Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

Campaigns Wary About October Surprise 165

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-could-make-a-few-up dept.
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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Campaigns Wary About October Surprise More

Campaigns Wary About October Surprise

Comments Filter:

  • Didn't you know? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 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 co

    • Re:Didn't you know? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dasunt ( 249686 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @11:14AM (#10419785)

      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? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rayonic ( 462789 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @11:16AM (#10419789) Homepage Journal
      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? (Score:2, Interesting)

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

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

      • 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?
        • > 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.
      • 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 accomp

    • Re:Didn't you know? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Sunday October 03, 2004 @11:52AM (#10420057)
      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.
      • 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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by sg3000 ( 87992 ) * <<sg_public> <at> <mac.com>> on Sunday October 03, 2004 @12:47PM (#10420422)
        > 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.
        • "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
      • 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.
      • 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.

      • 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 (Score:4, Interesting)

          by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Monday October 04, 2004 @01:56AM (#10425680)
          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 [bbc.co.uk] 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.
        • 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.


      • > 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.

        • "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


          • > 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.

      • 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

      • 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 p
      • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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. [msn.com]

      There was Wall to Wall [channelone.com] coverage of his First day in court [cbsnews.com], in July.

      LK

    • Re:Didn't you know? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RWerp ( 798951 )
      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? (Score:4, Funny)

      by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @01:04PM (#10420544) Journal

      There's no need to capture your employees.

  • What would really be a surprise (Score:5, Funny)

    by KilobyteKnight ( 91023 ) <bjm.midsouth@rr@com> on Sunday October 03, 2004 @10:51AM (#10419652) Homepage
    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.

  • Definitely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vijaya_chandra ( 618284 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @10:51AM (#10419655)
    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

    • 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

  • Unforeseen Media Gaffe Amplification (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @10:53AM (#10419662) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • terrorist swing voters? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AdamBa ( 64128 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @11:28AM (#10419886) Homepage
    Half-amusing, half-scary piece from kausfiles [msn.com] (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

    • That's actually true, though. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nomihn0 ( 739701 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @12:28PM (#10420301)
      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.

      • ---
        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. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rosie_bhjp ( 40538 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @02:41PM (#10421207) Homepage
          Yes because Israel has proved that killing a movement's leaders is so effective at nullifying the movement.

          Oh wait...

          • > 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 th

          • 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?

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


        • > 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. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @11:40PM (#10424457)
        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.
        • 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

  • No telling what it'll be... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jim Starx ( 752545 ) <{JStarx} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday October 03, 2004 @11:43AM (#10419997)
    But I bet it'll be a new low in dirty politics.

  • Bush - gone? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rueger ( 210566 ) * on Sunday October 03, 2004 @12:07PM (#10420162) Homepage
    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?

    • 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 can
      • 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? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jesrad ( 716567 )
      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.
      • 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
      • > 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.

      • 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...

      • 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.


    • > 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.

  • 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).


    • > 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.

    • 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 speculaito

  • A quick thought. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Sunday October 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#10420536) Homepage Journal
    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. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sg3000 ( 87992 ) * <<sg_public> <at> <mac.com>> on Sunday October 03, 2004 @03:10PM (#10421420)
      > 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.

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

        Michael Moore does at least [mintruth.com]... 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
      • > 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.
    • 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.

  • didn't Osama need a dialysis machine? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by taxman_10m ( 41083 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @02:23PM (#10421087)
    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.

  • Osama claims are there just to set it up... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @04:08PM (#10421812) Homepage Journal
    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)
  • 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

  • Price of oil. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Masker ( 25119 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @06:51PM (#10422777)
    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 [wtrg.com], ~$50/barrel.
    o Prince Bandar bin Sultan [forbes.com] 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 [smartmoney.com] 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>

  • Badnarik as the otober surprise..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Sunday October 03, 2004 @07:27PM (#10422962) Homepage Journal
    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...
    • 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

      • 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.
    • Bad url, this one should work: registerguard [registerguard.com]
  • 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 coupl
  • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Monday October 04, 2004 @04:44PM (#10433291)
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close