 |
Our Mad Mad World: The October Surprise Watch |
Category: Information 45 comments
30 May 2004 @ 11:47 by bushman : Ya :} 30 May 2004 @ 12:08 by spiritseek : Snakes should really expect such underhanded play coming from The Big House.Especially after so many false reports being publicized needlessly to insure hostile americans. 31 May 2004 @ 03:34 by jazzolog : Amurricans Want Surprise @ Gas Pump Yes folks, that would turn Bush's trick. How to bring gas prices down by a buck a gallon? "Help out" Saudi Arabia next? Unleash secret drillings that have been going on in the National Refuges? Federal vouchers...like those wonderful tax refunds? If the voters see that Bush really wants to help us fill the tanks of our 4-wheelers, snowmobiles, jet-ski waterfun crafts, our new tank lawnmowers, snow-, leaf-, grass-blowers, and weedwackers---why, he'd cruise to re-election. Republicans saved again by a Labor movement that hates to bend over! 2 Jun 2004 @ 07:40 by jazzolog : As If By Magic... US and UK call for oil production boost Mark Tran Wednesday June 2, 2004 Britain and the US today put pressure on Opec to increase oil production as prices in New York hit a fresh high of $42.4 (£22.9) a barrel. With crude oil futures today reaching the 21-year high before falling slightly to $41.84, the chancellor, Gordon Brown, was contacting oil ministers in an effort to persuade them to increase production and ease pressure on prices. [link] Watch for accommodating reply within the next 8 hours. :-) 2 Jun 2004 @ 10:40 by jazzolog : Voila N.Y. Crude Oil Falls From Record on Calls for OPEC Output Rise June 2 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil futures fell from a record in New York after Qatar's energy minister, Abdullah bin Hamad al- Attiyah, said OPEC should pump as much oil as possible to lower prices. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is meeting tomorrow to discuss raising oil production to prevent higher energy costs... Al-Attiyah said OPEC is near a consensus to raise its output quota by 2.5 million barrels a day, or 11 percent, a plan also backed by Kuwait. Saudi Arabia will ensure markets have enough supply, al-Naimi said. The 10 members, excluding Iraq, that participate in the quota system probably pumped 26.35 million barrels of oil in May, 2.85 million more than the quota, according to Geneva-based consultant PetroLogistics Ltd. An increase in the quota to 26 million barrels a day would effectively allow members to pump whatever they like, since most of the group is operating at full capacity. Normally, OPEC agrees to restrain supplies to prevent prices from falling. ``OPEC has indicated that they'll increase quotas by about 10 percent, but they don't have a tremendous amount of extra capacity,'' said Kurt Hallead, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets in Austin, Texas. ``The Saudis can increase production by 2-to-2.5 million barrels but everyone else has the ability to do a fraction of that.'' [link] 2 Jun 2004 @ 15:34 by ov : breaking the oil reservoir This has the potential for a short term gain and a long term loss. Production capacities should be determined according to the reservoir and not the market forces. There are almost always three layers in a reservoir: gas, oil and saltwater. When oil is pumped out too fast then the water and gas layers can 'cone' into the oil layer, and since these have a lower viscosity than oil they will channel and the percentage of oil in the output stream is reduced, often dramatically. If pumping rates are kept low then oil has time to flow towards the pipe from a further radius and this breakthrough from the other layers doesn't occur. (If you suck too hard on a milkshake straw you find that you are soon sucking air even though there is still lots of milkshake in the cup) Another analogy is that you can get your car to go faster by pushing the tachometer past the redline, but you can only do this for a short period of time before your car doesn't move at all. 3 Jun 2004 @ 10:57 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : From the Washington Post This is excerpted from the Washington Post White House Insiders Dana Milbank Washington Post Friday, May 28, 2004; 11:00 AM Questioner: Are people you consider reliable worried that Bush's people, falling in the polls, will stage an "October surprise" to push his numbers back over the top? Is there any speculation what that "October surprise" might be? Thanks. Keep up the very good work. Dana Milbank: There's lots of potential for an October surprise, but not the intentional sort when they finally pull Osama bin Laden out of his holding room in the basement of the OEOB. Both campaigns agree that the election is likely to be shaped by some event -- terrorist attack, felicitous discovery of weapons, etc. -- that is yet unknowable. 