Gearing Up for Rove's Pre-Election "Surprises"

[CrisisPapers]

| Bernard Weiner |

Karl Rove & Co., feeling themselves freed from the bipartisan torture albatross hanging around their necks as a result of having rolled the GOP-rebel senators, are moving toward the "October surprises" they've been hinting at.

What those surprises might be range from announcing the capture or death of Osama bin Laden to a surgical strike on Iran's fledgling nuclear program to ignoring the signs of a possible major terrorist attack against the U.S., or, conversely, announcing that they've foiled a frightening urban bomb plot. Or all of the above, and more.

Yes, of course Rove and his minions can count on their usual bag of electoral stratagems and dirty tricks on Election Day: knocking hundreds of thousands of minority voters in various key states off the voting rolls, requiring photo-IDs (often difficult for poor and rural folks to get - a new kind of "poll tax") in order to cast a ballot, helping create new Swift Boat-type organizations to slime Democratic opponents with millions of dollars of TV ads, relying on corrupted e-voting machines and suspect vote-counting, and so on. But they've done most of those things for five years now.

No, my guess is that, given Bush's and the GOP's abysmally low poll numbers, the "surprise" is going to have to be something truly stunning if the Republicans want to avoid losing control of the House on November 7.

AN OSAMA BIN LADEN "SURPRISE"

The Republicans have little positive to run on. Virtually every initiative they touch turns into a disaster, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Katrina to the EPA telling lies about air quality at Ground Zero to Bush's ongoing plan to privatize Social Security to a stagnant economy. So the Busheviks are left with their old standby: frighten the crap out of the electorate on terror and taxes. That's it.

If the big "surprise" turns out to be a confirmation of the French/Saudi report that bin Laden died in late-August as a result of a typhus infection, Americans might well wonder why Rove and his crew, who obviously knew about this a long time ago, waited six weeks for just the right pre-election moment to have it officially announced.

In addition, a bit of caution is in order here. In the world of well-orchestrated psy-ops, let us remember that the convenient rumored death of bin Laden could be of great service to the Republicans in garnering votes and support for Election Day.

Well, lookee here, sometime after November 7, there's another little "surprise": It turns out the reports of bin Laden's death were greatly exaggerated, and he's still around. Whoops, our bad.

Not saying that scenario would happen, but stranger things have.

ROLL OUT THE TERROR PLOTS

By demanding that the Brits arrest the alleged "liquid-bomb" airline plotters immediately, way before the police there wanted, the Bush Administration demonstrated for all to see that it had no problems compromising a huge anti-terrorism investigation; the British authorities were working to ensnare more cell-members and get to the higher-ups, but Rove wanted what he wanted and he wanted it now.

In addition, as we later learned, reputable scientists showed that the "liquid bombs" these alleged conspirators supposedly were going to use would have been virtually impossible to mix on an airplane.

But the arrests accomplished what Rove wanted: a scary scenario that Republican candidates could point to as a demonstration-model for why the GOP should be left in charge of the nation's national security. Didn't matter if the alleged plot was real or not, or hyped way beyond its true nature, or prematurely revealed for partisan political reasons, or any of that.

The point is that the Bush-friendly corporate media ate up the "imminent" terror scenario, and the story dominated the news cycles for several days, thus imprinting fright back into voters' minds. In some polls, this news plus Bush's pounding the fear theme in his 9/11 speeches has been enough to send him up a few points.

It will be interesting to see how much Bush's numbers plummet after this weekend's news that America's spying agencies unanimously have concluded, in their top-secret National Intelligence Estimate, that Bush's war and occupation in Iraq have made the U.S. less secure, not more. This is a HUGE dagger aimed at the heart of a CheneyBush Administration that claims its wars of choice have helped make us all safer.

PLANTING THE NEW SEEDS FOR WAR

It's "deja vu all over again." A Middle East leader is demonized as evil incarnate; he is alleged to be eager to develop nuclear weapons; his regime cracks down on many freedoms and handles reformers harshly; he is threatening to Israel; he is avoiding complying with U.N. resolutions; the U.S. is building a coalition in opposition to his policies; a special Administration group is organized to "market" the runup to war, etc. No, we're not talking about Saddam Hussein; he's yesterday's villain. His replacement in 2006 is Iran's President Ahmed Ahmadinejad.

The Bush Administration has been laying the foundations for an attack on Iran for many months, in a manner highly reminiscent of the run-up to its attack on Iraq. The justification for an attack on Iran, especially a bombing attack on its nuclear-program facilities, is that Iran may be planning to someday move its legal civilian atomic-energy program into a military mode by preparing to build nuclear weapons; so, reason the Busheviks, better to attack Iran now, while its atomic program is in its infancy. Doing so five or ten years down the line, this reasoning goes, would be too late without facing grave damage to our own forces. The Bush "pre-emption" policy: hit 'em while they're relatively defenseless.

