Karl Rove is Making Troop Deployment Decisions to Influence Election 2006

[kpete]

Karl Rove is Making Troop Deployment Decisions to Steal Election 2006
Submitted by Bob Fertik on August 28, 2006

UK investigative reporter Mick Smith published the historic Downing Street Memos on 5/1/05. And now he has another blockbuster: that Karl Rove is making troop deployment decisions to steal the 2006 election for Republicans.

Earlier this year, Blair flew first to Baghdad and then to Washington where there were plans for a joint announcement with President Bush on the withdrawal of troops. The British were to pull out of Muthanna province in the south, while the Americans withdrew from a number of provinces in the north. But while the British withdrawal from Muthanna was announced, by the time Blair arrived in Washington, the US withdrawals had been cancelled. A senior British official said the sudden change came about as a result of a change in circumstances on the ground.

But senior defence sources said that while there has been continuing trouble in the Sunni triangle and Baghdad, there were no problems that should have stopped the Americans withdrawing from the north. There were suspicions the cancellation was related to the need to hold back troop withdrawals to closer to the US mid-term elections in November, one source said.

Gen George Casey, the senior US military commander in Iraq, has drawn up a plan that would see the number of US troops in Iraq drop below 100,000 by the end of next year. Under Casey’s plan the withdrawals will begin next month in a move believed to be timed to coincide with the mid-term elections.

more at:
http://www.democrats.com/node/9873
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2006/08/are_we_staying_.html#more

[stop the bleeding]

1. no one will even be surprised at this n/t

[rodeodance]

9. the October NONsurprize coming to your moviehouse soon

[Atman]

2. Combined with the amazing coincidental plummeting gas prices...

...I'd say their 2006 election strategy is pretty obvious.

[woodsprite]

10. Yeah, I straightened hubby out on that one.

He made a comment that it looked like the prices were coming down. I told him that they really should be going up since BP is cutting production from the Alaska lines that they had to shut down. The only reason they were coming down was so people would still vote for them come November. After the election, look for "the sky's the limit" mentality and possible $5-$6/per gal. before the 2008 elections.

[Marr]

3. I really don't see how a move like this will help the Republicans.

Unless they can sell the idea that Iraq has been a success, drawing troops down will only look like a retreat. Americans may want to get out of Iraq- but they aren't going to support Republicans for retreating from a war they started.

[CoffeeCat]

4. This is sick...

Although I want noting more than to see the troops come home--sending thousands home leaves the remaining troops there very vulnerable. The violence is exacerbating and they're talking about reducing the number of troops?

Furthermore, what about those Marines who were recently notified that they would be going to Iraq AGAIN for 12-18 month-tours.

It doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to trumpet, "We're bringing the troops home!" when you've got the same number entering the battlefield, once again.

So---this administration is willing to put our troops in danger by reducing the size of our force in Iraq. However, this really isn't a decrease, since we're sending thousands of Marines within the next few months. Do I have that right?

Down the friggin rabbit hole we go, once again...

[grytpype]

5. More from the Times Online article

Are we staying in Basra to help the Iraqis or the Republicans?

Senior military commanders are concerned British troops will stay in Iraq longer than necessary to protect the political position of President Bush. Senior defence sources rightly believe there has to be a continued British presence in southern Iraq even once security is completely handed over to Iraqi control. But they have expressed concern that the continued presence of British troops in Iraq will depend on the political fortunes of the Republican party in America rather than assessments based purely on the situation in Iraq.

“The truth is we can’t pull out until the Americans pull out and that isn’t going to happen this side of a presidential election,” one said. “The Prime Minister appears to have promised Bush we will stay whatever. But a decision on when to pull out has to be driven by conditions on the ground not by other factors, whether that is politics in the UK or the US.”

The Republican strategy in the run-up to the mid-term elections this November has been to paint the Democrats as willing to “cut and run” from Iraq. If that slogan is successful it is expected to be maintained in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, making it difficult for Bush to withdraw from Iraq completely. There is a general consensus that when the allies pull out of Iraq, there will be a battle for power that will end up with one faction in charge but will in the meantime prove very bloody. That would finally condemn the Iraq project – and Bush - as a total failure. So there is no chance of the Americans pulling out until after the next presidential election.

...

[flyarm]

6. THAT MTF..OH HOW I HATE THESE MONSTERS! K&R N/T

[snappyturtle]

7. I love Mick Smith.....visit his website.....

It's very interesting to read British responses.

Bringing troops home will only fortify the dumbest and most staunch repuke supporters...the ones who will never change because they LUV their president and will stick by him and think he's always right and are so glad he sticks to his guns.....blah,blah,blah....:puke: :puke:

And for the rest: too little too late! But, don't forget, * said last week we would not be out of Iraq during the remaining time he is in office.....so the withdrawal of any size force is just a token to those not paying any attention.

