25-09-2002 00:08									#61
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I don't think that anyone has said that Iraq is an immdeiate threat. Hence the emphasis on pre-emption.

The chicken-hawks are loudly proclaiming Hussein is an actual threat. Cheney said a few weeks agao that no one can doubt the threat that Hussein represents, and Bush just called Hussein a threat to the US ( )

quote: PS What is Jane's relationship to the flight sims that bear thier name? Is it merely lending thier name or do they have actual input in thier development?

Don't know.

	25-09-2002 00:08									#62
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

che, you would agree that Jane's does not have the raw intelligence data that Blair does? It is possible that there are human assets in place sending information out of Iraq. In this case much of that information would have to be classified.

I could see that Blair and Bush might be getting some unconfirmed reports from in country sources. In intel you have to grade all the information for its reliability. Blair wouldn't necessarily want to reveal specifics that he can't confirm, but you can bet that he knows a lot more than he is telling.

This mania that all world leaders are automatically liars is pretty nice. If and when the US attacks and finds NBC weaps you can always claim its a fraud.

	25-09-2002 00:10									#63
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

There is a difference between a threat and an immediate threat, che.

	25-09-2002 00:11									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick Iran could simply say they are invading Iraq to remove the agressor Saddam and forestall an American invasion.

You really think that would fly internationally? If anything it would be a good excuse for the Europeans to join in for the sake of the "Integrity of Iraq".

	25-09-2002 00:11									#65
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Iraq's military is reputed to be 1/4 the size it was during the first Bush-Hussein War. Iran could probably take them out with a good push. That would be brilliant. How could Bush oppose it politically, since he himself is trying to do the very same thing?

Yeah, that kind of scenario is a very good reason not to get tied up in UN red tape. Reagan would have acted and let us know how it came out afterward. That was a president!

	25-09-2002 00:12									#66
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Frankly, however, all the rhetoric that has been used against Hussein could be equally applied to both Israel and Pakistan. Both countries have WoMD. Both countries are agressive and have attacked their neighbors. Both countries sponsor terrorism.

In a sense this is true and in a sense it is not. Israel is not loathe to send its troops across borders when it is being attacked itself. Ditto Pakistan. However, the real difference here is that both are friendly to the United States and will listen.

Saddam once was in that category himself due to our support in the Iranian war. However, those days are long gone. Saddam is now an enemy. Nothing we say to him will restrain him now.

Moreover - Saddam was permitted to stay in power after the Gulf War on conditions sanctioned by the United Nations. This is a major difference between Pakistan and Israel.

The question is whether Saddam will comply with the UN resolutions - which include, but are not limited to, destroying his WoMD - or be allowed to flaunt international law and get away with it.

	25-09-2002 00:13									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

We can only go on what is in Blair's dossier. Blair claimed that he would show the smoking gun. Blair is trying to convince his party and his nation to go to war on the basis of what was in that dossier, not on the stuff they know but can't say. Blair has failed to convince knowledgeable people. We'll see whether or not he can convince his party and the average Brit.

If they find WoMD, I'll admit I was wrong. I've done it before. Remember, in a "democracy," you don't simply accept the word of the leader. You constantly challenge his (or her) assertions, force them to prove what they say. Otherwise there's no point to being a democracy. A dictatorship will work just as well.

	25-09-2002 00:18									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

When it comes to an annalysis of weapons, the editor in chief of Janes does have more authority than Tony Blair.

The Editor of Janes is right- there is no evidence of an immediate need- this is the question pro-invasion types have yet to answer in a satisfactory manner in this debate: why now, as in invasion by january? Has any imminent breakthrough occured? I mean, Rumsfel tells us Iraq won't use WMD on invaders because the officers directly in charge will know better, yet they won't know better if Saddamm ordered them to give tem to terrorists? Do I miss his clear logic on this? I eman, if we could tarce them back to iraq, would we not tarce them back to these individuals just as clearly as we would if they use them on the field, assuming they have them at all?

