Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We're down to the wire on karl's October surprise.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:49 AM
Original message
We're down to the wire on karl's October surprise.
Where is it karl? And what is it that can change the voter's minds to vote for your ape?

We've thought out every possible scenario, another terror attack, another war, another crisis that only w can save us from, where is it karl, October is here?

karl bragged that the repubs had the election in the bag based on his October surprise, he seemed so cock-sure about it. Is it Osama, dead or alive? The clock is ticking karl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Karl is also down to the wire
re Abramoff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pooja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. Invasion of Iran or Syria...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Invasion of Iran has been debunked thoroughly. We have no troops
Republicans believe in their own infinite power, but don't fall for it. There simply aren't enough troops to occupy Iraq and hold Afghanistan, much less start up a third war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. debunked by mere gainsaying? not hardly.
There's more indications and evidence OF an invasion than anything to counter it.
What's your counter? that its strategically foolhardy? pshaw! that don' mean nuttin to the bushco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. You're asking me to prove a negative, but here goes...
The single greatest obstacle to an invasion of Iran is the complete lack of troops. We simply lack the force strength to mount any major operations whatsoever. We have 147,000 ground forces in Iraq alone out of a total Army force strength of 504,000. Of course we still maintain our troops in Germany, Japan, the Philippines, Panama, and South Korea. Oh yeah, and in Afghanistan too.

Of the troops not stationed in those security zones and not currently deployed in our two war zones, virtually every other combat unit is either recuperating from tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan or gearing up to deploy over there in the coming months.

Almost half of our combat equipment has been rotated thru Iraq in the last 3 years and much of it is in need of repairs.

Bush & Cheney may want to attack Iran for all I know (tho that doesn't fit their behavior pattern at all--they've NEVER attacked a country with a decent military in their lives. A war against Iran would require several times over more troops and equipment than what was deployed in Iraq--for that matter the offensive against Iraq was ridiculously understaffed.

I'm not arguing that we won't attack Iran. I'm saying literally that we can't. There's no Army there to attack them with. The worst threat we have to offer is an unsupported air strike. Only China and Russia have both warned us off against a preemptory strike on Iran--Iran is one of Russia's biggest weapons and systems clients and China is dependent on Iran for its oil supplies.

Besides the fact that any airstrike against Iran that wasn't backed up with a ground invasion would be a joke, the almost certain retaliation by Iran against US fixed positions in the Persian Gulf would result in an economic shutdown of the Persian Gulf. You may not think Cheney & Bush care about world opinion but you know damn well they won't jeopardize oil sales! Here's some facts to chew on...
from Asia Times
"Twenty-one reasons Iraq is not working"

How many US troops are in Iraq today?
About 147,000, according to General John Abizaid, head of US Central Command, significantly more than were in-country just after Baghdad was taken in April 2003 when the occupation began.

How is the Pentagon keeping troop strength up in Iraq?
Four thousand troops from the 1st Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, operating near Ramadi and nearing the end of their year-long tour of duty, have just been informed that they will be held in Iraq at least six more weeks. This is not an isolated incident, according to Robert Burns of the Associated Press. Units are also being sent to Iraq ahead of schedule.

US Army policy has been to give soldiers two years at home between combat tours. This year alone, the time between tours has shrunk from 18 to 14 months. "In the case of the 3rd Infantry," writes Burns, "it appears at least one brigade will get only about 12 months because it is heading for Iraq to replace the extended brigade of the 1st Armored."

<snip>

As of now, write Shanker and Gordon, "so many are deployed or only recently returned from combat duty that only two or three combat brigades - perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops - are fully ready to respond in case of unexpected crises, according to a senior army general".

How many active-duty US Army troops have been deployed in Iraq?
About 400,000 troops out of an active-duty force of 504,000 have already served one tour of duty in Iraq, according to Peter Spiegel of the Los Angeles Times. More than one-third of them have already been deployed twice.

How is Iraq affecting the army's equipment?
By the spring of 2005, the US Army had already "rotated 40% of its equipment through Iraq and Afghanistan". Marine Corps mid-2005 estimates were that 40% percent of its ground equipment and 20% of its air assets were being used to support current operations, according to analyst Carl Conetta. In the harsh climate of Iraq, the wear and tear on equipment have been enormous. Conetta estimates that whenever the Iraq and Afghanistan wars end, the postwar repair bill for army and marine equipment will be in the range of US$25 billion to $40 billion.

<snip>

How many American and Iraqi troops and police are now trying to regain control of the capital and suppress the raging violence there?
About 15,000 US troops, 9,000 Iraqi army soldiers, 12,000 Iraqi national police and 22,000 local police, according to the commander of US forces in Baghdad, Major General James Thurman - and yet the mayhem in that city has barely been checked at all.


You can continue to think of Bush and Cheney as omnipotent and capable of unleashing any hazard on the world at will. But the fact is that what you're seeing as "indications and evidence OF an invasion" is really just their hollow, pathetic saber rattling trying to scare Iran into a compliance that it has no need to seek. Iran has already called our bluff. The only reason they continue the posturing is their oversized unjustified egos and the need to keep as many voters scared of Iran as possible.

