Out on a limb: Baker findings the GOP's October Surprise?

So what do we have so far:
* So that snotrag Newsmax tells us that Rove has assured Republicans of an "October Surprise"

In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.

President Bush's political strategist is also saying that the final two weeks before the elections will see a blitz of advertising, and the Republican National Committee is deploying an army of volunteers to key locations to help the grass-roots effort and monitor the elections.

The RNC is offering to fly in volunteers and cover their expenses.

Rove is not saying what the October surprise will be.

* Then, we have James Baker, of all people, who heads up the Iraq Panel and is all over the news.

* Next, we have conventional wisdom out there is that Bush will approve, at least in the release of its findings, whatever conclusion the committee comes to.

(More...)

That's not to say Bush is going to flip-flop on his belief that Iraq is central to the war on terror. It's just that the political divisions at home, coupled with the mayhem in Iraq, have made changes necessary. Bet your last dollar that Baker will have Bush's approval for his recommendations even before he makes them public.

* And finally, today we find out the the Baker commission has pretty much ruled out any "victory" in the short term.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

Anyone else see where I'm going with this?  With Bush saying, as recently as this week, that we will keep troops in Iraq, "as long as I'm President", this gives him an out.  A change in course is can still be interpreted as "staying the course", without any "cut and run".  To much cheers, applause, etc.  Standing resolutely, then showing a bit of willingness to change -- that's a change of heart, right? Go soccer moms! It's humility, right? Go evangelicals! At least, that's what I'm thinking they're hoping to convince American voters.

The Baker article above says that the committee won't release its findings until after the November 7 elections. But leaks occur, inferences can be made, and postures can be construed.

Like I said -- out on a limb.  But we'll see what comes of it.

•  Can't spin it this close to the election.

  They would need something absolutely devastating to the Dems as a party at this point.

  (knock on wood)

  by Stand Strong on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:27:41 PM PDT

  •  my fear is

    Pelosi will fart and it will dominate the MSM for 2 weeks

    by housesella on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:40:00 PM PDT

    •  any change on Iraq is admitting defeat

      if there is any change in policy on Iraq the dems can jump on it as clear evidence that bush/rumsfeld have been lying to the american people and Iraq has failed.

      by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:42:57 PM PDT

•  There are two Carrier Groups...

  ...heading for the Persian Gulf. Date of arrival should be around the 20th or so. Two weeks until election day from then on. Go figure.

  by RandomGuyFromGermany on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:32:39 PM PDT

  •  The Eisenhower and which other one?

    I think there's only one. There are 2 there now (actually the Enterprise is in the Arabian Sea, probably prepping to go home).  What's the other carrier going?

    by dougymi on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:51:09 PM PDT

    •  The Enterprise it seems.

      I have the information from this article.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/...

      It says "...The U.S.S. Enterprise a U.S. Navy flagship is under deployment to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea....". Actually the article does not mention any specific date, so it could already be there.

      Pretty scary stuff, should it be true (or close to the truth).

      by RandomGuyFromGermany on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:00:38 PM PDT

      •  OK...

        ...so I should have read the stuff inside the brackets of your post too. So the Enterprise is there. Could she stay a little bit longer perhaps?

        by RandomGuyFromGermany on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:03:14 PM PDT

        •  Of course it could.

          but I don't know why they would.  Watch the oil futures carefully. If you see a spike in them, it's time to worry.  They've been going down recently, so I believe nothing is going to happen.  Oil traders are pretty attuned to rumors and will react fast if there's something they don't like.  

          by dougymi on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:16:51 PM PDT

      •  It is there now. Nothing new in that.

        AS a matter of fact, they are probably going home.  They just pulled out of the Gulf to the Arabian Sea.

        The Eisenhower is due in the area on Oct. 21.  It was announced quite a long time ago that they were going.  Really, there's nothing to this.  If we were going to bomb Iran, we wouldn't need the Eisenhower to do it. We have assets in place in Iraq and elsewhere to do it with.  Nothing ominous in the Ike going to the area. Sounds like normal force rotation to me.  There have been a lot of diaries on this in the last few days.

        by dougymi on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:13:39 PM PDT

  •  Be very afraid

    See the following article in
    The Nation on the war preparations.

    The worse this November's election looks for God's Own Party the more likely the October surprise will be a war with Iran.  Rove and company seem remarkably complacent given all the bad news.  We run a VERY grave risk that this is their ultimate contingency.

    The most likely date is October 22 when there is a new moon and the stealth technology is most effective.  If we make it to the 25th or 26th we have probably dodged this calamity, at least for now.

    by mathGuyNTulsa on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:17:31 PM PDT

    •  That's old news

      and wildly unlikely. Because unless it was an immediate overwhelming success and there was no blowback whatsoever -- both unlikely situations -- it would undoubtedly blow up in their faces. Considering their ability to plan for, equip and run a war, this would likely hand overwhelming control of congress to the Democrats.

      by anastasia p on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:44:25 PM PDT

      •  I hope you are right

        we will know in 10 days.

        History shows there is NOTHING these lunatics won't do to hold onto power.

        by mathGuyNTulsa on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:53:25 PM PDT

    •  The thing is, Rove can't send troops anywhere

      October surprise or not.

      If he's declaring an October surprise it'll have to be strictly political and on a domestic level.

      by nupstateny on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:53:31 PM PDT

•  If so, then...

  ...it was probably mis-heard.

  Probably was supposed to be "The October Surmise."

  by dov12348 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:39:23 PM PDT

  •  The Newsmax article

    ... was from 9/21/06.

    GOP fortunes have gotten worse since then.

    Besides, I can see Rove saying there's going to be a surprise just to keep GOP morale up, while relying on their ad blitz and organization to pull it out.

    by gsbadj on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:57:15 PM PDT

•  leaks are already occuring

  but none of them are favorable to bush. It's even said that he won't accept the findings of the Baker group. He hasn't always listened to daddy or daddy's friends.  Remember brent scowcroft?  Nothing in that report will help bush.  That's why they're not releasing it before the election.

  by dougymi on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:48:58 PM PDT

•  Love that surprise

  Gee.  We're going to focus on stabilizing Baghdad and let the rest of the country go to Hell?

  If that's the best they got, they're in DEEP trouble.

  by gsbadj on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:53:49 PM PDT

•  On Jon Stewart ...

  Wow, I'm quoting the Daily Show as a news source ... anyway on Jon's show Baker said the report would not be released until after the election.

  by meowmissy on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:01:55 PM PDT

•  I think...

  ...it's as likely as anything else that might happen. I, too, caught Bush's parsing of words, re: "change of strategery," however.
  Also, I, like you, I think, don't trust those bastards one bit and I find myself trying to find the pattern in this grand carpet that's been woven. Sometimes, though, and not near often enough, it's just carpet.

  by Newton Snookers on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:02:03 PM PDT

•  Isn't that going to be hard to sell?

  Best case is for Bush to fall on his sword and accept that he was wrong.
  Admittedly since, Bush has no reason to remain popular, it could work. Allowing the Republicans in Congress to turn on the President could give them a boost. That could help them retain a majority and continue to screw the American people as they have been doing. It will give the rest of Bush's term to destroy our Democracy and solidify the fascist state they all envision.  The trick will be to get that message across to the voters. It is my hope that most voters will decide that it's too late to change your argument. If you blindly supported Bush's distraction in the Middle East for 4 years, then you're stick with that history. (I hope)

  by mungley on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:06:07 PM PDT

•  What about a high-profile resignation/replacement

  Could it be Cheney replaced with McCain or another GOP love-bunny? Rumsfeld replaced with Lieberman?

  My bet is Cheney or Rumsfeld. Probably not Condi.

  It's something they can easily coordinate in advance and make a big splash. That's gotta be it. Cheney doesn't want to be in office these next two years w/ a Dem House. He bails ahead of the US bailing out of Iraq. Maybe both Cheney and Rumsfeld.

  by TX Unmuzzled on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:51:53 PM PDT

  •  No, a Religious Nutcase

    I don't know who -- but they've got to motivate their base. Could they put a fundamentalist Christian in high office to get that base out, which now feels dispirited? I just don't know who.

    Maybe they're going to play to the center and the weariness in Iraq. So Cheney/Rumsfeld would be a one-two punch to signal -- without admitting mistakes -- serious change in Iraq. It would ALSO help muddy the message of Baker's commission.

    by TX Unmuzzled on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:55:37 PM PDT

•  Partition of Iraq

  could be the "surprise" that will come out of the Baker report.  I have seen on Times UK the rumour that three federal areas are suggested by the Baker report and according to Juan Cole the Iraqi Congress just sqeaked by a vote to allow a southern shia federal area.
  Links:
  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

  One possible change of course, set to be recommended by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) under James Baker, is to divide the country into automonous Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, stopped off in Kurdish northern Iraq before flying to Britain yesterday. The president is likely to listen to the advice of Mr Baker, an old ally of his father

  http://www.juancole.com/

  Bush has been talking about a change of course and I think he may be onboard with this Baker idea.  I don't think it will work.  I think when the rest of the region hears about it, all hell will break loose.

  by kitchen sink think tank on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 04:11:28 PM PDT