All the issues of democray and freedom are not a valid argument foir immidate action just against Iraq because- they are true of many states, icnluding some also with WMD (Egypt and syria both have chem weapon, as might Lybia), and this has been true for the entire lenght of the Bush admins time, so why now?

I am not worried about Iran invading iraq, it has plenty of internal power struggles to worry about. I do worry about the bloodshed that will come with the fall of the Saddam regime, in the south as Shia's take revenge on Saddam officials and Sunni's, in the north where Turkmen, kurds, and Arabs will fight for control of the northern gas and oil fields, with reprecussions for Tukey as well as ourselves.

People alk as if when we invade, tow days in Saddam is dead, we won, problem over: No, a new set of problems just begun, and as of yet, no one has shwon me that the set of porblems after the invasion will be better than the set of problems we have now.

	25-09-2002 00:23									#69
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yes. The sooner their job is done the sooner that blockade of Iraq can end. People forget, my side isn't with Huseein or against American necessarily. My side is with the innocent people of Iraq who are pawns of an evil dicator and a callous superpower.

We are on the same side, Che.

I assume further that you would have no objection to us arming anti-Saddam liberation forces, including the communist elements?

	25-09-2002 00:24									#70
	Tired of ads?

I'm less worried about an invasion in January than an October Surprise.

	25-09-2002 00:25									#71
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Boris, they were not "components of chemical and biological weapons". All the bugs, probably the anthrax too at that time, were available from ATCC. You can now access them from the web, they supply pure organisms and cells for biological research. The quoted reports include comments by laymen that would fit well along side of reports that Elvis was an alien.

Hey it is US Senate that these reports were made for. So no need to make excuses for previous US acts.

quote: What is the point of bringing up the fact that we gave this or that assistance to Iraq in the past? That is the most lame argument. We gave everything but the shirt off our backs to Stalin and it worked out. You can't apply personal morality or ethics to the conduct of nations. Well, you can if you are a fool. [q] It is not morality, it shows that "the reasons for war" they claim now do not stand. How? Well the reason is WOMD, the same country - the same man. However before they provided it to him, and he was not considered a threat, now he is, even though he is less powerful/dangerous than before. And do not single out this as the only argument, on its own it would not stand, however there is enough questions to ask that will not be answered. [q] let me pick out a few things i found interesting. 3.Saddam uses patronage and violence to motivate his supporters and to control or eliminate opposition.Potential rewards include social status,money and better access to goods.Saddam �fs extensive security apparatus and Ba �fath Party network provides oversight of Iraqi society,with informants in social, government and military organisations.Saddam practises torture,execution andother forms of coercion against his enemies,real or suspected.His targets are not only those who have offended him,but also their families,friends or colleagues. Saddam acts to ensure that there are no other centres of power in Iraq.He has crushed parties and ethnic groups,such as the communists and the Kurds,which might try to assert themselves.Members of the opposition abroad have been the targets of assassination attempts conducted by Iraqi security services. Saddam has pursued a long-term programme of persecution of the Iraqi Kurds, including through the use of chemical weapons. 1987-88,al-Majid led the �gAnfal �h campaign of attacks on Kurdish villages.. Amnesty International estimates that more than 100,000 Kurds were killed or disappeared during this period. Repression and control:some examples �œA campaign of mass arrests and killing of Shia activists led to the execution of the Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and his sister in April 1980. �œIn 1983 80 members of another leading Shia family were arrested.Six of them,all religious leaders,were executed. �œA massive chemical weapons attack on Kurds in Halabja town in March 1988 killing 5000 and injuring 10,000 more. �œA large number of officers from the Jabbur tribe were executed in the early 1990s for the alleged disloyalty of a few of them. After the Gulf War in 1991 Kurds in the north of Iraq rose up against Baghdad �fs rule.In response the Iraqi regime killed or imprisoned thousands,prompting a humanitarian crisis.Over a million Kurds fled into the mountains and tried to escape Iraq. 8.Persecution of Iraq �fs Kurds continues,although the protection provided by the northern No-Fly Zone has helped to curb the worst excesses.But outside this zone the Baghdad regime has continued a policy of persecution and intimidation. 9.The regime has used chemical weapons against the Kurds,most notably in an attack on the town of Halabja in 1988 (see Part 1 Chapter 2 paragraph 9).The implicit threat of the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and others is an important part of Saddam �fs attempt to keep the civilian population under control.

