So, if Osama Bin Laden really is captured in October, or if terrorists really pull off an attack on US soil at that time, or (sufficiently accepted) WMDs really are found in Iraq that month — will that be a “real” event, or a Bush/Cheney/Rove October Surprise?
The danger, of course, is that at least some of these events (and the others mentioned in the poll) could legitimately happen, by coincidence or by intentional action by other parties.
Indeed, that would seem to ratchet up the possible danger from a terrorist attack in US soil in October — the terrorists can count on not only the “terror” effect (cf. Spain), but the “conspiracy” effect as well (given that there are already folks willing to believe that the US government was complicit, if not co-conspirators, in the 9/11 attacks in the first place).
So maybe a better question is, who’s responsible for that danger? An Administration that promotes at least some level of cynicism as to its motivations, or the cynics who are willing to go the extra yard with it? And, of course, “All of the above” is always an acceptible answer.
(via BoingBoing)
Well, it could very well be like Spain…
…An unpopular government lying about a terrorist attack for political gain, and then gets voted out on it’s ass when the truth comes out.
As much as I dislike the current administration, I feel a little bad for them (very little), because they really are in a bunch of no-win situations. Take gas prices. If they don’t come down, everyone’s pissed off at the high gas prices caused by Bush’s war. If they do, well, it’s because he brokered a re-election deal with Saudi Arabia. Damned if you do… Unfortunately for Bush’s opponents, the positives of “do” outweigh the conspiracy theorists and the negatives of “don’t”.