[genie_weenie]

8. Rove and the Regime made the *Greatest* Strategical

move in history. They targeted the US Center of Gravity, right after 9/11. The US Populace.

Behind a huge Information-Operation (3+ years of "the next 6 months are crucial" and the Troops will be drawn down soon), Psyops (Democracy is on the march, don't show wounded vets except in inspirational stories i.e. the one where the legsless vet runs with the Glorious Leader), Propaganda Campaign (Smoking Gun is a Mushroom Cloud, Stay the Course v. Cut-n-Run, Fight'em there instead of here) they have been successful in keeping the people in the dark just enough too continue this war for years.

The good thing is they need to keep the populace scared with the Miami-7 terra plot, the "Defeated" L.A. Freedom Tower plot, etc. but the sad thing is so many people allow themselves to believe them...

[Supersedeas]

19. and with no complicity by the Corp Media Enablers?

[genie_weenie]

20. Oh no that wasn't my point.

There have been many media types who have aided the Regime's plans. Some more knowingly than others. My point was our Rulers and Betters learned the lessons of Vietnam well. don't let the American Populace know what is going on because then they may not agree to be used as lemmings in the expansion of US power and control...

And that they knew the *most* dangerous thing to them was the backlash of the American people wanting to know why their sons and daughters were being killed and maimed in a War of Aggression, hence they slander and ignore the likes of Pat Tillman's parents, Cindy Sheehan and all the Gold Star Mothers and Fathers...

[msongs]

11. "steal election" is an improper title - influence, maybe

steal is what they do at the precinct level.

Msongs
www.myspace.com/msongs

[savemefromdumbya]

12. Rove had better watch his 'right' as they will say he is a defeatist

no win on this one Rove

[PATRICK]

13. This would be more in keeping

with the pattern. They do the wars and real dirt AFTER successful elections. The charm crap and the fear comes before. By voting for their lulled anger and programmed fears the next round of misery and wars will be taken as a "mandate". Temporary good news for Iran and a shortened respite for US forces.

of course there is the little difficulty of the hypocrisy. IF something goes even worse in Iraq it must be ignored so that the redeployment can pose as strength and not as retreat that would close the permanent bases behind it. Casual use of all arguments, both as getting out and staying in will trumpet victory no natter which reason or fact is presented. Having it both ways and using failure as a plus, if nothing more than to deflate Dem campaigning. And you are right to think that logically it should be the other way around, the GOP losing the PR war both ways.

Which is why I think, that despite the media effort, there is great contemplation of a fear distraction in the WH, to keep the plan from naturally backfiring. Unless they become supremely confident as they were with the supine cooperation of naive Dems in 2002, expect the cowards to still light a fire somewhere.

In 2002 the pretext was Bush's "popularity" and his sudden political swing followed up with all the usual hard-fisted dirt and fraud while the reasonable timid 2% swing vote Dems dragged the party down. That situation does not apply, except for the exceptional caution of too many Dems like the Minnesota Vikings conservatively guarding a touchdown lead in the Super Bowl heading into the last quarter.

There is no popular pretext except some symbolic(fraudulent) act- as posted- that will happen late in the game before the public "bounce" is shown as another soap bubble. It will necessarily have to add a big fear component, something more than than the summer repeat of WMD finger pointing at Iran.

Pretext for stealing the election and pretext for a mandated war.

[warrens]

14. Oh, they're cutting and running?

Wait til the hawks hear this. McCain will blow a fuse. And I think the fog the dimwits in our electorate have been wandering around in for the past six years is lifting. They're not going to be fooled.

[AndyA]

15. Why does it not surprise me that this (mis)administration is willing to

risk the lives of our troops for political gain?

Support the troops - only as long as it's good for the GOP!

I hope the bastards doing this get what they all deserve - and sooner rather than later.

[gasperc]

16. then they don't know what the hell they are doing

because if Rove has his mitts into the troop decision making then that's why the post invasion period has been such a diaster. These kinds of choices will lead to even more spectacular blunders that will eventually blow up into a far worse situation in Iraq.

and with their domestic policy choices being so stupid that they ignored the ballooning housing bubble which is show early signs of a spectacular and painful crash.
The only future Rove looks toward is the next election and how to win a Republican majority. If he would have spent just 2% of his time on sound government policy using concrete data we'd be in much better shape than we are now. But that would have been the Democratic approach.

[opihimoimoi]

17. All the HALLMARKS of Level One thinking: Dictating/Myopia/Selfishness

etc etc

Never what is best for the COMMON GOOD...only for THEM...so revealing...

[Scriptor Ignotus]

18. anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves -nt

[gully]

21. Interesting all the talk of terror at election time as well.

transparent as hell.