An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
October Surprise In The Making…?
SURPRISE
There is a lot of speculation going on in the blogosphere (and outside of it) about what Karl Rove’s ‘October surprise’ might be. A lot of people seem to think that this surprise will be a military strike against Iran.
Iran must be dealt with sooner or later. The best thing to do, most likely, is deal with it sooner. The more the West lets Ahmadinejad get away with his behavior, the more bold he will become and the more trouble he will give ‘us’ in the (near) future.
23 Responses to “October Surprise In The Making…?”
Depending on how close the Bushofacist come to losing one of the houses of congress the October surprise may well be an attack on Iran to put this country in further jeopardy of terrorist attacks and a good reason to suspend the elections in the name of national security.
Be afraid America, very afraid as we have met the enemy and he is us!
“Iran must be dealt with sooner or later.”
The US does not have the capability to do that. Thus the only October Surprise will be that the reports about Bin Laden’s death (Typhus) prove wrong and a new podcast will feature Bin Laden calling for Americans to vote the right way.
That was helpful for the GOP in October 2004.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Bush did this, but I do find it surprising that you seem to be advocating for it, Michael.
“Iran must be dealt with sooner or later” is not a compelling argument for military action against Iran, a country which poses no immediate military threat to the United States. Mere reckless, irresponsible, handwaving.
Untill someone finds U235 enriched to 90% in significant quanities then the Iranian threat is overblown by the Cheney cabal. The NPT(Iran signs Israel no sign) allows for civilian enrichment. Cheney’s daughter left the latest version of OSP, the Iran version. Their rhetoric and evidence is no better that the prewar Iraq evidence and rhetoric. IMO Iran’s intent is to produce weapons grade U235, but untill we have better proof, a war based on intent is illegal.
Iran is a threat we “have to deal with right now” only if you resort to magical thinking.
Enriching uranium for bomb production is a specific process requiring specific resources. Iran doesn’t have enough centrifuges, period.
I believe that Iran needs to be dealt with militarily, but I am appalled at the fact that this administration might time this in order to effect the elections. This politicizing of war and national security is the major reason why I loathe this administration, particularly this low-life fiend karl rove.
Laura- I usually am diametrically opposed to your positions. But on this, we agree.
On the other hand, they may want us to believe the October surprise will be an attack on Iran all the while something else is being plotted that will catch us off guard.
CsaeyL How is the debate going at BallonJuice? It seems that TMV has gained more Darrells than moderates lately. Whats up with Laura questioning our ChimpinChief?
Michael,
Is Iran going to be festering problem for years to come? Yes. It must be kept in mind, however that the events that have given them the most encouragement, the most conviction that they can stand up to the United States and the international community are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and what it revealed about how our current political leadership will handle things and how much their incompetence has weakened our military’s ability to respond to any other events. Afghanistan was largely abandoned to rot (Just enough left there to claim to be doing something while handing off to NATO while breaking most of the promises concerning rebuilding.) so Iraq could be taken on sooner than necessary even if the claims the Bush administration made were all correct. Frankly, I find myself wondering if the big hurry to attack Iraq was because they feared that the evidence dismantling their claims about Saddam might have surfaced. Careful examination of the U.N. inspectors shows how it was already unraveling. What would six more months or a year of inspections have done? Who knows, I certainly don’t. Iraq is a quagmire not only because of the continuing insurgency and Sunni/Shiite warfare but also because of the cesspool of corruption that resulted from putting political contacts with Republicans ahead of experience and competency in determining who got the contracts that were meant to help rebuild Iraq. Iran knows that the Muslim world has seen all of this and it helps sell the terrorist’s ideas about a war on Muslims. And the complete ignorance of most of the Bush administration about the rest of the world, especially the countries that are predominantly Muslim makes them incapable of understanding any of it.
Jim S- Truer words were never spoken. Thus the latest NIE report which shows a positive outgrowth of terrorism as a result of our debacle in Iraq, should come as no surprise to anyone reading the tea leaves.
Bush/Cheney/co have done an excellent job in insulating themselves from information that might enable them to truly get at the roots of terrorism.
What I am amazed at that there are those that think that taking military action against Iran, after all that we now know about Iraq, would somehow be a positive for Republicans. What was the saying that Bush mangled? “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”.
Rudi, obviously you assumed that since I often point out the cluelessnes and often moral bankrupsy of the left, that I must therefore be a right winger. I do believe the left, along with islam, is the greatest danger to the free world. I also believe that we should attack Iran militarily to prevent it from acquiring nukes, but I don’t trust this administration and its motives, especially karl rove, and I don’t like national security being manipulated for political reasons.
