Campaigns Wary About October Surprise

Makoto916 writes "CNN.com has an article on how both campaigns are speculating on what the so called "October Surprise" is going to be. From the capture of Bin Laden, to the economy falling through the floor, just about everything is considered. "

Comments

Didn't you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the capture of Bin Laden, to the economy falling through the floor, just about everything is considered.

They've already caught Bin Laden, they've just been holding him in secret so they could announce his 'sudden capture' a week before the elections.
/tinfoilmode

Seriously though, when Saddam got picked up a year ago I was surprised that they didn't actually try this using him. I guess they needed to announce a victory at that point in the war, despite a boogeyman on the loose being better for controlling the populace than one in jail. Speaking of which, we havn't heard a word about him since his capture, maybe the show trial starts just in time for the election?

Re:Didn't you know?

[dasunt]

I'm not paranoid enough to believe that the US gov't is holding Mr. bin Laden at an undisclosed location, waiting for the right moment.

OTOH, I would have no problem in believing that the amount of forces dedicated to his capture has been stepped up in the last few weeks.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Rayonic]

I find it impossible to believe that the we could capture Osama Bin Laden and keep it a secret for very long at all. News that big would definitely leak out.

I mean, I'm sure they've ramped up their efforts to capture the guy, but I'm not sure that it'd be politically expedient anyway. I mean, the Democrats have put forward so much (baseless) suspicion that, upon capture, many people might believe Bush was hiding Osama for later. Heck, some people thought that we were hiding Saddam in his little spider-hole.

My personal hypothesis: Osama is dead. He hasn't starred in any videos (it's always his "second in command"). Al-Qaeda just wants everyone to think he's alive, for morale purposes. We haven't found him yet because it's hard to find someone who doesn't have to eat, drink, breathe, or be guarded -- he could be buried anywhere.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've already caught Bin Laden, they've just been holding him in secret so they could announce his 'sudden capture' a week before the elections. /tinfoilmode

I'm not much in favor of Bush for htis November, but I see this as truely over the top as far as conspiracy theories go. IMO, if bin Laden has been in US (or some other country's) custody for some time now, why hasn't some terrorist leader (eg, one of bin Laden's top aides) expressed their opposition to it in a video or casette tape on Al Jazeera (to them, obviously, news of bin Laden getting captured would spread like wildfire)? Surely the so-called "liberal" media (as the right calls it) would pounce on such a story.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

> My personal hypothesis: Osama is dead. He hasn't
> starred in any videos

Actually, I think part of the reason for this is that:

1) the CIA constantly analyses the videos (and audios) for signs of where they were shot. The next time you watch a movie, try to figure out where it's actually shot (instead of where they movie producers want you to think it's shot). If you put any care into analysing what in the audio and video of the movie (and what's missing), you'd at least be able to get a very good idea where it could be shot.

2) Osama is *tall*. He sticks out like a sore thumb in an arab crowd. He'd be easily found, even if he had plastic surgery.

These two facts conspire against Osama. If the CIA can get an approximate idea where Osama is (through his broadcasts), catching him will only be a matter of time. Osama knows this, so he's letting his second in command (who blends into an arab crowd easily) do his dirty work.

Osama is a no dummy. I wouldn't be surprised if Osama is in the last place you'd expect him. For all we know he's hiding in plain sight. He could be "working" in New York as a taxi driver. Yes it is far fetched, but you have to admit that it an inocious way of talking to operatives who act as passengers.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Osama bin Laden, contrary to rumor, never made it out of Tora Bora. I had the chance to interview some of the SF soldiers who were there --there were about two dozen of them. Everything that moved got bombed. Everything that had a heat signature got bombed. Everything that set off the interferometers got bombed. Everything that didn't move or have a heat signature or set off the interferometers got bombed. The area was enclosed with a hard perimeter, meaning that some human being somewhere had real-time eyeballs on every square foot of that perimeter during the entire operation, either from the ground or from the air via loitering aircraft or Predators. Nobody got out.

When the troops went in to clear the caves, they didn't find bodies. They didn't even find pieces of bodies. They found fragments. A piece of jawbone with a molar in it, a fingertip, a scrap of skin with some hair attached. It was awe-inspiring and terrifying.

The idea that Osama bin Laden and his cadre just slipped out the back door with a vehicle and enough supplies to get them out of the mountains and into Pakistan is laughable in the extreme.

Why does the administration not mention this? Well, they have, indirectly, but why not come right out and say so? The reason there wasn't a screaming press release and banner headlines the next day is that we have no DNA from Osama bin Laden so there's no way for us to positively identify any of the human remains recovered as being from him. Even if we ruled out all the remains recovered, that still wouldn't be conclusive because lots and lots of men were essentially pulverized during the bombing, leaving nothing large enough to recover.

So because we can't conclusively prove that we got him, we have to concede the possibility that he might have clicked his heels together and said "there's no place like Islamabad." It's im-fucking-possible ...but it's still possible. You know what I mean?

So instead we go with indirect evidence. Has Osama bin Laden been seen since December 2001? No. Has he been heard? No. (There were some audiotapes. Some were obviously older than 12/01. Some were recorded by persons other than bin Laden. None were both contemporaneous and genuine.) Has he communicated in any way that we could intercept? No, and we can intercept anything from smoke signals to a whisper in a Jakarta nightclub. Has he given any orders, participated in any summits, done --in short --any of the things he did regularly prior to 12/01? No.

He has, in other words, disappeared from the face of the earth. For nearly three years. Which, if you know about bin Laden's personality, is something that he would have a very hard time accomplishing if he were still corporeal and animate.

Osama bin Laden is dead.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of which, we havn't heard a word about him since his capture, maybe the show trial starts just in time for the election?

You must not pay attention to the news. Stories about Saddam's captivity and his approaching trial are in the news fairly often. Try searching on the news.google.com.

I guess they needed to announce a victory at that point in the war, despite a boogeyman on the loose being better for controlling the populace than one in jail.

Saddam's capture was announced practically as soon as it could be confirmed. The Iraqi people were still terrified of him and that wasn't helping anyone. They were too afraid to help themselves or the US work toward building a new Iraq. Why you think keeping them terrified would be a good thing is a mystery to me.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Lord Kano]

Speaking of which, we havn't heard a word about him since his capture, maybe the show trial starts just in time for the election?

Haven't heard a word about him since his capture? You haven't been paying attention.

There was Wall to Wall coverage of his First day in court, in July.

LK

Re:Didn't you know?

[RWerp]

Seriously though, when Saddam got picked up a year ago I was surprised that they didn't actually try this using him. I guess they needed to announce a victory at that point in the war, despite a boogeyman on the loose being better for controlling the populace than one in jail.

Quite the opposite. Saddam in jail, humiliated and weak, is better for the USA. Arabs don't cheer losers.

Re:Didn't you know?

[RWerp]

One of the most interesting posts I ever read on Slashdot. A question springs to mind: Why wasn't US Army interested in getting Osama alive?

BTW, gen. Musharraf (Pakistan dictator) says he believes Osama is alive.

Re:Didn't you know?

[sg3000]

> Osama bin Laden is dead.

What's scary is that Osama bin Laden has the capability to speak to us from the dead!

Because Colin Powell told a senate panel in 2003 that Osama bin Laden was still alive, and the hunt for him continues, although Bush has outsourced the search effort to Pakistan for some reason.

The fact is on September 17, 2001, Bush told the American people "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [Source: ABC News, Sept 17, 2001]

In March of 2003, Bush significantly reversed this position, saying, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [referenced in the Boston Globe, 6/5/2004]

Since then, Bush worked to forget Osama bin Laden, or at least get the American people to. As was reported in the Washington Post on Aug 12, 2004, since the beginning of 2003, Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden's name on only 10 occasions, but not at any length. In contrast, he mentioned Saddam Hussein's name on more then 300 occasions.

In fact, during the first Presidential debate. Kerry talked directly about Osama bin Laden, which forced Bush to finally do so.

===================
BUSH: Never...when I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

But the enemy attacked us, Jim ...

KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us."

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us.
===================

Clearly, Bush's scheme of trying to get the public to forget about Osama bin Laden who attacked us on 9/11 unraveled during the debate.

As for an October surprise, if Bush has avoided capturing Osama bin Laden in order to score political points just before the election, then I can think of nothing more despicable. That would be politicizing the 9/11 attacks in a way that I think even Bush is incapable of.

Re:Didn't you know?

[DrSkwid]

There's no need to capture your employees.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Hackie_Chan]

That could be true. Osama bin Laden made "celebratory" video messages on the date of 11th of September both in years 2002 and 2003. But this year he has not. I wonder why, hmm?

Re:Didn't you know?

[Rayonic]

> That could be true. Osama bin Laden made "celebratory" video messages on the date of 11th of September both in years 2002 and 2003. But this year he has not. I wonder why, hmm?

Heck, the 2003 video used stock footage of Osama. Maybe the 2002 one, also, if I recall. Very suspicious.

Re:Didn't you know?

[antifoidulus]

Not to mention that he has to take a dialysis machine with him wherever he goes. A giant Arab man with a dialysis machine tends to be very consipicous...
But OTOH, a lot of his senior officials are still alive today(some of them still active), but very few people know if they were in Tora Bora at the time.

Re:Didn't you know?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Everything that didn't move or have a heat signature or set off the interferometers got bombed.

All hail, ye wardens of all mighty Air Power. After all, strategic bombing is going to make all other branches of the military utterly obsolete Any Day Now. Despite what the flyboys tell you, things escape during bombings. Sure, we're way more accurate now. But we never had an American soldier on each square foot, and that's what you'd need.

