Saddam's capture and his impact on Election 2004?

[88Comrade2000]

I don't know how much Saddam's capture will impact the general election 2004. Depends on what happens over the next year. Will attacks cease? Will WMD''s be found? Will the trail start before Election 2004? Will Saddam even live that long-someone may take him out. The Russians, Germans and French don't want him talking. Also, he was once our ally; so he may have some dirt on us.

I do think Saddam's capture may impact the democratic race though. Not intially, I still think Dean will win liberal IOWA and New Hampshire. After that, when the race shifts to rest of America; Dean and his act may not play in the midwest or south. I want the democrats to put someone up that has a shot, not someone who will get slaughtered as Dean will.

Right now, you'd say Bush will win in a landslide-electorally at least. Not on the Nixon-McGovern or Reagan-Mondale Scale but the Clinton-Bush or Clinton-Dole scale. Probably 53%-47% scale on the popular vote.

Though alot can happen between now and election day 2004. At this moment, you'd have to place your bets and W.

[Art]

If I'm George Bush I run one advertisement over and over during election season if you are running against Dean. That commercial will start with no words, just flickering images of the mass graves and tortured people who lived life under Saddam. Then a voice over of a narrator or better Bush himself saying, "This is Saddam Hussein before."

Then, show the pulling down of his statue. Crowds dancing. His bedraggled pictures at capture. Same voice. "This is Saddam Hussein after." Then cut to Bush himself, landing on the carrier and have the narrator say, "The choice should have been clear to us all."

End it there. Paint the contrast. Question the decision to possibly be against the war. Portray that disapproval as being pro-Saddam, or at least being too paralyzed to act in the best interests of the world and the U.S. WMDs are meaningless for the Democratic field. Why? Because the majority of them were FOR the war and believe there are WMDs and they've just been hidden or moved.

For Dean and Clark WMDs are meaningless because they are putting themselves into position as the anti-war folks on many grounds. Bush can win those grounds by highlighting who Saddam was and how bad a decision it was to be against his removal. He can put Dean and Clark there and that ends them, IF he does it.

Even if he doesn't, the dots will be connected for enough of the public to put Dean and Clark out of it, barring a major negative occurance in the mean time. I agree with you though that those giving the race to Dean seem to think the race for the Democratic nomination ends in New Hampshire. In my view he'll have a difficult time in South Carolina where Gephardt has the single biggest black endorsement and Edwards should be strong as well as Clark. I haven't seen enough data from the states that follow New Hampshire to say what to expect, but, I just don't see Dean as comfortable as others might.

And if WMDs ARE found by the State of the Union, it may END Dean's candidacy as though they don't really help him politically not being found, they crush him so if they are.

[Art]

Oh, and speaking of Mondale, my wife just got a new job at the firm Mondale works for. I'm going in on Saturday to finish loading her office. And I'm sticking a Bush-Cheney sticker on his door .

[SEF]

Of course this will be politicized. Look at the past. The cowardly sliming of Max Cleland. The staged pulling down of Saddam's statue. The Republican convention in NYC in September. These people have no shame when it comes to this kind of thing. I'd guess the trial will be in the months directly leading up to the election.

[Art]

French,

The trial will, certainly, be in the months leading up to the election. It takes a long time to try a guy like this. And, you're right, it WILL be politicized, but, again, that's not the fault of the right. It's the fault of the left. The left has polarized to a candidate who is simply anti-war and little else. The left has largely overlooked more qualified, intelligent candidates in favor of this one-trick pony.

And that's what makes the issue political because THAT'S what's leading the American left. I don't recommend you like it. I do recommend you recognize why this is political in nature. If Lieberman or Edwards happened to be the nominee for the Democrats, absolutely nothing would be able to be made of this, and, more, it would probably benefit the left what little COULD be made of it.

As for the pulling down of the statue in Iraq, of course it was staged. All of the tearing down of every statue and poster in Iraq was staged. We knew we were going to do it and we did it. That people were happy with it is just a bonus to our remarkable moment.

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm wondering if this will help come Nov if no WMD are found.