Kim, the roots of islamic terrorism is jihad, mandated by the koran.
Laura – I’m sure there are words in the Koran, that Islam is to be spread by the sword and death to the nonbelievers, etc, etc. But the three great religions have managed to coexist, more or less, without most Muslims taking that kind of action. What drives extremists is our presence in their lands- that is how USB motivated his followers to take up violence. We also have supported many repressive governments like Iran under the Shah and the Saudi royals. Our support for these regimes, our invasion of Iraq and our support of Israel also has helped radical Islam draw new recruits.
We can try to kill every radical Islamist on the earth, but more will keep springing up. Our best hope is to try to neutralize their appeal to the average Muslim. So far this has been a dismal failure.
Kim,
Sorry, but I think you must have missed a few sessions of your World History class. There have been, um, a few violent clashes if I’m not mistaken. I’d actually be pretty hard pressed to think of a time when the three major religions that you speak of were coexisting peacefully (though of course there have been times when we, as Americans, weren’t noticing the conflict so much).
Umh Kim?
Well, that comment may have been just a little half-baked, lol! What I should have said was that most Muslims have managed to live in peace, despite what the Koran says.
Kim,
I can see that interpretation of what you originally wrote: that there have always been a sizable number of Muslims who don’t take up arms. But do you also see that there have always been a percentage that do interpret the Koran that way? And that this same group (really a loose alliance of a number of groups, of course) uses the policies of the West as excuses for their aggression, rather than the Western policies being truely the instigating causes?
For example, do you really believe that if Palestinian leaders wanted peace that they couldn’t have found a way to make the two state solution work by now? It’s been over 50 years, but instead of organizing a government, building an economy, etc, they have focused on resistance to Israel’s right to exist. To me, that is a clear example that shows that this is a group of people who only want to dominate, not to coexist peacefully.
C Stanley- I think when Britain decided to partition Palestine to give the Jews a homeland, they became inflamed, and vowed never to recognize Israel, or let her have a moment’s peace. I think Westerners would have moved on by now, but in their culture losing the lands of their ancestors is very humiliating. They have reacted with vengance, not tolerance for more than 50 years, and in my view, a certain segment of their population will never accept it. For us it may be more important to live in peace than to possess the exact same lands that we inhabited originally.
USB became inflamed originally at secular governments who modernized Muslims and ignored Islamic law, then at us for occupying Mecca and Medina during and after the first gulf war. I don’t think a military solution is a possibilty, and the two cultures (Western and Islamic) seem irreconcilable. But I do think that blatant invasion of ME lands will be seen as a provocation that radicalizes more moderate Muslims against us.The NIE report already is indicating this.
I also think our lack of understanding of their religion and culture has definitely hampered our efforts to deal with the situation. We’re dealing with worsening, intractable problems with an incompetent approach.
But what understanding of their culture and religion would allow us to coexist peacefully if they have no interest in coexisting peacefully? It is one thing to accept and acknowledge that they see things differently, but if that difference is, as you’ve characterized it, one that will not move on after 50 years (I would also add, after 1500 years!), then why should we base our foreign policy decisions on a desire to not inflame them? What is the point of skirting sensitive issues if there is no difference in the response anyway?
I want to say, too, that I’m only talking about Islamist extremists here, not all Muslims.
Nail on the head award goes to CStanley
C Stanley- I do understand your viewpoint —but my concerns are that by not taking their reactions into account we are greatly escalating the conflict. I am not saying to base our entire foreign policy on their beliefs in the hopes that we will never anger them. I am saying take a centrist course that protects our interests, but doesn’t necessarily help them in their recruiting goals.
For example, Iraq. We have been fed a steady diet of information saying that by defeating them there we will not have to face them here. But instead of defeating them we have given them the kind of recruiting tool that Osama only dreamed of. There is now a world-wide organization of copycat terrorist cells that have a ready supply of new recruits. Today’s Islamic youth is becoming radicalized by the sight of daily bombings and death squad assasinations. Abu Ghraib, even Bush admits was terrible for our image in the Muslim world. Even Bush’s own intelligence agencies agree with this conclusion.
If we had taken the 300 billion we have spent there and used it to wipe out al queda and the Taliban in Afghanustan and rebuild the country, we would have a stable democracy there. The Muslim world could see that we weren’t just an imperial power who wanted access to their oil, because Afghanistan doesn’t have any.