Will we become a police state if there's another attack?

Feb 26 01:53 UTC 2006

From the San Antonio Express:

"The greatest threat to America's democracy is not terrorism but 
governmental secrecy, said Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob 
Woodward, whose reporting almost 35 years ago pierced the veil of 
secrecy behind Richard Nixon's presidency. 

Although a massive, coordinated attack on the country, making 9-11 look 
like a "footnote," is still possible, the nation faces a greater threat 
from the federal government's current secrecy drive, Woodward told an 
audience in San Antonio on Tuesday. 

"Democracies die in darkness," Woodward told the 500-person crowd of 
mostly business and community leaders as part of Trinity University's 
policy maker breakfast series, a 25-year tradition. 

The Bush administration, which gave Woodward remarkable access for his 
two books on the administration's war on terror, "Bush At War," in 2002 
and "Plan of Attack," in 2004, has cloaked its decision-making in "an 
immense amount of secrecy," he said, "too much, in my view." 

The administration says it needs to work in secret because of the 
nature of the Iraqi war and the surprise tactics terrorists rely on. 

Having a year to work on his latest book, about Bush's decision to 
launch the Iraqi war, he said, allowed him to gather an immense amount 
of information from a variety of sources. 

He then wrote a 21-page memo to the president, outlining what he had 
learned. 

Jokes aside about whether the president reads 21-page memos, Woodward 
said he was given 31/2 hours to interview the president. He called it 
the longest interview a sitting president has ever granted. 

The resulting book, "Plan of Attack," tries to offer "understanding and 
perspective, not to condemn, or endorse, but to explain" what happened 
during the 16 months he said it took Bush to decide to go to war. 

"And make no mistake, it was Bush's decision," he said, although he 
called Vice President Dick Cheney "a steam rolling force" in the 
process. 

At the beginning of his talk, Woodward asked for a show of hands from 
those who voted for Bush in 2004. 

Most in the crowd raised their hands. 

But fewer hands were raised when he asked if attendees believed in 
Bush's tax cuts, and whether they agreed with Bush's decision to launch 
a secret wiretap program to listen in an unknown number of domestic 
communications to overseas telephones without court-issued warrants. 

When he asked the crowd if it believed, with the benefit of hindsight, 
if going to war was "necessary and wise," fewer than half the room's 
hands went up. 

Woodward said the possibility of "the Mideast imploding," cannot be 
dismissed, and that his darkest fear, shared by some in the 
intelligence community, is that terrorists are waiting until "multiple, 
high-stakes attacks" can be launched on U.S. cities and targets. 

He said, "9-11 will be a footnote, but it could happen, and if it does, 
we will become a police state." 

Even as he scolded the media's tendency to prophesy the future, 
Woodward offered his prediction for the 2008 presidential race. 

By all indications, he said, Democrat Hillary Clinton is running. 

He noted that Republicans have a long track record of nominating "old 
war horses." 

Given that, and depending on how things in Iraq proceed, "You're going 
to think I'm crazy, but you heard it here first. I think they could 
nominate Dick Cheney." 


Woodward's views are shared by many that we are heading into dark 
times.  One more attack and we could well end up essentially a police 
state, and with the hard line right wing more firmly entrenched than 
ever.  One more attack, and Cheney, the dark lord of the republican 
right, gets elected president with the willingness to nuke every one of 
our enemies.  

response 2 of 92:

Feb 26 02:18 UTC 2006

Eek!

That said, without examining the evidence (or reading the book) myself, this
sounds credible and frightening at the same time. Makes me almost want to vote
Democratic or Libertarian. (Almost. Not quite.)

response 4 of 92:

Feb 26 03:08 UTC 2006

> What would it take to make you want to vote Republican?

John Kerry.



(SORRY! But you asked for that one!!!)

response 6 of 92:

Feb 26 03:54 UTC 2006

Well, here's hopes to a shift back to moderacy in 2008.

response 8 of 92:

Feb 26 04:41 UTC 2006

Re #3: That's the position I was alluding to #0 tempting me away from. Nearly
anything could cause me to vote Republican, though I will try to look into each
candidate's background, record, and statements (no straight-ticket voting for
me!).

response 10 of 92:

Feb 26 06:25 UTC 2006

whoa. a s a

response 12 of 92:

Feb 26 12:57 UTC 2006

you mean controlled by the same party like the Democrats did for so many
years?

response 14 of 92:

Feb 26 16:01 UTC 2006

Re 13:  Is, not was. But I think anyone who votes down the party lines
to be either too stupid to think for themselves, or an extremist.
Obviously Kerry is not stupid. I look at his stance on abortion, the
balanced budget amendment, affirmitive action, taxes, and gun control
and see only stances that reflect his party. And while I might agree
with the democrats on some issues (health care and capital punishment to
name two), I will not vote for someone just because he's "not bush".

Maybe I missed something, so please feel free to show me how Kerry is
moderate.

response 16 of 92:

Feb 26 17:18 UTC 2006

On issues of foreign policy Kerry was sometimes hard to distinguish from
Bush.  It sounds like this discussion is focused more on domestic policy
for some reason.  On issues of domestic policy, I'm not sure I see what
makes Kerry less moderate than Bush either.

response 18 of 92:

Feb 26 23:20 UTC 2006

So which view, multilateralism vs. unilateralism, is more "moderate"?
And does "moderate" have a meaning separate from "what I personally
agree with"?

A lot of the Bush vs. Kerry controversy involves which status quo to
stick with.  Which is the "moderate" position on the Bush tax cuts: make
them permanent or allow them to expire?  What about the Assault Weapons
Ban?  The Patriot Act?

response 20 of 92:

Feb 27 02:01 UTC 2006

It's not about which view is more moderate, because both Bush and Kerry
are extremists. I would also add that when it came to Iraq, both had
different stances...Kerry wanted multilateralism, Bush wanted
unilateralism. I think the most frustrating thing of the 2004 election
is that nobody cared to ask Kerry why unilateralism is right in North
Korea but not in Iraq, and nobody cared to ask Bush why multilateralism
is right in North Korea but not in Iraq.

response 22 of 92:

Feb 27 07:12 UTC 2006

Re resp:12: Another knee-jerk "the Democrats did it!" response?   
Really, what's your point?  No one's argued that one-party rule by the  
Democrats would be optimal, either.  

response 24 of 92:

Feb 27 12:16 UTC 2006

re:  "if you'd wanted a moderate government you should've voted for
 Kerry."

Really?? Isn't John Kerry's voting record more liberal that the senior 
bloviator from MA?


re:  "On issues of foreign policy Kerry was sometimes hard to 
distinguish from Bush."

That would depend on whether you heard him speak in the a.m. or in the 
p.m.