Plans To Cancel Elections After 'Terror Attacks'

infowars.com...

so here is my idea about what bush could do:

have another "terrorist" attack and this will then make the elections canceled so bush will automaticaly win!

i get bush's mind now...

here is some info from the article:

Infowars.com/July 1, 2004

First we heard about the White House's "Nightmare Scenario" (officials stating, "It's going to happen...") then this article about plans to cancel elections after terror attacks came out. These are frightening indicators about the perfect problem-reaction-solution that might be planned for the control-freak dictatorship currently in power...

enjoy and keep thinking!

So... The government isn't allowed to make contingency plans anymore without someone assuming that it's because of some evil plot? If I was running the government I'd be planning for anything too. We will probably be attacked, so the government SHOULD be ready for it. Isn't that what people have been saying? But now that they're actually getting ready for attacks Alex Jones and others are insinuating "evil plot"? Come on, give me a break.

Originally posted by Faisca
So... The government isn't allowed to make contingency plans anymore without someone assuming that it's because of some evil plot? If I was running the government I'd be planning for anything too. We will probably be attacked, so the government SHOULD be ready for it. Isn't that what people have been saying? But now that they're actually getting ready for attacks Alex Jones and others are insinuating "evil plot"? Come on, give me a break.

YES!!!

this is just like how the government used 9/11 to get into the middle east!!!

they see ALL - you are such a strange individual.

You want the US to make no contingency plans under any circumstances because it only leads to speculation that the current administration will actually allow or perpetrate an attack on their own people?

Just so you know I have no intention of voting for Bush (based on his stem cell policy and gay marriage policy) but you're putting this administration in a "no-win" situation. If they do nothing you'll scream - when they do something you scream. Pretty convenient dont you think?

Originally posted by Bleys
they see ALL - you are such a strange individual.

You want the US to make no contingency plans under any circumstances because it only leads to speculation that the current administration will actually allow or perpetrate an attack on their own people?

Just so you know I have no intention of voting for Bush (based on his stem cell policy and gay marriage policy) but you're putting this administration in a "no-win" situation. If they do nothing you'll scream - when they do something you scream. Pretty convenient dont you think?

"they" are acting as if "they" know that there will be an attack for shure even though the "terrorists" did not attack us since 9/11/01...

i thought the US stoped al-queda back in '01???

Instead of complaining about this plan, sugest an alternative. Would you prefer that the policy was "if there is an attack, we will continue on as if nothing happened, and wait for 3 weeks of legal challenges and recounts before we decide our next course of action".

If you read the article, they cite the example of the attack in Spain, which came very soon before the election. It happened there, it could easily happen in America. Better to be prepared than not.

Well, make a plan, but not one that automatically means Bush wins. It is just a little to convienant, don't you think? How about a plan to stop terrorists attacks instead of a plan on what to do incase terrorists attack.

I do see Bush as using this incase the elections seem to go towards Kerry. He is republican after all.

So then you would suggest a plan that automatically means Kerry wins? Its one or the other. In a general case, it would make sense that the people have spoken once, that they wanted the incumbent preseident, it only makes sense that the policy should be the incumbent remains in power in the event of tremendous instability.

As for your second idea, I would suggest that has been the goal all along. Imagine the flack Bush would take if he came out with a policy of, were working on a plan to prevent terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to the election. A little redundant, no?

Originally posted by they see ALL
"they" are acting as if "they" know that there will be an attack for shure even though the "terrorists" did not attack us since 9/11/01...

i thought the US stoped al-queda back in '01???

Why not use the same arguement in the weeks before 9/11? It hasnt happened in a while, it surely cant happen tomorrow. Talk about ignorance.

ha ha ha you use info wars as a source? he he he. oh man

No PB, a plan that sets the election for say, two weeks from then or something. Not "Oh look, a terror attack, I am president for next four years. Oh look, four years later there is a terror attack, I stay president for another four years."

The infowars source cites 3 things: an infowars commentary, an AP article, and a US news and world report article. Look at the premise of the last 2, its in the opening paragraph. The premise of the AP article is that there is currently no plan, there is a commision trying to establish one. The premise of the US news and world report article is that officials are planning for a worst case scenario. It is mentioned in the AP article that one solution is to cancel elections. The article then goes on to say that the wheels are in motion to propose guidlines on what to do in the event of terrorist attacks. The senator in charge doesnt seem to be in favour of cacelling elections outright, and rightly so.

Whoever wrote the infowars commentary obviously didnt read the articles, the articles only mention that cancelling elections are a possibility. They could have just as easily said were going to move the elections to Canada and it would be equally ridiculous. However, reading on, you see that a full out cancellation is not at all likely.