Does the capture of Saddam virtually guarantee another four years for President Bush? Or am I overestimating the importance of this event to the Republican Party?

Will this be a boost for the GOP in elections other than the Presidency?

I think this is an important event for the Republican party but am not sure it will virtually mean a 2nd term for GWB. Although it will help him I believe between now and election day so much can change that only time will tell.

Not too sure how this will help GOP elections other than the Presidency. My feeling is it won't.

As I said in another post, GWB popularity has almost directly correlated with the state of Iraq. When times were good, he has been seen in a positive light.

This said, there is still a year to go and anything can happen.... Including many more serious problems in Iraq.

I think this could shake up the Democratic primaries to Dean's disadvantage. It may lead to another candidate against Bush who is more electable. If things then go wrong, in either Iraq or the economy, Bush could actually be up against a candidate with a more moderate image.

This definitely seals the deal. Between this, the climbing economy and Democratic candidates who are now starting to turn on each other, I believe all BUsh has to do is sit back and wait.

In fact, all Bush needs now is a christmas cake that Bin Ladin pops out of and he'll be the first president in the new millennium to have 3 elected terms.

I would say that for President Bush this is a large cache to use against his opponents and a major piece of artillery that the Dems just lost, but to claim that it's a lock now would be a mirror of what The first President Bush did and could only hurt.

I sure am glad they got him.

Agreed.

We are very early in the new history of Iraq. What if resistence escalates and more and more American bodybags start coming home? It all seems gravy now, but one year is a long time. They have just put some economic sanction on Syria and further action somewhere in the world, of some kind, is very likely.

I cannot understand why people are saying, "now all we have to do is find Osama."

Do you believe that terrorism is just going to float away if these two leaders go. That would be a very grave mistake. First of all, there are nuemrous other problems states, most notably Sudan and Libya. Furthermore Al Queda is a transnational organisation, removing the leader will not bring terrorism to an end. though I do admit it would be a deal a great blow.

It is also wrong that people are viewing Saddam and Osama in the same light.

In comparison to Osama, Saddam is a small fry. What has he actually done in terms of waging terror on the west? If George Bush wants credit and a lock for another term he need Osama. He is the bright light of terrorism, not Saddam.

Actually, I believe capturing Saddam was more important than capturing Bin Laden. Sadaam's capture will almost certainly discourage Baathist guerillas, who tend to be more rational that the fundamentalists. Osama's capture would be a political boost, but have little effect on the war on terror. Someone else will fill Bin Laden's shoes, the Baathist Party in Iraq is most likely soon to be history.

This won't have much of an impact on Bush's chances of getting elected. People understand by now that Hussein had no relationship to 9-11. The economy and civil liberties are going to be the major issue in '04.

Even if Hussein didn't have any relationship with 9-11, it's still a great victory in the war on terror. I hope we all agree that he should have been taken out and the world is (eventually) a safer place without him. I'm sure there will be one last hurrah of sorts from the baathists, but now many Iraqi's will join our side because there is no longer the fear of Hussein going back into power. There will always be terrorism, but this is a large stepping stone in what will be a long war with many casualties. We'll be in Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade yet, so don't hold your breath for any overnight changes.

I'm glad Hussein and his boys are now in the history books, but of course there is alot of unfinished business that remains...there is no better suited country for the job than the U.S

I have no doubt that terrorism will continue even after Osama is dead or captured, however as someone else stated it will be a HUGE boost to GW's 2nd term hopes. Osama is the poster boy of Al Qaeda and terrorism, and while it won't just go away after he is out of the picture I do think it will have a major impact. We have already taken out many high ranking operatives and the organization would be extremely diluted without him. He would also shed much light into the workings of the organization and terrorism as a whole.

That is a strange logic?

Al Queda have killed people all over the world. Hussein only killed people in his own country. He is not a terrorist, he is a state leader. Fundamentalism, is the terrorism which hates the US. Saddam dislikes the US because of a little event that started in the late eighties.

