Karl Rove promises Republican insiders an"October Surprise"

[Ishmael]

Karl Rove Promises October Surprise

Ronald Kessler
Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006

Reprint InformationAhmadinejad: 'Zionists Are Not Jews'
Iran's Ahmadinejad: We Don't Need a Bomb'Bush: Democrats Will 'Raise Your Taxes'Laura Bush Launches Culture Web SiteMuslim Clerics: The Pope Must Go

WASHINGTON -- In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.


President Bush's political strategist is also saying that the final two weeks before the elections will see a blitz of advertising, and the Republican National Committee is deploying an army of volunteers to key locations to help the grass-roots effort and monitor the elections.

The RNC is offering to fly in volunteers and cover their expenses.


Rove is not saying what the October surprise will be. Asked if he would elaborate and give his thinking about the coming elections, Rove told NewsMax that his take largely parallels what RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said in a Sept. 5 NewsMax story.


As for the October Surprise, Rove said, "I'd rather let the balance [of plans for the elections] unroll on its own."




Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday September 21, 2006
Print This Email This

The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY.
The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning.
"The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting."
A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning -- which he described as "what if, then what" planning -- and "branches and sequels," which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon.
Adding to the concern of both military and intelligence officials alike is the nuclear option, the possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons targeting alleged WMD facilities in Iran.
An April New Yorker report by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation.
"The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning," Hersh wrote. "Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran�without success, the former intelligence official said."
The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAW STORY, along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have "come around on to the administration's thinking."
"The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear production facilities," the intelligence official said. "In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon."
Preparation for such a strike would require contingency plans for securing oil transport lines and dealing with possible riots, as well as assessment of issues that arose during the Iran-Iraq war.
"Bahrain will be a battleground as it is majority Shi'a and has had Shi'a riots stimulated by Iran in the past," the official said. "The US Fifth Fleet is also based there. A system for [protection of] oil transport in the Gulf will have to be devised by the US Navy to protect against attacks."
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to repeated emails requesting comment.
Deployment orders
With allegations of a plan in place and contingency scenarios in play, several military and intelligence experts see this as proof of a secret White House order to proceed with military action.
Last week, a military intelligence official described to this reporter the movement of Naval submarines and a deployment order sent out to Naval assets of strategic import, such as minesweepers, that could indicate contingency planning is already under way to secure oil transport routes and supplies.
On Sunday, Time Magazine confirmed much of what the military intelligence source had described.
"The first message was routine enough: a 'Prepare to Deploy Order' sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters," Time's Michael Duffy wrote. "The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real."
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner also expressed concern about the deployment orders, but cautioned that these particular ships are slow-moving and would take "a month or so" to arrive in position.
"Minecountermeasures, the four ships mentioned, are generally not self-deploying," Gardiner said Wednesday. "When previously sent to the Gulf, they were transported on the decks of heavy lift ships. The earliest they would arrive would be around the first of November."
Although some claim the Defense Department has denied the deployment order, no official denial has been made. The Pentagon does not comment on operational plans, not even to issue a denial.
Lawmakers in the dark?
Attempts to contact members of the Senate Armed Services Committee provided little help in confirming allegations of the deployment order made to this reporter and Time. Senate offices that were available for comment would not do so on the record.
From all appearances, however, it would seem that at least some members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have not been briefed on deployment orders or on any strike plans, even contingency plans. The Senate Intelligence Committee is attempting to get a grasp on what is and has been going on.
A source close to the Committee, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, explained that a series of briefings will be going on this week and into next.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has "embarked on a much more aggressive review of what the intelligence community knows and is doing regarding Iran," the source said.
"In fact [the Committee has] a number of Iran related briefings this week and next before the senators leave town," the source added. They "will cover the full spectrum including various aspects of their nuclear program and all U.S. collection efforts."

[Onkel Neal]

I hope they've captured OBL, that would be a freaking surprise.

[Skybird]

GWB has cloned himself and named it "Minime". Tons of chocolate are currently used to lure Minime into candidating for the next presidency, and probably he will win the election.

More Minimes are currently cloned to candiate for all seats in senate and congress.

