Terrorism Threatens the Ballot Box

Will terrorists, aiming to disrupt the November presidential election, launch a large-scale strike in the homeland? In late June, DeForest B. Soaries, appointed to head the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush, asked the government to "establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections" in case terrorists strike in the United States, the Associated Press reported. According to the AP story, Soaries said he wrote to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April: "I am still awaiting their response," he said. "Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion."

On July 8, a somber Homeland Security Secretary warned the American people that "Credible reporting now indicates that al-Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process." Secretary Ridge added that "We are basically laying out before the general public the kind of information that we've received.... And it's not us – these are not conjectures or mythical statements we are making. These are pieces of information that we could trace comfortably to sources that we deem to be credible."

"Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" Ridge said. "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country."

A recent FBI alert, sent to 18,000 law enforcement officials, warned them to be on the lookout for booby-trapped beer coolers. "People were also warned to be on the look out for booby-trapped plastic-foam containers, inner tubes and other floating objects," the IrishExaminer.com reported.

And only a few weeks ago, a top Bush Administration official told U.S. News & World Report's Washington Whispers columnist Paul Bedard that a terrorist "attack will happen leading up to the election."

"It will happen here," the official said, pointing out that Washington D.C. is the most likely target for a large-scale attack. The official also warned that there could be a series of smaller attacks aimed at destabilizing the nation's capital.

And during a July 12 campaign appearance, President Bush told an audience in Tennessee that "The terrorists are ruthless and resourceful and we know they are preparing to attack us again."

If these warnings sound familiar, that's because they are. Warnings from Ridge, anonymous administration officials, and the FBI have been coming down the pike since shortly after 9/11, and they've been accelerated since the March bombing of the Madrid train station in Spain, a few days before that country's presidential election.

As expected, all the major news networks led with the Ridge warning. Cable news networks were awash in terrorism warnings. Some commentators raised questions about the timing of Ridge's warning. On ABC's World News Tonight guest anchor Ted Koppel pointed out that there was "no information on what to expect, precisely where, when or how." Koppel also noted that the lack of status change in the color-coded warning system "led some critics to wonder out loud why the warning was being issued in the first place. Is the government simply trying to reassure the public that it's on the case or," Koppel asked, "does the information actually serve a greater purpose?"

According to DeForest Soaries, while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the 9/11, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.