PDA

View Full Version : Prediction



Jasonik
June 24th, 2008, 12:29 PM
Osama bin Laden will 'release' a new tape preceding the election 'imploring' al qaeda operatives NOT to attack the US because it would 'help' John McCain and they don't want to face another 'strong on terror' president. Bin Laden will effectively endorse Obama.

This will have the double effect of stifling any terror response to a Bush/Israel attack on Iran (http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=13020).

The calculus:


terrorism = helps McCain

no terrorism = terrorists heart Obama

Bush thinks Obama is ahead = attack Iran [no terrorist response, Obama is favored by terrorists (vindicates Bush)]

Bush thinks McCain ahead = no attack on Iran [no terrorist response, McCain is feared by terrorists (vindicates McCain)]

Bush thinks Obama is ahead = attack Iran [terrorist response, Obama isn't feared by terrorists (vindicates Bush)]

Bush thinks McCain ahead = no attack on Iran [terrorist response, McCain is feared by terrorists (vindicates McCain)]


Is there a way for Obama to benefit from this paradigm other than it being revealed that a terrorist action is the result of McCain connected covert operatives?


Background material:

" 1981, Ronald Reagan came to power and raised his hand as president of the United States of America. By more than coincidence (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/102506.html) the Iranian hostages returned on that same day. I would employ some of his methods (http://www.aiipowmia.com/other/iranhstgcrss80.html)." [I]-John McCain, 9/25/07 (http://www.cfr.org/publication/14142/republican_debate_transcript_new_hampshire.html?br eadcrumb=%2Fcampaign2008%2Fspeeches%3Fpage%3D4)

Newt Gingrich - April 29, 2008 (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Gingrich_Bush_should_have_allowed_attack_0529.html )

Bill Kristol - June 22, 2008 (http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-might-attack-iran-if-he-thinks-obama-will-win/)

Jack Cafferty - June 23, 2008 (http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/23/mccain-strategist-terrorist-attack-would-be-a-big-advantage-in-election/)

Richard Clark - June 23, 2008 (http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/24/richard-clarke-mccain-should-fire-charlie-black/)

Jasonik
June 24th, 2008, 05:37 PM
John Bolton adds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-%27will-attack-Iran%27-before-new-US-president-sworn-in%2C-John-Bolton-predicts.html) fuel to the fire saying essentially, Israel will eliminate Iran's nuclear program ONLY if McCain is elected. A nuclear Iran will be the result if Obama is president.


Some Pundits think Obama could benefit from terrorism:

Domenico Montanaro, MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/24/1163508.aspx)

Michael Crowley, The New Republic (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/06/23/the-terror-card.aspx)
Weak analysis in my opinion. They think that if it were Iraq blowback it would make the republicans and their war look bad, but to the contrary, such an attack would embolden McCain to say, - we're winning, they're scared, we should have more troops on the ground -- and this is because of the democrat congress' irrational protection of 'civil liberties' -- we need more wiretapping, more surveillance, stricter gun laws, more checkpoints, etc.

The synergy between authoritarianism and terrorism (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/33721-the-power-of-nightmares-the-rise-of-political-fear-part-1) and its threat is not acknowledged in this country's mainstream one iota.

Jasonik
June 24th, 2008, 06:44 PM
The internet is used to spread "beautifully crafted" al-Qaeda propaganda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062302135_pf.html) which suggests there are terrorists in the wings whose 'actions' demand internet regulation, a convenient byproduct of terrorism.

Oh, and BTW, any new Osama tape must be genuine because, "It'd be extremely difficult for the CIA or another intelligence agency to introduce credible and effective counterpropaganda."

NYC4Life
June 24th, 2008, 07:24 PM
This will almost play out the same way it did during the 2004 Presidential election when back then Bid Laden released a video tape.

Ninjahedge
June 25th, 2008, 10:29 AM
Bottom line, we should not listen to a small radical group of terrorists when it comes to picking our leaders.

If McCain is elected, while it might not be good for individual terrorists, it would be good for their groups in that they will still have a clear and present enemy that they can rally against. As our own past has shown, lack of a defined enemy makes it difficult to justify military spending or participation.

I am not saying that McCain is for Terrorism, but the current pan has not really shown a real way to end the war, just to push it from one territory to another.

And do you really think that Al-Queda leaders would endorse one leader or another with a total blindness to what that endorsement would actually do? I do not see this endorsement as anythnig but a "look at us" attempt on their part.

Again, lets not let them decide on who we should vote for, in either direction.