You say Osama capture has no effect for the war on terror, but the war on terror was initiated because of him and him alone!

Actually, to be more precise the problems of today are directly related to European colonialism. The problem is that the US happends to be at this point in history the only country that has the power to clean up this mess Europe made...and it's a big one. Africa is going to be the biggest faux pas of the 21st century. It's ironic that a former colony is fixing what Europe broke. Catching Saddam is a HUGE coup for the people of Iraq...politics aside. We already see the conspiracy nuts out here spinning like a pinwheel about his capture.

cusbilla

This capture will certainly boost Bush's approval ratings because Americans are enamored with results.

Unfortunately, many Americans will not step back and see the bigger picture.

REMEMBER:

-The war was predicated on lies and misinformation. Saddam Hussein was not directly responsible for the attacks on September 11th. Weapons of Mass Destruction?

-The cost (not just financially) has been enormous. The fact that Bush is comparing the rebuilding of Iraq to that of WWII Europe is evidence this will cost us for generations to come.

- The United States rushed to war without a clear strategy, without widespread support, and without just cause. When the smoke clears, and time passes, this war will most likely be viewed as a dangerous departure in American military defense policy.

-The president's job is at home, not overseas. His neglect for our country's needs cannot be forgiven with his policies in the middle east. "We are not in the business of nation-building" -- George W. Bush

-Saddam Hussein is one of thousands of bad people in this world. Thousands of people who hate the United States. His capture will likely make him more of a paladin, giving his supporters a hero to fight for.

The truth is George W. Bush has started a conflict that will not end with the capture of Saddam Hussein. He recklessly lead our nation into a conflict that we will pay for in the years to come. I hope that Americans will WAKE UP in 2004 and not be misled by the hollow victory of today.

Remember...... the topic!

The election is months and months away. If the achievement that you base your campaign on is that you spent billions and billions of dollars to invade a country to kill a dictator with the best military in the history of the world and it took you 9 months to find the guy it doesn't seem that impressive. Mr. Bush has other things to fry in the war on terror yet. If he can get Bin Laden, find some weapons of mass destruction, avoid another attack, and the economy keeps improving then he is assured of a win in the election. It's way, way to early to say what the landscape of the nation will be next november, there are so many variables that could change.

There is no way someone is going to be looking at two congressmen to vote for and because the military found Saddam vote for the republican. Maybe I'm over-estimating the electorate, maybe not .

The issues of WMD are going to come up again before the next election and the capture of Saddam represents a major threat in this area. If there are WMD's in Iraq he's going to know, and the longer they hold him without getting any information on them the worse it is going to look. Whether or not the American Public cares I'm not so sure.

I'd hold off making plans for what to wear to Bush's second Inaugural Ball in 2005 just yet.

In politics, timing is everything. In the cold of December, 10 days before Christmas capturing Saddam looks like a huge gift dropped in George Bush's lap. In the heat of July, it will be just a dim memory as fresher and more contemporary issues demand our attention. If the election were held now, Dean (or whoever) would be drowned in a Bush tsunami. But the election isn't being held now, so trying to predict how this will impact upon it is merely reading tea leaves.

Remember when Bush pulled his "Top Gun" routine in the flight suit and said, "Mission Accomplished?" All the pundits and great minds said the Democrats were roadkill then. What happened? Iraq kept exploding into spasms of violence and over 300 soldiers died after Bush declared major combat operations were over. Apparently the mission wasn't as accomplished as Bush said it was.

If the only things that the Democrats had going for them were the economy staying in the crapper and the fugitive status of Saddam Hussein, they had no issues to run upon. It's not enough to hope that Bush fails. The Democrats have to show where they can succeed and provide solutions to the problems Bush has ignored.

Capturing Saddam is a huge plus for Bush and certainly will juice his popularity numbers, but it doesn't assure his reelection. Tomorrow another helicopter could be shot down and another dozen solidiers slaughtered and those numbers would sink like a stone again.

