Karl Rove promises Republican insiders an"October Surprise"

[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.

[bradclark1]

Think about this. Maybe it's not a good thing if ObL is dead. He's pretty good at playing the hidden rabbit and as such is not a lightening rod for terrorists to get behind anymore. He's more useful alive then dead. Food for thought.

[Skybird]

This one would be a surprise at least to the president, judging by his earlier claims about WOT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/wo...rtner=homepage

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by 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.

Of course it does not matter if bin Laden is alive, dead or vacationing in Tahiti. If the reports are true, and this does seem to be a big if, it will not change America's problems and policies what-so-ever. Furthermore, if he has still not died from dissease or old age at this point, it is that which remains his biggest threat for the future, not the US military.

I agree with the inappropriate nature of the term 'War on Terror', but it is the term used. Personally, I have a strong preference for 'Middle Eastern Foriegn Policy Blunder'. Catchy, isn't it?

[Immacolata]

When people link to articles, could they give a short recap of the contents? Would be really swell. I don't even care if it is just the headline.