Bush Hands Bin Laden A Victory

Newsweakling:

American counter-terrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.

The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week's terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Ridge and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots. But the success of March's Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections—as well as intercepted "chatter" among Qaeda operatives—has led analysts to conclude "they want to interfere with the elections," says one official.

Assuming we can divine AQ's intentions at all, this whole thing strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do in the face of threats to interfere with the November election. If the terrorists do want to disrupt things, wouldn't announcing that you are drawing up plans to postpone the election in the event of an attack play right into their hands? Talk about incompetence.

I'd like to see Kerry-Edwards publicly and loudly demand that the Bush administration go on record with a promise to not postpone the election, no matter what attacks may be carried out. Otherwise the terrorists will have won...

ntodd

[Update: Eschaton reader dave notes an AP article in the NYTimes about the Venezuelan elections that has this chilling reminder:

The touchscreen machines on which a third of the U.S. electorate will vote in November are dangerously vulnerable to hackers, rigging and mechanical failure, computer scientists generally agree.

A thought occurs: what if al Qaeda plans not to disrupt our election with bombs, but with hacker attacks on our voting infrastructure?]