The analogy is flawless. Sen. Kennedy began by quoting, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The current administration has done a good job of stoking fear in the general public: e.g., (1) raising threat levels based on vague generalities (some fundamentalists are planning to attack somewhere, sometime, somehow); and, (2) looking at ways to postpone the elections in case of a terrorist attack (interestingly, this seems to be a form of "preemptive negotiations" with terrorists).
Thus, the logic is flawless: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, the Bush administration promotes fear in the American public, ergo - we should fear four more years.

Sure JC sure. It`s all Bushes fault. He`s the one who was appeasing the terrorists for the last 8 years BEFORE he came into office. He`s the one who told them to attack the WTC. And it`s his fault that terrorist don`t like the USA.
Everybody knows that they used to go out of their way to make us happy until Bush got into office.
What a retard you are.

Alas, a retard I must be - I somehow led you to believe I was blaming Bush for terrorism. Nevertheless, I didn't mean to blame the Bush administration for anything other than promoting a climate of fear in our country - not a fear premised on tangibles, rather a fear promoting political ends. Riddle me these two things Batwoman: (1) what the hell are you ranting about - the logic of what I wrote was tight - Bush is causing some fear, not all, but some; (2) justify the administration's discourse regarding postponing elections.
I challenge you to respond with some thought and not some boring, right-washed diatribe.
Cheers...the Retard.

If all we have to fear is whoever our next president is, then obviously the war on terror has been a great success.

Is that what the Tedster was trying to say? I heard he was a bit tipsy that night.

So tell me JC..on your points, isn't this a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't?

If DHS doesn't put out information or warnings based the intel and something happens, who'll be the first one to scream about it?

If a plan isn't put in place if an attack occurs during the elections, who'll be the first one to scream about that?

Sorry, but after what happened in Spain, it's better to be prepared and have a plan in place, then to expect that nothing is going to happen and the worst comes to pass.

Teddy drunk? Probably in honor of Mary Jo Kopechne's birthday - 26 July 1940.

She'd be 64 if he hadn't killed her.

JC
You use your first comment to posture that these threat level announcements are designed to instill fear in the populace. That premiss is false. I don`t know of anyone who gets even mildly afraid when threat levels go up but I do know people who pay better attention to their surroundings in their day to day activities and that, after all, is the whole point of these exercises.
Frankly, I want to know when undesirables are plotting mischief, even if it is only a possibility and not a certainty. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing bad can happen because you`re a "good guy" then, by all means go ahead but at least allow me the freedom to be prepared.
As to your second question: Talk is cheap, as you well know, and that`s all it was. Perhaps you`ve never heard of a thing called a contingency plan?
What if?
Say that terrorist DID attack 1 or 2 days before elections. What would your back up plan be?
Think about it.

Well - The administration could plan for alternative means of HOLDING the elections, thereby not caving into the terrorist's intended objective of disrupting our govermental processes. So in answer - Yes, I agree a plan should be in place; no, I don't believe the plan's first action should call for postponing elections. An alternative example might invlove placing federal and state assets on standby and preparing them to effectuate the election process. If NY is the sight of the attack, there is no reason the other 49 states shouldn't hold elections.
~~~
Head in the sand? I'm afraid to inform you that undesireables plot against the US 24/7. I know that. Most of the US knows it. But, apparently, you need a FOX News report to know.

BTW - My position is not based on the fact that I think I'm a good guy/gal (although I am). Rather, it's based on a belief in efficient use of national security resources within constitutional boundaries.

Hey - a nuke detonated in NYC would only lower the number of Dems, so continuing with elections in spite of it would only benefit the Repubs. On the other hand a delay would allow Mike Moore time to make a movie blaming Bush and the DNC could replenish it's crackpot base.

Well JC you alternative isn`t a bad idea but the sad fact is that there is absolutely no way that something like that would pass congress until at least after the upcomming elections.
Neither party trust the other, for good reason, and the mutual back scratching won`t start until after Bush is elected again.

It seems that the administration listened. The government warnings today are more specific and allow lower level government agencies and the public in general to make informed decisions.

It's a very good site !! Very nice work, admin :) Good luck !