18 Jun 2004 @ 06:51 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : Is Putin Doing His Friend a Favor? Do Putin's remarks today (see headline below) constitute an October Surprise? Considering the truthfulness of this (Bush's) administration, and how with each passing day more revelations of dishonesty surface, is it improper to wonder at the timing and nature of Putin's remarks? Why has he revealed this so long after the events? And now? And if there was a danger of terrorism why wasn't Russia more supportive? And why didn't Putin back Bush's claims that Saddam was an immenent threat before the US went to war? Just within the past two days the 9/11 Commission finally blew Bush's link between Saddam and Al Qaida out of the water. Bush made a lame statement claiming a link. And now here is Putin, who's not known for great honesty himself, supporting the president. This claim was Bush's last prop for urgently going to war. Now, with Putin's remarks Bush can begin to bang the propoganda drum more confidently. TODAY'S HEADLINE: Russian President Says Moscow Gave Washington Information About Possible Iraqi Attacks ASTANA, Kazakhstan -- Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence before the Iraq war that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks against the United States and its interests abroad, President Vladimir Putin said Friday. Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in U.S. decision to invade Iraq. However, he said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war. "Indeed, after Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said. "Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said. Putin said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts. Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the terror plots or say whether they were tied to the al-Qaida terror network. He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. A commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States reported this week that while there were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, they did not appear to have produced "a collaborative relationship." President Bush, however, insisted Thursday that Saddam had "numerous contacts" with al-Qaida and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network's leader, Osama bin Laden, in Sudan. Saddam "was a threat because he had terrorist connections _ not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush said. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 21 Jun 2004 @ 03:08 by jazzolog : Did Karl Rove Have Reagan Snuffed? Concerning Speculation On The Political Impact Of President Ronald Reagan's Death Though theories of conspiracy crop up, In fairness, one of them should be dissolved. He died not in October but in June; It should be clear that Rove was not involved. ---Calvin Trillin in the current The Nation I thought I'd use a little Neocon innuendo in my Subject. Have a great week! ---Richard 21 Jun 2004 @ 14:01 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : Will Al Qaida help Bush out? Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says. From the Guardian As of this posting, the Bushies appear to be desperate. Even Putin seems to have put in a helping hand. And now the 9/11 Commission is claiming there was no relevant link between Saddam and Al Qaida. It appears, at this time, that the best causes we can find for invading Iraq was that Saddam had evil thoughts, intended bad things, and wasn't really our friend. Though, you know, I think if we had offered puppethood to him before the war he would eagerly have grasped at this opportunity. After all, we've had worse puppets. Look at some of our current friends. And Saddam would have enjoyed many advantages by becoming a loyal puppet once again. So why the fuss? 7 Jul 2004 @ 17:18 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : Will Bush hit Iran in a timely manner? "While an "October surprise" of U.S. air strikes to rid the world of Iran's looming nuclear threat might help President Bush Nov. 2, the blowback of unintended consequences would further destabilize the world's most volatile region the Middle East..." From the Washington Times 7 Jul 2004 @ 17:24 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : And a former CIA man conjectures... Porter Goss: Cheney Cat's Paw by Ray McGovern 16 Jul 2004 @ 13:16 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : Iran? The October Surprise? by William S. Lind Antiwar.com Shortly before I left Washington for the summer (in the good old days whose passing I regret, few stayed in Washington in summertime), my informal intelligence network gave me an interesting report: Iran was beginning to mass troops on the Iran-Iraq border. Did this portend overt Iranian intervention in Iraq? I said I didn't think so. Events in Iraq are not unfavorable to Iran, and the risks of direct intervention would be great. The October Surprise? by William S. Lind Shortly before I left Washington for the summer (in the good old days whose passing I regret, few stayed in Washington in summertime), my informal intelligence network gave me an interesting report: Iran was beginning to mass troops on the Iran-Iraq border. Did this portend overt Iranian intervention in Iraq? I said I didn't think so. Events in Iraq are not unfavorable to Iran, and the risks of direct intervention would be great. However, there is a potential situation that could lead to Iranian intervention: if it were in response to an American-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack may very well be on the agenda as the "October Surprise," the distraction George Bush desperately needs if the debacle in Iraq is not to lead to his defeat in November. There is little doubt that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, one that is operating under forced draft to produce a nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible. Iran, along with everyone else in the world, knows that the best way to be safe from an American attack is to have nukes. Even the most howling neocons show little appetite for a war with North Korea. The problem is that, while an Iranian nuclear capability may be directed at deterring the United States, it also poses a mortal threat to Israel. Israel is not known for sitting quietly while such threats develop. It is a safe bet that Israel is planning a strike on known Iranian nuclear facilities, and that such a strike will take place. The question is when. If Israel plans to act this year, the Bush Administration may see a political opportunity it cannot pass up. At the very least it is likely to endorse the Israeli action, and it may well participate. In the Islamic world at least, an American disassociation from any action by Israel would not be believed. Israel and America are now perceived as one country. And the neocons seem to agree. The question becomes, how would Iran respond? It might shoot some missiles at Tel Aviv, but absent at least "dirty bomb" or bio-engineered warheads, that is not likely to accomplish much. A far better response lies right next door: attack the Americans in Iraq. America has about 130,000 troops in Iraq, a formidable army by local standards. But their disposition makes them vulnerable. Confronted by a guerilla war, they are spread out in penny packets all over the country. If Iran could mass quickly and use effective camouflage and deception to conceal at least the scope of its concentration, then suddenly attack into Iraq with two or three corps, we could face a perilous situation. Iranian success would depend heavily on how Iraqis reacted, but if Iran called its action "Operation Iraqi Freedom," promised immediate withdrawal once the hated Americans were beaten and waved the Koran at Iraqi Shi'ites, it might win the cooperation of Iraq's resistance movement. That would make American efforts to concentrate all the more difficult as convoys would come under constant attack. Logistics would quickly become a nightmare. Such an action would be perilous for Iran as well. The danger with threatening a nuclear power with conventional defeat is that it may go nuclear. America might choose to do that through its Israeli surrogate or, on the theory that the bigger the crisis the stronger the "rally around the President" syndrome, directly. Either way, Iran would have no effective response. But the mullahs now running Iran are, like Mr. Bush, in a steadily weakening political position. If they did not respond powerfully to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, they might well lose legitimacy with the hard-line base they now depend on. It is risky to count on them doing nothing, and they have few opportunities to do anything that would be effective. Unfortunately for us, their best chance lies right next door, and the party favor has our name on it. This October could be full of surprises. 16 Jul 2004 @ 13:26 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : bin Laden? "The New Republic piece was the first credible report of what has become a favourite of conspiracy theorists and hardline partisans here that Bush is waiting to announce bin Laden's capture at the most politically opportune time, a so-called 'October surprise.'" Tim Harper Toronto Star 16 Jul 2004 @ 13:35 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : Conspiracy theories "Website Theorists "A quick monitor of web log forums and discussion boards on the Internet reveals that many alternative websites have been discussing for some time the prospect that the Bush administration may postpone elections in a security event. "Some websites are referring to what has become known as the 'October surprise', an event where either a "terrorist attack" hits the American mainland, or, as some politicians like former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright have speculated, a captured Usama bin Ladin is finally paraded on television. "In either case, talk of consideration being given to the possibility of postponing the elections is likely to fuel conspiracy theories." aljazeera 19 Jul 2004 @ 09:28 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : A Matter of Public Trust By Tony Judt Newsweek July 26 issue - Democracy is the most delicate of political systems. Kings had divine right. Tyrants use force. But the authority of democratically elected leaders draws on nothing more substantial than a contract with the people: legitimacy hangs from a single skein of public trust. That trust cannot be obtained by force or mandated by law. It is an unmatched power sourcepoliticians whom people trust can do almost any-thingand the indispensable attribute of a democratic political culture. Without trust, democracy dies. For the full article: A Matter of Public Trust 6 Aug 2004 @ 17:07 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : Osama capture? Newsweek - New York,NY,USA Arrests of Al Qaeda operatives this past week increases the odds that three years after 9/11, the capture of bin Laden could become the October Surprise. ... Newsweek article 8 Aug 2004 @ 13:38 by quinty @68.9.129.35 : Many election variables outside control With the race so tight, the presidential election could turn on events beyond the control of either candidate: a terrorist attack on American soil, a setback in Iraq, a further surge in oil prices or other economic calamity. San Francisco Chronicle 8 Aug 2004 @ 22:47 by ov : People busy watching the horserace and lots of other stuff happening that nobody is paying attention to. Kind of reminds me of "keep the eye on the cigar folks" and don't pay attention to the agribills being signed with the other hand. If it looks like a close race then the electronic voting machines will be able to rig the election again and they won't have to take the risk of manufacturing another terrorist attack. 9 Aug 2004 @ 03:07 by jazzolog : Beans 'n Rice What was our National Security Adviser talking about yesterday? Something about Bush using ALL his options in Iran? That's IraN, folks. 10 Aug 2004 @ 17:43 by quinty : Diplomacy Sidelined as US Targets Iran The US charge sheet against Iran is lengthening almost by the day, presaging destabilizing confrontations this autumn and maybe a pre-election October surprise. The Bush administration is piling on the pressure over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. It maintains Tehran's decision to resume building uranium centrifuges wrecked a long-running EU-led dialogue and is proof of bad faith. The Guardian 10 Aug 2004 @ 18:00 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : And we may want to look back at a July 7 entry.... Porter Goss was nominated today by President Bush to become Director of the CIA. Ray McGovern on Porter Goss 13 Aug 2004 @ 06:00 by jazzolog : Maybe We'll Create The October Surprise only in August this time! AP: Most U.S. Oil, Gas Leases Unexplored Aug 13, 6:11 AM (ET) By DAVID PACE WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite soaring oil and gas prices, oil companies and individuals who own nearly 30 million acres of nonproducing federal oil and gas leases have made little effort to transform them into energy producers, federal records show. An Associated Press analysis of Bureau of Land Management records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act found that 98 percent of the more than 33,000 leases still considered nonproducing by BLM have never had an exploratory well drilled. Ninety-seven percent have never had a single application for a permit to drill filed with the BLM. Industry officials argue that those numbers are misleading because many nonproducing leases have been joined with other leases into larger production units where active exploration is under way, and in many such cases the units already are producing oil and gas. But even after discounting such leases, there is no indication in BLM records of any oil or gas exploration on 26 million acres of federal land currently under lease, or two-thirds of all federal leased acreage. A little over 10 million acres of federal oil and gas leases are listed as producing; another 4 million acres have been explored to some degree, but are still not producing. Environmentalists say the lack of exploration belies the Bush administration's push to open even more federal land to oil and gas development, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. A recent Wilderness Society analysis of new BLM management plans in Utah, Wyoming, Montana and New Mexico concluded that 80 percent of the 6 million acres of environmentally sensitive land covered by the plans would be opened to oil and gas leasing. Pete Morton, a Wilderness Society economist, said the administration's push for more oil and gas leasing of federal lands is more about boosting the financial prospects of oil companies than producing more oil and gas. "Share prices are based on rational expectations of future earnings potential," Morton said. "If companies can increase that potential, the expectations, and hence share price, by leasing more acres, then it may make economic sense to lease more acres regardless of whether the wells will ever be drilled and/or whether the wells drilled become economically viable." Industry officials contend that large inventories of undeveloped leases are normal and necessary to protect their investment in energy exploration. And they dismiss suggestions that unproductive leases boost their financial standing. Oil and gas companies "don't make money and profits by sitting on leases," said William F. Whitsett, president of the Domestic Petroleum Council. "They go after their best prospects. The acreage drilled first is a function of expectation of what they believe they can discover and produce." Federal leases are good for 10 years and require an annual rent of $1.50 an acre during the first five years, and $2 an acre after that. If the lease is not producing paying quantities of oil and gas by the end of 10 years, it reverts back to the government, unless the owner assigns it to a larger block of leases that include some with productive wells. Oil companies and other owners of nonproducing leases are paying the government more than $40 million a year in rent. "They're actively studying those leases and trying to determine the best course of action in terms of timing to develop those leases," said Mark Smith, executive director of the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States. "You wouldn't spend that kind of money just to hold on to them. It doesn't make sense." Smith said the lack of development is caused by permitting delays, a shortage of skilled labor and equipment, and pipeline infrastructure deficiencies that make it uneconomical to explore in some areas. Under the Bush administration, however, processing of drilling permit applications has sped up significantly. It took the BLM just 61 days on average to make a final decision on drilling permits filed this year, according to BLM records, compared with 104 days in 2003, 167 days in 2002 and 215 days in 2001. Some oil and gas analysts say soaring oil prices may dampen exploration because increased production would tend to drive down prices. "Why should the industry go and risk more capital, bring more oil and gas to the market and risk the much lower price?" said Fadel Gheit, an oil and gas analyst for Oppenheimer & Co. Michael Scialla, an oil and gas analyst with A.G. Edwards and Sons, said he doesn't think the high prices are stalling exploration on federal leases. But he said a large inventory of unexplored leases can make a company a more attractive takeover target, particularly if the leases are near areas that already are producing. [link] 13 Aug 2004 @ 13:13 by jazzolog : This Just In From Kay whom you may or may not remember [link] ~~~ Richard, I heard on the news an interview with the minister of oil from Saudi that they had offered to release more oil months ago in order to bring gas prices down but there were no takers. I think this is a Bush ploy to wait until the republican convention to have more oil and bring prices down. Kay 14 Aug 2004 @ 10:43 by quinty @68.9.129.35 : We might have multiple October surprises? In August and September too. Why not? And while they're at it, why not rig the election too? Get Jeb and his pals to deny the vote to thousands of African Americans in Florida, and fix some key automated voting machines to provide the desired results too, in some other key states too? 26 Sep 2004 @ 20:28 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : North Korea October Surprise? USFK Chief Denies Signs of a N. Korean 'October Surprise' USFK commander Gen. Leon LaPorte Concerning rumors of an "October Surprise" claiming that North Korea may suddenly carry out a nuclear test in October, USFK commander Gen. Leon LaPorte said Friday that there have been no signs discovered that North Korea would conduct such a nuclear test. The Chosun Ilbo 26 Sep 2004 @ 20:35 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : John McCain? Will John McCain be the October Surprise? The Nation 27 Sep 2004 @ 00:10 by jmarc : arizona for Kerry? not likely. [link] Of course, alot can change in just under 40 days, but it seems to be trending bushward. 27 Sep 2004 @ 14:32 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : Teresa and the "surprise" Bin Laden no 'October surprise' for Teresa Chicago Sun-Times 27 Sep 2004 @ 16:04 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : The Top Ten? Larry Bensky is a Berkeley based journalist who has an excellent Sunday morning/afternoon political affairs program on radio station KPFA. You can log onto it at noon (Eastern time) on the web by going to: www.kpfa.org Larry Bensky's Top 10 October Surprises 27 Sep 2004 @ 22:24 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : Iran 'Crisis' Shapes Up as our October Surprise Letter to LA Times 27 Sep 2004 @ 22:32 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : Is there a need for an October Surprise? Bush appears to be gaining much capitol just on the debacle occuring in Iraq. The more violence, the worse things get, the more we need, Bush says, his sure guidance and leadership. While Kerry, on the other hand, is the helpless flip flopper so befuddled that he doesn't even know where he stands. Never mind Bush created the mess. But he's strong. He's tough. And if we don't fight them there we'll fight them here. Reminds me of the Contras. Remember how they were about to pour over the Texas border a couple of decades ago? Yeah. So the worse things get in Iraq the more we need Bush. Now, how about buying a bridge I happen to have the sole rights and deeds for: one that crosses the desert in Nevada. Would you like to buy the London Bridge? What? You say you're not stupid enough?! 1 Oct 2004 @ 22:30 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : College students on the surprise WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With about a month to go before the presidential election, some American University students predict an "October surprise," an event that might affect the outcome of the election. CNN 2 Oct 2004 @ 10:31 by jazzolog : Into October My wife says she saw somewhere that Karl Rove is admitting he has a couple surprises up his sleeve...which might be an anxiety manipulation right there. I hate seeing those students smile upon a discussion of dirty tricks though. 7 Oct 2004 @ 16:46 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : Is Iran the October Surprise American intelligence sources are busily leaking hair-raising tales of Irans alleged nuclear arms program. Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary and godfather of the neo-conservatives, tells an interviewer, I am not advocating the invasion of Iran at this moment, although I wouldnt be heartbroken if it happened. Israel has recently taken delivery of 500 bunker-buster bombs from the United States -- just the thing for destroying deeply buried nuclear facilities. Is the long-predicted October Surprise that clinches the election for President George W. Bush going to be an attack on Iran? Gwynne Dyer 7 Oct 2004 @ 16:56 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : Kerry Disagrees with Wife over October Surprise John Kerry disagrees with his wife that the capture of Osama bin Laden before the November 2 election will be politically motivated. Atlanta Journal Constitution 7 Oct 2004 @ 17:02 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : Bush and the FBI? An October Surprise for Bush and the FBI? The Ashcroft Justice Department retroactively threw a veil of secrecy over Sibel Edmond's claims.... FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds talks about her case --and hints at a forthcoming scandal Steve Perry 12 Oct 2004 @ 21:11 by ov : Too Insane To Be True? TBR News October 11, 2004 Voice of the White House In recent past issues, we have carried comments from a reporter assigned to the White House press corps. Some of these remarks, most especially one about Bushs physical and mental problems, drew an enormous number of viewers and hundreds of inquiries, most especially from foreign press entities. The reporter advised us by email that there was rampant fury in the White House and security was becoming very tight. As a result of this, he decided to lay low for a few weeks and see how the wind was blowing. Yesterday, he sent us the following material which we are now posting. Some of it is outrageous in the extreme but to date, no one has proven him wrong. Our source was the first to expose and we were the first to make public, the accusations that the President of the United States was a man that suffered from serious psychological problems. Since our initial publication of what we call the Madness of King George, there has been increasing interest in the subject and herewith, we present additional input from inside the White House. October 10, 2004: This time, friends, I have some very important news for all of you. Unlike the usual silly gossip that goes on around the White House, intermingled with loud praying, this is really news. We are about to embark on another war! Yes, it has been decided and carefully planned. Who are we going to war with? Iran. Background here: (I am taking this from a paper which I have to return) Thesis: Iran hates the United States and Israel. Iran has atomic weapons and missiles (the Shahab, courtesy of North Korean/Russian technicians) It can easily reach Tel Aviv. It can also reach US troop concentrations in Iraq. Israel is scared shitless. Their pressure groups have leaned on the White House, with a great deal of assistance from Cheney and the Neocons. The actual plan is this: The U.S. has no troops available for an Iranian adventure and the Israelis would rather not lose any warm bodies so it has been firmly decided that both Israel and the U.S. will launch a surprise attack against 1., Iranian missile sites, 2. Iranian nuclear facilities and 3. the leadership of Iran located in and around Tehran. How will this be done? By aircraft attack using U.S. developed smart bombs and the so-called bunker-buster bombs designed to destroy underground reinforced concrete facilities .We just sent these to Israel. Because of the political ramifications, the Israelis will conduct the main strikes, supported by U.S. aircraft as needed. The aim will be to wipe out any vestige of nuclear weaponry, its delivery system and all the Iranian leaders capable of starting any attacks on Israel (mostly Tel Aviv too many fellow Muslims in Jerusalem.) Since it would be a problem for Israeli Air Force units to fly round trip from Israel, the solution will be to launch these attacks from U.S. aircraft carriers located in the Persian Gulf area. As I write, the super carrier USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) is now in the Persian Gulf along with the so-called Essex Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) [31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) (SOC)] which consists of:: USS Essex (LHD 2) USS Juneau (LPD 10) USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) USS Mobile Bay (CG 53USS Hopper (DDG 70) USS Preble (DDG 88) The initial attacks will be an early-morning surprise attack launched to coincide with religious services in Tehrans Muslim mosques with the idea of catching not only the leading Mullahs inside but a large number of their congregations as well. One attack will concentrate on these religious centers and the other will hit both the underground nuclear facilities and identified (courtesy of U.S. satellite shots) missile launching sites. The U.S. will supply observation and radio surveillance aircraft with radar-jamming capacities operating out of Turkey and Italy. The entire attack is scheduled to last no more than one hour with at least three waves of Israeli aircraft utilized. No warning will be given to the Iranians and no declaration of war. The possible deaths of foreign diplomats in the attacks has been discussed and accepted as part of the price. This attack has the full support of the President who wants it launched before the elections. He can then make a speech to the American people stating that the evil Iranian nuclear weaponry has been destroyed by the Israelis with the full cooperation of his government as part of his heroic war against terrorists. Believe me, that speech has already been written and I have seen a copy of it. The brass here feels that this will have a tremendous impact on the American people, just before the elections. No U.S. ground troops will be used; Bush will stress that this is a joint U.S.-Israeli anti-terrorist project. Part of the speech deals with ongoing Shiite Iranian physical support of their Shiite brethren in Iraq and that by knocking out the Iranian nuclear weaponry, at the same time, they are protecting GIs from ongoing guerrilla warfare. The brass is literally rubbing its hands and drooling over what they see as Bushs Final Victory. I have seen a negative report copy from someone in the Pentagon [who is not going to get promoted] that says if the Iranians get wind of this little game, they might strike first and they might also realize that large numbers of vulnerable American troops are concentrated inside Iraqi cities, prime targets for a nuclear tactical attack. These people are literally insane and I really hope you dont delete this. Something really has to be done to stop these maniacs before we all die of radiation sickness! 12 Oct 2004 @ 23:33 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : Ov - An aerial attack on Iran, with no serious US casualties on the ground? That sounds plausible. I mean, after all: Star Sars, mini-nukes, the war in Iraq, and carte blanche for Israel's Likud? The madness seems to be spiralling out of hand once again, as it did, well.... take your choice? Hitler?Pol Pot? Stalin? Bush and his Neocons appear to be minor league compared to the big time. So far, at least. 13 Oct 2004 @ 00:47 by ov : Deja Vu I do get that deju vu feeling from the last time when Israel went in and bombed Iran and all that happened was that Israel got a "naughty naughty finger wagging" but no reprucussions which just goes to say that some countries can get away with murder where anybody else would have serious hell to pay. I keep wondering when the rest of the world will stand up and say they have enough of this spoiled little shit, and the bully that enables him. It shouldn't take long to find out if there is any truth to this, maybe if the word is out there and everybody is watching it might be just too risky for them to even attempt it. Don't see why the repubs really need an October surprise since the election machines are in place and there isn't any time left to put in the paper ballot. Having Israel bomb Iran could just as easily happen after the elction as before. 13 Oct 2004 @ 17:05 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : Why bother with an October Surprise if you can rig the election? Voter Registrations Possibly Trashed By George Knapp KLAS TV Tuesday 12 October 2004 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA | Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash. Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected. The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes. The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations. Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats. "We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee. Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law. So the people on those forms who think they will be able to vote on Election Day are sadly mistaken. We attempted to speak to Voters Outreach but found that its office has been rented out to someone else. The landlord says Voters Outreach was evicted for non-payment of rent. Another source said the company has now moved on to Oregon where it is once again registering voters. It's unknown how many registrations may have been tossed out, but another ex-employee told Eyewitness News she had the same suspicions when she worked there. It's going to take a while to sort all of this out, but the immediate concern for voters is to make sure you really are registered. Call the Clark County Election Department at 455-VOTE or click here to see if you are registered. The company has been largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee. Similar complaints have been received in Reno where the registrar has asked the FBI to investigate. 21 Oct 2004 @ 09:15 by jazzolog : Watching Lesbians Make Love Bill O'Reilly's admitted preference to his Fox Network producer (as cited in the harrassment suit against him) of what truly pushes his buttons, while at the same time promoting his new children's book about sex, will be a tough October surprise to top! 21 Oct 2004 @ 19:56 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : Get the October Surprise Over With Already! Newsday 22 Oct 2004 @ 07:42 by ov : FEMA Disaster Simulation scheduled for election day. Yup, just can't take your eye off these boys for a minute without them planning some new shenaningins. CERT or Community Emergency Response Teams are being organized all over the country, it's an intensive 35 day course, and it culminates in a country wide disaster simulation. Details at Rense but it does look like the CERT thing is for real according to the FEMA site. But here is the big question, if you were going to have a disaster simulation then you would have to stand down all action against disasters since you wouldn't want to go in guns blazing on a training exercise now would you, but at the same time would you really want to give the whole world a months notice so that if there were any terrorists out that wanted to plan something they could plan it around that date, and why on election day? If this is the government's sense of humor then they are one bunch of sick fucks, but then I've suspected that for awhile now. Maybe the government is going to advise all people to stay at home that day. 6 Nov 2004 @ 18:25 by Quinty @68.226.90.181 : What was the Surprise That there may not have been a surprise. Although, it's never too late.
|
30 May 2004 @ 11:19, by Paul Quintanilla