I for one have no intention of swallowing their usual fact free shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. sorry, dude. I was told Bush was "saber-rattling" before we invaded Iraq
You may continue believing that if it makes you feel more secure.

And, I sincerely hope you are correct, and I am incorrect.


but I don't think so.

number of troops has little to do with it. We invaded Iraq with an insufficient number of troops as well.

the other reason I am confident of their desire to regime-change Iran is because they themselves have laid out their plans in the neocon manifesto, published by the PNAC in 1997:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples...

their intent is to first take over Iraq, and then use Iraq as a strategic base of operations to reshape the middle east into a western-compliable series of vassal states over which they would exert control. From there, their intention is to establish America as the holder of the reins of "American global readership", which essentially means globale hegemony, with America as ruling the entire world.

When people talk like that, mere military logistics are irrelevant them. They are after world domination.

so, sure, if you use logic and rationality, there appears no way we'll invade Iran.

But remember, they have a goal, and logic and rationality have nothing to do with that goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. So if one of our ships were to be hit with a silkworm missile from Iran
would you say we will not retaliate? I think you are living in yesterday's world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yojon Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. dont need no stinkin troops
just bomb em back to the stone age! Shock and Awe! Dead or Alive!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. What about airstrikes?
They look great on ABCNNBCBS/FOX nightvision in-bed cameras.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
19. Bombardment from Navy ships in Gulf
is a more likely scenario in Iran. They are insane enough to try it. I put absolutely nothing past these madmen.

I agree with you that we definitely lack the manpower for a ground invasion at this time. However while "softening the target" with ship-launched missiles and bomber jets, the B*sh junta can attempt to make a case for a military draft that would supposedly supply the necessary troops for a landing.

Let's say they engineer some kind of "Iranian" attack on a Navy ship, resulting in a huge tragedy. They would use that to "justify" a draft and escalation into a full-blown war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. My goal and hope for the next election:
That we win over the Senate so that our spineless leadership won't stoop down to kissing Lieberman's butt if he wins. Make him irrelevant! He shouldn't be going to ANY Democratic caucuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broadslidin Donating Member (949 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. With E.S. & S. and Diebold Vote Counting, Why Bother....!
:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. The USS Eisenhauer hasn't reached the Persian Gulf yet
give it time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. That's right
More death and destruction coming soon. Fear, fear, terror, terror.
North Korea and Iran are waiting for some stupid ass to start bombing them.
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. MY GUESS
that whatever it is - it will "unveiled" between today and 10/20

gives repubs enough time to sing the song, and not enough time for dems to mount a response

whatever it is - it's going to have to be bigger than the house of reprehensible's page scandal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
10. Maybe it has been prevented
but possibly this way: a terror attack that this time no one knows about EXCEPT the WH and no one will be able to get a clue in time despite the natural suspicions. A provocation by some ally or surrogate that will threaten our troops in Iraq or otherwise "force our hand".

Meanwhile, they will dummy up and ignore NK and hope you will too because the media normally only repeats what the WH says.

i would expect that any "plan" would have to have these iron clad elements: low risk, zero risk after election day success, sufficient drama to at least jolt the polls and election and make it vulnerable to fraud, a move toward the continued takeover of ME oil, something extremely simple and passive.

The Woodward book and common sense would make one see the contradiction. Secrets cannot be guaranteed, hence the risk suddenly becomes more real and large. Small machinations cannot be enough to effect anything other than a speech and an order. Failure looms large and worse. Yet they seem somewhat confident and that is very troubling since they of all people are cowardly and ineffective actors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yojon Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I agree with this
Either it would be an aggressive attack on our peacekeeprs in Iraq by the warlike Iranians in the East requiring bombing to avenge the Honor of Our Troops OR a terra attack on our homeland by the #2 if Al Queda. It will happen close enough to the election that no one will be able to figure that it is a false flag attack.

Problem is that the magnitude of *'s popularity spikes has diminished after each bogus terra attack. I believe the psychologists call this 'extinguishing behavior'. If the buzzer buzzes enough and the rat does not get the food, eventually the rat stops doing the behavior that got him the food in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. So many bridges burned
Israel, one of the most dangerous to try to mess with by ops and intel, also bellied up in Lebanon on the war partner scale. Trying to play them like chumps might not work at all. "Might" is not part of the GOP plan. They want a sure thing. OUR people in the field are not a sure thing either, nor the public.

So where is the infallible tool to rally and bluff and move the public short of the BFEE just blasting some mall somewhere two days before the election?

What IS in place. Vote suppression, but not all they wished for. E-voting, but heavily scrutinized and while horribly more pervasive than 2004, not everything they need. Some tentativeness and cuation on the part of Dems. Some advantage- but not as desired- in big money. Some media and ads to perform ruthless and deceitful brainwashing, but not very good, too challenged and with heavy losses on the media front.
Close polls were needed and GOP numbers are vanishing like Arctic Ice. Bush's pre-text charm tour as in 2002 just bellied up. The terror/war card is weak EVEN if it has some effect.