Exactly, add to this that after the Kurdish massacre the US government allowed selling biological agents to him. That this is the man of choice to be US/ UK ally in the 1980's. That above was not a concern for them than. It is now.

What does that tell you? They don't care about that, they know that you and me will care, and that is why they provide us with this info now! they will not provide you with the info about Musharaff (pakistani dictator, "our ally"), as they do not want you and me to think that they would suport a murderous dictator.

And that our elected presidents are murderous liars?

So murderous, maybe would not qualify, but liars...

When you toy with war, there will be dead people. And noone wants to die, however if you have a reason to go to the war, you need to give a good reason for it, and it is obvious that Blair and Bush are running out of good reasons, as they have only one. WOMD. And what is the real reason, we will most likely never find out.

But still maybe we would if the questions above would be addressed publicly and openly, for which there is almost no chance of happening, even in a democracy.

Besides does anyone doubt about politicians not being liars? Come on, that is in their job description. And do you know why do they have to lie - to hide the truth from you and me.

This statement seems harsh, however look just at last 25 years, and you will see many examples of lies being CAUGHT, and we all know that with a well trained PR machine 99% of them are not brought to light.

Most famous, in UK
- Lord Archer, Neil Hamilton
US, Nixon and Clinton,

Do we need more, and those couple were caught by luck. Not by system being designed to protect against these.

At least the system is on a level where these can be legally persued at least, of course with Clinton staying alive "for minor real offence", and for major offence later - which is lying under oath. Sooo... not liars, you bet.

	25-09-2002 00:30									#72
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned We are on the same side, Che. I assume further that you would have no objection to us arming anti-Saddam liberation forces, including the communist elements?

It'll never happen. Turkey won't allow the Kurds to be armed and the US won't arm the Shiites in the South. The Iraqi National Congress is too weak and fractured to be of any use, even with weapons and training and air support.

I would be overjoyed to see Hussein toppled and executed by his own people. I don't think the US wants to see that, however. Heck, I'm not completely sure the US wants to see Hussein go. His continued existence justifies America's ungoing presence in the Gulf and he provdes a convenient whipping boy at home. And even in his weakened state, he serves, somewhat, as a counter to the regional power of Iran. This is why we didn't take him down in 1991.

	25-09-2002 00:32									#73
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I'm less worried about an invasion in January than an October Surprise.

If January is good then why not now? Or is the domestic political ramifications the most troubling? If the armed forces are ready then waiting only gives Saddam that many more months to prepare.

	25-09-2002 00:36									#74
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ok, you folks have worried me to death about this so I am going to tell you the real reason that the US is going to invade Iraq.

We want to have significant military presence in the Gulf. We will establish permanent bases in both Iraq and Afganistan. We will institute democratic elections and build these nations in our on image. We will use our heightened presence to leverage a settlement of the Israeli-Palestian issue. We will greatly increase our intelligence network in the Middle East and ruthlessly exterminate Islamic fundamentalist terror organizations. We will profit on oil and regional stability. We will neutralize Iran and stand as a counter to prevent India from invading Pakistan.

Bagdad will again be rich and a cultural center. McDonalds will do well there.

	25-09-2002 00:36									#75
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

An October Surprise wouldn't be for the purpose of defeating Hussein that much quicker, but for raising Republican prospects in the mid-season elections. If the invasion is held back, that means that there will more likely be a public debate on the ifs and whats of an attack.

	25-09-2002 00:39									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick We will establish permanent bases in both Iraq and Afganistan. We will institute democratic elections and build these nations in our on image.

Keep dreaming. Bush declared last year that we are not in the nation-building business. We have already (and very stupidly) washed our hands of Afganistan. There's no reason to believe we wouldn't do the same in Iraq.

