Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Cancel the Elections

Two months before the November elections in 2004, Dick Cheney said the following at a town hall meeting in Des Moines: “If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.” (9/7/04)

In other words, the election of John Kerry would represent a serious danger to the national security of the United States. Assuming this was a fact, there’s one thing I don’t understand. Why were the elections allowed to take place?

If there’s one message that’s been consistent on the part of the Bush regime, it’s that national security, the so-called “war on terror,” is more important than any other issue. It’s more important than our Constitution (you can’t have civil liberties when you’re dead, as more than one Republican has said, turning Patrick Henry inside out), and more important even than morality (since torture has been justified in its name). So how could something as pitiful as an election be allowed to occur if the wrong result could make a terrorist attack more likely?

In fact, the idea of postponing the elections, if a terrorist attack occurred, was floated in July of 2004 within Homeland Security. I assume this was “floated” because the pattern within the Bush regime is to keep testing the boundaries of its power, and these kind of stories, in CNN or USA Today or wherever, do not appear by accident. The trial balloon was met with scorn and laughter, and Condoleeza Rice quickly denied that it was a serious consideration.

Then of course we have Bush recently saying at a Reno fundraiser: "If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like—it sounds like—they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again." (10/2/06)

The implication is the same, although not as bald-faced as in Cheney’s rhetoric. The election of the Democrats represents a security threat. For God’s sake, then, why allow elections at all? If the opposing party represents that serious a threat, if we’re that unsafe under their governance, I don’t understand why it's even allowed to operate. Shouldn’t the Democratic Party be outlawed for the sake of our security? At least cancel the election until we’re safe from terror. This dancing on the edge of peril seems very foolish.

If, on the other hand, the government is unwilling to cancel the elections, we can only be skeptical as to the seriousness of the threat posed by the Democrats. In which case, and with all due respect, I would advise Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to shut the fuck up.

No comments: