Democrats & Liberals Archives

October Surprise

I was listening to KTLK progressive radio (which I just barely get down here in San Diego) and heard one of their pundits say she was afraid the Bush administration had bin Laden stashed away and would produce him in time to influence the election in November. Bullcrap!

The best thing for Republicans is bin Laden roaming free, plotting more terrorist acts against the US and releasing audio tapes -- just like he did before the 2004 election.

Anyone who doesn't think bin Laden's October surprise benefited Bush in the last election is dreaming. That's why McCain's advisor, Charlie Black recently said, "Certainly it [a terrorist attack on the US] would be a big advantage to him [McCain]." It's nice to hear such candor from a candidate's campaign.

I don't understand why John McCain had to come out and apologize for something that's so fundamental and true for his campaign. Another terrorist attack on the US would benefit him -- despite the fact that it happened on George W's watch... Again.

Posted by American Pundit at June 25, 2008 8:23 PM
Comment #256779

I think the only October suprise that could possibly help McCain is a flip-flop on illegal immigration. If he is desperate enough by then, he may do it.

Posted by: jlw at June 26, 2008 12:10 AM
Comment #256782

October surprise? I don’t doubt it for a moment. This is a fundamentally dishonest administration. I’ve said before that Obama will win in a landslide, and the polls are showing Obama with a double digit lead. First came the Newsweek poll, which most people dismissed as an outlier. But more are coming in & showing the same thing. Normally, polls will tighten as the election approaches.

But not this time.

As the Bush administration and the Neocons and the Likudniks recognize the approaching landslide, they will not be idle. McCain is spouting their lines. He’s fronting the lies about success in Iraq, he is maintaining a threatening posture towards Iran (along with the rest of the GOP), but the situation in Iraq and the domestic economy virtually guarantee the Republicans will lose power.

There will be a bombing attack on Iran. I’m not sure how the war will be manufactured, but manufactured it will be.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2008 1:22 AM
Comment #256785

There are talking points and brief little clips bouncing around “out there” suggesting that another attack, or threat of one, is what McCain needs to bolster his position.
Sad, but the terrorist threat still seems to be a plus for the neo-cons.
Having McCain “at the helm”, does absolutely nothing to make me feel warm and fuzzy….it is even a more scary scenario than Dubya’s leadership has been.
Guess it’s the …desperate times/desperate measure thing……

Posted by: janedoe at June 26, 2008 2:02 AM
Comment #256787

Phx8 said, “There will be a bombing attack on Iran. I’m not sure how the war will be manufactured, but manufactured it will be” THIS Must not happen or oil will be $300-$400- a Barrel and to quote my hero About Letting the Genie out of the bottle .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 26, 2008 2:17 AM
Comment #256797

Amer. Pundit, it is true enough, according to the polls, that it would benefit McCain. The problem with McCain’s campaign offering that obvious information is that it sounds like a suggested course of action by supporters to aid their candidate’s chances for victory. In other words, it sounds self-serving, and Americans want a politician who is going to serve the nation, not them self at our expense.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2008 3:13 AM
Comment #256805

I tend to disagree. Any sort of good fortune which may carry the appearance of being a product of manufacture or convenience would make his chances even worse. The current administration has a past and is not exactly a credible entity where trust is concerned. While I would not place a conflict of convenience of some sort above the GOP, I do believe that any sort unwarranted offensive strike against anyone would be even further devastating to the entire republican party. In other words we or someone we support would have to be under direct physical attack before the American people would support such an endeavor.

Posted by: RickIL at June 26, 2008 8:28 AM
Comment #256813

Come On…

It goes both ways here…

If Iraq starts to get bad again, it will benefit Obama. Do the dems want Iraq to go bad? Honestly, I’m sure some of them do.

If we go into a “real” recession, who does that help? I’m sure some democrats would love it.

Anyone who wishes ill on the US, be it a terrorist attack or that we move into a recession is about as myopic and self centered as you can get and does not deserve our vote.

Posted by: cliff at June 26, 2008 9:54 AM
Comment #256814

What about a recovery in the housing market and $60 per barrel oil?

Posted by: jlw at June 26, 2008 10:18 AM
Comment #256816

Cliff - any Democrat that wishes for the war to go badly for political gain is a disgrace to the party and doesn’t deserve to hold public office.

I oppose this war and I know we are not going to win it. That being said, I hope things turn around and we do get out with our national dignity intact and the Iraqi people in a better place. Even if it means that George Bush is vindicated. Wishing for a war to go badly is wishing for our service men and women to die plain and simple. That is very different from believing that it is going badly and will continue to do so - that is just being realistic (something that the GOP should try). Any Dem that says they hope the wear goes badly for political purposes will not have my vote.

Posted by: tcsned at June 26, 2008 10:27 AM
Comment #256823

A strike on Iran would be the very worst thing for our economy. Oil prices would go through the roof and the only phrase that I can think of is, “This house of cards will come down”. Gas prices going to 6-7-8 dollars a gallon would cause horrible economic consequences to every segment of our society.

Right now, Israel is practicing for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and will probably execute that strike before November.

Electing Obama would be bad for Israel, as they feel he would not support their actions. McCain for them is an unknown quantity. He may support them, he may not. Bush would probably remain mute on the subject…neither supporting nor condemning their actions.

One thing for certain…any strike on Iran by anybody would not be good for our (or the world for that matter) economy. I feel it would make “The Great Depression” look like “The Little Bump In The Road”.

If we can only get the rest of the world, including Russia and China, to impose strict economic sanctions against Iran, I feel Iran’s ruling lunatics would be very unpopular very quickly and would have no choice but to suspend their nuclear ambitions and sit down and seriously negotiate…else face economic collapse and a general uprising comparable to the overthrow of the Shah.

