New Theory: Attack Iran just before the election

[varwoche]

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

Let me see if I have this right: As evidence that "The left predicted that Bin Laden would be captured just before the '04 election" you have cited Online Asia Times:

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

Not only is this a questionable source -- it breaks the vague meter.

Do you have any better sources than this rubbish?

(Add: Oops, I missed Darat's similar challenge.)

 

[Darat]

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've no idea and I've still no idea -all that article does is state what you stated - it doesn't point to sources for their claims (as far as I could find)?

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?

Well I've learnt not to quibble with the USA Members and the definition of left and right anymore - I just translate "left" to "the USA right-wing Democratic party"...

 

[furrod]

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?

Which election? If it happens it will invariably be before an election.

 

[Kopji]

The notion that we can just fly in and knock out all Iran's nuclear facilities would be the same kind of serious misjudgment that we saw this month between Israel and Hezbollah.

It is foolhardy to perceive the region as simple conflicts of good and evil, of those who 'hate freedom' vs those who 'love freedom'. Yet we persist.

An attack on Iran before the election has a great potential to backfire. A Republican victory (more likely Democrats blowing it) would be seen as one more affirmation that Americans like what they see the US doing and want some more.

 

[Apollyon]

I've no idea and I've still no idea -all that article does is state what you stated - it doesn't point to sources for their claims (as far as I could find)?

What sort of sources are you seeking? The claim was one proferred by the more wild-eyed side of the left and was primarily promulgated on political internet forums. I suppose you could find the relevant claims if you searched Democratic Underground or KOS. I currently don't have direct access to a shower myself so I hesitate to visit those websites to search for the relevant information when I can't scrub the crud off immediately afterwards.

Well I've learnt not to quibble with the USA Members and the definition of left and right anymore - I just translate "left" to "the USA right-wing Democratic party"...

Considering the distance between us, political Doppler shifting is to be expected.

 

[AmateurScientist]

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

Can the article be any more vague?

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

...

Oh, I had exactly the same reaction upon reading it. It is a very poorly "sourced" piece that reads a lot like fiction. I mentioned in another thread that upon being questioned about the article's content before a Congressional subcomittee, US UN Ambassor John Bolton said that no, he hadn't read the article and didn't intend to. When pressed about why not, he retorted that he simply didn't have much free time to read fiction. It was a moment of ballsiness and brilliance. Screw you, witch hunting liberal Congressman. I'm going to be confirmed anyway, a**hole.

I gave Darat the link as a source for the theory.

I meant that the situation is plausible in that we do need, and I presume we are developing and refining, a plan or policy for dealing with the goal of preventing Iran from developing nukes. I would think that is one of our highest national security interests at the moment. Whether we actually have forces on the ground in Iran at the moment, and whether we have contingency plans to bomb about 400 sites in Iran, and whether we are prepared to use nukes to do so, are entirely different matters. I am obviously not privy to any such plans, nor do I have any evidence that they exist.

AS

 

[daredelvis]

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

AS

And the last five years have been a shining beacon foreign relation 'eptness' on the part of the right.

Daredelvis

 

[AmateurScientist]

And the last five years have been a shining beacon foreign relation 'eptness' on the part of the right.

Daredelvis

Tu quoque fallacy. Besides that, the War in Iraq had bipartisan support at the beginning. It's only after it became as prolonged as Bush said it would be, and American public opinion began to turn against it, that the left began to criticize it so vehemently.

The left's idea of failed foreign policy on the matter can be summed up with the silly "Bush lied; people died."

AS

 

[daredelvis]

Tu quoque fallacy. Besides that, the War in Iraq had bipartisan support at the beginning. It's only after it became as prolonged as Bush said it would be, and American public opinion began to turn against it, that the left began to criticize it so vehemently.

The left's idea of failed foreign policy on the matter can be summed up with the silly "Bush lied; people died."

AS

What you are calling a Tu quoque fallacy was not an argument, only a response to your baseless assertion that the left is inept at foreign policy.

Can you remind me who said that he did not know if the war would take "six hours, six days, or six months". No mention of "six years", or more likely "sixty years".

Daredelvis

 

[Snide]

What you are calling a Tu quoque fallacy was not an argument, only a response to your baseless assertion that the left is inept at foreign policy.

Exactly. Plus it seems that AS followed it up with a strawman, by countering your "five years of foreign relation" comment with a statement of bipartisan support for the war, as if they are the same thing.

Can you remind me who said that he did not know if the war would take "sis housr, six days, or six months". No mention of "six years", or more likely "sixty years".

For accuracy's sake, it was six days, six weeks...and don't forget, more importantly, "I doubt six months." But again, it was a strawman.

 

[Skeptic]

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

AS

Oh. Mr. S. Hersch again. Er... that's reliable...

 

[Apollyon]

Didn't Hersh make some noise along this same vein last year when he predicted, according to information from Scott Ritter, that the admin had plans to invade Iran in June '05?

Didn't he subsequently claim that the invasion didn't happen because he blew the story wide open, or some such nonsense?

Hersh should spend some time counting his marbles. There's a good chance he's misplaced some in the last few years.

 

[KelvinG]

I don't think this will happen. Unless it does.

 

[Luke T.]

Let me see if I have this right: As evidence that "The left predicted that Bin Laden would be captured just before the '04 election" you have cited Online Asia Times: Not only is this a questionable source -- it breaks the vague meter.

Do you have any better sources than this rubbish?

(Add: Oops, I missed Darat's similar challenge.)

That source is about on par with the source I quoted about attacking Iran. I think that's the whole point.

 

[New Ager]

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

Good post AS, but I must disagree with you on one point.

The left is clueless and inept when it comes to domestic policies too. LOL!!!

(Dare)

And the last five years have been a shining beacon foreign relation 'eptness' on the part of the right.

(New Ager)

Beat Iraq in a war. Captured the evil dictator and killed or captured most of his cohorts. Freed a country and allowed to the opportunity to establish a democracy and freedom from tyranny.

And what did Clinton do during his term? He thought about getting Bin Laden.