[SEF]

I think the appeal of Dean goes beyond his war stance. He doesn't cower in front the right wing machine. The others that you mentioned do. Hence, their poll numbers. As I wrote before, you only have to look at the past (Cleland, the upcoming convention, etc) to see writing on the wall.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by sfrench

I think the appeal of Dean goes beyond his war stance. He doesn't cower in front the right wing machine. The others that you mentioned do. Hence, their poll numbers. As I wrote before, you only have to look at the past (Cleland, the upcoming convention, etc) to see writing on the wall.

Dean was running on being against the war. Lieberman already has taken a large shot against him that will hurt. He has already said he agrees with a lot of what Bush is doing. With what happend yesterday opens the door for the other democrats to sneak in now. The funny thing is Gore is already wasted, and now it looks like a bad move.

[aREDSKIN]

What on earth does anyone see in the acerbic Dean. His war stance is Dean. Nothing more. I'd bet he was just devasted by what happen.

[@DCGoldPants]

Dean is a jerk.

You can be happy that Saddam is gone, support the troops and hope for a new peaceful Iraq while still thinking that the main reason that was headlined for months in front of the world was bogus.

Its not Black n White here.

However, if we're now in the business of freeing nations from evil leaders. We've got a few more names to scratch off the list.

[OURYEAR#56]

My question here is, now that we've captured Sadaam why do we need to have the troops still in Iraq? I know why, but the Iraqi people have begun to wonder. I personally believe the terrorist attacks will begin to increase. The moral reason for this war has been satified, now it's a case of occupation more than liberation.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by OURYEAR#56

My question here is, now that we've captured Sadaam why do we need to have the troops still in Iraq? I know why, but the Iraqi people have begun to wonder. I personally believe the terrorist attacks will begin to increase. The moral reason for this war has been satified, now it's a case of occupation more than liberation.

Ouryear you are such a fool. We have to be there so we don't run out on them again like we did in 91. Even though Sadam is out there is still terrorists there that want to fight. Remember there is no Iraqi army just yet to defend them. Please stop trying to talk politics and read more before you post things ou of left field.

[Art]

Originally posted by Buf-ford

I'm wondering if this will help come Nov if no WMD are found.

Again, Bufford, WMDs are irrelevant to the entire Democratic field. Those FOR the war know they existed and exist and can't use it to hurt Bush because they know the truth. Those against the war can't really use it because they first have to explain how they could have supported policies that would have allowed Saddam to remain in control.

While WMDs may still actually matter to the public, the Dems aren't in position to use that because of these two facts. And, here's the REALLY bad news/good news depending on your outlook. If Saddam ends up telling us a good portion of his WMDs -- again, we KNOW they exist -- are in Syria or Iran with the complicity of people in the governments there, then our troops will be going across another sandy stretch soon.

[Art]

Originally posted by Buf-ford

Dean is a jerk.

You can be happy that Saddam is gone, support the troops and hope for a new peaceful Iraq while still thinking that the main reason that was headlined for months in front of the world was bogus.

Its not Black n White here.

However, if we're now in the business of freeing nations from evil leaders. We've got a few more names to scratch off the list.

Bufford,

Make a list of all the evil leaders in the world who are in charge of a nation that is NOT sovereign. There are no more. We had access and allowance in Iraq we can't really justify elsewhere in the world because Iraq was not a sovereign nation. We may not like dictators in other parts of the world, but, given their sovereign status, we can't really just march through and kick butt on those grounds.

Iraq was different and was the ONLY country in the world that was different. A dozen years of failing to abide by the terms of the surrender it was forced into allowed us to finish the deal there at anytime between then and now there where we can't really do the same in other places on just those grounds.

If we discover Syria was complicit in hiding WMDs we'll go there. But those will be different grounds to be sure.

[@DCGoldPants]

Yet again. I don't agree.

I think that if nothing is found in the next 10 months, then the headline for this War was a lie.

Nobody has to talk about supprting policies about anything. Evenbody agrees that Saddam shouldn't been in power. They just have to say "We supported a War based on the idea that Saddam has WMD, he was ready to use them and he WOULD be using them soon. Our President told us this and there is no evidence that this was true. Nothing was used against troops (thank god) during the past year.....nothing was used against anybody in the last year (thank god)."