Of course, Iran, unlike Iraq, is not a military paper-tiger. Even without WMD, Iran could wield enormous military and political power in the region, and around the world. Venezuela, for instance, says if the U.S. attacks Iran, all Venezuelan oil shipments to America will be halted.

Both Time and The Nation have reported that U.S. naval forces are preparing to head toward the Iran area. Special Forces have been trained in laying mines in the Straits of Hormuz; that narrow bottleneck, if Iran were to sink major vessels there, could halt Iran's supply of oil to the West. Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner says the U.S. already has inserted special forces into Iran in preparation for a coming attack. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh many months ago reported that the U.S. was gearing up for such a conflict, with many high-ranking American officers deeply opposed and leaking the likelihood of such an attack to the media.

In short, the Bush Administration seems to be following the neo-con time schedule, with an attack on Iran just around the corner. It would seem politically suicidal for the CheneyBush Administration to launch such bombing prior to November 7, but you never know with this bunch. They might believe that Americans would not dare to change governments in the middle of another war - rally 'round the President and Flag and all that. If the attack were not to come pre-Election Day, then, one would anticipate, it will come shortly thereafter.

THE POLITICS OF TORTURE

All actions taken by the Bush Administration from about six months ago up to November 7 have one goal and one goal only: to aid the Republicans stay in control of the House, or, at the least, to limit the damage in this possible Democratic-sweep year. These Bush guys will say anything, do anything, to remain in power. After Election Day, of course, their M.O. is to go back to being their true selves - a truly revolting prospect, that - and an attack on Iran certainly would qualify in that regard.

Back to torture. Bush & Co. would have been badly harmed politically if the torture brouhaha hadn't seemed like it had been "solved." Rove's intent all along had been to force the Democrats into a terrible choice: 1) Either vote for Bush's bill on torture/military tribunals and thus give the Administration a blank-check while selling out their principles by their acquiescence; or, 2) oppose the bill and be tarred by Republicans as "unpatriotic" or soft-on-terrorism "appeasers."

Democrats chose to sit on the sidelines during the initial struggle between McCain/Graham/Warner and the White House on the language in the bill. The Dems hoped that the so-called Republican rebels would force a capitulation on Bush's part, so they wouldn't have to take him on and risk any political capital. Either that or the GOP "moderates" would stick to their guns and, joined by the Democrats, make sure the bill stayed bottled-up in committee prior to the November election.

Well, as it turned out, it was the so-called "moderate" Republicans who caved, and Bush got such mushy language into the agreed-to "compromise" that basically the CIA is free to continue torturing suspects pretty much as in the past five years, and now the military interrogators will be forced to remain in the room while it happens. Bush made a minor concession or two, but even those are open to loopholes big enough to accommodate a large CIA truck carrying waterboards.

DEMOCRATS BETWEEN ROCK & HARD PLACE

In short, the Democrats are on their own here on this issue - exactly where Rove hoped to position them. As I write this, there appears to be no consensus among the Democrats as to how they should react to Rove's successful ploy - not even to attempt to delay the final vote on the bill past Election Day.

Some Democratic leaders believe the Dems could well take the prize in November, and thus their candidates should just keep their heads down and their powder dry and ride out the next six weeks. Why risk anything when the signs are looking so good, especially with the Republicans constantly shooting themselves in the feet?

The more activist Dems feel that the tactic of running out the clock is stupid, and potentially dangerous. They are of the "best defense is a good offense" frame of mind. The Republicans, they argue, have oodles of cash on hand, and Swift-Boating-type PACs dedicated to smearing Dem candidates; without a vigorous Dem offense - especially on Iraq and Bush's mishandling of national-security - the momentum they've built up could dissipate and the Republicans could continue their domination of the House, especially given some illegal fiddling with the vote totals in certain tight races.

I see the advantage of the first Democratic strategy, but lean more toward the second. The GOP, thanks to the incompetence, recklessness and lawlessness of the Bush Administration, is vulnerable right now. Don't let them get off the mat and back into the fight. Hit 'em and hit 'em hard; possible topics:

• How Bush & Co. policies have weakened our national security.


• Their disastrous "stay-the-course-over-the-cliff" strategy in Iraq and their failure to secure Afghanistan when it could have been secured.


• Their callous disregard for the lives of poor Americans, as became clear after Katrina.


• Their devoting the bulk of their tax cuts to the already wealthy thus leaving the struggling middle-class to their own devices. (Factor in Bush's ongoing plan to privatize Social Security after the election.)


• Their not supporting the troops properly in-theatre (stretching them way too thin, not providing the proper armoring and equipment, etc).


• Engaging in torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons around the world.


• Failure of the Veterans Administration to well-serve the vets when they come back home maimed and wounded. And on and on, certainly including the likelihood of huge Guard and Reserve callups in Iraq and maybe for Iran as well.

STANDING UP FOR DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

Republican-lite is just not good enough any more. If the Dems are to avoid being regarded as an opposition party in name only, they must stand up and let the voters know how, and in what ways, they are different from the Republicans.

