Cacelling Elections
Alex Jones‘s matrix of websites directed us all to the liberal/left version of the Drudge Report…
I should probably stick the famous Tommy Franks quote on the sidebar, because (a) it is as fascinating as the quotes that are over there (Pope John Paul II’s and Benjamin Franklin’s.) …
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes 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. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
Spain, of course, had the audacity to elect someone of a party still vaguely attached to its old socialist past in the wake of a terrorist strike. Which spurred the denziens from one of the “dark corners of the Internet” (paraphrasing Clinton from April of 1999) debating. And which had right-wing punditry with credentials from Broadcasting Schools blathering:
“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.
And, of course, what usurpation of democracy would be complete without Rush Limbaugh weighing in? “Do [the terrorists] bide their time and wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America before our election?” Limbaugh asked, before revealing how “titans of industry,” and “international business people (who do not outsource, by the way)” were “very, very, very concerned” that one true party forever rule the Fatherland.
“They all were seeking from me reassurance that the White House was safe this year, that John Kerry would not win,” Limbaugh said. “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?”
(Note that Tom Tomorrow has noticed this line of reasoning:)
Flicking on toward the end of the article:
But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard Clarke’s revelations; before more whistleblowers peeked out from under the muck, David Rothkopf made everything oh-so-clear. Writing about the “military officers, policymakers, scientists, researchers and others who have studied [terrorism] for a long time,” he explained how the majority of experts he spoke to not only predicted that the pre-election assaults would “be greater than those of 9/11,” but that any act of terrorism would work in the President’s favor. “It was the sense of the group that such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President Bush,” he wrote.
Citing how “assaults before major votes have [traditionally] benefited candidates who were seen as tougher on terrorists,” Rothkopf catalogued events in Israel, Russia, Turkey and Sri Lanka before explaining the symbiotic relationship between terrorists and hardliners. “So why would [terrorists] want to help [hardliners] win?” he asked. “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.”
And this writer’s “money-shot”…
So, what the heck. If others can do it, I can, too. So I’ll go out on a limb a make a prediction of my own: If the truth continues to seep out about the way the Bush administration has failed us, suspending the election may be the only way Bush can win.
My darkest fear is that G.W.’s handlers believe this, too.
Welcome to “the dark corners of the Internet”, I guess… But notice something. The Alex Jones matrix of websites puts that quote in bold.
I understand why the Buzzflash submitter would come up with that. He’d be prone to a partisan, of the traditional “Democrat” / “Republican” variety, conspiracy theory. But, the Alex Jones weblogger should be able to see beyond this “matrix” and note that the denziens of power work beyond “G.W.’s handlers”.
Why would “they” cancel elections if John Kerry (remember: Skull and Bones) is lined up as George W’s replacement?
Though, he’s just reporting what’s out there. Maybe.