Capturing Saddam won't sway a single vote in 2004. The voters who need to be earned will be swayed by other messages. Of these, job growth will likely be the primary with energy/ecology a strong second.

This is assuming that the Bush administration can get a significant number of our troops home in June, 2004 -- as planned.

The capture of Saddam might help that goal along. I hope it does. As for voters like me, I'll never forget the arrogance that brought us to Iraq in the first place. My mind is made up, and even complete withdrawal from Iraq won't sway this vote.

However, it very well could sway undecided voters.

A special wrinkle will be the first-time voters being recruited right now.

I think Saddam's capture will seal up any wavering GOP voters because it'll show we're actually making good progress in the fighting in and rebuiling of Iraq. Though I think the economy will also play a factor, (and not so much the environment) the only thing that would make me not vote for Bush would be if the plan he has to get our troops out (or rotated through) and the establishment of a fully functional Iraqi government either fails or is not as good as Gen. Clark's (Clark is the ONLY Dem I'd even think of voting for)

Unfortunately, all Democrats are doing is attacking each other, attacking Bush, and none of them has a plan for finishing the job there. They only have cries for not going to war with Iraq, and I hate to say it but very few (Clark and Liberman0 even realize that the war is already over.

So basically, yeah, this does mean a re-election for Bush unless the Dems get their acts together. Which won't happen.

Persoanlly, I think -unfortunate for those of us on Earth as it is- Bush is, and always has been, likely to be re-elected.
See... No matter how much people criticized this horrific junk in Iraq...
...what Democratic candidate is really all that electable?
...and what hope do we have of a 3rd-party winner? Zilch.
Anyway. More importantly, I think Bush -has- gained a political boost from capturing Saddam, even though it's been proven that Shrub lied repeatedly in the past for support for this war.
See... some people aren't so well informed as most of you, and I'm sure that about 75% of the people in this country think that Saddam Hussein's capture = Bush saving American from more terrorism from the Axis of Evil ®.
-sw

Ah, but you see, we do not all agree about that. Just read the forums on this website or I can suggest some other liberal leaning ones if you like. Yes, he was an evil dictator, but he was an evil dictator who was supported by the US government until 1991. And we currently subsidize similar dictatorships in other countries.

I do not think the world is safer now, but I am off topic.

A political coup? Assurance of a W victory? Well, I think the most important piece of this is that it is going to help secure Iraq no matter what the official line is today. The Iraqi people are going to be more willing to help the US and that translates to less dead soldiers. And that is what I want to see happen, despite whose campaign it may help or hinder.

There is a long road head of all of the candidates for the 2004 election. And the American electorate has an exceeding short attention span. There is plenty of time yet for each of them to muck it up in their own way. I am sure it will have all the thrill and enlightenment of watching a traffic accident.

Does the capture of Saddam virtually guarantee another four years for President Bush? Or am I overestimating the importance of this event to the Republican Party?


When I checked, both Dow-Jones and NASDAQ finished down for the day. S & P was up less than 1/2%. One company was cited on the news earlier as suffering major losses on its market price today, because investors felt there would be less need for body armor now. IBM is reportedly "off-shoring" circa 5,000 technical jobs to cheaper Asian labor. I don't see any real recovering economy in such news as that.

Please, feel free to tell your Republican friends, "all BUsh has to do is sit back and wait." No wait, that might keep Dumbya and his oratory off the campaign trail, and give others a chance to speak for him! Whichever Democrat ends up running against him will likely need some fresh ammunition, and it spills from his mouth on such a regular basis!

"Democratic candidates who are now starting to turn on each other"? If there were two candidates fighting to see who would run for Pres and who for Veep, I might hypothesize that they had been putting forth a united front. They have been attacking each other's positions on a regular basis. That's the only reason "Dubya" has managed to be viewed as a prospect at all!

The President has not been willing to declare Saddam a "Prisoner of War," but is not yet ready to turn him over to another party for trial. Will he transport him to Gitmo for further investigation and safekeeping, or will he keep him in Baghdad and risk a rescue attempt or "accidental death" while in captivity. One misguided suicide bomber could accomplish either end. What is his reasoning? Does he think that he can control an International Court and schedule a Nov. 1, 2004 execution for Saddam?


