Gary Hart: The October Surprise

[ProSense]

Gary Hart
09.23.2006

The October Surprise

It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election.

Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times.

Snip...

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

Therefore, he will announce, our own national security and the security of the region requires us to act. "Tonight, I have ordered the elimination of all facilities in Iran that are dedicated to the production of weapons of mass destruction....." In the narrowest terms this includes perhaps two dozen targets.

Snip...

In more rational times, including at the height of the Cold War, bizarre actions such as unilateral, unprovoked, preventive war are dismissed by thoughtful, seasoned, experienced men and women as mad. But those qualities do not characterize our current leadership.

For a divinely guided president who imagines himself to be a latter day Winston Churchill (albeit lacking the ability to formulate intelligent sentences), and who professedly does not care about public opinion at home or abroad, anything is possible, and dwindling days in power may be seen as making the most apocalyptic actions necessary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-october-surprise_b_30086.html

[NOLADEM]

1. I have said it before...If they trail in Nov before the polls, bomb Iran

That is the plan...

If they trail heading in to the vote, they will attack the nuke plants with Israel as our wing man.

They are fucking lunatics.

[Kierkegaard]

4. I don't follow your logic.

How is bombing another sovereign nation going to help the punks at the polls? An astonishing number of Americans are already pissed off about the Iraq war. It would seem to me that starting another one would only make things worse (for them.)

Attempting to declare martial law wouldn't make much sense, either. How many people would stand for that? I think that would probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Torch & pitchfork time.


Lunatics, yes. They are certainly that.

[blm]

6. Because Iran will strike back - and so will terrorists, and corpmedia will

convince just enough people that only the Republicans understand the threat.

Gary Hart has their number - and the corpmedia has their talking points as soon as Karl turns on the fax machines.

[ProSense]

9. Bush is grasping for straws,

I wouldn't put it past him to threaten action.

[Kierkegaard]

11. Iran can't really deploy a military retaliation against the US.

I can see them triggering off a series of terrorist attacks here, but will it be in time to affect the outcome of an election? Seems unlikely.

The attacks could get me to change my mind on the martial law theory, though. I think they have been looking for an excuse to side-step dealing with the general public for a long time. Once in place, the declaration would allow them to do whatever they want under the guise of national security. It's the last step to complete control.

[blm]

12. Iran isn't in control of all the terror groups - and it wouldn't take much

for some lone wolf operation to launch even a small attack that WOULD get magnified by BushInc.

Right now Bill Gertz, Moonie propagandist, is hawking a book on all the shows that claims there are 10 major cities in the US that have Hezbollah cells operating today.

I doubt this is just another lucky coincidence for Bushinc.

[Kierkegaard]

14. Unfortunately, "it wouldn't take much" is not something you'd

bank on if you were planning to bomb another country for the sake of winning an election. I still think the election is inconsequential to what is happening on the Iran front. It's just a 'bonus' for them. Bigger fish to fry and all that.

[tblue37]

33. Why outsource the job?

BushCo could probably manage such an attack on their own.

[gumby]

19. Iran can most certainly deploy a military retaliation.

First, our troops in Iraq would be devastated.

Then, the Naval fleet that has been deployed will be targeted.

Israel will be a target.

War ALWAYS sways voters. If our troops in Iraq are attacked by Iran (which will be inevitable if Bush attacks Iran)..... then you figure it out.

[Kierkegaard]

21. I still don't buy it. I contend that it isn't an election they're after.

Launching a preemptive strike amid the heat of an anti-war America doesn't make any sense as an election strategy to me. It's like trying to drive a nail with a D9 bulldozer. Serious overkill, and a very poor strategy. It could backfire very easily.

Plus, the timing isn't good. Waaaay late in the cycle to have a predictable result.

I just hope, for whatever their motivation, that it doesn't happen. For everyone's sake.

[gumby]

23. I agreed with you later in this thread.

My point is that you are thinking as a "reality based" person.

My point is that BushCo doesn't think like that. You are weighing things like election results, timing and strategy. Rational thought is "old school" to BushCo. Doncha know that they "create their own reality"??????

[Kierkegaard]

25. Yes, I totally understand that.

There doesn't seem to be much rational thought behind any of their actions.

To condense a bit: my point is what do they care who gets elected? They're going to do whatever they want anyway. That's one of the reasons that I believe that election results are one of the least of their concerns. There's something more sinister behind this, like executing the next step in the PNAC agreement. Who knows?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Their biggest fear is a Dem takeover of Congress

They would still be able to do a lot, but they wouldn't be able to meet with Congressional leaders behind closed doors and exclude the Dems from discussions. The more forthright anti-war, pro-civil liberties Dems could prevail upon the Dem committee chairs to keep the Republicanite initiatives from ever reaching the floor.

In other words, they're afraid that the Dems will do to them what they've been doing to the Dems for the past five years.

