We can now start the 10 day countdown to the October surprise

[Bucky]

The typical Rove trick would be some anti-Kerry attack that he's sitting on. Maybe he's got dirt on Teresa. But he's sitting on something. It'll be shocking, ugly, stuff from Kerry's past. Something as simple as a new attack commercial or maybe something more.

Then there's the tinfoil stuff. Terror attack? I've never believed that. A high profile prevention of a terrorist attack (or perhaps a "prevention" of a "high profile terror plot") is a better bet for a guy running on how safe he's made America. But honestly, even that is a big risk, PR-wise.

A crisis with Iran seems less likely, too, now that Kerry has attacked Bush for ignoring Iran. Iran is the country that, through their double agent Chalabi, tricked the neocons into going into Iraq both barrels blazing (removing their enemy Saddam and discrediting the US in the eyes of the Middle East). They want to divert attention away from Iran.

I think that leaves us with the "attack Kerry" option. But really who can know what goes on in the mind of Karl Rove?

[apnu]

1. I think the surprise is...

... supposed to be this Sinclair snap over the anti-Kerry mockumentery.

Unfortunately (for Rove), the cat seems to have escaped the bag a week early. (Smart Kitty!)

[NewJeffCT]

5. I agree - I think Sinclair is it

unfortunately, we don't have a similar ally that can air the extended version of Fahrenheit 9/11 before the election.

[apnu]

8. except that you forget...

...kazaa, bitorrent, bearshare, emule, edonkey....

That the "Outfoxed" people, as well as M. Moore and the Going Up River people have all said: "Download, copy and hand out as many copies as you like"

People are learning that TV has failed them, and they are looking for other areas for their content.

Also, keep in mind of the ever widening gender gap, it seems to be at "maw" width right now.

[aden_nak]

2. We're going to "almost" catch bin Laden.

It's a simple enough thing. You embed (in-bed?) a few reporters with some soliders in Afghanistan who have a "major lead" on an al Queda operative. You drag the reporters all around the Afghani mountains and reveal that they are hot on the heals of Osama bin Laden. You start this up on about October 29th.

No one would reasonably expect to find him in just four days, considering how long it's taken. But you create the buzz, and it takes people's attention AWAY from the situation in Iraq. It shows Bush being "tough on terror" and you've got guaranteed positive coverage, since the embedded reporters will be looking to make their careers on live television.

Then late at night on November 1st (in time for the news to carry it the next morning) you shoot a few missiles into the side of a mountain and insist that you "know" bin Laden was in there. Once the ballots are all counted, you say you are investigating the incident and then conclude that it wasn't actually bin Laden, but rather one of his "top aides" (insert the name of an al Queda operative you suspect is dead) acting as a decoy.

[RoBear]

4. They already have him stashed away somewhere..

The surprise is that they will "catch" him just before the election.

[aden_nak]

6. Nah, if they had him they'd have used him after Debate #1.

They'd want Bush and Cheney to be able to rub it in their faces on live television. And they could always re-stir the bin Laden shit up again by setting a trial date just before the election. Once they have bin Laden, they can call a perss conference, do NO campaigning, and gain 15 points in the polls.

[LTR]

3. Is there anything about Kerry we don't already know?

Let's be realistic. In the age of the internet, it seems like there are no more secrets left. I can easily see the 'mother of all smear campaigns', but it will probably rehash stuff we already know.

The only thing I could see is the 'Kerry pissing on the flag' thing, but from what I've seen, the whole thing has no merit whatsoever. I highly doubt it exists, and most of the wingnuts in the media seem to think the same thing.

Bin Laden? My theory is that he's being watched by people who don't want to do Bush any favors anyway. I wonder if Pakistan is really motivated to do anything for him. I don't see them really thinking highly of Bush.

A terror threat could possibly weaken Bush. Notice we haven't had any alerts lately?

An incident involving Iran could kill the election for Bush. Kerry's been hammering him on this.

I really think Bush has been painted into a corner. Am I being too optimistic?

[babylonsister]

7. Despite the internet(s), Shrubbie has 'hidden' his

military record, his AWOLness, his drug usage, or at least blocked this info from the general public and more importantly, spun the media to not think it's important. I think it's very important that this clown got a 'pass' on VN, went AWOL to boot, and never got reprimanded or, better yet, thrown in jail for being a deserter.

[LTR]

10. But everybody knows what's in it

Or at least can take a pretty educated guess.

I wonder though, has the whole Vietnam thing regarding both candidates completely run out of steam? Seems anytime either candidate's Vietnam-era service is brought up, it's just beating a dead horse. I think they've attacked each other with everything they have, and now it's down to the issues. Anyone else feel this way?

[BR_Parkway]

9. Just got this in a different email group, anyone else heard that this

is coming? The timing would be so typically RePuke..

John Kerry: More 'aid and comfort'...by Mark Alexander

His treasonous actions in 1970-1971 are the subject of an indictment
that will be delivered to Senate President Dick Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Attorney General John Ashcroft on 12 October. The indictment notes both Kerry's UCMJ and U.S. Code (18 USC 2381) violations, and it calls for his disqualification for public office in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President...having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Why issue this indictment now? Because John Kerry chose to make his
Vietnam war record the centerpiece of his presidential campaign (see
"Kerry's Quagmire..."). In response, more than 160,000 signatories of the aforementioned indictment have made it the centerpiece of their campaign to disqualify him from public office.

Clearly, there will be no determination on these charges until after 2 November, but Kerry will be held to account for his treasonous actions -- for there is no statute of limitations on treason.

For those who would argue that Kerry's anti-American activities in
1971, which clearly cost American lives in Vietnam, do not reflect the nature of the man today, we refer you to this statement from Kerry from the first debate. On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, "It is vital for us not to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. That happened before."

Indeed, it did happen before, and it is happening again today.

[LTR]

11. Here's the original article

From last June:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/printma20040625.shtml

And a freeper discussion on it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160580/posts

Old news.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. Since you mentioned Chalabi, that raises a question

Why isn't Kerry mentioning Chalabi in the debates? He mentions the lame intelligence the Fraudministration used and he mentions that Iran has become more of a threat. Seems natural to tie in the fact that much of the bad intelligence came from this Iranian spy/Jordanian bank robber that the PNAC'ers put all their trust in.