From The New York Times this morning:
You’d think that seeing Osama looking fit as a fiddle and ready for hate would spark anger at the Bush administration’s cynical diversion of the war on Al Qaeda to the war on Saddam. It’s absurd that we’re mired in Iraq – an invasion the demented vice president praised on Friday for its “brilliance” – while the 9/11 mastermind nonchalantly pops up anytime he wants. For some, it seemed cartoonish, with Osama as Road Runner beeping by Wile E. Bush as Dick Cheney and Rummy run the Acme/Halliburton explosives company – now under F.B.I. investigation for its no-bid contracts on anvils, axle grease (guaranteed slippery) and dehydrated boulders (just add water). Osama slouched onto TV bragging about pulling off the 9/11 attacks just after the president strutted onto TV in New Hampshire with 9/11 families, bragging that Al Qaeda leaders know “we are on their trail.” Maybe bin Laden hasn’t gotten the word. Maybe W. should get off the trail and get on Osama’s tail.
What has been bouncing around my brain is what happened in Madrid. What if today, two days before the election, there was an attack which killed one thousand people. Who would be blamed? Who would benefit on Tuesday? In Spain the attack was taken to be the reason that the hard-line government was voted out. But wasn’t the attack proof that the hard-line government had failed – not only was it being perceived as lying to the populace but it had not kept a public space secure. Similarly, if an explosion were to occur in the next few days or hours, would it not be cause to reject the incumbant as incompetant? Or would it be the basis for staying the course, either as unthinking comfort or wisely choosing stability. It is a bit of a mug’s game, back seat driving. A country as resiliant as the USA ought to be able to face their fear with confidence and strength.
Apparently, the polls since the latest Osama tape show just that – no change in voting intentions is being noted. The wisdom of the people will play out regardless of what is being attempted outside the voting booth. What is more troubling is the effort to alter the results within the booth, to keep the legitimate electors out and to get illegitimate ones in. From the transcript of the rejected Republican effort to get over 900 people – all legitimate voters it turns out – off the voters list in Ohio:
Mr. Lou Wray, you challenged my husband, and we live in the same neighborhood. Okay? But you’ve never met us a day in our lives, hard-working individuals. My husband is a full-time student at Kent State University, where I also possess a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree. We work hard just like you do, trying to make our livings, trying to prove ourselves in this world to get to the point where we’re 80 years old, like you. But you signed your name to 200 documents of people you have never, ever met a day in your life, challenging our right to vote. And you don’t even know whether we live? in Tallmadge, Ohio. You have no idea. Somebody just called you on the phone and asked you to do a favor and you said okay. And now you look foolish standing up here saying, “I don’t know. They just called me on the phone. I don’t have anything.” You look silly.
If almost one thousand voters were to be put off the voters list because of efforts like this (and yes, equally, if as many illegitimate one added) or if almost one thousand people die in an evil act of terror geared to alter the outcome, are these not comparable attacks on democracy? That is as loaded as way of putting it as I could imagine reading but I can’t figure out how to say it less coarsely. Help me on this one if you can.