[HamdenRice]

37. Two words: subpoena power

This has been all over the blogosphere and even the mainstream media. If the Democrats take either house, the committees in that house will have Democratic chairmen who can subpoena administration officials to testify under oath.

That means real investigations -- everything from Cheney's energy task force, 9/11, fake intelligence, catastrophic war planning, torture, war crimes, Katrina. At the end of the day it means a very, very real chance of impeachment, removal from office and long prison terms.

As Sy Hersh the bush people are terrified of losing control of either house of Congress.

They will do anyting to save their stinking carcasses as this point, even bomb Iran.

[Kierkegaard]

39. That's a fairly good point, but still, being cynical as I am,

I have to bring up the administration's attempts to change laws to retroactively legalize a sizable chunk of their wrongdoing. Once they are done slicing & dicing, they may be guilty of nothing...

You may be right, but I'm still dubious about a preemptive attack on Iran being a smart 'October Surprise.'

And, I'm getting a kick out of playing devil's advocate. :P

[NOLADEM]

7. The public blindly rallies around military action at first

They only need a week or two.

[Kierkegaard]

10. The timing seems dubious. Right when people are beginning

to wake up and smell the coffee? Seems a little rash, with little chance of success. I also believe that their motives are far more dubious than winning an election. Martial law is much more plausible, as it would render the outcome of the election moot, and allow them to continue on with impunity, slash away at more of our civil rights and pretty much do whatever they damn well please.

Of course, I can't put anything past this band of bastards. They are ruthless, evil and hell-bent on destroying as much as they can before they are forcibly removed from power (I believe that is what it will probably come down to.)

[tavalon]

31. Exactly!

The bounce will be just enough and for just long enough to be able to keep the Rethugs in power.

[gumby]

18. The punks don't care about the polls.

All they care about is ideology.

They don't care who is 'pissed off.'

All they care about is ideology.

That ideology says that Our Dear Leader *must* bomb Iran to go down in history as the "Visionary."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Because there's a certain segment of the population

that is always ready to "kick ass," and they really don't care whose ass is kicked.

They're the chronically angry types who can't blame themselves for their misfortunres (because they're perfect) and can't blame the system (because America is perfect), so they have a lot of free-floating anger with nowhere else to go.

They are the right-wingers' base, and if Bush says it's time to invade Iran, they'll be putting the flags on their car aerials and beating up Iranian immigrants, even though none of them could find Iran on a map or tell you anything about the country.

[C_U_L8R]

2. how about this for a surprise???

a democratic october surprise !!!

[Vinca]

3. If they actually bomb Iran pre-election, I think it will backfire

big time. I think voters will flock to the polls to vote out anyone endorsing a sequel to "George and Rummy's Excellent Adventure."

[Kierkegaard]

5. Make that "Bogus Journey"

I agree. I don't think it could help them based on the general demeanor of the American public right now.

[Ignacio Upton]

34. It will also cause oil prices to skyrocket

The one reason why Bush's job approval will continue to climb higher is because of oil prices. If Bush bombs Iran, then oil prices will climb past their summer peak in an instant. If oil prices spike because of the bombing, especially if we find out that the attack did nothing to deter Iran, then the "October Surprise" will mean the end of the Republican Congressional Majority.

[ProSense]

8. Bush's options on Iran

ROBERT KUTTNER

Bush's options on Iran

By Robert Kuttner | September 23, 2006

IRAN'S PRESIDENT, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, did his best to insult President Bush and offend American public opinion during his visit to the United Nations. His performance was primarily for consumption back home, where baiting the Americans and outraging the Israelis plays well.

But if Ahmadinejad played right into Bush's axis-of-evil imagery, Bush's options for dealing with Iran are far from attractive. They basically boil down to three: starting a messy war with Iran; pursuing a policy of containment, as we did for four decades with that other evil empire, the Soviet Union; or constructively engaging with Iran and negotiating a rapprochement, as Henry Kissinger accomplished with yet another seemingly implacable and rhetorically ferocious foe, then known as Red China.

Snip...

The Century Foundation has just published a sobering paper by Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel and one of the military's most respected specialists on war simulation, playing out likely scenarios and projecting probable results. Two years ago, Gardiner conducted such an exercise for Atlantic Monthly. His latest update, ``The End of the Summer of Diplomacy: Assessing US Military Options on Iran" (available at www.tcf.org) is even more chilling.

Gardiner writes, ``One source of the momentum in Washington for a strike on Iran's nuclear program is the strategic observation that if such an attack is inevitable, then it is better done sooner than later." But is war with Iran really inevitable? After calculating the likely course, benefits, and costs, Gardiner thinks not.