It isn't at all hard to believe that bin Laden paid off some warlord or flunky and slipped out the hole in the "airtight perimeter" thus created.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Shihar]

"Does anyone else find it distasteful when a draft dodger calls into question the medals of a war hero?"

Bush never called into question the medals Kerry got. Kerry sure as hell has no problem swinging them around and mentioning them every thirty seconds though. As far as draft dodging, who gives a shit? I would have dodged the Vietnam draft and used every resource in my disposal to get out of service in that killing field. Bush joined the reserves and left the reserves to dodge the draft. Kerry joined the Navy and tried and failed to join a non-combative unit. Who cares? They both tried to dodge going into combat.

It is completely beyond me as to how people could possibly care about how two BOYS (and that is all they were when they served) tried to escape getting shot at.

Re:Didn't you know?

[overunderunderdone]

he CIA constantly analyses the videos (and audios) for signs of where they were shot.

Yes they did, there was talk in the media about having geologists analyze the stone/cave backdrop to come up with some clues. Of course the moment that was mentioned on air all subsequent videos from Al Queada have been filmed before a cloth backdrop... Not much to work with. Once again our openness is a tactical weakness, even while it is also our ultimate strategic strength.

Osama never broadcast his videos, they were shot and then hand delivered to Al Jezeera. They probably went through many hands, at some reasonably significant delay in time. There is no reason to think that Bin Laden would still be wherever he was when the video was initially shot. The risk he could be tracked back through the video communication exists, but isn't that high. Any other communication is just as risky.

On the other hand while the risks are not that high, the benefits are significant. The video proof of his existence would be a significant boost to the morale of his loose, far-flung, organization and a blow to ours. Such proof that he continues to live and operate apparently unhindered by our efforts would be well worth the risks. In the absence of significant attacks on the U.S. (something he promised) it would almost seem necessary.

I think it's likely that he IS dead, or perhaps wounded/disfigured or ill to such a degree that showing his face would damage rather than enhance his credibility.

Re:Didn't you know?

[orangesquid]

Is this the October surprise?

Re:Didn't you know?

[LoveLiberty2004]

Assuming that others believe, as I do, that Bush pulled a big bait and switch on the American people... dangle Osama, quick, substitute Saddam... and that he lied lied lied about his motives for being there... WMD's, terrorism, etc... why wouldn't he be able to convince the American people that Osama Bin Laden is dead? Matter of fact, it seems much to his advantage to perpetrate such an idea regardless of its truth. It seems to me that if he thought for one second Osama might be dead, he'd start spewing "Osama is dead" from the rooftops, instead of forgetting he exists(ed).

From someone for whom lying comes as naturally as breathing, Bush's failure to mention the probability of Osama's death as one of his accmoplishments, frequently, at length, and LOUDLY, is the most pointed piece of evidence to believe that he, at least, doesn't think Osama is dead.

But this is purely speculation on my part. I'm one of those who, with dismay, believed they'd whip Osama out in mid-October, so I guess we'll soon see one way or the other. But it seems they found Saddam "hiding in a hole" so easily... they should've been able to find an alive Osama "hiding in a hole" as easily. Or if they have reasonable suspicion he is dead, say so... repeatedly, at length, set their pundits to it.. it would become truth rapidly, regardless of his actual status, at least to much of America.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Ineffable 27]

Read about 'How OBL got away' in this article, which ran in the CS Monitor back in March/02.

Re:Didn't you know?

[workindev]

Twirlip- I agree with your assessment on bin Laden, but what is your response to the CIA concluding that the bin Laden tapes were "likely" authentic, including the last tape that was released in April 2004 which mentioned the Madrid bombings? Why would the CIA say they were "likely" authentic despite all of the evidence that you presented?

Re:Didn't you know?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

He has to. He's got two, maybe three provinces that are not under his control ready to revolt the second OBL is proved dead.

Re:Didn't you know?

[whovian]

My personal hypothesis: Osama is dead. He hasn't starred in any videos (it's always his "second in command"). Al-Qaeda just wants everyone to think he's alive, for morale purposes.

Hmm. Osama's followers could regard his martyr status as something rather motivating. Surely, if OBL is dead and it's known only to the current leaders, then they have a trump card to play when it's convenient for them, inconvenient for the military forces.

Also, news of OBL's death could translate into part of "mission accomplished" by the US administration, which could be spun prior to November.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Let me just say that strange things are afoot at Langley. You get very contradictory information depending on who you talk to. Maybe Goss will be able to change that.

Re:Didn't you know?

[demachina]

A few questions, observations.

- Can you point us to the article you wrote based on your interview? I'd hate to think you are blowing smoke

- You think the people you claim to have interviewed had been trained on the tunnel complexes in Vietnam and how extraordinarily hard they were to defeat. If they had been I'm doubting they would have made statements that pompous about a very well developed cave/tunnel complex.

Al Qaeda has been fighting in those mountains since the Russian invasion around 1980, I'm pretty sure they've fought from and escaped out of cave and tunnel complexes and I'm sure many of them know how to do it. There is a near certainty a major cave complex like that has a couple very well concealed and very long escape tunnels they can use to get outside of a perimeter around it and to get well away from air cover over it. When the Pakistani's tried to raid a stronghold in the tribal areas they found tunnels just like that the people inside were using to slip in and out of their huge perimeter.

The apparent arrogance of the people you claimed to have interviewed makes it seem more likely, rather than less likely they didn't know what they were doing at Tora Bora or how skilled in guerilla warfare their adversary might be. It sounds like they underestimated them the same way the U.S. underestimated the Vietnamese.

- As others have already said the U.S. was making extensive use of local irregulars with dubious skills, training and loyalties there. For all you know half of them could have been on Al Qaeda's payroll, taking bribes to look the other way or they just didn't care all that much for sticking there necks out for their American masters.

All in all I think you are once again full of shit trying to make a case Bin Laden is dead. I don't think you will find anyone in the Bush administration that will back you on it.

But, nice try to rationalize away one of the bigger embarrassments of the Bush administrations failed "War on Terror"(...echo...echo) in time for the election, though.

Re:Didn't you know?

[james_in_denver]

Sorry sport, You are wrong on at least one point. A cousin of Osama bin Laden "donated" DNA before his departure from the U.S. A first, or even second, cousin is close enough to get a 98% match on DNA.

Re:Didn't you know?

[Keith McClary]

Take a look at these pictures - do you think the guy in the "confession" video is really Osama?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

What would really be a surprise

[KilobyteKnight]

What would surprise me is if Bush and Kerry jointly announced that they have both been living a lie, and are both gay lovers. Also, there'd have to be a male intern coming forward claiming sexual harassment.

Anything else would not be a surprise.

Re:What would really be a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you've ruined it!

Re:What would really be a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but who is the top and who is the bottom?

Re:What would really be a surprise

[antifoidulus]

They are distant cousins, so you could even throw "incestuous" into the mix :P

Re:What would really be a surprise

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Well if the government takes away your rights in order to fight terrorism, then the terrorists are obviously on top.

Definitely

[vijaya_chandra]

From the capture of Bin Laden, to the economy falling through the floor, just about everything is considered.

Ms.Benajir Bhutto, the ex-PM of Pakistan had already claimed that Laden's hiding in the house of the president of Pakistan.
So the first surprise mentioned is definitely going to be true.

The second!! It can't be true. My personal fortune teller says my earnings from the stocks I hold'd be atleast 2 millions in the next 3-4 months. Now that is a real reason why it can't be true

Re:Definitely

[base3]

But any attack, anywhere, can only serve to benefit Bush. Americans, unlike the Spaniards, it seems, don't like being told how to vote by terrorists. I say this as someone who's voting for Kerry, BTW.

Re:Definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

The Spanish don't like being told lies by their government. The Americans (at least those from the USA) seem to love it.

Re:Definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems, don't like being told how to vote by terrorists

The terrorist want a fight with America. They want someone bull headed like Bush. They go "toro" and he charges. Kerry would try to talk to people and calm the situation down. The terrorist hate that idea. They don't want peace in the middle east and they know Bush can't create it at the point of a gun.

The logic that Kerry is a wimp so terrorist like him is phony.

Re:Definitely

[xlv]

Americans, unlike the Spaniards, it seems, don't like being told how to vote by terrorists.

Some facts about the Spanish election: it was a close race before the attack, due in part of the opposition to the war from the Spanish people and thus opposed to the government being part of the coalition and the most important fact and probably decisive factor: the government lied and blamed it right away on ETA, the Basque separatist group, which has blood on its hands but was never involved in such a terrorist attack targetting random civilians.

So the US interpretation that this is just Spaniards caving in to terrorists is wrong and is just another example of how you don't get the rest of the world and this is in part due to the US media not doing a good enough job going past he sound bites.

Re:Definitely

[CmdrNullo]

You're talking about the Basque separatists vs. Al Queda? Seems to me that would have been a good place to start the investigation, even if it didn't ultimately turn out to be correct. Don't know that that constitutes a "lie" or a "coverup" as the terrorist appeasers now in power have spun it.

Re:Definitely

[ftvcs]

Spaniards, unlike the Americans, it seems, don't like being lied to by their government.

Saddam didn't cause 9/11, the CIA did, by training taliban and leaving a political vacuum in Afghanistan.

The Spanish people had nothing to do with the war for oil. It's a war played by governments. And it's these governments that will pay for their mistakes.

Bush is just the next in line.

Re:Definitely

[MindStalker]

You forget just because your stocks make you a lot of money doesn't mean that the entire country is rich. People tend to forget this very imporatant point, that there is in general X amount of dollars in curculation. During a down/bad economy, while more people are without money, that money must be somewhere. Generally some very rich people are sitting on it, waiting for the economy to improve. So the better the economy appears from the bottom, the less money is at the top! Or something like that.

