Of course. Think about it - Kerry starts to look like he will lose. The libs cry out "Who will save us?!"

Hillary steps up (roll theme to Under Dog cartoons) "Here I come to save the day!"

Clinton needs to be begged and hear the cries of the people. Think Eva Peron.

Concur.

I think this has the Dems in a hurry.

If Kerry becomes the nominee, how can Hillary run against him as an incumbent in '08?

It would tear the Party to shreds, and Big John has too big an ego to step down.

If something happened to him (like many of the Klinton's other enemies), his Veep would still be on the inside track for the nomination.

Only way Hillary can run is if Bush wins, and then she can win the Party nom more easily to run against a new Republican nominee, rather than the incumbent President.

If Kerry wins and survives, she has to wait till 2012.

NDD:

Can't happen unless Kerry, as the Primary winner refuses the nom. Think he will do that?

TR

Oh I loved Under Dog! Wanted to marry him when I was about 4 years old.

I'm sure this scenario has merit, but again God help us.

Don't cry for me...America. Nahh doesn't have the same ring to it.

Wish I didn't agree.....

Funny how the Clinton memoir release date has been pushed forward.

Clinton made some comment about the first female president a few weeks ago. Don't recall the audience. I know he gestured to Carol Mosley Braun but that's not who he was referring to.

Concur here also. I've been saying for quite a while now that I bet that the Klintoons are going to pull all kinds of crap out of the closet to keep John Boy out of office. Hillary needs a clear trail in '08 and in no way would she want to take on the problems that are manifesting themselves now !!!

Have to wait to see what skeletons come jumping out of the closet.

1. We will get UBL before the election.
2. Evidence of WMD or SH ties to AQ will come out before the election.

When that happens, Kerry, being the political animal he is, will drop out to save face. Hillary will come out, because she is the only one with a chance, even if all the other things happen.

Just my nightmare scenario. Of course I could be completely wrong.

You know, I've thought the UBL scenario is the plan for some time now. Even to the point that we may be keeping him at bay, and tracking his movement until the right time to be politically exploitable.

I'm probably way off base here, but I've seen it before in Yugo, when K-man was well within our grasp, only to be called off.....WHY?

mp

Up here in Hippie land (aka Seattle), the sad thing is, these flower childern are just running around saying...A.B.B.
Anyone
But
Bush

They don't care about the countrys safety, or theirs for that matter. They just want to go back to the good 'ol days of Klinton and their cronnies.

You know... it is one thing to hear political conspiracy and cover-up theories come from whackjobs who hate federal LE, FBI, or the ATF ... but I admit it ACTUALLY concerns me to hear guys like you and NDD find potential truth in this type of scenario.

Are you serious? :munchin


*** let me clarify what I mean, it seems this could be read the wrong way. I respect the opinions of guys like you and if you are willing to admit possibilities such as this could occur with our military and civilian leadership... that is what is astounding to me.

I will be extremely angry if this is true. Good men dying for political expediency. Wouldn't be the first time. :rolleyes:

:mad:

I dont like that plan.

BEFORE this turns into a bashing of current leadership based on worst case scenarios
 

One thing about what my intentions were in my post that needs to be explained clearly...

IMO, there are VALID reasons for doing just what has been suggested concerning OBL. Obviously, national security concerns about possible planned attacks might warrant delayed capture while tracking/monitoring the Intel traffic that comes to/from him and his senior Lt's. I honestly do not think that OBL is planning or even supporting any NEW terrorists operations for AQ in his current predicament. The only benefit I see that he serves is as a positive morale influence on his martyrs and as a figurehead for the group. So delaying his capture could have significant potential for benefit if we were able to monitor him with very little strategic downsides to his being allowed to exist in seclusion and under constant harassment to prevent further support for AQ. If we can't gain any foreseeable benefit to his delayed capture, then it would be immoral to delay execution of the plan til the right time "politically".

So, I have no problem with a decision being made to not get him until after we are sure that we have learned everything we can about already enacted plans for Terrorism within the US or against our assets overseas.

The unnerving aspect of these suggestions is that experienced men who have a much better understandings of these things (and actual experience in these type tactical and/or strategic type decisions) actually entertain the idea for this type of possibility to take place for NON-strategic reasons.

I am unnerved, b/c I sort of had the naive thought that the Military leadership and even ground commanders would never allow for such threats to exist if for only a petty reason (politics). I had more faith in the military than some others more experienced with her workings seem to. That isn't a bash... that is just expressing my ignorance and naivety about the situation.

There are so many people that would be "in the know" that I would imagine it difficult to prevent a retired General who is a yellow dog democrat from coming out with innuendo about the cover-up on CNN, which would lead to a congressional investigation.

:munchin

Re: BEFORE this turns into a bashing of current leadership based on worst case scenarios
 

It is naive, IMO. Recall that the military is under civilian control. My understanding, which admittedly is based on second-hand information, is that military leaders continue to be -- as they have been for decades -- restrained for political and often senseless reasons from acting on their best judgment. For example, I understand that potential operations in our national interest often have been called off due to unrealistic demands by the civilian leadership, such as zero possibility of U.S. casualties. So you are targeting the wrong decisionmakers.

I am sure someone more knowledgable will correct me if I am wrong.

I understand and understood what you are saying in your post RL. It is not that I don't realize that this can occur when national security or international relations difficulties(state dept) are involved.

I may have posted that in a way that makes me look to naive. I am just shocked that someone with this particular target's history/profile would be allowed to exist without there being some sort of very REAL national security interest in keeping him out there.

Its one thing to let some war crimes fugitive that committed no direct acts against OUR national security to remain free when our troops are already part of a UN political force and command. IT is entirely different, IMO, to allow a known threat with past attacks on US assets, civilians, and soldiers to live without capture w/o very valid benefit to our future security.


I doubt the guys who are still active will chime in with their opinions, and I understand that. Maybe others not expected to be as "reserved" in comment can further clear me up.

:munchin