The GOP - as a result of its arrogance, corruption and reckless behavior - is ripe for a fall, and so many traditional Republications and moderate conservatives are just looking for an excuse to desert them at the polls. But if the Democrats don't seem to be standing for anything, they can be demonized easily by Rove & Co, and those wayward Republicans might well vote for the devil they know rather than for those wishy-washy Democrats.

There isn't a helluva lot of time to play with here, friends. The Democrats have to make their voices heard loud and clear from now until November 7. If they choose not to, the risk is very real that Bush&Co. will take them, and the country, down with them in the next two years.

Sound like so much partisan scare tactics? I wish it were. Unfortunately, I think I'm being much too cautious in my conclusions. As we've come to know more in the past year, this Bush crew is way worse than we ever thought, or feared. November may be the best, and perhaps only, chance in a generation to take them down.

-- BW

[bonito]

1. Kick

[Kajsa]

2. This should be read by all.

Another Kick and Recommended.

:kick:

[mom cat]

3. Excellent analysis. Thanks for posting this!

[cascadiance]

4. The key question on an "October Surprise" is "Was it planned?"

A lot of what's noted here SHOULD be "spontaneous" events, if they are truly not manipulated events, and aren't something we should have known in advance of their happening, without doing something to prevent them. That doesn't stop the Rove types from doing manipulation of this sort, but if make VERY clear that the only "October surprise" that he can be talking about now that is REAL, is something they've already planned and will release then. If it is a terrorist plot, or an attack on Iran, then they indict themselves as either being involved in a criminal conspiracy, or at being incompetent in not stopping such events from happening if they weren't involved in orchestrating them.

Therefore:
1) If it is a Bin Laden death confirmation "surprise", then we need to do the homework to find out when they knew of this "confirmation", and if it is revealed they held back information from the American public, we should yell loudly in protest that they aren't providing information to the public in a timely fashion and are instead using it to manipulate elections. If we can do more confirmation of the early release of info on the "liquids" bomb plot being manipulated by Bushco, then that together with this will form a strong case that they're trying to use timing of release of important info for manipulation rather than keeping us informed.

2) Terror plots. ANY terror plot that Karl Rove knows about now, should be stopped by October. NO excuses if they don't. It wouldn't be something to brag about publicly anyway in advance, especially if Al Queda suspects that they might be onto some of their plots anyway. The only "October surprise" would be something truly spontaneous then, which wouldn't be something that Karl Rove should know about now, without being at least guilty of a LIHOP conspiracy with it.

And Karl Rove bragging about such an event as an "October Surprise" would expose their intent of manipulating information, not keeping us informed.

3) Iran war. What could Karl Rove know NOW that he knows would happen in October about the situation in Iran that shouldn't be given to the American public NOW. If he is shown to have waited to expose such information until then, again, it exposes their intent of manipulating information to the public on such important events. we shouldn't also be planning for a war yet that we don't have substantive reasons for conducting just yet. I just can't think of anything that a president could legitimately "wait" to release in October that would be justified in waiting that long to release on this subject.

4) Torture. Unless there's some investigation who's planned release of some "report" is in October that shows Bushco somehow "justified" at wanting his increased liberties in torturing (and perhaps domestic spying also fits here too), there doesn't seem to be a reason again for hiding such efforts now if it is going to be released to the public later.

I ask then, what kind of things could Karl Rove brag about NOW legitimately before giving out information about it substantively in October. Perhaps a little speculation here...

1) Some breakthrough alternative energy strategy with a new technology that had been worked on, and perhaps his corporate buddies choose to announce just then. That might help him champion that Bushco and corporate America is more environmentally conscious and less in need for concern regarding the concerns brought up about global warming by Al Gore. Not preannouncing product technologies before corporations are ready might be what they consider as a legitimate excuse for not talking about it now.

2) Some new "jobs program" venture or something like that with Vincente Fox/Calderon (that's "taken a long time to put together before making it public") that will try and make it look like Bushco is finding other solutions to the problems with immigration. Perhaps once again, there are "logistics issues" and corporate partners plans, etc. that they can rationalize can't be exposed now and had to wait until then.

3) Perhaps some big name DLC Democrat or two (like one of the Ben Nelsons, or former Democrat Joseph Lieberman) announcing that they are Republicans then. Political theater for such events I guess can always be excused in the world of politics. It might sound nasty, but that might fit his "October surprise".

4) A Universal Health Care program announced that has details that don't upset the existing health insurance companies, but can be championed by the likes of the automakers, etc. of taking the cost burdens off of companies and everyone who's insured, which is creating problems for companies like the automakers competing globally now. Such a plan might take some time to put together, and probably can be excused for it being released to the public in late October.

I'm sure there are others out there. But I have to believe that some of those mentioned earlier that really demand spontaneity to be "effective" and "legitimate" October surprises, can't be known about and bragged about now by the likes of Karl Rove.