Re:Definitely

[St. Arbirix]

If your fortune teller told you that it must be true. Most of them hate Bush (in psychic terms: they love Kerry) so to hear one concur with Republican hopes that the economy won't suddenly turn sour implies a very strong possibility it's true.

Though I must add that they intend to see Kerry win the election. My sources informed me of a psychic who tuned in on Bush and Kerry during the debates and was reading lots of love going out to Bush from half the nation with lots of hate coming from those same people towards Kerry. Luckily she diverted the hate back towards Bush during the middle of the debates so Kerry was capable of performing fairly while Bush's powers were diminished.

Re:Definitely

[Vokbain]

what

Re:Definitely

[xlv]

You're talking about the Basque separatists vs. Al Queda? Seems to me that would have been a good place to start the investigation, even if it didn't ultimately turn out to be correct. Don't know that that constitutes a "lie" or a "coverup" as the terrorist appeasers now in power have spun it.

No, and this is another example of the US misunderstanding of the rest of the world or to be more precise of regional terrorism versus global terrorism like Al Queda. Western europeans are used to regional terrorism as most countries went through successive waves at one point or another. As I've said in another post, ETA has never been involved in a terrorist attack targetting random civilians so the modus operandi was totally different from typical ETA attacks and thus, specially in the war context, it made sense to suspect Al Queda first. Besides, Basque people, or at least some of them, want their independence but still want to (and have to based on geography...) live next to the Spanish people and random civilian casualies is not the best way to do it. ETA terrorist acts are targetting military or governmental targets as they represent the occupier but not random civilians.

Unforeseen Media Gaffe Amplification

[4of12]

Since image and perception on TV play such an important role in influencing many voters, the kinds of events extend beyond the economic and geopolitical.

An unguarded, unrehearsed moment, caught in the wrong light, for any candidate can be fatal to their chances for election.

Professional, well-trained actors stand the best chances under that kind of scrutiny.

Re:Unforeseen Media Gaffe Amplification

[vijaya_chandra]

Professional, well-trained actors stand the best chances under that kind of scrutiny.

Do you mean that arnie should have been a presidential candidate!?!

Re:Unforeseen Media Gaffe Amplification

[WCityMike]

Professional, well-trained actors stand the best chances under that kind of scrutiny.

Do you mean that arnie should have been a presidential candidate!?!

No, read what he said again: professional, well-trained actors stand the best chances under that kind of scrutiny.

Re:Unforeseen Media Gaffe Amplification

[Bombcar]

You mean something like this?

Unemployment

[Kick the Donkey]

...perhaps reflected in a bad jobs report on October 8 -- the last unemployment report before the election -- or in a stock market swoon.

If a bad jobs report did come out next week, I have a feeling the Bush Administration/Campaign would just spin it as uncertainty about the outcome of the presidential election. Espeically if Kerry can bridge, or overcome, the gap in the polls.

And the sad part is, people will probably believe the lying sack of . Oops... Sorry, looks like I contributed to the liberal-bent of Slashdot. Conservitives, go head and jump on me...

Re:Unemployment

[Twirlip of the Mists]

And the sad part is, people will probably believe the lying sack

I have a question.

How come George W. Bush is a liar and a criminal, but Bill Clinton --a man who perjured himself, who actually committed a crime by lying --is not?

'Splain that for me, please. I don't get it.

Re:Unemployment

[meta-monkey]

The Kerry camp is beating a dead horse with the jobs issue. People don't vote based on whether or not they think there are more or fewer jobs out there for other people. If their primary issue is jobs, it's their own job. If somebody gets layed off in October, maybe he'll think about voting for Kerry. If somebody hears about other people getting layed off in October, he won't give a damn.

Re:Unemployment

[Bachus9000]

No one said he wasn't. I've always wondered why Clinton was a criminal, but Bush isn't, myself..

Re:Unemployment

[Anonymous Coward]

Misleading the people in regards to the reasons for waging war is treason.
He did commit a crime. Nobody cares though because he says the word "God" in every other sentence and everyone knows that christians are forgiven for all their sins and aren't held accountable by God so I guess we shouldn't hold him accountable either.

It's not much different than a priest getting caught molesting a little boy. So many people are willing to accept it and hide it that there's no accountability and if you try and bring abount accountability then even more people will come to his aid and help hide it even more. How many times have priests been accused of molestation and nobody believed it? Pretty much the same thing. Belief can be mistaken for truth and if enough people believe that he's innocent then in "reality" he is.

You can turn the invasion of a nation with an "evil" dictator and the slaughter of thousands of civilians into a good thing with spin, while you can't turn adultery into something good no matter what kind of spin you put on it.

Re:Unemployment

[Anonymous Coward]

All Presidents are liars.

Clinton didn't commit perjury. Look it up. He would have to lie under oath and it would have to be material. First, he didn't lie under oath. He lied to the American people, but listen to his testimony some time. The one with the "definition of is". I'm sure you've never heard the whole thing, you've just been told things by people with an agenda. If you talk radio followers ever listened to the real source material, you'd understand how much you are being lied to. Of course ignorance is bliss.

Second, it was a frivolous lawsuit which was thrown out by the judge. His testimony wasn't material.

All Presidents are liars. I prefer the ones who lie about consentual sex to the ones who's lies get people killed. At least Clinton never claimed he could strip an American citizens of their citizenship and jail them forever without due process. If that doesn't scare you, you're messed up.

Re:Unemployment

[gaijin99]

Well, and speaking here as someone who doesn't like Clinton at all, I'd say that its because Bill lied about getting a blowjob. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say that ranks around 1, it just really isn't that important. Now, if we were to talk about the *real* reasons to dislike Clinton (his idiot "don't ask don't tell" policy, his decision to help the elite with his "welfare reform" nonesense, etc) we might get into the realm of lies that rank 4 or above.

Bush, OTOH, lied in order to lead the USA into an expensive, and utterly pointless war. As a result of Bush's lies there are now 1060+ dead Americans, and we've got a debt that we'll be paying for decades to come. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd put Bush's lies at around 8 or 9.

Generally, I'd argue that a person who lies about sex is simply a human; everyone lies about sex. A person who lies to trick his country into going to war is a more serious problem.

Re:Unemployment

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Sorry, I must have been out sick the day they covered "it was only a little perjury" in law school.

I guess judging by the degree of froth pouring out of your mouth that pointing out that President Bush never lied would just be a waste of time.

Re:Unemployment

[gaijin99]

I wasn't talking about law, just reality. I'll semi-quote Eddie Izzard (great comedian, BTW, he said it better) There's first degree murder, second degree murder, etc, so why not first degree perjury, second degree perjury, etc? Lie about a blowjob, that's third degree perjury; lie about WMD, continually insinuate that Saddam was behind 9/11, that's first degree perjury.

Clinton lied about a lot of very important things (his dedication to the environment, his desire to help the working poor, his committment to equal right, etc), and for that reason I do not like Clinton. The blowjob lie is, however, the dumbest thing to dislike Clinton for I've ever heard of. There are so many better reasons to be anti-Clinton.

As for Bush, well, he told us there were WMD, and there aren't. If that doesn't count as a lie, I don't know what does.

Re:Unemployment

[Anonymous Coward]

the ones who's lies get people killed

"whose".

Re:Unemployment

[Rayonic]

> Bush, OTOH, lied in order to lead the USA into an expensive, and utterly pointless war.

So, Iraq hadn't been flouting the terms of the 1991 cease-fire? Good to know.

Re:Unemployment

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I think you underestimate the power of fear. I've had the same job since the Clinton administration ... but I'm damn near the only person I know who can say that, and yes, that does make me think more poorly of Bush's economic policies. I don't expect to get laid off any time soon, but it can always happen; and knowing that there won't necessarily be another job waiting for me (as there would have been in the Nineties) if it does happen has a lot to do with my antipathy toward Bush.

Re:Unemployment

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So, Iraq hadn't been flouting the terms of the 1991 cease-fire? Good to know.

That wasn't the reason Congress voted to authorize the threat of force. Congress authorized the threat of force because Bush said that if we waited we'd have a "Mushroom Cloud over Manhattan"

Other than the fact that Saddam would have been in violation of the cease fire terms by possessing nukes, the fact that he was in violation of OTHER cease fire terms is entirely beside the point of why America supported Bush's war. The fact that even their last shred of evidence has now been debunked, the aluminum tubes, means that BUSH LIED. Deal with it.

Re:Unemployment

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And if somebody like me spent more than half of Bush's term in office unemployed, you know damn well I won't be voting for Bush. Peroutka, maybe. Badnarik maybe. Kerry maybe. But the Betrayer of the Unborn and the Poor? Never!

Laptop Secrets

[ardustry]

I think it will be some secret memo's from those stolen laptops. Those "missing" national guard docs, maybe? Pics of George and some of his interns plotting world domination (aka, playing Risk or Monopoly).

terrorist swing voters?

[AdamBa]

Half-amusing, half-scary piece from kausfiles (from back in June), speculating that different groups of terrorists might favor different candidates: Quote: "The prospect ahead of us might not be just competing ad campaigns for the U.S. presidency but competing terror campaigns for the U.S. presidency, with anti-Bush bombs going off in Baghdad and pro-Bush bombs going off in New York."

- adam

No telling what it'll be...

[Jim Starx]

But I bet it'll be a new low in dirty politics.

Re:No telling what it'll be...

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

No telling what it'll be... But I bet it'll be a new low in dirty politics.