If we're just out there to free nation's, then I guess this was a nice starting point and I'll see you in Korea.

Cheers.

I'm sure Amnesity International has a nice list for you to work off of.

[@DCGoldPants]

real quick, then I'm done with this for today.

I guess my point is....what were we here for?

Finding Weapon's? or To Free a People?

I'm not going to be a Jerk and say "Or Oil"?

If we're there to find these weapon's, then we keep looking.

If we're there to free people, then wha about other countries where people are being tortured, killed, raped, sold....etc.

Why not help them also?

[JackC]

Originally posted by Art

Oh, and speaking of Mondale, my wife just got a new job at the firm Mondale works for. I'm going in on Saturday to finish loading her office. And I'm sticking a Bush-Cheney sticker on his door .

How adult. I hope you're kidding.

[OURYEAR#56]

What are you talking about Jboo. All I said is now that we have libearted Iraq, why stay. Before we left in 91, Sadaam was still in power. We left the people that tried to resist Sadaam to their own devices. The situation is different now. If youtook time to watch TV yesterday, you would see that the clebration of Saddam being captured was short lived. The questions that people in Iraq will begin to ask is why are US troops still in their country if all they wanted to do was get Sadaam out of power. Period. This same reasoning held true for Osoma. The US has troops in Saudi Arabia. Osoma wanted the troops out of Saudi Arabia because it's a holy land. This was enough to spur men into action, hence 911 happened. I ask you again if we keep our troops there after our primary mission is accomplish will it be seen as an act of liberation or occupation. There is nothing left field about that. The power strcture has now been toppled, why saty there. Let the Iraqi people have the FREEDOM to choose the way they want to live.

[Art]

Again, Bufford, name another country that's not a sovereign nation like Iraq was. When you do you can ask why we don't help them as well. Until you do, you can't ask that question because it doesn't apply.

We were told a number of reasons for going into Iraq. One being we didn't want to ever experience a 9/11 tipped with WMDs. It was not the sole reason. It was, likely, the overriding reason. And, everyone knows these weapons exist so it can't possibly be a lie that we were concerned with them.

No matter what though, WMDs won't help the Dems because informed Dems recognize the reality of the WMDs Iraq has. Those that don't won't be able to overcome his dictator status to GET to WMDs. You don't have to believe it. But it's true. Had Saddam not been caught it might not have been true.

[Art]

Originally posted by JackC

How adult. I hope you're kidding.

Not at all. Also sticking a Norm Coleman sticker for good measure.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Art

Not at all. Also sticking a Norm Coleman sticker for good measure.

That sounds like vulgar graffiti to me? I hope your wife doesn't like the job too much.

[Art]

Norm Coleman.

Bush. Cheney.

What word is vulgar? Graffiti is a drawing or inscription, not a bumper sticker. So, though it sounds to you as something, it is impossible for it to be.

[@DCGoldPants]

I don't think being a sovereign nation really matters. If this was Korea killing their own people, testing chemicals, would it matter?

Iran? Some African Nation that's had leadership turnover 3 times this year?

You'd really put a bumper sticker on his door?

[Art]

Yeah, Bufford, it really matters.

We are founded on the principle that a people have the duty to overthrown an oppressive government. This is a foundation of our freedom that we hold dear. And in every nation in the world that has sovereign authority over its people and how it goes about its business, we don't believe, as a people that it is our right or obligation to save them from themselves.

This is why we don't overthrow dictators the world over. This is why the right generally doesn't support war for humanitarian grounds. But, being that Iraq wasn't a sovereign nation and WE were partially responsible for the status of the citizens of that nation our moral responsibility changes somewhat, putting Iraq on a different scale than the rest of the world.

And, I'll put TWO on his door.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by OURYEAR#56

What are you talking about Jboo. All I said is now that we have libearted Iraq, why stay.

Because Iraq is not capable of security for its country right now. If we leave then the terrorists will all just live in Iraq without a government powerful enough to keep them out. I love how Osama says this is the holy land, guess what it is the holy land for our relegion as well.