The situation is “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”. Attack (or let Israel attack) and suffer economic hardships of monumental proportions…or let Iran produce nuclear weapons and see a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

Posted by: Jim T at June 26, 2008 11:37 AM
Comment #256831

Jim T,
Israel will act in its own self-interest. They have consistently pursued an agenda of isolating the US from other countries in the Middle East, and the Neocons and Likudniks in the US government have played along with Israel’s agenda, responding to hostility from Israel’s enemies with threats and military force. Israel could wait and rely upon mutually assured destruction if its enemies obtain nukes. But I think they’ll make the calculatin, and say ‘why wait’?

Better yet, a steep economic downturn can be blamed on the Iranians, rather than domestic policies. It might help Republicans hold onto power.

No one wishes for a recession. I don’t think Iraq will change that much, one way or another. It will be a millstone around the neck of whichever administration wins in November.

Generally speaking, more of the same will hurt McCain with voters. But regardless of who wins the presidential election, it’s going to be bad for US. It’s a losing proposition, no matter how you cut it. The only question is who will have to deal with it.

I don’t think the Republicans will accept a crushing result at the polls without trying something dramatic, an October suprise. Israel bombing Iran seems like the best way to change the dynamic without taking the blame.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2008 12:46 PM
Comment #256875

phx8, I doubt the U.S. would initiate an attack on Iran, but Israel might. Have you heard the things they have been doing recently? And of course, if Israel mounts an offensive on Iran the U.S. will come to its aid under the current administration. But I doubt the administration would have the guts to do it on their own without some prior catalyst.

Posted by: Zeek at June 26, 2008 11:25 PM
Comment #256878

I think the US will let Israel act as its proxy. Or perhaps the US is the dumb muscle backing up Israel. The problem is that, the more likely an Obama victory in November becomes, the greater the chances the Bush administration will ‘help’ McCain by making sure the attack happens. Like I said, it provides a very convenient cover for the cratering economy. Hey, let Obama deal with it. But maybe McCain will benefit from a rally round the flag moment, and pull out the election. Years from now, conservatives will blame the disaster that is brewing with our economic downturn on Iran and liberals. Just watch. There will be a bunch of crap about how, ‘gosh, Iraq would have worked out great if it hadn’t been for Iran and, oh yeah, liberals.’ And more about how, ‘the economy was going great, but shuckey durn, that whole Iran thing made the economy tank.’

That’s what conversative Republicans do.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2008 12:03 AM
Comment #256895

I don’t think a terrorist attack will help the republicans, including McCain
Remember, they have been touting (and getting away with) all their anti-constitutional policies by pointing to the fact that “there have been no attacks (on US soil) since 9/11”
If there is an attack — then it is
So we put up with all your BS and loss of liberty for security and we STILL didn’t get it???
so why should we CONTINUE with your policies if it doesn’t ensure our SAFTEY???
on the surface, because of the knee-jerk idea that Republicans = tough on security/defense — that an attack will automatically send the voters scurrying back to the republicans???
Hmmmm, they have had how many years of essentially complete control?? and “no attacks since 9/11” as their “proof”
No, an attack might well be the nail in the GOP coffin.

Posted by: Russ at June 27, 2008 8:50 AM
Comment #256901
the U.S. will come to its aid under the current administration.

And under a McCain OR Obama administration as well, according to both candidates.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 27, 2008 9:24 AM
Comment #256912

If Iran was located on our border as it is for Israel, I wonder if any opinions on this blog would change?

Posted by: Jim M at June 27, 2008 12:34 PM
Comment #256921

All blustering aside, isn’t Iran really our ally? Aren’t we in Iraq to make sure that they have a friendly government next door?

Posted by: ohrealy at June 27, 2008 1:15 PM
Comment #256949


“If Iran was located on our border as it is for Israel, I wonder if any opinions on this blog would change?”

Study geography much?

Iran isn’t within 300 miles of Israel.

Posted by: Rocky at June 27, 2008 5:26 PM
Comment #256956

As to McCain’s character, this story details his underhanded behavior in smearing someone to try to deflect attention from his drug-addicted wife. The “conservative” politicians in this country seem to be particularly hypocritical about their own social behavior while condemning others in society fro theirs.

Posted by: mental wimp at June 27, 2008 6:13 PM
Comment #256959


“If Iran was located on our border as it is for Israel, I wonder if any opinions on this blog would change?”

Study geography much?

Iran isn’t within 300 miles of Israel.”

Posted by: Rocky at June 27, 2008 05:26 PM

I must be having a bad day Rocky, I am duly chastised. And, your answer to my question is?

Posted by: Jim M at June 27, 2008 6:42 PM
Comment #256965


If Iran was within 300 miles of the US, the Shah wouldn’t have happened.

Posted by: Rocky at June 27, 2008 7:44 PM
Comment #257001

Rocky, now you’re having a bad day.

Posted by: Jim M at June 28, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #257033


No, really. Think about it.

Would the government of US stand for a dispicable despot like the Shah and his Savak terrorizing the populous of his country?
The Shah was placed into power for the convenience of supplying our ally Russia during WW2, he was removed and came back to power by means of a coup in ‘51, and was our staunch ally against communism in the ’50s and ’60s, but was so repressive he was overthrown by his own people.

Iran is the way it is because we backed the Shah, and his repressive regieme, through thick and thin.

We made our bed and now we have to sleep in it.

Jim, our government is all for the spread of democracy, except when we can’t control the outcome.

Posted by: Rocky at June 28, 2008 9:23 PM
Comment #257045

It was a CIA thing i think it was gulp 1953.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 29, 2008 1:55 AM
Post a comment