US intelligence about the extent and location of Iran's nuclear facilities has serious gaps, according to a report by the House Intelligence committee cited by Gardiner. Analysts are widely divided about how many years away Iran is from being able to produce an operational bomb. ``Paradoxically," Gardiner writes, ``these gaps in intelligence produce not caution, but further pressure to attack."

For political cynics who believe Bush, Cheney, and Karl Rove would stop at nothing to hold onto power, a first strike against Iran would be the ultimate preelection ``October surprise."

more...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/23/bushs_options_on_iran

Nothing would stop Bush from threatening action. No telling what these kooks would cook up if there is a threat to Bush's presidency!

[ProSense]

13. They're even producing polls:

[AspenRose]

15. Please help me understand

If a majority of Americans are AGAINST the Iraq war, how in the WORLD could bombing Iran HELP republicans in November (except to fire up their base)? Is it worth firing up the base, only to lose the squishy middle/majority of people?

It just doesn't make sense....

[ProSense]

16. First,

help me understand the poll at post 13!

You're right, it doesn't makes sense!

[JerseygirlCT]

17. The idea is that, as in the aftermath of 9-11, Americans tend

to rally around the president (whoever that might be) in a time of war.

I would desperately hope that we've learned a hard lesson about that. But that hope may be naive.

[Cosmocat]

36. Has ANYTHING ...

this crew has done the last 6 years "made sense" ??? Honestly ... Starting with running a complete moron for president and running him on the "a guy you would have a beer with" meme ... Pretty retarded, right ... But, they played the margins and bullied their way into making it work, and have used the MO for 6 years now ...

This stuff makes NO sense to rationale people, but we are not 6 years into Bushco cause this country has been particularly enamored with rationale thought ...

The playbook is the playbook ... Wait until a week or two before the elections ... Start bombing the heck out of Iran ... Get the MSM cranked up on patriotism ... Claim that we have our troops in harms way, and that is not good to "change course" during a time of heightened military action, and that the Ds are soft and only the Rs know how to support our troops ...

Unmitigated and bald faced crap, to you and me ... The same shit that "worked" for them OFTEN the last 6 years ...

Iran ... IF they somehow don't open up on Iran before the elections, and the Ds manage to win at least one side of congress, you can BOOK that they WILL start up with Iran before the year is out, because they don't want the Ds pulling back his "war powers" before he gets the chance to open up on Iran ...

[brentspeak]

20. Normally, I would think the idea of Bush attacking Iran is just paranoia

But seeing that this is written by Gary Hart, one of the most intelligent writers on politics, period, makes me worry that this otherwise ridiculous scenario has a possibility of becoming reality.

[flaminbats]

22. Iran was part of Bush's axis of evil..

the others also included Iraq and North Korea. I have always doubted he would attack North Korea, but after Iraq was invaded..I've suspected that Iran would soon be next!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. He would not attack North Korea because

1) South Korea would inevitably suffer from spillover as the North took revenge

2) A survey of young Koreans a couple years ago showed that a majority would support the North if the U.S. attacked it

Those are literally their cousins, after all.

[leanin_green]

32. Not to mention, the ROK Army is a very disciplined force.

Before North Korea became what it is today, I met some ROK Marines while I
was serving in Okinawa as a Navy Corpsman with our Marines. Even in the 70's they were deserving of respect.

Bullies like Bush only pick on those they think they can beat. But I wouldn't be too sure about Iran. I believe they would give us quite a black eye in a fight.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Oh, I know they would

The youth of Iran are tired of the restrictions placed on them by the mullahs, but they have no love for the U.S.

If it came to a choice between fighting for Iran and acquiescing to a U.S. takeover, their nationalist loyalties would win.

[Greeby]

24. From what I can understand from Sy Hersh's articles

KKKarl is against attacking Iran because it puts his plan for a thousand-year Reich in jeopardy. It's Cheney, Rummy and the psychopaths who work directly for them who are pushing this

[CrispyQ]

30. Rove vs Cheney

You could get top dollar for tickets to that. :evilgrin:

[wisteria]

29. there are few people I would take seriously if they were suggesting that

Bush would be crazy enough to undertake bombing Iran right now, Gary Hart is one of them. I hope he is wrong about this. I hope Bush really isn't that nuts. Interesting, that Hart mentions Churchill, Hanni ty is always using this comparison in describing Bush. These are really turning out to be frightening times we live in. Will we survive with another two years of this man and his administration in office? His crusade is forcing other countries to arm to protect themselves from our oil interests.

[checks-n-balances]

35. kick

Thank you, Senator, although most of us at DU would/will not be surprised in the least...

[brazil]

40. Of course...

...an attack on Iran would send gas prices through the roof.

It's sad that any American would support an administration that's trying to legalize torture, but it doesn't surprise me - I've known too many closet racists in my life.

But those same people bitch more than anyone else when gas prices go up. If gas was $4/gallon, I'd be amazed if Bush's "official" approval rating topped 25%.