So where is is the sure thing that gives them confidence? The cowards have to be sweating being backed up to the final line on ALL fronts, but there has to be something else, something they didn't have to do in 2002, that sufficed for an Osama video pre-text in 2004(although this pre-text was mumbled away during the exit poll fiasco and eventually replaced by the bald-faced lunacy of the second string "values" crap based on Bush visiting the Amish and the like(which didn't exactly win him Pennsylvania either).

Maybe a month ago it didn't have to be something big, just symbolic. But this is to mesh with war, continued domination and dictatorship and total escape from accountability all rolled into one. And being watched by true patriots all the time and not being able to trust anyone. It has to be outside, foreign and enough hands off to slow down even suspicions. I don't even think shock value is enough plus e-cheating. It has to really work for Bush beyond him even raising a non-eloquent lazy syllable of leadership.

If you were Pinocheney and Bushitler, what would you do, allow to be done, and where whould you find the sure resources to safely get away with it? Our pols are too tied up, and rightly so, in campaigning away all GOP advantages that might avert this. Anyone here have a speculative clue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Well, they might try another Dan Rather
Remember that was late in the 04 campaign and pretty much abolished W's military record as an issue.

But who would get the smear? Well, Bob Woodward might be compromised. His new book must be driving Bushco crazy. They've got to get Tenet to recant what he said about that meeting with Condi or impugn Woodward's motives, saying he's a drunk or psychologically impaired or "proved" to be lying. But their attack will have to be totally vicious. They are deadlocked on the Valerie Plame thing (and so are we). That won't play out for a long time.

I think the Foley scandal really upset Rove's applecart. He's been thrown off his game. He's not out of the game, though.

My vote is Woodward.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. So many bridges burned...
Israel, one of the most dangerous to try to mess with by ops and intel, also bellied up in Lebanon on the war partner scale. Trying to play them like chumps might not work at all. "Might" is not part of the GOP plan. They want a sure thing. OUR people in the field are not a sure thing either, nor the public.

So where is the infallible tool to rally and bluff and move the public short of the BFEE just blasting some mall somewhere two days before the election?

What IS in place. Vote suppression, but not all they wished for. E-voting, but heavily scrutinized and while horribly more pervasive than 2004, not everything they need. Some tentativeness and caution on the part of Dems. Some advantage- but not as desired- in big money. Some media and ads to perform ruthless and deceitful brainwashing, but not very good, too challenged and with heavy losses on the media front. Close polls were needed and GOP numbers are vanishing like Arctic Ice. Bush's pre-text charm tour as in 2002 just bellied up. The terror/war card is weak EVEN if it has some effect.

So where is is the sure thing that gives them confidence? The cowards have to be sweating being backed up to the final line on ALL fronts, but there has to be something else, something they didn't have to do in 2002, that sufficed for an Osama video pre-text in 2004(although this pre-text was mumbled away during the exit poll fiasco and eventually replaced by the bald-faced lunacy of the second string "values" crap based on Bush visiting the Amish and the like(which didn't exactly win him Pennsylvania either).

Maybe a month ago it didn't have to be something big, just symbolic. But this is to mesh with war, continued domination and dictatorship and total escape from accountability all rolled into one. And being watched by true patriots all the time and not being able to trust anyone. It has to be outside, foreign and enough hands off to slow down even suspicions. I don't even think shock value is enough plus e-cheating. It has to really work for Bush beyond him even raising a non-eloquent lazy syllable of leadership.

If you were Pinocheney and Bushitler, what would you do, allow to be done, and where would you find the sure resources to safely get away with it? Our pols are too tied up, and rightly so, in campaigning away all GOP advantages that might avert this. Anyone here have a speculative clue? I am sure the Intel agencies around the world are musing and watching this contest too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
14. I am not TELLING!
...oh, -that- Karl.



Never mind. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
18. Is Karl Rove God or something? Sheesh! Fuck him...
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 08:58 AM by Texas Explorer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
20. The anthrax has to already be in the mail if it's going to work.
That's my apocalyptic vision of a surprise: anthrax suddenly returns, Jerome Hauer's Emergent Biosolutions goes public and comes to the rescue for a couple of billion dollars profit, and before anyone can make sense of what just happened the US Navy parks outside of the Persian Gulf looking for a fight (most of the ships which left port on 10/1 should be in the area by 10/28). The Iranians will be goaded into shooting back, or made to look as if they did if they won't, and the same bait-and-switch operation used with al Qaeda and Iraq will be employed to make it appear as if Iran is responsible for the anthrax, and for initiating the war.

However, Dick Cheney isn't worried at all, which would suggest is that the surprise is right in front of us: democracy in America is already dead thanks to the perfection of Republican vote theft and media complicity. Surprise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
21. its a four letter word. IRAN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC