That’s the very point. It’s not a high value target at all, although the best attempts to make it seem otherwise. I don’t care if it’s the admin or the media, it’s the people that will misinterpret this who will get my ire.
I don’t even know what I’m bitching at anymore.
<sigh>
You can’t fend off suggestions you were planning to do something you never did, but you can sure as Holy Mother Teresa’s aching loins fend off suggestions of possible voting impropriety by, I don’t know, NOT CREATING THAT SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE?
November is too late. It has to make the Sunday evening news and the Monday papers. If anything happens, it’ll be Saturday or Sunday.
“Terrorist plot to ruin Halloween foiled! Secret caches of toothbrushes and sugar-free chewing gum seized!”
I think you’ve got a point there. But what happens if there really is an actual surprise? Not a setup political maneuver but an event that occurs in the final days of the campaign. It’s going to “look” like a setup if at all possible. If it is a real coincidence the appearance of scandal could cost a candidate votes and work for his opponent. So, would a candidate then try to conceal a newsworthy event to avoid the look of impropriety. This could be debatable itself.
Would an October surprise at this late date in the campaign be more likely to get or cost a candidate votes?
There are several variables that would have to be considered of course.
Let’s say the headlines Sunday come out with this news story:
Osama Bin Laden captured says Madeline Albright
Whether or not the story were true. If they only had a “look alike” of Bin Laden, and paraded him around for a few hours the day before the election. Then maybe he could say something like…
"Now that we have captured Osama, we can start bringing home some of the troops. I promise to have some of them home for Christmas."
Do you think that would work in his favor or would people see through it? What if it were true? Could he survive an actual October surprise?
What is it I can’t do? Post whining crap on the Internet sprinkled with ham-handed allusions? I assure you I can.
It only took one pound of the same stuff to bring down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
I’m sure it was a big deal to them.
We are so fucked.
Give Psycho Pirate a break; he stayed up all night memorizing those GOP talking points from Fox News, and was so excited to have a chance to show off his “expertise.”
Except that there is no explanation of what sort of munitions that was or even where the numbers came from. And, the 380 tons we are talking about is a very special kind of explosive…particularly powerful and easy to work with. In fact, the IAEA thought it important enough to tag and monitor it.
here
Wow, I’d comment on this claim, but I gotta get my ass down to the Piggly Wiggly!
We’re gonna have plastique for supper. 
The big deal is this is 380 metric tons of stuff that was previously secured. I can understand that if we have suspected sights we may not get to some of them fast enough. This is much different, this is incompetence. Al Qaqaa is one of the largest facilities in Iraq, and we knew they had hundreds of tons of explosives there. They should have made a beeline to it and secured that crap.
The big deal is we’re talking out of the sides of our mouths here. We’re playing up fictitious threats and ignoring the real ones.
Someone please explain to me why this wouldn’t be a risk? Those same explosives where a risk months before when SH was in power, what has changed? Besides the fact the place has devolved into a lawless hellhole were our grasp is tenuous at best of course. :rolleyes:
Doesn’t anyone else see the incredible irony here: The inept UN can kept Saddam’s weapons secure for years, but the Administration of our glorious War President can’t keep Saddam’s weapons out of the hands of terrorists for more than what-- 2 days?
Yeah, this country is sooooo much safer with Bush as President.
Do you suggest that GWB has some personal responsibility RE: Which method of recording votes the individual states select?
This is what pisses me off so much. Bush can do any matter of stupid destructive bullshit, and there’s a certain group of rubes who hear about it and just say they’re oh-so-tired of hearing negative stuff and why can’t we all be nice to each other. It’s as if nothing negative has the potential to be (a) true and (b) important. Sorry, some of this shit matters more than the unpleasantness of discussing it.
This is no defense, no excuse to losing these explosives, while guarding the oil wells. Russia, Germany and France are alternately laughing and going ‘Oh shit, the US better find them quickly’.
The terrorists are scary enough because they made do with a lot less.
To address the OP:
The October Surprise is much more subtle than has been characterized by conspiracy theorists. It will be based on the principle followed by Joseph P. Kennedy in 1960 (“I’m not paying for a landslide.”), as well as by countless winners of the Boston Marathon (“If I can win this by finishing in 2:25:13, I’m not going to kill myself by running it in 1:44:23”). In a nutshell, don’t go to any more effort than is necessary to achieve the desired result. In this instance, the desired result is to distract people’s attention from the negative performance of George Bush the Lesses.
The distracting event took place last weekend. Ashlee Simpson and Mili Vanilli-gate! This is going to generate so much watercooler discussion that three-quarters of the voting-age population isn’t even going to notice the election until 11-3. Look for Ashlee Simpson masks with built-in voice chip in your local Halloween costume store this week.
I understand the point that you are trying to make, but it is still 380 TONS OF EXPLOSIVES!!! :eek:
That’s a pretty big goddamn deal.
As for the october surprise, doesn’t exist. It’s a fun concept, and it makes for entertaining speculation, but it’s just not practical.
Okay, “big deal” was a poor choice of words. I apologize for any insensitivity conveyed by that flippant statement.
However…PERPSPECTIVE, people. This is less than a percent of the munitions that we have found. I don’t see anybody refuting that, or showing how exactly this is the administration’s fault.
I refuse to focus on the negative when so much is going right, at home and abroad.
Psycho, the word “munitions” is an incredibly broad term and includes bullets, shells, rockets etc. If the US has destroyed hundreds of thousands of tons of bullets, shell casings etc, that’s terrific, but it’s not really comparable to one of the most powerful conventional explosives in the world. This stuff is far more important - one pound brought down that 747 over Lockerbie, and 380 tons have been stolen. Think how many military barracks, office buildings, humvees etc could be destroyed. It’s also very transportable and easily used - perfect for terrorists / insurgents.
The reason this is the administration’s fault is that they knew of the existence of the stuff and failed to protect it. It should have been one of their highest priorities. Now it’s probably being used to kill Iraqi civilians and US / Iraqi troops.
It’s such a stupid protest that it hardly seems worth refuting.
Look, the IAEA gave specific information before the invasion: “There are 380 tonnes of high explosives under lock and key in this facility outside Baghdad – make sure you keep on top of that once the bombs start falling, what-what?”
Instead of making the securing of this materiel a priority, military resources were primarily directed towards securing the oil infrastructure.
Comparing gross weights of weapons seized in other operations as a way of excusing this enormous oversight is ludicrous. An AK weighs what, four kilos? And they’re scattered around Iraq like paper plates outside a dollar-a-slice pizza joint? Seizing an AK does not compare well with recoving four kilos of HMX, in terms of harm reduction.
(Previews) Oh, hi Atticus. :smack:
I really hate to seem like I’m joining in on a gang bang here Psycho, but despite how much we have eliminated, 380 tons is still a lot of bang for your buck. The lethal mess that could be made with a fraction of that is staggering. The destruction that could be caused is something I’m trying not to think about.
Progress is one thing, but that is a really big kaboom that has been let slip into god knows where. Your refusal to focus on the negative in this case seems to be more a denial of reality.
I don’t mean this to sound harsh, but can you at least see why there is reason (good reason) to be concerned about this?