Re. Saddam & Osama: Dems playing it wrong

[xequals]

Democrats need to take this issue of Saddam and Osama off the table. For me, this is a wake-up call that these people can be found/killed. What if Bushco "finds" Osama and/or Saddam in late 2004 ? What then ? It makes no sense to make this a main issue/arguing point against Bush. Look at the way the wind was taken out of the Dems' sails today, on a day that should've been strong for us.

Today Dems should've simply said, "Great. But we already assumed they were dead -- it's taken this long to find these guys? We should've found them months ago. Iraq is a mess -- that is the issue. Where are the WMDs ? Why is the administration cooking the books on intelligence? Is there a faction within the administration who truly want an American Empire at the expense of our own national security? "

We're setting ourselves up with the "where's Saddam and Osama?" argument. We need to take it off the table as an issue, and be vocal about it. We need to assume they're dead, refocus and keep hitting Bush where he thinks he's strongest: national security/foreign affairs. The American people need to know that this administration, with it's hostility and arrogance towards Americans and the world, has made Americans and the world less safe, unstable and more vulnerable to terrorism.

The public will support Bush and disregard any lies about uranium if they feel the administration is ultimately making them safer. Democrats need to refocus the debate and show the American people how (1) Bushco is completely inept and dangerous on national security and (2) How Democrats will make Americans safer. I strongly believe that national security/foreign policy/terrorism will still be the #1 issue in 2004, whatever state the economy is in. The economy will be a major issue for Dems, but IMO the party that manages to win the "I will make you safer" argument will win the presidency in 2004.

And we don't need Bushco to suddenly "find" Osama or Saddam around election day. It's not neccessary for us to make this argument. Its all risk and no benefit. It gives Bushco too straightforward/easy a way out of all the mess they've created if they could just "find" Osama or Saddam. We cannot allow the GOP to continue to frame and lead the debate. We're asking for disaster .. another October Surprise.

[diamond14]

1. bring back the "deals' that bush* made with our enemies...

- demand the release of reagun's presidential records..that would expose most of shrub's minions....

- rumfeld's giving bioweapons to saddam, and the "handshake" photo

- $43 million that bush* gae to Osama's Taliban in May 2001, 4 months before the attacks on WTC/Pentagon....

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

-snips-

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

[jfxgillis]

2. All good points, but

Politics IS risk.

"Where's Osama?" is one of less risky angles because it is utterly impossible to twist it into "supporting terrorists," which is what some of the other Dem criticisms WIIL, not "may" or "might" or "could," WILL be twisted into by the Rovians.

Let me re-iterate: Your caution is well-founded and should be noted. I just think, on balance, it's risky not to make the argument.

[RichM]

3. I think your whole post is an example of letting the GOP frame the debate

It's ironic that you complain about this activity in your last paragraph, after writing 6 longer paras that perfectly exemplify "letting the GOP frame the debate."

The truth is that making a great deal of noise about Saddam & Osama, & in particular over the question of whether they're alive or dead -- all this is mindless BS. It concedes that these issues are important, but they're not at all important. What's important is that stupid bloodthirsty trivia like this has been allowed to dominate the national dialogue.

[xequals]

5. Just talking strategy amongst fellow Democrats.

The fact is that simply ignoring this issue won't make it go away. The average person who isn't into politics will be influenced if Bush finds Osama or Saddam. The Democrats need to actively take the issue off of the table and refocus the debate, instead of playing into the GOP trap by constantly attacking with "where's Osama and Saddam ? "

[lcordero]

4. How about...

"Why haven't the UN weapons inspector teams been let back into the country?"

[Jack Rabbit]

6. The Tikriti Clan is a red herring

The one good thing about the war is that Saddam is finished. It doesn't matter if he's dead or alive. He's finished.

If I were an Iraqi resistance leader, I would put an open contract out on Saddam. His presence only complicates the goal of true liberation for the Iraqi people.

Bush may get a short bounce from today's events. However, it is foolish to believe the junta line that Iraqi resistance is tied to Saddam loyalists and that now it is broken. Iraqi resistance is anybody who does not want to be ruled by foreign invaders. As soon as Americans see that GIs are still dying in ambushes, Bush again will feel the heat.

The claim that all Iraqi resistance is made up of Saddam loyalists is just one more lie for which the junta will be called to account.

[stickdog]

7. It's all benefit and no risk.

When (if) he finds them, we say "What took you so long, doofus?"

[wontmoveon]

8. The truth about PNAC should be enough to sink the Bush administration but

the media is simply ignoring it. By far, the PNAC revelations are the confirming evidence that Bush
lied and is still lying about our reasons for invading Iraq. The fact that we had special ops on the
ground inside Iraq carrying out military operations long before the UN vote and long before Bush's
State of the Union address is confirming of the fact that the reasons behind our invading Iraq are
smoke screen lies designed to whip the American public into a frenzy. All of the PNAC agenda was on
the drawing board years before 9/11 and the administration has shamelessly used the tragedy of
9/11 to invade Iraq, kill thousands of innocent people, murder former Iraqi officials and Saddam's
sons and grandchild (not that Uday and Qusay were not deserving of trial for crimes against humanity)
but what right do we have to just murder people under false pretenses? What if cells operating inside
the US begin to murder our government officials as a preemptive move against further agression by
our military? What would we think about that? Is that anymore barbaric or illegal than what we
are doing now? All of these events, Niger, no WMDs, no Saddam, the chaos, the destablization, etc.
pale in comparrison to the facts of the PNAC agenda and those who are pulling our strings behind
the scenes. Our government is not our own and our children's future and has been flushed down
the toilet thanks to the mindless greed, racism, and arrogance of the American people buffeted by the
neocon-controlled media.