ZippyTheChimp
June 25th, 2008, 12:05 PM
Is there a way for Obama to benefit from this paradigm other than it being revealed that a terrorist action is the result of McCain connected covert operatives?All his campaign can do is make the public aware that they haven't been safe from terrorism with Bush 1 and 2, and won't be with Bush 3. A well placed prod to a media outlet to run another exposť on security breaches at sensitive installations could do the trick.

But he would be walking a tightrope, running the risk of bringing the only issue where McCain holds an advantage to the forefront.

That's all McCain has. His campaign will eschew other issues, and make Obama the central theme, make people wary of him.

Two national polls show Obama has opened a double-digit lead over McCain, and has wide leads on issues such as healthcare, energy, the economy. These polls don't indicate how a state-by-state election will go, but they do reflect the national mood. It was important for Obama to get this post-primary bounce, to bring him in line with overall attitudes regarding the two parties.

Over the next months, Obama need to convince people who are truly undecided that he isn't a Ross Perot or Jessie Jackson.

The next critical times for the campaigns are the conventions. If either of them doesn't get a bounce, he will be in trouble.

Jasonik
June 25th, 2008, 12:34 PM
All his campaign can do is make the public aware that they haven't been safe from terrorism with Bush 1 and 2, and won't be with Bush 3. A well placed prod to a media outlet to run another exposť on security breaches at sensitive installations could do the trick.


In other words, terrorists could attack us at any time, we're vulnerable in myriad ways -- YET we haven't been attacked. Why?

Has Bush protected us? If Bush's policies really incited more terrorists, why haven't they struck? Is "fighting them over there instead of over here" working?

Tightrope is right!

I think the most incisive thing Obama can do is state unequivocally, "If we let terrorists impact our political process then we have already surrendered; the terrorists HAVE won."

He's got to flip the script on the hawks (http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_06_16/cover.html) and stand firm in the face of "9/10 mentality" charges -- do what Kerry was incapable of doing because of his pro-war vote.

The point of this thread is to confront with open eyes the fact that fearful people are not a rational people -- and irrationality is all the neocon-PNAC-GWOT-corporatist-imperialists have in their arsenal -- and they're NOT afraid to use it.

ZippyTheChimp
June 25th, 2008, 01:20 PM
In other words, terrorists could attack us at any time, we're vulnerable in myriad ways -- YET we haven't been attacked. Why?It depends on what you believe the reason was for the 09/11 attack.

Taking a coldly analytical approach, the attack hardly hurt the US at all. The national economy quickly recovered, and even NYC bounced back in short order. Everything else that's happened is of our own doing.


Has Bush protected us? If Bush's policies really incited more terrorists, why haven't they struck? Is "fighting them over there instead of over here" working?

Tightrope is right!They're fighting us over there because that's what they've always wanted. We were prodded on 09/11, albeit to the wrong country. Bin Laden's focus is the Mid East.



I think the most incisive thing Obama can do is state unequivocally, "If we let terrorists impact our political process then we have already surrendered; the terrorists HAVE won."This will work with thinking-people, but lost on those who make it impossible for Obama make a campaign stop at a mosque.


He's got to flip the script on the hawks (http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_06_16/cover.html) and stand firm in the face of "9/10 mentality" charges -- do what Kerry was incapable of doing because of his pro-war vote.Kerry's big mistake, and what Obama can't do, is allow challenges to his character to go unanswered.

I just don't think at this point, it's in Obama's best interests to get proactive on terrorism. He needs some time to introduce himself to undecideds.

Jasonik
June 25th, 2008, 01:48 PM
I heartily agree with all those points.

I guess we haven't yet hit upon the common denominator jujitsu that can repel the INEVITABLE fear and terror campaign by McCain. I still think the 'terrorists have won' phraseology is broadly enough known and stupid enough to appeal to those most manipulated by fear. Is there another way to get people to say "screw the terrists, I'll vote fer who I want"?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Obama to make all the arguments you just laid out -- basically the blowback view (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Paul_campaign_hopes_Reading_for_Rudy_0524.html) of Ron Paul a la Michael Scheuer -- but he's hemmed himself in with his tough line on Iran a la AIPAC.

Ninjahedge
June 25th, 2008, 02:21 PM
In other words, terrorists could attack us at any time, we're vulnerable in myriad ways -- YET we haven't been attacked. Why?

WE haven't? OK, I guess Iraq and Afghanistan do not count.

So putting American Citizens (albeit soldiers) in teh back yard of terrorists is a sure way to discourage them from spending the extra time and $$ to come 6000 miles to do something on our mainland.


Has Bush protected us? If Bush's policies really incited more terrorists, why haven't they struck? Is "fighting them over there instead of over here" working?

I know what you are saying (rhetorical) but the counter to that is that why bother traveling to kill Americans when you can walk down the street to do the same?

