Dems can preempt the impact OBL's "capture"; just say October

[democrat in Tallahassee]

surprise over and over until everyone expects it to happen and then when it does,there will be little or no bump if the democrats have prepared the people to think that it is political stunt. If people are conditioned starting right now to think that the bushies have OBL and are just waiting for the right political time to release the news, it is a political liability not an asset.

[OBrien]

1. I think it will be late August

Just before the Repub convention in New York. They know there will most likely be many protestors there. They'll want to quiet them.

[fob]

2. Time for someone to make an e-mail to send around the globe

I think the best way would be for some "unretouched" photos of obl to go around with an e-mail stating how bush* knows they got obl last year and had him put on ice for an october surprise. Sprinkle *liberally* with some democreeps and democRATS references, add some misspelled words, looser for loser, your for you're and of course moran for moron and send it to all the freepnuts in a reply all!

Issue is then blunted when obl is thawed come late sept/early oct.

[Minstrel Boy]

3. I hear what you're saying, but unfortunately I think

Bush's media whores would likely turn that against the Democrats, smearing them as "whacko conspiracy nuts" for suggesting such a thing. Even though I agree OBL is slated to be an October Surprise, I don't think raising it would be smart realpolitik. It's a simple fact in America's climate that anything remotely suggestive of conspiracy theory gets smacked down hard by the corporate media. Such issues, to have traction, need to be approached obliquely by the candidates. It's one thing for everyday Democrats - they ought to be shouting "October Surprise" - but the potential nominees need to be more circumspect.

What I think they should do, perhaps perversely, is raise the expectation, and then demonstrate that it's already gone unmet. Issue statements that they expect him to be captured, and that it's the very least Bush can do, since he should have produced him two and a half years ago.

[LeahMira]

4. Is that necessary?

Sounds as if people are afraid that Bush will catch bin Laden. But how many times has Bush himself said that bin Laden isn't important any more?

When Bush took office, Al Qaeda was a small group of terrorists... dedicated and wealthy terrorists for sure, but a small group. Bush made them into some huge international network in the minds of U.S. citizens with his post-9/11 rhetoric, but the fact is that they were never more than a few hundred. It was not until the invasion of Iraq that Al Qaeda grew into a force to be reckoned with, as Islamic fundamentalists and Islamic nationalists began to seek out Al Qaeda to help defend their own homelands against U.S. influence and/or occupation. At this point, I think that even if bin Laden is captured Al Qaeda will continue on, perhaps with even more ferocity and dedication if their "founder" is martyred.

The U.S. has seized a lot of Al Qaeda's financial assets and bombed their alleged strongholds to rubble, and yet they still manage to create havoc throughout the world. Capturing bin Laden is not going to stop anything or defeat anyone. Think about it... would the U.S. back off if Al Qaeda captured Bush?

[samsingh]

5. you are 100% right!

we need to get this message out so that when Osama is trotted out, the move will be met with the cynicism it deserves.