, but, there is still some belief in me that Saddam huissain is a twisted lil bas*ard.

Weapons of mass destruction were most certainly in Iraq. Undetonated nerve gas bombs have been found there. We have also seen them used there. To say that none have been found is just plain ignorant.

$loth, just because no major stockpiles have been found yet doesn't mean they don't exist. Iraq's a desert, it wouldn't take a whole lot to dig a huge pit of sand and dump whatever in there. I doubt he used his entire stockpile on the Iranians. Also, please note how the delay is only in case there is an attack, not suspicion of one. AND it's spelled Hussein to the media, Husayn to the government... who knows. :smile:

:rolleyes:

Its an attempt to discourage a repeat of the terrorist attacks in Spain which were successful in affecting the outcome of the election held three days later.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, its obviously a conspiracy for Bush to declare himself president for life.

I hope he doesn't get re-elected.

(i know I made a link, but firefox + SP screws things up ... in the other thread linking doesnt work, appearantly ...)

Ferret said:
moore is a dumbass who twists words to gain profit. Nothing more.

He doesn't care about profit (as much as most filmmakers anyway), since he publically spoke about how he's okay with F911 being downloaded. His "documentary" isn't important in the way that all of it's facts are absolutely true (he does bend them to prove his point, yes) but in the way that it appeals to a mass audience (it's funny) and that it provokes thought within America. The government needs to be constantly questioned in order to be kept more efficient, and I don't think that takes place too much in an aura of fear and terrorism. To me, patriotism isn't waving a paper flag to support our government; it's the active caring about the welfare of the principles of our country (and if that causes dissent, so be it) And that, to me, makes Moore quite possibly the most patriotic person in our time. But hey, what do I know? :smile:

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

• Thomas Jefferson

But anyway. This postponing of the election sounds like utter bulls**t to me.

He doesn't care if people download it considering it's already made him $80 million.

Hugh said:
He doesn't care if people download it considering it's already made him $80 million.

If he was really a money-hungry savage though, he wouldn't stop at just $80 million.

... it's not like the movie's magically creating money, the moviegoers go see it. And is he stopping, no way, he's going to make more movies since he's a filmmaker. I'm not saying he's a "money-hungry savage," simply that he does a lot of this for esteem + wealth. In my opinion. :smile:

Hell, who wouldn't feel good about winning the Cannes film festival? :smile: But there's easier and considerably less risky ways to make similar amounts of money - he's doing it also because of his principles, I think. But hey, if it comes with money, why not?

Agreed, bank robbery on a global scale isn't nearly as risky as making a film. Carry on.

Well, you know, corporate fraud. Free oil contracts in Iraq. The usual things. And hey, bank robbery could be considered less risky than directly attacking the ethics of a world superpower. :smile:

If he wasn't already famous and would thus be 'missed.'

Well, with the way the government is reacting, I don't think he's exactly famous - more like notorious.

Same difference, well-known. :smile: We're losers.

Yes. Someone else post in this thread now. For the love of god. :smile:

for the love of god

I think people would be pirating F-9/11 whether Mr. Moore condones it or not.

Oh dear, another F911 thread. I posted this on /., I think I'll repeat it here:

While F911 had volumes of facts and evidence which is probably nearly
all true, for the most part Moore didn't use them in structured
arguments to actually prove his points. The film went sort of like this:

1. Facts

2. ???

3. Conclusion!!!

That
2+2=4 does not prove Fermat's last theorem, and that Bush has a
tendency to make a fool of himself on television does not prove that he
is a bad president.

Agreed. It helps his argument of just wanting people to watch it and that he's not in it for the money. But I've talked waaaaaaaaay too much on this topic this last hour, so yeah. :smile:

Hugh said:
I doubt he used his entire stockpile on the Iranians.

Theres no proof that he did use anything on the Iranians....

Except for all the dead Iranian soldiers who were exposed to chemical weapons?

Theres no proof that he did use anything on the Iranians....

Which one of the times that Saddam killed thousands of Iranians are you referring to?

Yet....there is no proof, the us government only say that saddam has done things like that, when it suits them, oh, and also, they probably haven't even mentioned that they put saddam in control, and that the only reason they hate him now, is because he has stopped taking orders from them.

[edit] this is just another situation where the government has failed to say "yea, we were wrong"

There is no proof?

http://www.iranvision.com/images/iraqwarchem5.jpg

Are they sleeping?

Saddam wasn't put into power by the US, rather he was not removed when he and his Baathist cohorts staged a coup; Iran was the bigger enemy at the time, what with its Communists and all.

Go read a book about the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988. Then, go look up information about the gassing of some Kurdish towns in Northern Iraq. Then read some history books, which will tell you that Saddam was not a US puppet, nor put into power by them, and was supported only because he was going against the Iranians at that time. He was always on shaky ground for f**king with his neighbors and Israel, promoting Arab unity and the destruction of the West, his dangerous ability to affect oil supplies in neighboring Saudi Arabia, and abusing his own people. The invasion of Kuwait just put it over the top.

Hugh, whos to say that Saddam gassed them? The government are only saying that he did it, there is no solid proof, only the words of people, and i still believe that saddam WAS put into power by the american CIA

[edit] for all you know, the iranian government could of gassed the people, or maybe even the american govenment, i wouldn't put it past them, especially with all the attempts of removing fidel castro

Actually ... his invasion of Kuwait was a result from a miss translated message from Bush Sr. back in '92/'93.

I had a course on the Gulf a few years back ... pretty disturbing stuff, actually.

I also think its rather ironic that most of the weapons being used against US troops today in Iraq were supplied by the US over a decade ago by GW's "daddy".

This is a down and dirty subject I suggest no one gets really wrapped up in it because there is no "good guy" in these wars, its all based on money.

Just if we used Hydrogen or Cooking Oil for fuel.

[EDIT]
sloth, dude, the CIA? How would an information gathering agency have the ability to put a dictator in power?
Also, how did they explain it, if they did?

Don't jump to conclusions, there's a lot that not many people know. Blaming the most known US government organization is a fairly unintelligent way to go about gaining that knowledge.
[/EDIT]

I fear, by saying what i have said, that i have made some enemys. I will have no further say in this matter, my points have been proven, and will take something big to change them.

Oh, and you have solid proof that Saddam was put into power by the CIA?

Also, how come the CIA can't remove one man (Castro) from power, but they can put one in power for 20+ years AND use chemical weapons against Iranians at a time when Americans had friendly relations with them?

Saddam gassed his own people because they were dissenting against him, 'successful' dictatorships can't really have that. He gassed the Iranians because he was at war with them.

edit: Meh, you wouldn't be my enemy for having a crazy discussion, 'specially at 2:27 in the am. :smile:

Crono said:
Just if we used Hydrogen or Cooking Oil for fuel.

Ironically, it has been illegal to use cooking oil for fuel :sad: that really pisses me off.

note this is a different matter to my other comments.

Not in the US, There was some guy who rigged up his truck to run on cooking oil, he put big ass dumpsters of oil in his truck bed and was able to drive accross the US (3000 Miles) without filling any of the tanks up ... and it smelt like french fries. :smile:

$loth said:
Hugh, whos to say that Saddam gassed them? The government are only saying that he did it, there is no solid proof, only the words of people, and i still believe that saddam WAS put into power by the american CIA

[edit] for all you know, the iranian government could of gassed the people, or maybe even the american govenment, i wouldn't put it past them, especially with all the attempts of removing fidel castro

Bwahahaha! Remember folks, if a bad thing has ever happened in recent history its because of the United States and its shadow operatives. I'd point you to a history book, but then again they're all written by Americans to spread their pro-globalism, pro-capitalism, pro-Western propaganda.

And $loth, no one's going to hate you for your opinions. You're not going to make 'enemies' by presenting your viewpoint.

Yak_Fighter said:
And $loth, no one's going to hate you for your opinions. You're not going to make 'enemies' by presenting your viewpoint.

Ahh, very good, i have explained wht i have said to others, and becuase of thier 'stubborness' they went off in a huff, and have not spoken to me. I feel that if they are not willing to take in my viewpoints, and accept them as a opinion, then they are not worth talking to at all.

Crono said:
Actually ... his invasion of Kuwait was a result from a miss translated message from Bush Sr. back in '92/'93.