Yes.... Some of us on the left are afraid that George would love to rewrite the Constitution to allow himself a third term or the chance to be "elected" President for Life. The Constitution as it is currently written however, would not allow him to be elected to a third term.

Will this be a boost for the GOP in elections other than the Presidency?

No, this will instill so much confidence in Republican voters, that some of them will forget to vote. After all, a poll of newscasters shows him with nearly 100% support for re-election today; and as they, not the Electoral College, determine the outcome of our Presidential elections now, why should his supporters bother to show up at the polls?

Seriously, I don't see that his spending policies, his wars, the current economy, or the Patriot Act are so popular that any politician would want to be riding his coattails based on the capture of a single prisoner. Especially since credit for the capture is being given to the military, and not our "two hours in the war zone" leader.

I think that if played wrong then this event could guarantee a second term for Dubya.

What it really means to me is that the Democrats will not have the easy battle they hoped for when we couldn't accomplish any of our foreign policy objectives and the economy was in the tank. Instead of a bash Bush campaign they are going to have to really think about where they stand on the issues and sell people on that rather than mud slinging.

However, there is still a year to go and we have all the makings of a scandal already with some of the news coming out about Halliburton.

Wow, didn't know I was a Republican.

First, I do believe the Democrats are fighting each other right now. Earlier, they worked in support for one common goal. Now, they are each struggling to be the leaders of that goal - "and the mudslinging has begun".

Also, the Dow, which might have been down for the day, hit 10,000 for the first time in 18 months last Tuesday and again five days ago.

And after his capture, I had only a little time to be happy that the leader of the sporadic strikes was captured (in hopes maybe they would lessen) when news reporters from most all the major channels were speaking of how much of a boost this would be for the Bush reelection. I'm glad 300 soldiers could die for honor, dignity and a reelection bid (directed more towards the reporters than Bush).

The public may be fickle-minded, but Bush got exactly what he wanted. Whether or not some liberals would like to admit it, the President is basking in glory, and as long as he doesn't choke on any more pretzels, it will take a lot more than an endorsement by Gore to win this election.

Bush rating jumps to 57% after capture

Unfortunately, three of the Democratic nominees, Kerry, Clark (and the General should know better) and Gephardt (and the majority of his critics), insist on blaming Bush (like he's personally climbing mountains and crawling through tunnels) for not capturing Osama and Saddam. Now, if we are going to go along with their mentality and place the blame on Bush for not finding the two leaders of the evil doers, then I guess we should give Bush the credit when they are found. NOT! Our military (including those who have fallen) and good intelligence deserve the credit and those are the ones who Bush acknowledged and profusely thanked yesterday and again today at his press conference!

As all Presidents do, Bush has determined certain goals to achieve during his administration, whether it be four or eight years, he confers with and delegates to his "Team" (from the top on down) and expects results in meeting as many of those goals as possible. Finding Saddam is just another check mark under "mission accomplished" and shouldn't be the determining factor in whether he remains President for another four years-and Bush (and former Presidents) is aware of that better than anyone! Finding Saddam may unlock many of the hidden pieces of a larger puzzle and may even end up being a prize accomplishment during his administration, but it certainly doesn't earn him the right to expect a "free pass" into 2004 and he doesn't.

And speaking about mistakes made during this war in Iraq (as General Clark so often does) name a war where no errors in judgement have been made? Unless it is fatal...mistakes can be corrected....the best of plans can be adjusted to meet the criteria of current conditions.

So, it is not the capture of Saddam or Osama that is going to win Bush another term...it is going to be the voters decision on whether they approve of the job Bush has done so far and do they want him to finish what he began.

What war? This is a war? My gosh, I thought that we are rebuilding Iraq! Hey, and now that can happen because the major instigator of resistence is captured!

You know, I think people have already forgotten about Saddam. Ergo, no boost for Bush.