I love how people site lack of mainland events as a barometer of how well we are doing. How many terrorist attacks have we had here, total? 2? There is no way to get more than a strait line from 2 points.


Tightrope is right!

I think the most incisive thing Obama can do is state unequivocally, "If we let terrorists impact our political process then we have already surrendered; the terrorists HAVE won."

My point exactly!


He's got to flip the script on the hawks (http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_06_16/cover.html) and stand firm in the face of "9/10 mentality" charges -- do what Kerry was incapable of doing because of his pro-war vote.

The point of this thread is to confront with open eyes the fact that fearful people are not a rational people -- and irrationality is all the neocon-PNAC-GWOT-corporatist-imperialists have in their arsenal -- and they're NOT afraid to use it.

Not only fearful, but ignorant. WILLFULLY ignorant, comfortable with their own lack of knowledge because the truth makes them feel more uncomfortable.

It is easier to hold a cross and pray for forgiveness than to go out and help other people, the same people would like to believe in a simpler solution they can understand than admit that it is not working and they have to do something they cannot grasp.

lofter1
June 25th, 2008, 07:52 PM
They're fighting us over there because that's what they've always wanted. We were prodded on 09/11 ...

BINGO!

It's naive to think that over the past 7 years the USA and the entire humanistic tradition haven't suffered in more ways than can be counted.

OBL knew our leaders well -- and figured they'd jump at the chance to dive into the hornets nest.

Is his job done? Last I looked the world is still run by believers of many different faiths.

Can he achieve his goal? Only time will tell. Doubt that any semi-threatening vids are of much value. At some point he has to show that he means what he says.

Mere words from OBL will be no October Surprise. They're as expected as lies from a politician, and therefore will have little weight regarding who voters pick when they enter the voitng booth (or whatever they call it these days).

Jasonik
June 25th, 2008, 10:50 PM
So is it a better prediction to say that a deployed McCain son will be taken hostage by militant islamist extremists? What a stunt that would be for the electorate, huh?

Generation after generation willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for peace, justice, and the American way. The McCains bleed red, white, and blue... America hating liberal elitist or proud and selfless service of our highest ideals?

At the very least, I predict there'll be some crazy stunt by the war party to try and hijack the election.

Remember NYC mayoral politics in 2001? Would Mike be the mayor if it weren't for the equation: Giuliani + 9/11 + endorsement = Bloomberg?

Maybe Bush'll suspend the election...

pianoman11686
June 25th, 2008, 11:51 PM
How does the NYC mayoral election have anything to do with the topic at hand? No one even regarded Mike Bloomberg as a true Republican. It was widely known that he switched parties just to make it easier for himself to get on the ticket.

In any case, if there is a "stunt" of some sort, timing will probably be crucial in two regards. If it comes too late in the run-up to Election Day, it'll look too obvious. Or, if McCain continues to lose ground to Obama in national polls uninterrupted, and the stunt occurs at or just before the nadir, it will raise more than a few eyebrows.

I don't think there'll be a stunt. There'll be discussion, to be sure, but it can't be pulled off successfully, IMO. That makes it not worth doing. In all likelihood, McCain will continue his fear mongering, and if Bush decides he cares enough about who wins the next term, they'll play up the Iran situation to make it look more serious than it really is.

lofter1
June 26th, 2008, 12:46 AM
But McCain would be OBL's choice, no?

A conflagration in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world is more likely with Mr. "100 more years in Iraq", yes?

And hell and highwater is what the caveman seeks, no?

ZippyTheChimp
June 26th, 2008, 06:44 AM
But McCain would be OBL's choice, no?Not so sure. He may want us out now, since we've destabilized the region by removing Saddam Hussein.

On an Islamist scale, Hussein was a zero, a secularist. He only used Sunni Shia conflict to hold power. He was anathema to OBL.

If I had to make a choice, I would guess that it doesn't make a difference to him who the next president is.

lofter1
June 26th, 2008, 09:34 AM
You're probaly right ^

We've done the necessary and hoped-for damage already.

Jasonik
June 26th, 2008, 04:40 PM
Olbermann asked Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) whether Senator Barack Obama is right when he suggests playing the terror card won't work this time around.

"He is right about the shift," Wexler replied, "The Bush administration and Senator John McCain have lost their credibility -- but still Senator Obama has to go out and aggressively make the argument."

"If this were just one comment by John McCain, or one comment by his chief strategist, that might be forgivable," Wexler continued. "But this is now the second, possibly the third instance in which the mindset of John McCain is becoming quite evident. ... He appears to be calculating the value of a terrorist attack or an assassination to his campaign, and that's quite eerie." (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Wexler_McCain_shows_pattern_of_using_0626.html)

Olberman (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html) et. al. don't countenance the fear milage that could be squeezed from a Lieberman VP slot. With such a development, a Hamas or Hezbollah domestic attack (sponsored by Iran of course) is entirely within the neocon narrative.

