July Surprise? (Nobody expects a ZOT!!!)

New Republic ^ | 7/10/04 | John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari

[Hiram_Buck]

This spring, the [Bush] administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan...

...This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November.

[Hiram_Buck]

So, yes, I am, when labels are required, a Liberal. But, as I am interested in the workings of the Conservative mind, I wonder how an article like this might sit with proud Conservatives like yourselves.

I suppose it is a false, misleading, and fiercely unpatriotic charge, no?

Shoot it down, Ladies and Gentleman. Make me feel stupid.

[goldwaterlives]

You do a good enough job of that yourself

[sinkspur]

This is the New Republic, with its "July surprise." The kid who wrote the article was on C-SPAN yesterday, and he has nothing but hearsay evidence to back up his contention.

So, yes, I'd say it's misleading and false.

[jimbo123]

It's sad that you are rooting for the terrorists to escape because of your hatred for our President. Shame on you and those of your ilk.

[wolicy_ponk]

[DouglasKC]

The liberal spin is that he wants him captured by the election to simplyget votes. A conservative spin is that he wants him before the election because he knows that if a democrat is elected the war on terror will stop and we will never again capture another terrorist.

[glaux]

Label is required: you are stupid.

[Coffee_drinker]

on CSPAN

Was that the Kid who looked like he was 12? man what a baby, I'm sure he was drawing on all his experience :)

CD

[Carling]

Unnamed Pakistani intel sources, with the New Republic as the source of this expose?

LOL - the shadowy, spooky left will believe anything w/out corroboration these days.

The New Republic?

Puh-leeze, and even if Bush wants to catch bin Laden in July, who cares? At least he'd be caught. I can only assume that you would prefer he remain at large for your POLITICAL benefit.

You are just as bad as this sketchy article paints Bush as being.

[sinkspur]

Besides, I'd like to ask Judis (who is a Bush-hater who had the misfortune of writing a long article entitled "The coming Democrat majority" just prior to the 2002 Republican congressional blowout) this question:

Should we not try to nab bin Laden?

If we have a chance to get him, shouldn't we?

Or should we sit and wait and hope your boys Kerry and Edwards will file a lawsuit, and that'll do the trick?

[brad76]

Just being liberal should make you feel stupid.

[Not A Snowbird]

I'll believe it when there's a lick of proof.

[TankerKC]

The title doesn't seem to fit the text.

[woofie]

I agree...Its a terrible thing to get a bad guy, especially so close to an election

[Huck]

Elections are one way we hold presidents accountable. Presumably the American people would like to see Bin Laden captured. If the election in November provides GWB with a self-interested motive for capturing him, as if capturing him at any time wouldn't be in GWB's self-interest, then so be it. To me that's further evidence that much of Mr. Madison's efforts way back when were not in vain.

[Buck W.]

This is symptomatic of the general lack of accountability among liberals. Here, Bush apparently demands action by our ally, and he gives a timetable. He may also have said "as soon as possible". In any event, we have a measurable criterion.

As anyone who observes the UN knows, no such accountability accompanies any of their "edicts". That allows the organization to look tough while relieving them of any obligation to act.

This is part of the liberal MO. I applaud the administration for placing a timetable on the capture of terfrorists in their own country.

[Not A Snowbird]

On reflection, here's a better answer. Is it possible we want them nabbed before November because if Kerry wins we'll never get them?

It's now or never, gang. Kerry & Company won't lift a finger to go after Bin Laden; he'll be too busy building bridges with the UN and giving them more of our money to squander, while kissing up to France and Germany.

[lentulusgracchus]

This account has been banned or suspended.

Does "get lost" count as an answer?

[Not A Snowbird]

Darn. And I was just gearing up for another reply.