	25-09-2002 00:43									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick Ok, you folks have worried me to death about this so I am going to tell you the real reason that the US is going to invade Iraq. We want to have significant military presence in the Gulf. We will establish permanent bases in both Iraq and Afganistan. We will institute democratic elections and build these nations in our on image. We will use our heightened presence to leverage a settlement of the Israeli-Palestian issue. We will greatly increase our intelligence network in the Middle East and ruthlessly exterminate Islamic fundamentalist terror organizations. We will profit on oil and regional stability. We will neutralize Iran and stand as a counter to prevent India from invading Pakistan. Bagdad will again be rich and a cultural center. McDonalds will do well there.

What no smilely faces?

	25-09-2002 00:43									#78
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara An October Surprise wouldn't be for the purpose of defeating Hussein that much quicker, but for raising Republican prospects in the mid-season elections. If the invasion is held back, that means that there will more likely be a public debate on the ifs and whats of an attack.

How the heck can it be a suprise if everyone knows you're going to do it?

	25-09-2002 00:44									#79
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Keep dreaming. Bush declared last year that we are not in the nation-building business. We have already (and very stupidly) washed our hands of Afganistan. There's no reason to believe we wouldn't do the same in Iraq.

If Bush goes to the trouble of taking Saddam down and doesn't establish permanent bases then he and his crew are surely as stupid as people here paint them.

I think they are smarter than that.

	25-09-2002 00:46									#80
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It'll never happen. Turkey won't allow the Kurds to be armed and the US won't arm the Shiites in the South. The Iraqi National Congress is too weak and fractured to be of any use, even with weapons and training and air support. I would be overjoyed to see Hussein toppled and executed by his own people. I don't think the US wants to see that, however. Heck, I'm not completely sure the US wants to see Hussein go. His continued existence justifies America's ungoing presence in the Gulf and he provdes a convenient whipping boy at home. And even in his weakened state, he serves, somewhat, as a counter to the regional power of Iran. This is why we didn't take him down in 1991.

Yeah, I agree that simply arming the resistance leads to long term regional instability. Doing this in Afghanistan certain got the Russians out, but lead directly to 9/11.

The best scenario is that we get a strong resolution from the UN and that Saddam complies.

But if he doesn't, the UN must declare war.

	25-09-2002 00:53									#81
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave Hey it is US Senate that these reports were made for. So no need to make excuses for previous US acts.

Taking misquotes out of context from morons who have trouble tying their own shoes and repeating them ad nauseum seems to be the best you can do on this issue. Just in case there is anyone else who might read and misunderstand your drivel....

I could not find the text of the senate hearings but here is a quote from a website that appears to have the same agenda as you.

quote: The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.

Taken from http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

As I said before ATCC is a biological supplier of bacteria and cells to biological researchers around the world. It is not a government agency and it does not supply biochem weapons. As I said before all of those organisms except for H. capsulatum are common "garden variety" bugs that could be found in any hospital in Iraq (or virtually anywhere).

Your continual parrot-like mouthings of that which you know nothing of merely serves to show your ignorance of this (and other) issues.

	25-09-2002 00:55									#82
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by walruskkkch How the heck can it be a suprise if everyone knows you're going to do it?

Are you an American?

An October Surprise refers to something the Administration does just before elections to give his party a boost in populatrity without time for emotions to cool off. Johnson tried to give the US an October Surprise in 1968 by getting a peace treaty only to have the South Koreans back out (at Nixon's behest) just before the elections. The Surprise was revsered and it carried Nixon to the White House.

There are allegations still unrpoven, but not totally disproven, that Reagan's people acted to prevent Carter from giving an October Surpise with the release of the hostages. It is claimed that Reagan's people told the Iranians they'd get a better deal with Reagan.

So in this case, the October Surprise I and many others fear is that the President launches a war in the waning days of October, and war fevor carries the Republicans to a massive victory in the House and Senate, which would result in untramlled Bush rule for the next two years. And while this would likely result in the Republicans being destroyed as a party forever (note: hyperbole), the damage they could do in two years is considerable.