No matter what happens, it'll be said to be a new low in dirty politics.

don't care

[kajoob]

You know, I honestly don't care if they caught him and they're hiding him. If Bush gets that murderous bastard, it's cool with me if he trots him out a week before the election. And quite honestly, I think the overwhelming majority of Americans share my exact sentiments.

Re:don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think the overwhelming majority"
I really hate statements like that. The number of people that agree with you have nothing to do with whether or not your statement actually has any truth or fact in it. Lame attempt at false credibility by exaggerating how many people agree with you.

Re:don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

And quite honestly, I think the overwhelming majority of Americans share my exact sentiments.

The number of people that agree with you have nothing to do with whether or not your statement actually has any truth or fact in it. Lame attempt at false credibility by exaggerating how many people agree with you.

So when did sentiments and feelings constitute fact. If the majority of the people agree with him they probably share the same sentiments.

Bush - gone?

[rueger]

Ah heck - if we're talking consiracy theories, try this.

What happenes to the election of a terrorist attack takes out George W? Do you still go to the polls? Do you get Cheney by defualt? And how long could he delay the election before going foward?

And does anyone think that he hasn't already considered the possibility and planned for it?

Re:Bush - gone?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

What happenes to the election of a terrorist attack takes out George W?

That's not so much a conspiracy theory as it is high school civics class.

If the president dies -- including by assassination -- the vice president succeeds him. That's been a part of the system since day one, and it's been put to the test too many times.

The election is a separate question. If a presidential candidate dies after the nominating convention but before the election, that candidate's name remains on the ballot. If that candidate --now deceased --wins the election, the 20th amendment kicks in, which says that the vice president elect becomes president if the president elect dies before the inauguration.

This is also true if the president elect dies after winning the election but before being inaugurated.

And does anyone think that he hasn't already considered the possibility and planned for it?

Yes, it certainly has been ...by the framers of the Constitution of the United States and by the authors of the 20th amendment which went into effect in 1933, and also by the authors of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.

Re:Bush - gone?

[Jesrad]

When Robert Kennedy was shot months before the 68 elections, the Dems scrambled to get another candidate (Humphrey) on the line, while the Reps launched a "Law and order" campaign that led their candidate (Nixon) to the White House with only an 0.7% advantage in the popular vote.

So my own guess for the October Surprise 2004 is that Kerry gets shot, Bush gets re-appointed, SNAFU all over.

Re:Bush - gone?

[antifoidulus]

Which could raise an interesting scenario:
Suppose before the election, Bush kicks off, but not through a terrorist attack(which would get people to vote for Cheney more likely), but choking on a pretzel(Montezuma's curse ya' know), but Bush still wins by 1 electoral vote, but then, in the Vice Presidential election(remember, they are technically 2 different votes), but one elector gets spooked by Cheney and switches his vote to Edwards. Edwards could then become president without Kerry!

Re:Bush - gone?

[sg3000]

> So my own guess for the October Surprise 2004 is that Kerry
> gets shot, Bush gets re-appointed

I'm no Bush fan, but I think it's offensive and unfair to suggest that the Bush campaign, or even any typical Bush supporter, wants Kerry dead in order to win the election.

Bush has and will do any dirty trick to win, but assassination is a whole different thing. I don't think it does much to help today's savagely polarized public discourse to suggest otherwise.

Re:Bush - gone?

[spitzak]

That's insane. Kerry getting assasinated would backfire on the Bush campaign immensely. It would either show that the right wing is murdering, or if it was pinned on somebody else it would show that the "enemies of America" were more worried about Kerry and would prefer Bush in office. There is no way they would consider it, not including any questions of morals, which they do have a bit of...

Re: Bush - gone?

[Black Parrot]

> What happenes to the election of a terrorist attack takes out George W? Do you still go to the polls? Do you get Cheney by defualt? And how long could he delay the election before going foward?

Anti-US terrorists would probably prefer that we be divided among ourselves over the legitimacy of the elections, in which case they can win without investment by sitting back and letting Diebold and Jeb Bush handle it.

Re:Bush - gone?

[smack_attack]

Wrong, that may have been an issue in the late 1700s with Aaron Burr, but that's because the candidates back then did not tie themselves together (democrat Adams as president with republican Jefferson as VP). An electoral vote for Edwards is actually an electoral vote for the Kerry as president, Edwards as VP ticket that has been put forward.

Re:Bush - gone?

[antifoidulus]

Um.....perhaps you should read the constitution there, eh?
Here is a quick link:
about the twelth amendment which was adopted when Thomas Jefferson became John Adams vice president, even though they were of two different political parties. So as my scenario CORRECTLY points out, it is theoreticaly possible to elect a president and vice president of different parties. It just doesn't happen(since the electors are big supporters of the president, they are almost certain to be big supporters of the vice president as well)
Oh yeah, and Aaron Burr wasn't VP till 1800, not in the 1700's. Please learn some history and civics before shooting your mouth off about how someone is wrong, k?

Re:Bush - gone?

[Detritus]

Humphrey was a serious candidate well before the assassination of RFK, he wasn't a replacement for RFK. RFK was shot on the day of the California primary, before the Democratic convention. George Wallace, a third party candidate, received about 13% of the popular vote and won the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Re:Bush - gone?

[o'reor]

not including any questions of morals, which they do have a bit of...

You're kidding, right ?

Here's five letters you need to be reminded of : P-L-A-M-E.

They don't have Bin Laden

[bigsexyjoe]

If they had him they would have busted him out in August or so. Osama really did get away. I think that that is clear now. If they had him that would be a rumor that they just couldn't supress. Now it's too late and too obvious to capture Osama. If there's an October suprise it will probably be dirt on a canidate. The bugalarly that G.O.P. staged might also be considered an October suprise (or September suprise rather).

Re:They don't have Bin Laden

[Anonymous Coward]

The bugalarly that G.O.P. staged might also be considered an October suprise (or September suprise rather).

The burglary isn't a surprise. There's probably millions of people stupid enough to do it. It will be an October surprise if we hear in October someone close to Kerry was involved.

I'm sure both side have an ace in the hole.

Re: They don't have Bin Laden

[Black Parrot]

> If they had him they would have busted him out in August or so. Osama really did get away. I think that that is clear now. If they had him that would be a rumor that they just couldn't supress.

There actually has been a rumor, for months now.

Not to imply that I believe it.

Re:They don't have Bin Laden

[gaijin99]

Actually, if the Bush government had any brains, *and* it knew where Osama was, they would not have arrested him yet. If he's been in custody all this time when they bring him out he'd say so, and the October surprise would backfire.

If they know where he is, they're just keeping an eye on him to arrest him at the most politically beneficial time. Or, if you want to go really conspiricy: they arrested him last week, and will leak word of this through one of their pet "journalists". After mass speculaiton, they will "admit" that they have him, and were planning to announce the fact on Nov 3 to avoid influencing the elections, thus getting the benefit of an October Surprise, and getting to look like they were being good. I didn't think up that scenario, BTW, saw it somewhere on the web.

Personally, I'd guess that Osama is hanging out in the bin Ladin family compound in Saudi Arabia.

Re: They don't have Bin Laden

[geminidomino]

Months nothing... I posted my suspicion of it on usenet over a year ago.

Re:They don't have Bin Laden

[Anonymous Coward]

you believe Osama is welcome back in Saudia Arabia?

right....
other than his family hates him...

it would be stupid to capture bin laden anyways.
you watch him, track him, and take apart his organization piece by piece by intercepting communications. it is called strategy

That's actually true, though.

[Nomihn0]

I would not rule that out.

I've considered this myself and I know many others have as well - without any outside impetus. During the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, many people speculated as to how the terrorist threat would play out. Terrorists want Bush in power. The reason for this is so simple that liberals and conservatives can agree. Every time that Bush attacks or threatens a predominantly Islamic country, extremists develop in the populations.

Bush's assault Afghanistan on generated massive "collateral damage" - that is, holes in civilians caused by US' guns. To some people, a 3/4 dead village can be a bit upsetting. It's no surprise that these people then rebel against the United States. They realize that Osama Bin Laden is leading the fight and join his rag-tag clan of militant jihadists.

Bush's invasion of Iraq has directly caused over 13,000 civilian deaths. If this is not enough to agitate a population into extremism, I do not know what is. Am I supposed to believe that "liberation" includes "the freedom of body from soul"? Iraqis have read US history, they know that when we crash a party we never leave. Seeing this trend, they fear an extended US led occupation in their own country. The result is a rebellion against the invader. This can manifest itself in many ways: roadside bombs, mortar attacks, and both domestic and overseas terrorism. Osama Bin Laden becomes their patron saint.

Osama Bin Laden wants Bush because Osama Bin Laden does not value human life. He does not care how many innocent deaths it takes to bring the ideals of radical Islam to the world. If Bush incites a World War in the Middle East, Bin Laden would exalt him. Osama's goal is to incite a religious war against western "infidels" and their tainted culture. These wars are giant recruiting posters for Bin Ladne.

If Bin Laden could vote in the US, he would vote Bush.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[b-baggins]

---
Terrorists want Bush in power.
---

Only a fool would believe this. When Bush is in power, terrorists LEADERS die.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[rosie_bhjp]

Yes because Israel has proved that killing a movement's leaders is so effective at nullifying the movement.

Oh wait...

Re:That's actually true, though.

[NiceGeek]

Except that they don't care if they die. The goal is what is important and Bush is helping them accomplish it.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[IndependentVik]

Many of these terrorist leaders would welcome martyrdom in exchange for having their movements grow by the thousands. Perhaps before calling people who disagree with you fools, you should try and understand the culture of the enemy. These are not rational people, and fundamentalists of any stripe do not always follow their own logical self-interests.