I wouldn't bank on the DOW helping Bush out too much in the election. Sure it is a milestone and all but the fact is there are still many people unemployed and the good jobs are not coming back... yet.

Besides, I think that the possibility of major corporate scandals *cough* Halliburton *cough* have the potential to undo any positive publicity of the dow reaching 10000 again.

It looks as if things are not getting better overseas If this stuff keeps up, people will appose the Iraq war with their own standard of living here, and conclude that perhaps we need another president. I do not seeing the capture of Saddam Hussein being that important. It was a shock to people at first, but the value of catching him is quickly wearing off.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/s...sp?story=473995

*Removed article. Please review the fifth item under Prohibited Items in the Rules.

Neh.
I've decided something concrete.
Bush is just as likely to be re-elected now as ever.
Since the other half of the Republicratic party is strangling itself.
But I don't think it will make US troops safer... I sincerely doubt that all these repeated attacks on Coalition soldiers were out of Saddam loyalty...

Really? By whom? Nothing has been proven, that's why GW's still in office.

To answer the original question yes, I do think that this is a lock for Bush in 04. First it was the economy [stupid], and now Bush has fixed the economy [stupid], then it was where's Sadam, now we found Sadam. Now it's where are the WMDs, the American people understand that the Democratic Presidential potentials are just looking for something to hold on to, and they're running out of options...they're desperate, and the American public will realize that, and vote GW to stay.

CP

Two important realities in the capture of Osama and Saddam....people are going to be more forthcoming with crucial information with their leaders out of power (especially Saddam) and the source for mega bucks that is financing these terrorists is eventually going to dry up. With Saddam's capture and a couple of others with him, not only did our troops get documents that led to the arrest of more than a few other middlemen, but they recovered $750,000 on Saddam's person and $2 million from one of the financiers they captured. Drop in the bucket pocket change? Yes...but what we need is information leading us to the scads of bank accounts of Osama and Saddam. And any money recovered from Saddam's accounts or person goes back to the Iraqi people/government where he got it in the first place.

So...the capture of Saddam and Osama not a shoo-in for Election 2004, but one heck of a prize for all concerned.

....neh.
I've basically said my piece on this.
But something amusing struck me... a trial for Saddam may be a very bad move for the GOP.
Like, those photos of Saddam and Rummy handshaking.
Or, the documents linking the Reagan administration to selling WMD to Iraq...
It could actually hurt the Bush campaign.
I don't think I care.

wh-what?? Where are these documents you speak of. Do you have a source?

Nothing is set in stone. I think the Saddam capture was not really part of the War on Terrorism, just a part of an invasion for which the reasons are still in question.

I have a feeling this news and subsequent release of information may not be helpful to the administration:

911 Chair/ the attacks were preventable

Yet to be known, twists and turns and a lot of spin seems to be a regular part of american politics these days. You cant believe anything you hear and only part of what you see.

I think you need to read that article more carefully on the 911 story. There was a lot of if but and or's in there. A report from 1991...yeah that was a fresh report out there. But, once again we stray off topic from the anti-Bush crowd.

Actually the capture of Saddam is shedding a ton of light on his organization and a possible REAL connection with Al-Queda. To me it's the ending of 10 years of hostilities and UN sanctions that the world (thru the UN) managed to kill more children in Iraq than the US will ever be accused of killing. That coupled with France and Germany and Russia violating the sanctions they imposed on Iraq made Saddam's grip even tighter. I realy hope we start to shead the light on these companies that were violating the UN sactions and they are brought to trial in the Haag.

If Dean get the nomination Bush wins.

cusbilla

Have you got something to back this up?

Not if things keep going the way they are. Consider:


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031222-123948-5491r.htm


Are things truly progressing? False numbers to drive up the number of "terrorists" caught.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...on_terror_data/


Unless things in Iraq turn around rapidly, I think you will see backlash against junior just as his daddy faced in '92. If not, then I feel sorry for the candidate who follows in '08, he will have some serious debt to pay.