New Theory: Attack Iran just before the election

[Beerina]

So there's a new idea floating around, that the US will attack Iran and knock out the nuclear facilities just before the election. Legitimate possibility, or just left-wing disasterbation?

 

[Darat]

Silliness.

Oh and a source for the story?

 

[brodski]

So there's a new idea floating around, that the US will attack Iran and knock out the nuclear facilities just before the election. Legitimate possibility, or just left-wing disasterbation?

What election? I have it on good authority that you'll all be in Hitlerburtons concentration camps stocked with Chinese guillotines before the US has another election.

 

[AmateurScientist]

So there's a new idea floating around, that the US will attack Iran and knock out the nuclear facilities just before the election. Legitimate possibility, or just left-wing disasterbation?

Plausible, I suppose, as a pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran from completing its nuclear weapons program and becoming a looming threat to the entire West. Whether it has anything to do with the elections depends on how cynical and paranoid you are.

I do also see the possibility of its being yet another mischaracterization by the left-wing bemoaning of American Imperialisim, with their failing to understand what that means.

The left is usually clueless and inept when it comes to foreign relations and world politics. They should stick to domestic policies.

AS

 

[Apollyon]

The left predicted that Bin Laden would be captured just before the '04 election too, implying that Bush had him in hiding and was just waiting for the proper timing to push up voting support for him.

This Wag the Dog theory about Iran is about as likely to happen as the OBL prediction.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Silliness.

Oh and a source for the story?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

AS

 

[Darat]

Plausible, I suppose, as a pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran from completing its nuclear weapons program and becoming a looming threat to the entire West. Whether it has anything to do with the elections depends on how cynical and paranoid you are.

I do also see the possibility of its being yet another mischaracterization by the left-wing bemoaning of American Imperialisim, with their failing to understand what that means.

The left is usually clueless and inept when it comes to foreign relations and world politics. They should stick to domestic policies.

AS

Have you a link to the sources of this story?

 

[brodski]

Plausible, I suppose, as a pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran from completing its nuclear weapons program and becoming a looming threat to the entire West. Whether it has anything to do with the elections depends on how cynical and paranoid you are.

I do also see the possibility of its being yet another mischaracterization by the left-wing bemoaning of American Imperialisim, with their failing to understand what that means.

The left is usually clueless and inept when it comes to foreign relations and world politics. They should stick to domestic policies.

AS

I seem to remember that the right had similar CTs about Clinton's foreign endeavours when he needed a PR boost.

 

[Darat]

The left predicted that Bin Laden would be captured just before the '04 election too, implying that Bush had him in hiding and was just waiting for the proper timing to push up voting support for him.

...snip...

Sources?

 

[Darat]

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

AS

That is a piece published almost 4 months ago.

 

[AmateurScientist]

That is a piece published almost 4 months ago.

And yet it is still a source for the theory. I suppose you could quibble with me over the definition of "new."

AS

 

[Darat]

And yet it is still a source for the theory. I suppose you could quibble with me over the definition of "new."

AS

I do - Berrina is stating this as something new, not the stuff that lots of people (including this forum's Members) were discussing toward the start of the year.

 

[shemp]

So there's a new idea floating around, that the US will attack Iran and knock out the nuclear facilities just before the election. Legitimate possibility, or just left-wing disasterbation?

There's something floating around in my toilet too. Should I flush it just before the election, or wait until after?

 

[AmateurScientist]

I do - Berrina is stating this as something new, not the stuff that lots of people (including this forum's Members) were discussing toward the start of the year.

Fair enough. It's new enough for me to think of it as new. I haven't fully digested it yet. I suppose I wasn't around for all the discussions months ago. As for more recent sources, I have no idea.

AS

 

[Apollyon]

Sources?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK02Aa01.html

As the date of the polls approached, there was feverish speculation as to whether Bush, helped by Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, would produce bin Laden before the American people like a magician producing a rabbit out of his hat, and thereby make Kerry look silly and win a thumping victory.

 

[Darat]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK02Aa01.html

How does that provide a source for : "The left predicted that Bin Laden would be captured just before the '04 election too, implying that Bush had him in hiding and was just waiting for the proper timing to push up voting support for him." ?

 

[richardm]

And yet it is still a source for the theory.

It's a source for the theory that Bush might bomb Iran, but a quick flick through it doesn't seem to mention the US election part.

I'm also not clear whether the left-wing conspiracy is that the bombs would drop just before the election so that the Republicans would be swept to victory by voters delighted that a threat has been removed, or so that the Democrats would be left with all the horrendous Foreign Policy fallout that would result.

 

[Apollyon]

How does that provide a source for : "The left predicted that Bin Laden would be captured just before the '04 election too, implying that Bush had him in hiding and was just waiting for the proper timing to push up voting support for him." ?

I believe I already quoted the relevant section. I mean, who do you think was making the prediction of Bush producing OBL so the tail could wag the dog? The right?

I'm not sure about this forum, but other political forums I frequented prior to the '04 elections had numerous threads on the subject. iirc, they named it the "September Surprise." Except that when it didn't happen in September they renamed it the "October Surprise." When the OBL videotape came out a few days before the election, even though Bush didn't actually produce OBL, as predicted, the left still went "Aha! See October Surprise."

Maybe you're quibbling about me using the generic term "the left?" If it makes you feel any better or clears it up for you, I don't actually mean the entire left-wing. Some on the left were making that prediction. OK?

 

[Jocko]

How does that provide a source for : "The left predicted that Bin Laden would be captured just before the '04 election too, implying that Bush had him in hiding and was just waiting for the proper timing to push up voting support for him." ?

Maybe you'll just have to trust the people who were here at the time? The statement you are quibbling over is more or less correct. Its lack of documentation doesn't make it untrue; it merely makes it a conspiracy theory.

Or can you provide a link for every conspiracy theory that makes its way around certain British social or political circles?

Or perhaps you've caught a case of the Claus. Comes from spending too much time too close to certain navel-gazers. Just saying.

 

[Luke T.]

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

AS

Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets

No names. And how would a former American military or intel offical know what is going on? What "need to know" would they have?

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military

Can the article be any more vague?

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said

No name. Not even a postition. Could be the freaking janitor.

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me

Another former no-name.

One military planner told me

I am beginning to see a pattern.

one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna

Chinese diplomat? Tobago diplomat?

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed

A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me

Third hand info from an unnamed source. Oh, that's pure gold in them thar hills!

A former high-level Defense Department official told me

A European intelligence official said

Another diplomat in Vienna asked me

And so on.