Incidentally, while some leaders might be dying, I'd venture to say that Islamic Fundamentalism as a movement has only grown stronger during Bush's "war on terror". Anti-American sentiment worldwide (not just amongst people who "hate freedom") has grown much stronger as well, and this does little to make me feel safer.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because Israel has proved that killing a movement's leaders is so effective at nullifying the movement.

Hamas hasn't been quite so effect killing Jews since Israel started to kill or capture them at all levels, has it?

I expect that your "oh wait..." was the part where you were going to add that in order for terrorism to be effective it needs leadership, support, planning, money, and other resources. It starts getting a lot harder when the planner, leaders, and finanacers start taking the heat too. But I expect you already knew that.

Re: That's actually true, though.

[Black Parrot]

> Terrorists want Bush in power.

> Only a fool would believe this. When Bush is in power, terrorists LEADERS die.

If they think they're ushering in some kind of apocalypse, they surely want the enemy who's most likely to escalate.

Re: That's actually true, though.

[Black Parrot]

> Yes because Israel has proved that killing a movement's leaders is so effective at nullifying the movement. Oh wait...

And while we're on that topic, notice that the US strategy for managing the rebellion in Iraq is essentially the same as Israel's management of the intifada: "precision" air strikes and occasional intense bouts of urban warfare; "Sorry about the dead kids, we're just just here to do our job."

If you want to know how long it's going to take to suppress the Iraqi rebellion, project the results of suppressing the intifada and then scale it for a country the size of Iraq.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[ghostlibrary]

> Many of these terrorist leaders would welcome martyrdom in exchange for having their movements grow by the thousands.

Err, more accurately, many terrorists would welcome this. Their leaders, they are smarter. Just like generals send troops, terrorist leaders send terrorists. They rarely want to martyr themselves.

I think it's because a certain large degree of ego is needed to lead. With ego comes stronger self-perservation, a "let others die for the cause" attitude.

Even for radical fundamentalists, this often holds true. Very few terrorist leaders, I'd wager, want a quick martyrdom, especially right now while they are doing well. Martyrdom for leaders is usually a last recourse to avoid accepting defeat.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[w3rzr0b0t5]

Word. They sometimes say that they are for Bush because he helps in their recruitment effort, but that is bullshit. They didn't have ANY idea he would come after them after 9/11.

Bin Laden thought the US was soft, and the US gave him a damned good example to think this. Somalia. And I need not say any more about that. And bin Laden also took the "lesson" of Vietnam to heart.

Because of those two events, he thought he could strike with impunity. Never did he think he'd have a Predator drone gunning for his ass in the middle of nowhere.

I don't think he's dead at all. I do, however, think he was seriously spooked, and has laid low in order to stay alive long enough to reevaluate his enemy.

We're going to see just how efficient a cell-based organization is in the near future. There are both advantages and serious disadvantages to having the limited communication of a cell-based outfit. We're actually seeing it already. These guys have been flipping left and right for three years. NOBODY wants to go to fucking Gitmo. If the US can't break some of these fuckers, they're extradited to a place like Yemen where there's no laws barring "persuasion", and where US operatives are allowed to "observe".

I'm all for it. Fuck 'em, let's go get 'em.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[Shihar]

I don't think you realize how bad Bush has been for the Islamic fundamentalist movement. I honestly think that if Osama could take back 9/11, he would. It is true that the US has polarized the Islamic world, but look HOW it has been polarized. There used to be a nation that followed the ideals that of the Islamic fundamentalist movement. The Taliban is exactly what they wanted and they had it. He had a nation that sponsored his movement and a safe place to train his men. Now he has absolutely no safe harbor. Absolutely no nation is willing to harbor these people any more because they US has made it very clear that they will not think twice to crush any nation that harbors and supports these terrorist.

Osama has certainly made the best out of a shitty situation, but a nation that would support that likes of Bin Laden is now an utter impossibility. Islamic fundamentalist have been driven from power in the places that they once held. At this point the only thing they can hope to do is to take as many Americans and their supports down with them.

The simple fact of the matter is that if the US doesn't want you to have a sovereign state and you are not China or Russia, you are not going to have one. They very best you can hope for is to deny US soldiers the ability to operate on the ground while keeping the American public sympathetic enough where the military can't take off the gloves and use the full force of the US military. If the best you can hope for is a perpetual state of anarchy, no national government, and an existence comparable to medieval living, you have already lost.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[philbert26]

Yes because Israel has proved that killing a movement's leaders is so effective at nullifying the movement.

In the short term, it may be. Something has caused a decline in suicide bombings within Israel over the last year or so. Israelis credit the "security barrier" and the killing of terrorist leaders. Is there some other explanation?

Re:That's actually true, though.

[Carewolf]

So Sharon (and thereby the israeli government) being much less of an asshole, than he used to, does not explain anything?

Re:That's actually true, though.

[IndependentVik]

Good point. I'll concede that terrorist leaders are no doubt less enthusiastic about martrydom than their followers; however, I get the feeling that they're more accepting of death (especially if it will greatly advance their cause) than a non-radical leader. For instance, bin Laden, I think, is less concerned about his own hide than the more moderate (heads of state) Musharaf or even Hussein (insane despotic killer, but he is a religious moderate).

Note that I am in no way implying that bin Laden's relative willingness to die in any way imbues him with any sense of honor or virtue. I've actually been accussed of this before for making a similar point. Seems like a non-sequitor to me, but in these "you're with us [The Bush Administration] or you're with the terrorists" times it seems people are quick to paint each other as terrorist sympathizers.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[ghostlibrary]

> Note that I am in no way implying that bin Laden's relative willingness to die in any way imbues him with any sense of honor or virtue.

Yeah, Joe Bob Briggs (of all people) had a column _years_ ago on this, in reference to people saying 'the suicide bomber did a cowardly terrorist attack'. He pointed out it was many things-- despicable, evil, et cetera-- but that 'cowardly' was not quite a word to use when someone is willing to strap dynamite to their body and blow themself up for the cause.

Further (he points out), calling them 'cowardly' or such is foolish, because then we don't defend appropriately against them. It's easy to defend against a coward-- just bomb their country and they'll cave, right? But a zealot with courage, well, that might not be the right strategy to apply.

Alas, yes, we must be dismissive of our enemies, rather then facing them realistically. Such is current culture. I can see why you've been accused of 'terrorist sympathies' for just pointing out things... in fact, I remember reading that thread!

Re:That's actually true, though.

[chitownIrish]

If the best you can hope for is a perpetual state of anarchy, no national government, and an existence comparable to medieval living, you have already lost.

No, that's how you can begin to win. Those conditions you described were the exact conditions that made the Taliban acceptable in Afghanistan. Oridinary people accepted the Taliban because it made everyday life better. Living according to draconian Islamic law was demonstrably better than living under no law. To a people who never knew much beyond anarchy, a burqa (sp?) is a small price to pay for being able to be safe.

No terrorist movement that I know of has ever been defeated by military means. You have to defeat the guys who are actively fighting against you, but you also have to deny the enemy new recruits. This is why the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's what we're failing at now.

Bin Laden knew there would be an attack, and was willing to sacrifice the Taliban in the hopes of it being reborn throughout the whole Islamic world. His propaganda said that we are imperialists at war with Islam, and we played right into his hands by invading Iraq.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bush's invasion of Iraq has directly caused over 13,000 civilian deaths. If this is not enough to agitate a population into extremism, I do not know what is."
I don't know I haven't gotten Saddam's body count, but if IIRC he killed approx 50,000 putting down the revolts George H.W. Bush suggested they have.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[Keith McClary]

Osama has certainly made the best out of a shitty situation, but a nation that would support that likes of Bin Laden is now an utter impossibility. Islamic fundamentalist have been driven from power in the places that they once held. At this point the only thing they can hope to do is to take as many Americans and their supports down with them.

The simple fact of the matter is that if the US doesn't want you to have a sovereign state and you are not China or Russia, you are not going to have one. They very best you can hope for is to deny US soldiers the ability to operate on the ground while keeping the American public sympathetic enough where the military can't take off the gloves and use the full force of the US military. If the best you can hope for is a perpetual state of anarchy, no national government, and an existence comparable to medieval living, you have already lost.

The terrorist's objective is to reduce the countries with the world's remaining oil reserves to anarchy so that the US will invade and grab the oilfields by armed force. I think they will succeed. The US will need to reintroduce the draft and adopt Saddam's brutal methods to keep the oil flowing.

Re:That's actually true, though.

[Anonymous Coward]

No a courageous man would fight. Cowards blow up innocent civilians. If you can't recognise the difference you have problems.

A quick thought.

[ImaLamer]

First, let me say I'm as liberal as they come and voting for Kerry. No sense in you trying to guess which side I sit on.

Okay, that being said, I would think that the news of a capture on Osama would actually hurt George W. Bush somewhat. I know a lot of people, undecided types, who think that Bush already failed when it came to capturing Bin Laden. If he was on ice somewhere and came out of the closet now it would be obvious to most that it was all just a conspiracy.

Furthermore, if Osama was "captured" between now and the election people like myself would just point out that Bush did good and I would tell people that Bush did his job and now we don't need him anymore.

I scares me to think that people would actually credit Bush with an Osama capture. He, himself, did nothing - it would all be the work of troops or foreign fighters. Seems to me that the blame for failure always goes to the guy on top but the credit is given to the men who were actually responsible. Look at Iraq. People blame all of the bad things on Saddam, not his henchmen who enforced his policies.

Just thinking... not trying to prove a point.