[MadMike]

Why use nukes when we have to ability to destroy Iran's infrastructure with conventionally armed TLAM's, B-1's, and B-2's?

Quote-

"An April New Yorker report by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation.
"The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning," Hersh wrote. "Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran�without success, the former intelligence official said."
The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAW STORY, along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have "come around on to the administration's thinking."
"The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear production facilities," the intelligence official said. "In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon."

Typical "insight" from a "former intelligence official"... blah blah.

The fact of the matter remains that Iran HAS nuclear weapons design information compliments of A.Q. Khan, and IS attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. The question is, who will take out their facilities first, Israel or the U.S.?

Yours, Mike

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MadMike

Why use nukes when we have to ability to destroy Iran's infrastructure with conventionally armed TLAM's, B-1's, and B-2's?

Because their infrastructure does not produce nukes, and more than just one expert doubt that certain key installations of the production chain are in reach of even the heaviest and most penetrating conventional ammunitions. even more, the exact position of certain key structure in top priority sites in not known. So you have targets whose exact psoiton you do not know, and that are hidden ten, twenty and more meters under the ground, or behind stone of mountains, in caves, additionaly hardened by steel and concrete. you can't even hit them precisely.

I said from the very beginning, and still do so, that any war against Iran that means serious business to disrupt it's capacity of manufacturing nuclear bombs necessarily will include small nukes. Else, you only do damage to secondary structures and cause delays, but do not take out the key elements.

The use of nukes is not the first time being mentioned now in plannign thoughts, or analysis:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintAr...articleId=1714

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I hope they've captured OBL, that would be a freaking surprise.

No, they'll release a stockpiled OBL video, just like 2004 :p

Why capture him? He's doing great things for the GOP

[Onkel Neal]

The US will not use nukes. No way.

No need, either. If we take this on, it will be TLAM strikes at a certain number of facilities followed by Marines and Spec Ops insertions to complete the destruction. Then we get out.

[The Noob]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

If we take this on, it will be TLAM strikes at a certain number of facilities followed by Marines and Spec Ops insertions to complete the destruction. Then we get out.

Wrong. You will either find nothing associated with Iranian Nukes, or get you Behinds Kicked.

I think you are Under-Estimating Iran.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by The Noob

Wrong. You will either find nothing associated with Iranian Nukes, or get you Behinds Kicked.

I think you are Under-Estimating Iran.

That's what they said before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

The US will not use nukes. No way.

No need, either. If we take this on, it will be TLAM strikes at a certain number of facilities followed by Marines and Spec Ops insertions to complete the destruction. Then we get out.

Har har. Spec ops insertions into Iranian nuclear facilites....Right. A lot more complicated than it sounds.

PD

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Har har. Spec ops insertions into Iranian nuclear facilites....Right. A lot more complicated than it sounds.

PD

I didn't say it was simple

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I hope they've captured OBL, that would be a freaking surprise.

The French and the Saudis seem to think that the Grim Reaper has captured him first.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...538569,00.html

I suppose that the war on terror is won. Champagne all around.

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...538569,00.html
I suppose that the war on terror is won. Champagne all around.

I wouldn't touch a zip of that Champagne, because war on the terrorism isn't won solely on Bin Laden's death.

First of all, it's simply crazy to say there is war against terrorism, how can one proclaim war against terrorism, it's unworkable. For the type of enemy we fight, its simple, for every one of them we kill, 2 sprouts out, out of rage. It's printed in the book, for them the book is the only way. Therefore, for eternity we will see terrorism. You can appease it, but not eradicate it.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Perilscope

I wouldn't touch a zip of that Champagne, because war on the terrorism isn't won solely on Bin Laden's death.

Clearly.

[scandium]

If there's any substance to the rumour of Bin Laden's death (of natural causes while roaming the ME a free man not so good, little satisfaction there) then that could be the Oct surprise. I'm hoping whathever the cause, that he is either dead or captured as this guy's been on the loose far too long for public enemy #1.

Either way of course the fight goes on, but the "war"? Never been fond of that "war on terror" phrase. Great campaign slogan, absolutely useless in terms of defining accurately how one must deal with terrorism.