	25-09-2002 00:55									#83
	Inflate your Upload Space

And focus on the fact that noone mentiones is there another way of destorying their WOMD's apart from an outright invasion?

OK they want to topple Saddam, - the first question is why?

He doesn't suit them anymore. Again why?

Than it becomes more interesting,

They say he is a evil dictator with WOMD - "evil dictator" well that really means nothing to them, and if WOMD can be destroyed in another way - like inspectors, espionage , air strikes... or a combinatin of these, why topple Saddam, and such sudden pressure, almost out of the blue comparing to pre 9-11 situation?

Terrorism would sound more plausible after 9-11, but there is not enough evidence for a "anti-terrorism hike". So WOMD is the deal of the year...

What about all the terrorists and further polarization between Arab and western world following totally illegal invasion of an Arab county. Thinking about the numer of new terror recruits this will create, not to mention rolling over Iran, who could be next, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia maybe? Do you think that pro -western people there will be pro-western afterwards?

The question is WHY?

Aren't you guys at least a little concerned about the consequences of this act. This is no 1991 Gulf War, when the whole world was behing US even the Arabs, and if everyone thinks that Iraq is really no threat to US, - I think the same, and that is why current US administration treats them as whipping boys, however. This will most likely have true reprecussions in terrorist activity. If palestinians can do it, surely Iraqis can do it as well.

That is why I do not like it, if you exclude totally immoral behaviour of our governments that we should already get used to.

Terrorism is a threat, and what happens one day if one suitcasenuke explodes in your city? You will not be able to prove this is because of the latest Iraq invasion, but could well be.

The whole arguement is that the invasion of Iraq does not solve the problems US/ the world has with terrorism/ uncertain living, it increases them - a lot in my opinion.

	25-09-2002 01:00									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

So the US is going to overthrow the government in a country that just happens to have the world's second largest reserves of petroleum, and then will just walk away?

Ummm...right....

	25-09-2002 01:01									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Are you an American? An October Surprise refers to something the Administration does just before elections to give his party a boost in populatrity without time for emotions to cool off. Johnson tried to give the US an October Surprise in 1968 by getting a peace treaty only to have the South Koreans back out (at Nixon's behest) just before the elections. The Surprise was revsered and it carried Nixon to the White House. There are allegations still unrpoven, but not totally disproven, that Reagan's people acted to prevent Carter from giving an October Surpise with the release of the hostages. It is claimed that Reagan's people told the Iranians they'd get a better deal with Reagan. So in this case, the October Surprise I and many others fear is that the President launches a war in the waning days of October, and war fevor carries the Republicans to a massive victory in the House and Senate, which would result in untramlled Bush rule for the next two years. And while this would likely result in the Republicans being destroyed as a party forever (note: hyperbole), the damage they could do in two years is considerable.

All your examples are of people deceiving the contry on a course of action. Where is the deception here? Where has anyone in the administration said anything that would not indicate that this is our prefered actions and if given their druthers they go right now, never mind October? The only people barely holding their fudge on this are the Democrats and purely FOR political reasons. They damn well know that if we did go ahead they would be trounced in the elections because they have been opposing action since the beginning. They would love this all to blow over until after the elections rather than having to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

	25-09-2002 01:07									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Taking misquotes out of context from morons who have trouble tying their own shoes and repeating them ad nauseum seems to be the best you can do on this issue. Just in case there is anyone else who might read and misunderstand your drivel....

If you think that of your senators - that are I hope better informed than you. (and you should hope the same )

Well no comment neccessary.

	25-09-2002 01:09									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Greece to study British evidence against Iraq
Tue Sep 24, 1:38 PM ET

ATHENS, Greece - Greece will study a copy of an intelligence dossier compiled by Britain outlining evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, the foreign ministry said Tuesday.
A copy of the dossier was given to Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou after it was presented to a special session of the British Parliament by Prime Minister Tony Blair ( news - web sites). It was accompanied by a letter from British Foreign Minister Jack Straw.
The dossier included a map which showed that Iraqi weapons now being developed could reach Israel, all the Middle East, Greece and Turkey.