Re:A quick thought.

[sg3000]

> people would actually credit Bush with an Osama capture. He,
> himself, did nothing - it would all be the work of troops or
> foreign fighters

I'm sure you didn't mean the past tense.

My understanding is that we have few, if any, troops actively searching for Osama bin Laden. During active military options, we had only 12,000-15,000 troops in Afghanistan (as opposed to more than 140k in Iraq). The Bush administration has outsourced that job to Pakistan, which is disturbing. As Bill Clinton said in August, "Why did we put our No. 1 security threat in the hands of the Pakistanis, with us playing the supporting role, and put all our military resources into Iraq -- which was I think at best our No. 5 security threat?"

Bush moved many of the Arab-speaking translators from the Osama search efforts and put them in Iraq. Bob Graham said that General Tommy Franks lamented the fact that predator drone craft were being shifted towards Iraq as early as February 2002 [Source: Miami Times, September 5, 2004].

So if any U.S. troops are left looking for Osama, and they find him, it will be in spite of Bush, not because of him.

Re:A quick thought.

[Timex]

I scares me to think that people would actually credit Bush with an Osama capture. He, himself, did nothing - it would all be the work of troops or foreign fighters. Seems to me that the blame for failure always goes to the guy on top but the credit is given to the men who were actually responsible. Look at Iraq. People blame all of the bad things on Saddam, not his henchmen who enforced his policies.

This is an excellent point. Bush is on record that he prefered to leave the bulk of the decision-making (details of events in Iraq and Afghanistan) in the hands of his generals in the field. This means that except for the obvious points involving their presence in the theatre, the generals are either doing their job (when things go well) or failing (when things are hosed). Responsibility is still the president's, either way, but it's only right to give credit where it's due.

I think it applies to more than just that, though. When Senator Kerry (as an example) criticizes President Bush about spending, why does anyone blindly accept his commentary? The Constitution clearly states that Congress is responsible for paying debts (see below). The reason for any failure of monetary support for the military in the Iraqi and Afghan theatres should be explained by Senator Kerry, not President Bush... ...unless, of course, Congress sent a spending bill to the president and he vetoed it. I believe this not to be the case, though.

There are many things that go on in American Politics that Congress and the President are responsible for, but I think that there are some (like I mentioned above) where Congress carries the bulk of the burden, yet some (like Senator Kerry) are trying to pin on President Bush. I don't mind blaming Bush for his failings, but I am annoyed when the president (of either party) gets blamed for the actions or inactions of the sitting Congress. Senator Kerry has demonstrated his skill at debates. If he has a better solution, and that solution must originate in Congress, why doesn't he do something about it himself while he's in a position to do it? Last time I checked, the president is able to sign or veto bills put before him, but he cannot originate bills himself.

-------------

My point of Congress' responsibility for the purse of the United States is based on the following:

• Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
  
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
  
• Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;
  

Re:A quick thought.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

The Constitution clearly states that Congress is responsible for paying debts (see below).

Fair enough. But it is a solidly Republican Congress. And the President is the leader of his party and therefore exerts considerable influence over its legislative agenda. Of course Congress deserves its share of scorn and blame. But the failure of a President to move through a friendly Congress anything he claims to support, indicates either he is really bad at being President or he doesn't really care about the thing in question.

Re:A quick thought.

[Rayonic]

> The Bush administration has outsourced that job to Pakistan, which is disturbing.

Seeing as we can't actually enter Pakistan, it's not all that disturbing.

Re:A quick thought.

[Keebler71]

I scares me to think that people would actually credit Bush with an Osama capture. He, himself, did nothing - it would all be the work of troops or foreign fighters.

By this definition, Churchill didn't do anything either.

John Kerry makes peace with Vulcans!

[celeritas_2]

The recent discovery of alien races has become a huge political issue this November 2nd, the real question is, "Is Mr. Spock a democrat?"

Then who was on the planes to Pakistan?

[leftie]

You are wrong. I don't know if OBL is alive, but there were abundant survivors from the caves of Tora Bora who were allowed through the lines of the warlords and were flown out of Afghanistan to Pakistan by Pakistani ISI. There were more than 1000 Al Queda and Taliban troops flown out by Pakistani ISI.

Also, the SpecOps soldiers would not know what was happened on the front lines. US SpecOps personnel were withdrawn from the front lines when the warlords took over the fight at Tora Bora.

Bush or Kerry getting killed very unlikely

[jgardn]

The last thing Bush wants is for Kerry to get shot before the elections; the same goes for Kerry towards Bush. Why is that? It is because if that were to happen, we would have a civil war on our hands, with extremists from both sides of the aisle shooting at each other.

These four candidates (Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards) are protected by the US Military. They are the single most important target to defend.

It is critical to our union that the presidential candidates be elected by the people, not appointed by natural disasters or conspiracies.

Re:Bush or Kerry getting killed very unlikely

[jb.hl.com]

It is critical to our union that the presidential candidates be elected by the people, not appointed by natural disasters or conspiracies.

Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?

didn't Osama need a dialysis machine?

[taxman_10m]

I find it very hard to believe that he has survived this long and crossed as many snow covered mountains as he did to get to his current possible location all while carrying a dialysis machine. It seems more reasonable to me that we bunker busted whatever cave he was hiding out at in Afghanistan and neither us nor his follows will ever find his remains.

Re:didn't Osama need a dialysis machine?

[nullportal]

If you had scads of money and prior warning that hostiles will rain missiles down on you when you greenlight attacks on them, wouldn't you choose to have back up dialysis machines and a stockpile of supplies?

Comment: Osama bin Laden

[Antony-Kyre]

The conspiracy theory about how they have Osama bin Laden already captured has been out on the Net for months. It has been out long enough that if for some reason the U.S. Government were to announce his capture, it would severely hurt Bush's campaign.

Hanging on the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

How many troops have died already. Bush consoles one widow of a solder. Tears in his eyes. Of course later he goes and admires the pistol of Saddam hanging on his wall.

After all it was his sacrafice that made this trophy possible.

I gag everytime I think of it.

Re:Hanging on the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

less troops that died in car accidents last year.

i gag at the people that think these people signed up for anything other than defending their country, ie war.

Osama claims are there just to set it up...

[Shivetya]

This is the low road. Putting forth all sorts of tinfoil-hat claims just in case it does happen or something even distantly related happens.

It is nothing more advanced than the games we played on the playgrounds. It is childish and shows the levels the campaigns will stoop too.

Far worse than the October surprises are the claims that African Americans will be denied the right to vote by the millions, just as they were before!

Coming in October we should see claims that Senior Citizens will have their medicare and Social Security taken away, that blacks will be hounded by yahoos driving pickups in Texas, and that a certain Chief Executive eats babies.

Get real people.

I would be all for Osama or his Lts. being caught before the election. I don't care WHEN they are caught or killed, just that it happens.

To claim that it only happens because of an election is just to show how immature one side is compared to the other. (and they both STINK)

So I guess you know better than the CIA

[Mal Reynolds]

You say the audio tapes aren't genuine? I guess you know better than the CIA and the rest of the world's intelligence agencies, because they say he is alive.
The audio messages he has taped since the Tora Bora bombing have been confirmed to be Bin Laden's voice. Confirmed by the CIA, the world media, other intelligence agencies, confirmed by the Bin Laden family members and captured Al Quida members. ...
It's provable that some of those messages were taped long after 12/01. Because they mention events that occurred as recently as the past year.
It's also been surmised that Bin Laden got into Pakistan months prior to the US bombings of Tora Bora. He was given months of warning to move, many suspect that's exactly what he did.
General Tommy Franks said recently that there was no firm intelligence that Bin Laden was ever in Tora Bora. Bomb it to hell and back, how could it kill him if he wasn't there?
Why can't he be found? The intelligence community has suggested he uses notes, passed hand to hand, and his taped recordings in order to communicate with his followers. They say he could be in Pakistani badlands or possibly Cashmere. Either location would making finding him neigh on impossible.
There's a big difference between wishful thinking and facts on the ground. Wish him dead with the rest of us, but the facts and most experts believe Osama Bin Laden is still alive.

Re:So I guess you know better than the CIA

[overunderunderdone]

You say the audio tapes aren't genuine? I guess you know better than the CIA and the rest of the world's intelligence agencies, because they say he is alive.

No, as a matter of fact they don't. They *believe* the tapes are genuine, but to quote the CIA press release "the poor quality of the tape made it impossible to verify it was bin Laden's voice with 100 percent certainty." Of course finding WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk", so take the CIA's testimony for what it's worth.

Outside voice experts have concluded that it is NOT genuine. However it is an *extremely* poor quality recording so their methods can't conclude for certain that it is a fake. Of course that cuts the other way too. Those that think it's a fake see the extremely poor quality as an argument in their favor... An impostor would intentionally use poor quality to confound accurate analysis.

Without any absolute proof the CIA and the administration are operating under the assumption that he is alive. But the theory that he is in fact dead, and the tapes are fakes while at odds with the official policy has plenty of adherents. The parent poster overstated the case... we KNOW for a certain fact that a significant number of Al Queada escaped from Tora Bora, but on the other hand we know that an even larger number did NOT. The fact that Bin Laden has not shown his face despite the huge benefit it would be to him to prove to the world that he is alive and operating is awfully suggestive.

His last known location was subjected to heavy bombing shortly after his presence there was confirmed (by radio intercepts). On top of that he was a very sick man in very arduous circumstances without access to the medical care his kidney condition required. The only subsequent proof we have of his continued existence is a very poor quality recording whose authenticity is debated by the experts and unprovable either way. It's possible he's still alive, but I tend to think it's more likely that he is dead.

