There has been much recent discussion lately about alleged evidence that the Bush administration is issuing terrorist alerts for political gain. While I am not taking a position on this issue, I do have a suggestion that could eliminate any doubts, and in the process protect our upcoming elections.
In order to prevent the possibility that national terrorism alerts might be issued for political gain by an incumbent Presidential administration, the right to issue or imply terrorism alerts and the right to postpone elections, should be given to a bi-partisan committee. This policy change should be instituted immediately.
The Bush administration repeatedly claims that it is not using terrorism alerts for political gain. If this is the case, they should be happy to accept this proposed policy change. If the present administration refuses to endorse such a change in policy, we should then rightfully question their motives for not wanting to do so.
The President, the current White House administration, and its appointees in DHS and various defense and intelligence agencies should not have the right to issue a terrorism alert or interfere with the electoral process in any way, without prior 2/3 majority approval by a bi-partisan committee. Violation of this policy should have serious consequences -- such as potential impeachment proceedings and/or forfeiture of an election.
This is the only way to guarantee that the threat of terrorism is not used for political gain, for example, during the upcoming elections, such as in this scenario.
I should also note that the Bush administration (or any incumbent administration) would benefit from doing this in that it would help to restore their credibility on this issue. It would also benefit the nation by removing doubt about the veracity of terrorism alerts.
If you are concerned about this issue, please pass this idea onwards to people you know who might be able to get this to key policymakers fast. This idea could very well help to save the upcoming elections, and our democracy.
Bipartisan does not mean nonpartisan. Having two groups with agendas does not ensure better info than one group with an agenda.
Posted by: Kevinb | August 19, 2004 at 11:20 AM