Greece chairs European Union ( news - web sites) military discussions because Denmark — which now holds the EU's rotating presidency — has opted out of EU military operations. Athens will take over the full EU presidency on Jan. 1.

"Mr. Papandreou reconfirmed the position of the Greek government for the need to respect the decisions of the United Nations ( news - web sites) and the exhaustion of all possibilities for seeking a diplomatic solution," said foreign ministry spokesman Panos Beglitis.
He added that the dossier was "being studied by the responsible ministries."

	25-09-2002 01:19									#88
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by walruskkkch All your examples are of people deceiving the contry on a course of action. Where is the deception here? Where has anyone in the administration said anything that would not indicate that this is our prefered actions and if given their druthers they go right now, never mind October? The only people barely holding their fudge on this are the Democrats and purely FOR political reasons. They damn well know that if we did go ahead they would be trounced in the elections because they have been opposing action since the beginning. They would love this all to blow over until after the elections rather than having to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

You really don't understand our political system and history and terminology, do you? Carter's October Surprise was not based on deception. Everyone knew Carter was trying to get the hostages out of Iran. Had he done so in Octoboer, he would very likely have won the Presidency for a second term.

As for Bush, where is the deception? Well, if you're a supporter of Bush, I gues there's no deception at all, because Republican President's never lie. Let's see, where the War on Terrorism? Where's the discussion on the Administration's ties to all those scamming CEO's? Where's the discussion about the terrible shape the economy is in? Nowhere, because the only topic is the War on Iraq. Yeah, nothing fraudulent going on here.

BTW, the Democrats are not opposed to a war against Iraq. They are opposed to unilateral war against Iraq which alienates the world from the US. They are opposed to giving Bush unlimted authority to attack Iraq for any reason. I have to say that they are not unreasonable.

	25-09-2002 01:27									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

First off I am well aware of US history my friend. Carter lost the election for tons of other reasons than an alleged "October Surprise".

Your attempt to distract on this current need for action with more supposed conspiracies of the current president are rather lame. Why can't you accpet that Bush is telling the truth that action will occur with Iraq? It's sitting right there out in the open, no suprise at all. And it's not like the other issues aren't also being debated, it's just that some people do believe that the action against Iraq IS the most important thing to be discussed.

No, the Democrats are carefully trying toavoid having to make a black and white choice on doing something with Iraq, at least most of them. They desparetly don't want to have to vote yea or nay on action because then they would have to either show themselves as only rhetorically supporting a war on terrorism or support a President they wish only ill for.

	25-09-2002 01:36									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by walruskkkch First off I am well aware of US history my friend. Carter lost the election for tons of other reasons than an alleged "October Surprise".

You really do have a problem understanding the concept. If Carter had pulled off an October Surprise, he very likely would have won the election. The elation over the hostages coming home would likely have caused people to vote with their hearts and not their wallets. Obviously, Carter lost for many reasons. The whole point of an October Surprise is TO DISTRACT PEOPLE FROM THOSE OTHER REASONS!

quote: Why can't you accpet that Bush is telling the truth that action will occur with Iraq?

He hasn't given me any reason to accept it. All I've heard is assertions with no evidence. If Blair's dossier is anything to go by, there's nothing new under the sun. So why now? Why not last year? Why not next year? Why harp on it right before the elections.

And why are you so hung up on the word surprise. An October Surprise is a reversal of poltical fortunes based upon a major political event occuring just before the elections. The Johnson Peace Plan was also known about, and everyone was aware that he was trying to conclude the talks before the elecction. Obviously there was no surprise there, and yet it's still termed an October Surprise. Stop getting hung up on the specific meanings of words that have different meanings used in different contexts.

quote: No, the Democrats are carefully trying toavoid having to make a black and white choice on doing something with Iraq, at least most of them.

And you base this on . . . ? Your dislike of the Democrats? I'm sorry, but given that the Democrats have already openly stated their support for the President, it's hard to accept your assertion that they don't support the President. The difference is, they aren't going to let him do whatever he wants but only act within specifically definaed perimeters, which, after all, is Congress's job.