Re:So I guess you know better than the CIA

[Marxist Hacker 42]

They say he could be in Pakistani badlands or possibly Cashmere. Either location would making finding him neigh on impossible.

Seems to me our Indian friends would support a search of Kashmir for him....they'd even send troops to help.

Osama is dead

[spitzak]

He was almost certainly blasted to bits and buried in a collapesed cave by a missile. Unfortunately there is no way for anybody to conclusively show this, his remains will never be found or identified. His closest followers probably know with some more certainty (because they have not received any communications from him) but they can't be absolutely sure, and besides they sure are not going to announce it.

Now I'm no fan of Bush and I'm going to vote for Kerry, but the administration did a fine and awesome job of punishing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. They were well aware that a successful attack with modern firepower would not leave any proof of the success and open them to criticism, but they did it anyway. Bush may well have been forced to delay his Iraq plans in order to get the job done, the fact that he did so does show a commitment to the real "war on terror".

More nonsense from Twirlip.

[Black Parrot]

> we have no DNA from Osama bin Laden so there's no way for us to positively identify any of the human remains recovered as being from him.

We routinely use relatives' DNA for this kind of thing.

Re:More nonsense from Twirlip.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

"We" do nothing of the sort. Practically speaking, the only thing you can do with a family member's DNA is rule an identification out. Hardly ever can you confirm one. Especially in this case, since there are literally thousands of people alive today who share bin Laden's paternal grandmother's mitochondrial DNA. The old sheikh was prolific, let's put it that way.

When the time came to identify human remains recovered from Ground Zero, families of the victims were asked to provide hairbrushes, toothbrushes, pillowcases, anything that might yield up a DNA sample. Some mtDNA testing was done, but it was largely unsuccessful at identifying specific remains. In only a few cases did mtDNA testing yield results that were sufficiently conclusive to call it a match.

Your sig?

[ImaLamer]

Does anyone else find it distasteful when a draft dodger calls into question the medals of a war hero?

Michael Moore does at least... it's a shame no one else has stepped up.

But you are right, Bush has done very little when it comes to stopping terrorism or Al-Qaeda. In fact he has made it worse. He's created propaganda for Al-Qaeda by attacking Iraq. He's diverted troops from Afghanistan. He hasn't secured the borders. Meanwhile Al-Qaeda has spread to 60 countries and there are new rounds of terrorists in Iraq - if you can call them that. I believe the Iraqi fighters (most) have the right to defend their homeland, most are not Saddam loyalists as Bush charges. Most are religious fanatics who are moving due to the power vaccum created by the decapitation of Iraq.

Price of oil.

[Masker]

I actually think that a major drop in the price of oil & subsequent uptick in the stock market is a possible "October Surprise". Why would they do this?

o Oil is at the 20-year high, ~$50/barrel.
o Prince Bandar bin Sultan has already said (though long enough ago that people have forgotten) he'll step up production to cut prices for the election.
o Even a small drop in oil prices will cause the stock markets to rise.

It's a question of timing, I guess, when to drop prices so that everyone gets a nice gas-pump price reduction, but I'm waiting for it to happen.

Imagine if prices went back down to ~$40/barrel: stock market up, gas prices down & still ~$10/barrel up from a year ago. <sarcasm>Everyone wins!</sarcasm>

Re:Price of oil.

[flyingsquid]

I think it's more likely that the Middle East nations would either cut production or keep it the same. Support for the Bush administration isn't exactly at an all-time high in the Middle East. He's humiliated the Islamic world by invading Iraq, probably scared the hell out of them by turning the place into huge guerilla war, and he hasn't exactly been sympathetic to the Palestinians.

Re:Price of oil.

[Anonymous Coward]

um the middle east countries care about money, not president bush or even their countries "pride"

simply money.

Re:Price of oil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Although OPEC has committed to increasing production caps, it won't have a significant effect because the entire world's production capacity is already near (within 2%? I believe, NPR had a segment about this recently) demand.

There's not enough excess production capacity to lower the price of oil.

We would have to drain the strategic reserve to have any significant effect on prices, and I would guess that if they did anything so drastic, the price of oil would actually go up on fears that the U.S. Government was acting irresponsibly.

I do believe that Bush/Cheney would pull this "October Surprise" if they could, and their backgrounds would lend creedence to this view, but I honestly don't think they have the ability to pull this off.

It's much more likely that a rash of civil disobedience will inspire the re-re-re-re introduction of the "Flag Burning Amendment"

Badnarik as the otober surprise.....

[isotope23]

I think Badnarik's campaign is going to throw some battelground states to kerry, and let him win.

The interesting thing is the main stream media and polling is either prohibiting his name being mentioned, and/or not including him in the polls.
I saw this for myself, as the other night CNN had Penn Jillette on live in Vegas. Although he has publicly endorsed Badnarik, he did not say his name on the air, (although he hinted at it) Big deal you say?

well apparently Fox has prohibited its guests from mentioning him:

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/26/ed. co l.nathan.0926.html

here is the relevant part :

"My friend Dean Ahmad, former treasurer of the national Libertarian Party and a representative of Muslims for Badnarik, was invited to appear on Fox News' ``O'Reilly Factor,'' but was told by the producers not to mention Badnarik's name on the air. "

Now I am not saying conspiracy, but news networks are supposed to be impartial, and what could be more partisan than stopping guests from mentioning a presidential candidate who is on the ballot in 49 states?

I wish someone could get ahold of Penn and verify whether or not he was prohibited from mentioning Badnariks name...

Re:Badnarik as the otober surprise.....

[bmetzler]

Now I am not saying conspiracy, but news networks are supposed to be impartial, and what could be more partisan than stopping guests from mentioning a presidential candidate who is on the ballot in 49 states?

Where do you get this idea that news networks are supposed to be impartial? All media is biased. Fox News just happens to have just about as many people with a liberal bias as a conservative one. Most other news networks have most liberally-biased media. There is no impartial news network.

-Brent

Re:Badnarik as the otober surprise.....

[isotope23]

Bad url, this one should work: registerguard

the October Surprise is in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush will declare war on Iran in October, in order to win the election.

Even more nonsense from Twirlip.

[Black Parrot]

> Especially in this case, since there are literally thousands of people alive today who share bin Laden's paternal grandmother's mitochondrial DNA. The old sheikh was prolific, let's put it that way.

Absent some serious inbreeding, OBL doesn't have any of his paternal grandmother's mDNA.

Re:Even more nonsense from Twirlip.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Ah. Excellent point. Don't know what I was thinking there. My mind wandered for a second.

Re:Even more nonsense from Twirlip.

[nursedave]

Not completely out of the question; Saudi Arabia and indeed the entire peninsula makes West Virginia look tame in the inbreeding department. Marrying your first cousin is highly encouraged there. If you and your cousin have a kid, no problem, according to the American College of Pediatricians. Rinse and repeat a few thousand times, and you have big problems. While working there in a pediatric intensive care unit, I saw problems that resulted from genetic abnormalities directly related to 'consanguinity' (nice word for cousin-fuckin') that I will never see again, no matter where I go in the world. Interesting, but very, very sad.

Re: Even more nonsense from Twirlip.

[Black Parrot]

> Not completely out of the question; Saudi Arabia and indeed the entire peninsula makes West Virginia look tame in the inbreeding department. Marrying your first cousin is highly encouraged there.

Unless I'm miscalculating, the only way you'd have your paternal grandmother's mDNA is if she were also your maternal grandmother - IOW, if Pa and Ma were siblings.

Re:Even more nonsense from Twirlip.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know where we inherit our mitochondria, right? For a health care worker, you seem to be pretty ignorant of basic reproductive science.

> I saw problems that resulted from genetic abnormalities directly related to
> 'consanguinity' (nice word for cousin-fuckin') that I will never see again, no
> matter where I go in the world.

Right, because only Iraqis fuck their cousins to that degree. You don't have to actually see the rest of the world to know what it's like, right? You just know. How utterly parochial.

> Interesting, but very, very sad.

Your post, you mean. Yes, indeedy.

Re:Even more nonsense from Twirlip.

[nursedave]

You do know where we inherit our mitochondria, right? For a health care worker, you seem to be pretty ignorant of basic reproductive science.

Uhm, no, re-read the post, trollboy.

Right, because only Iraqis fuck their cousins to that degree. You don't have to actually see the rest of the world to know what it's like, right? You just know. How utterly parochial.

?? You are a jackass. I wrote of something I witnessed; go read the literature. The Arabian Peninsula is well known for the variance of genetic defects which are direct results from consanguinity. I've never worked anywhere before where part of the preprinted admission assessment of a patient was a 'yes/no' checkbox: Are parents cousins?

Try this link; I have met Dr. Nadia Sakati (one of the doctors who described/named this particular syndrome) and attended lectures she has given on the prevelence of genetic metabolic disorders among Arabs directly resulting from consanguineous relationships. And no, I don't have to see the rest of the world - the medical literature speaks for itself. Sorry if that disturbs you, but hey, as a troll, you probably have a little cousin-fucking in your non-nonbranching family tree, so I can see how my very accurate message could wind you up.

Re:Even more nonsense from Twirlip.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know where we inherit our mitochondria, right?
> Uhm, no, re-read the post, trollboy.

Which one - the one where you say that something that is virtually out of the question is really not out of the question?

> And no, I don't have to see the rest of the
> world - the medical literature speaks for
> itself. Sorry if that disturbs you

What disturbs me is that a supposed health care professional doesn't have even a basic ability to: understand grade school genetics concepts or meaningfully interpret a study related to his own field. Are you sure you're a nurse, and not a dental hygienist?