Saddam said it's because "the Kuwaitis were buying Iraqi women for 10 dinars ... The Kuwaitis are dogs." And eh, I think you have your years wrong since Bush Sr. wasn't in power in '92/'93 and the invasion was in '90. :smile:

Just a few others who have things to say things about the background of Saddam's crimes (who happen to not be the U.S. government):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/from_our_own_correspondent/2058253.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/03/sproject.irq.kuwait.oil.fires/

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3007499&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-590350,00.html

http://www.krg.org/reference/hrw-anfal/index.asp

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

Saddam said it's because "the Kuwaitis were buying Iraqi women for 10 dinars ... The Kuwaitis are dogs." And eh, I think you have your years wrong since Bush Sr. wasn't in power in '92/'93 and the invasion was in '90. :smile:

Then it was 1990. And he's invaded Kuwait many times
Especially because he belives its still part of Iraq ... psycho.

Fine, main invasion, the one that's considered the war. :smile: Jeez, this thread got fired up quick... must be because of all the tired people. goes to bed

<DIV>Jesus christ! I leave for 4 hours and look what happens.</DIV>
<DIV>Anyway, in my opinion, the invasion of Iraq would've been justified if the US had developed, checked, checked, checked and begun to implement a rehab plan for the country BEFORE they invaded. That's just because Saddam was such a tyrannical bastard.</DIV>
<DIV>.</DIV>
<DIV>Oh yeah, and there's also the deal with that new "Iraqi" governing council. Its members may have all been born in Iraq, but they were hand-picked by Bush and his assortment of happy friends. Democracy, anyone?</DIV>

mazemaster said:
Bush has a tendency to make a fool of himself on television does not prove that he is a bad president.

bulls**t.

i say this in an open forum, and stick to it.

if bush is re-elected, i will buy the bullet for anyone to use on him.

never in all of my adult life, have i endured such an empty wallet, whether its directly due to bush or not is irrelevant, when he took the position, he took the responsibility.

what they do in the whitehouse, is no more my concern, than them knowing what goes on in my house.. when they start digging in my wallet, i notice.

i was forced to buy 10,500+ dollars in diesel last year, this year looks even worse all because of the rising costs of fuel. sure i could get another job, but so could bush.. there are a lot more people with jobs like mine, than his.

anywho's, i don't really care who takes office next, as long as its not bush, it could get worse i dunno, but at least it will get different.

i bet money, the USA will never elect another president with oil interests :sad:

granted, my adult life only spans a little over 20 years, i have not seen much, but personally i don't care much about then, just now!

I'm not stating my personal opinion on Bush. I'm just saying that Michael Moore didn't argue his case very well.

:rolleyes:

Its an attempt to discourage a repeat of the terrorist attacks in Spain which were successful in affecting the outcome of the election held three days later.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, its obviously a conspiracy for Bush to declare himself president for life.

You do realise that if Bush delays the election, it would cause a much larger public uproar than if terrorists attacked? Also, what would delaying the election do? They'd just have to publically reschedule it weeks or months in advance, thus giving terrorists another chance. The only way we'd avoid a terrorist attack is if we do a surprise election. That'll fool those Al Queda! Bwhaha!

Let's face it, this idea shows that either the Bush Administration are idiots, or they're getting desperate. I doubt that the entire administration are idiots, so I'm going to pick the latter.

mazemaster said:
I'm not stating my personal opinion on Bush. I'm just saying that Michael Moore didn't argue his case very well.

twasn't a personal attack on you master maze.. in fact i hesitated quoting you exactly, based on the discussion we had yesterday about me backpedaling :wink:

anywho's, had nothing to do with you, /me promises.

As for Bush....I really hope you people get rid of him. He just can't do his job at all. Not only is he destroying your economy (a state that was only worse during the great depression), but his foreign policy is just horrible (alienating most of the world, and labelling countries "evil"? That's just irresponsible of him). Not to mention his attitute on the environment isn't that encouraging, as well as the increasingly widening gap between rich and poor. I don't know if Kerry ends up being any better, but what I do know is that I don't want Bush being the most powerful man in the world.

And don't get me started on him trying to impose his own fundemental christian ideals on you...

On the subject of WMDs...I don't think anyone knows for sure. Because of the evidence that the CIA and british intelligence did crap jobs, and thta we haven't found any WMDs yet, I'm inclined to beleive that there are none. Whether Saddam had them but destroyed them or not, or even had them in the first place, I don't know. Of course, he could very well be hiding them somewhere. It is a desert after all. No one knows really, and I don't think we'll know for a long time.