Politics ain't beanbag. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finley_Peter_Dunne#Other_famous_or_interesting_quo tes_from_Finley_Peter_Dunne)

Jasonik
June 26th, 2008, 05:46 PM
John Stewart has some 'terror related political calculations' (http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1351) of his own.

Q.E.D.

pianoman11686
June 26th, 2008, 06:41 PM
^Funny as usual, but completely ignores the simultaneous collapse of the Giuliani campaign.

Jasonik
June 26th, 2008, 07:11 PM
You don't think "America's Mayor" standing strong alongside McCain and Lieberman following a tragic terror event wouldn't put a Republican in the White House?

You've got to start facing reality here...

The media singlehandedly hyped Giuliani to frontrunner status at the beginning of the race, these same national security voters just moved to McWar... Hero. Same voters, same mindset, same response to terrorism (a.k.a Bhutto bump).

The media love ol' mavrick John. The 'conventional' wisdom isn't going to change any time soon.

lofter1
June 26th, 2008, 07:31 PM
Every time Obama gets a bump up in the polls it seems that the media, in their own self-interest to keep the horse race going and viewer ratings on the upswimg, pump up McWar (good moniker) by trotting out this theory or that.

I'm taking nothing for granted, but McOldie has little to no chance of actually being elected.

Give him a hat and we can all call him Meany MaGoo :cool:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:9x1uRCbxFMuqYM:http://www.johnrozum.com/images/mrmagoo.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.johnrozum.com/images/mrmagoo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://venomliterati.blogspot.com/2007/10/you-are-even-hotter-than-mr-magoo.html&h=500&w=319&sz=26&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=9x1uRCbxFMuqYM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=83&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmagoo%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom. microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7RNWE%26sa%3DN)

pianoman11686
June 26th, 2008, 10:21 PM
You don't think "America's Mayor" standing strong alongside McCain and Lieberman following a tragic terror event wouldn't put a Republican in the White House?

Not saying it wouldn't. I just found it a little odd there was no mention of Mr. 9/11 in the whole segment. It would seem Giuliani stood to gain the most from a terror/assassination event like Bhutto. (I know, I know...it's also just the Daily Show.)

Jasonik
July 1st, 2008, 07:47 AM
Joe Lieberman says (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Lieberman_Al_Qaeda_Iran_would_control_0629.html) Obama's Iraq plan would allow Al Qaeda and Iran control. (Oh and the next president will be tested by terrorism early in their term.)

But we need a president who is ready to be commander in chief on day one... Why? because our enemies will test the new president early. Remember that the truck bombing of the world trade center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration.

White House: (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-backs-liebermans-warning-of-attack-2008-06-30.html)
I think Sen. Lieberman, unfortunately, could be right.

lofter1
July 1st, 2008, 08:51 AM
So the terrorists are an organized gang of one-trick ponies?

One Horror Show per Presidential term?

1993 / 2001 / 2009 :confused:

Good argument for two-term Presidents :cool:

ZippyTheChimp
July 1st, 2008, 11:54 AM
Or a monarchy.

lofter1
July 1st, 2008, 12:57 PM
There you go ^

If we don't change rulers then, by the Lieberman Doctrine, there will be no opportunity for the bad guys to "test" the new one.

Ergo: We won't be attacked again!

Joe for King!!!

Jasonik
July 1st, 2008, 02:58 PM
More likely King George.

This is what the Election Assistance Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Assistance_Commission) (EAC) (http://www.eac.gov) thought in 2004 (http://www.eac.gov/News/speeches/speech-071704/) about,

...the need to discuss what the Federal government and what State governments might do if there is a terrorist attack or other disaster on or near November 2nd. I want to make clear that contrary to what you may have read in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/54428) or other (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/07/ana04012.html) sources, the Chairman did not suggest that we consider postponing or canceling the election—or giving the EAC the power to do so. He did suggest a discussion with the Office of Homeland Security and the National Security Advisor on whether there was some kind of planning underway in case of such an attack or disaster. Election officials have shared with us their concern in this area and we have passed them on. I expect you may be hearing more from us on this subject in the near future. I want to make very clear to you that neither I nor my colleagues want to say or do anything that would instill any kind of fear into voters. In fact, I am very uncomfortable even discussing this issue because anything we say may be misinterpreted. It is sad that in this post-911 world these are issues we now have to take seriously and consider very carefully.

Secret contingencies?