While genetic disorders suck, inbreeding, as practiced by the Saudis, for example, is not always bad. It has benefits as well as risks, which are only 1 or 2 percent greater for first-cousing mating compared to non-consanguine couples. (Your "fuck your first cousing, rinse and repeat" analogy is a particularly telling bit. You may want to think about that some more).

Finally, it is not very hard to find examples of inbreeding that are similar in style and degree, and it is absurd hyperbole to state that it'll never be found elsewhere, no matter what. I'll give you a hint, scrub-wearer - in our country, and in places other than WV.

In the meantime, you may want to dust off those college books. They need to be read again, stat.

Re:Even more nonsense from Twirlip.

[nursedave]

Are you sure you're a nurse, and not a dental hygienist?

Yep, pretty sure. I hope so anyway, I've been doing it for 10 years.

While genetic disorders suck, inbreeding, as practiced by the Saudis, for example, is not always bad. It has benefits as well as risks, which are only 1 or 2 percent greater for first-cousing mating compared to non-consanguine couples

I can only tell you that you should go read the literature about this statement. You are completely wrong on all counts. I've mentioned earlier that the ACP has 'found' that one incidence of consanguineous birth has only 1-2% greater incidence of genetic defect. The whole point of the post, troll, is that if this occurs for generation after generation, ad nauseum, you end up with genetic defects. That's a fact, hope it doesn't cause you too much stress.

and it is absurd hyperbole to state that it'll never be found elsewhere, no matter what

No, it is fact. There are genetic defects which are limited to certain groups; sickle cell disorder and cystic fibrosis, for example. But these are not confined to these groups. I have taken care of a black child with CF, and a white child with SCD. But there are genetic disorders which are confined to certain groups. In fact, there are genetic disorders in Saudi Arabia (well, the whole of the peninsula) which are confined to specific families/tribes. We knew that if we had an admission with certain disorders/defects, it would be from the al-Otaibi family.

So, basically, everything I said was acurate, and everything you said was bullshit.

I rule.

Re:Even more nonsense from Twirlip.

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote for nursedave. The AC got owned like a Saudi whore. posted AC becuase of weird modding lately with no common sense employed.

News?

[isotope23]

Well, in theory Journalism is supposed to be impartial... One would think that even if they disagreed with him, that a news network would allow public discourse of his ideas. If not, then we as a republic have a major problem.

Re:News?

[bmetzler]

If not, then we as a republic have a major problem.

You're just starting to notice that we have a major problem with the news network? You are a newbie...

Dan Rather using forged memos to run an attack piece on President Bush was just one of a long line of "unbiased" media reporting...

-Brent

Re:News?

[isotope23]

Frankly, I have not paid that much attention to the networks for my news. They seem to have degenerated into "infotainment" the last 4-5 years. My point though is if both liberal and conservative news outlets are not letting a viable (and by that I mean he's on the ballot in 49 states) presidential candidate to be mentioned, then what else is not being mentioned or reported about?

If the corporate handlers have gotten that much control of the press, you can't trust any outlet to try and give you the whole truth.Never mind having a fully informed electorate!

Re:News?

[bmetzler]

Never mind having a fully informed electorate!

I'm sorry, is that a right now to have the media make people "fully informed"? What happened to the constitutional right to a free press?

-Brent

Kerry Burning and Urinating on the American Flag

[kruelio]

I've read that the Swift Vets have video of Kerry burning and American flag at a rally during his anti-war days after coming back from Vietnam. While it's burning he's urinating on it.

Others say that description is like a game of telephone. What they say the video shows is a group of people marching with Kerry at the rally start burning an American flag and Kerry is standing next to them and doesn't try to stop them at all.

Either way, it should be interesting to see what happens this month.

Hoping to hit my trifecta...

[mmdurrant]

1. The capture of Osama Bin Laden Oct 21-23
2. The sharp decrease in the price of gasoline Oct 12->Nov 2
3. Funny business in California in 2004 like Florida in 2000. I don't think it will be the same funny business, but there will definitely be some kind of tomfoolery in the election process.

coincidence theory

[Doc Ruby]

Here's a scene worthy of Karl Rove: after a terrorist attack somewhere scares the bejeezus out of Americans the week before Election Day (Hallowe'en week), the now totally suspect Department of Homeland Security that Cried Wold tells everyone that there's actually no threat, no response, go about your business. (Bush) voters in rural and anonymouse suburban districts believe their fearless leaders, but (Kerry) voters in cities with actually valid terrorist targets leave town for the weekend. If only a couple percent more urban voters than rural/suburban voters fail to vote on Big Tuesday, because they stayed out of town, or got backlogged for a couple of days when they returned, Bush wins a tight election. And what could anyone say? Whay kind of lawsuit could be brought if nothing indeed happened to follow up?

Re:Kerry Burning and Urinating on the American Fla

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry was kissing Vanessa in the girl's restroom while they both ditched the Flag Day presentation? Incredible.

Peak Oil--- Coming to a nation near you!

[ksemlerK]

Terrorism, and a lapse economy are great to bitch about for effecting the outcome of an election, but what about something of global importance, such as peak oil? Peak oil is the greatest threat to not only the United States, but to the very life of consumerism that has gripped the globe. If you thought the battle of OSS is important, then the coming global oil crisis will be not only endangering the microsoft empire, but all of society.

They will find WMD in Iraq

[cylcyl]

This campaign boils down to the voter stance on the war in Iraq. So, if they manufacture a "find" of WMD (planted with stuff we got from Russia wholesale), it will turn the election. Because Bush and co will be vindicated in the view that Iraq was a threat and they were right to move in and remove him.

Either that, or we have Saddam say that he had an on-going WMD prog that he hid / destroyed in the last minute

Maybe the real surprise...

[m3talsling3r]

Is a third party land slide! http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart =1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=badnarik+cobb&ima ge1.x=0&image1.y=0

It won't be Bin Laden

[mabu]

Considering how Bush has avoided saying Bin Laden's name for the last few years, I'm inclined to not expect him to turn up before the election. If the administration had any hopes of showing up with him before the election, I can't imagine they'd try to get the American people to forget who he is like they've been doing.

Whatever the October surprise is going to be, I suspect it will turn up right before the election, not leaving any time for thorough investigation into the legitimacy of whatever stunt the administration may pull to affect last minute voting.

October ends in Halloween, so maybe . . .

[nullportal]

Perhaps they finally will start howling about Kerry's expressed friendship and support of Anton LeVay (deceased) and his Church of Satan in San Francisco. This sort of thing matters most to the Christian sector, but probably has at least some sway in Centrist circles (which really matter at the moment) because of the Church of Satan's long term promotion of S&M as ritually important, (loooooong before it was all over the internet, or had even intruded into most porno mags) and the pedo-aspects of some of it. (The "temple" housing the Church of Satan in San Francisco was taken over by a long term friend of LeVay who is either currently in prison for, or was some time back in prison for, statutory rape, which seemed to involve his religious practices.)

Heck, the Muslims will be really thrilled to know they are to experience "reach out" from a guy who figures posing for smiling photos with the founder of the Church of Satan is just one of those things we all do to be tolerant and PC.

Re:October ends in Halloween, so maybe . . .

[nullportal]

Of course, a quick Google of "Anton LeVay" and "Kerry" shows that the whole alleged meeting was a HOAX. That hasn't stopped hoaxed crap about 9/11 not being terrorist activity, etc., from gaining influence though. Michael Moore hoaxes to the tune of millions in profit. Seems the season to play any trick in the book, I'd say. Further, I qoute the Lord God on High Himself, Dan Rather, who informs us that we must not pay attention to whether the documents in question are hoaxes but rather whether the "spirit of the story" is correct.

Old news

[bheer]

It's already been reported!

Re Your Sig

[bheer]

Does anyone else find it distasteful when a draft dodger calls into question the medals of a war hero?

Does anyone else find it distasteful when a loony-left senator with a near-perfect ADA voting record and a record of dissing "rapist" American troops to boost his sorry political ass "reports for doody" at his convention with a totally gay salute?

I know war heroes. I have one in my family. The current Dem nominee is many things to me, but 'hero' is not the word that comes to my mind.

MOD PARENT UP

[Tyndmyr]

Absolutely correct. More military force is the last think needed against what is essentially grillia warefare(in Iraq), and a massive search mission for Al Queda, which is more suited for police than for military in some respects, seeing as how we dont specialize in detective work.

Grandparent was nothing more than optimistic, unfounded crap of the level Id expect to hear from one of our trusted government officials.

Kerry captures Osama !!!

[gomel]

Trust me, my sources tell me that Osama is beeing held at an undisclosed location in France by the Chirac militiamen ( they call themeselfes La Gendarmerie).

On October 31 Kerry will bring him in on a Swift Boat.

NOT the military...

[CSG_SurferDude]

From the Mission statement linked to from The United States Secret Service, a branch of the United States Treasury Department.

MISSION STATEMENT The United States Secret Service is mandated by statute and executive order to carry out two significant missions: protection and criminal investigations. The Secret Service protects the President and Vice President, their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; investigates threats against these protectees; protects the White House, Vice President's Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and plans and implements security designs for designated National Special Security Events. The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure.

Please, in the future, be more accurate when referring to people whose arguably most important job is to take a bullet for the president (Officer Leslie Coffelt and Special Agent Tim McCarthy, see question six).

OSQ

[Anonymous Coward]

What would surprise me is if Bush and Kerry jointly announced that they have both been living a lie, and are both gay lovers.

They aren't gay, they are merely exchanging long protein strings. If you can think of a simpler way, I'd like to hear it.