Could an October Surprise "capture" of Osama bin Laden actually

[zbdent]

hinder Bush's re-election?

A thought occurred to me earlier today.

Could the "capture of Osama bin Laden" actually hinder Bush's chances for re-election?

It might, if people really stop and consider that we have lost a number of US military in the war on "Terror" in Iraq, plus the human cost in Iraqis (but what Repuke considers them?), and all of a sudden, the operation in Afghanistan offers up OBL?

That might highlight the fact that all of the efforts of taking down Saddam and "liberating" the country could have been used to capture and bring to justice the man who perpetrated the worst terrorist attack on US soil.

The myth that "Clinton ignored trying to bring to justice the original perps of the first WTC attack" would come back to haunt the people who like to portray GWB as doing such a great job on the war on terror.

Your thoughts?

[Hawkeye-X]

1. People will probably go?

"All this money wasted???, Well, fuck Bush. I'm voting for Kerry!"

[jpgray]

2. I think in any circumstance I can see it aids Bush

Maybe it won't aid him much, but I just can't see it hurting him with the way the media are. Remember the 'isn't the world a better, safer place now?' after Saddam's capture? Imagine that only much worse. Capturing Osama is less important now because terrorism is not limited to him and even Al Qaeda has branched out thanks in part to our own actions, but that won't be the story.

[wtmusic]

3. No

You're giving Americans far too much credit. It would be perceived as a success, regardless the circumstances. How much so is the question.

[NewJeffCT]

4. are you kidding?

If bin Laden is caught, the Corporate Media will practically beg Americans to vote for Bush. Right now, at least they are not begging us to vote for Bush, just implying that we should... It will be a constant drumbeat on cable news, talk radio and most of the newspapers around the country.

[CarolynEC]

5. You could very well be right

I think we're approaching a sort of "safety zone," where just about anything Bush does is likely to be viewed as a campaign stunt.

That includes any sudden "capture" of bin Laden or "breakthrough" in the anthrax case.

But we should also make sure it applies to any legislation or initiative Bush announces from here on in.

Let's loudly and consistently dismiss everything he says or does as a campaign stunt, just another grand-but-soon-abandoned scheme like Mars exploration, $15 billion for fighting AIDS in Africa, national sales tax, etc etc etc.

[CrispyQ]

6. I think it would bring back the days at the beginningof the Iraq war . . .

You better not say anything against bushco or your an American-hating-Clinton-loving-commie-pinko-abortion-loving-feminist-terrorist-who-should-be-shot-on-sight.

If they capture Osama, bush will win. So small & scared are the minds of most Merican's.

[mac56]

7. I'm sure Rove & Co. have considered this.

Therefore, OBL will be "captured in Iraq".

Even though it's unlikely in the extreme that he would ever set foot there.

This won't matter to Faux News.

[ochazuke]

8. Don't kid yourself

an OBL capture gets GWB a huge poll bump and victory in November.

IF, it happens close enough to the election that there's not enough time for people to come down from their wood alky high.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

9. The October Surprise

I don't think it will happen. This administration has shown that, other than its ability to play the media like a three-dollar banjo, it can't complete even the simplest tasks without catacylsmic results. Jobs and the Economy? Now just a little stagnation, but the loss of two million jobs. Taxes and the budget? Not just teensy deficit, but wanking-huge, half-trillion dollar deficits. Democracy in Iraq? One thousand U.S. troops dead on the field.

The whole October Surprise theory is based on the assumption the this administration is competent enough to actually capture Osama bin Laden, then keep him on ice until the time is right. Given the deplorable incompetence of the Bush Administration, I don't think they could find their car keys, much less Osama bin Laden.

But to you point, I think that if Osama suddenly turns up in custody in Afghanistan, Democrats are going to be able to point and the dead soldiers in Iraq and say, "If he was in Afghanistan all along, why in the hell did you invade Iraq?" It's not "spin" to say that if we had deployed our forces to Afghanistan in the first place, we might have had Osama bin Laden months ago, and Afghanistan wouldn't be the political basket case (and safe harbor for terrorists) that it is today.

[Hooper]

10. OBL Afghanistan and Iraq

I am a bit confused about the question of why we went into Iraq, as it references OBL. I don't recall the capture of OBL ever being cited as a reason to remove Saddam from power?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zbdent]

12. Not even that . . .

Bush went from trying to find the guy who perpetrated the WTC 9/11 attacks ("OBL - Dead or Alive") to brushing off any concerns about him ("frankly, he's been marginalized.") in less than four months.

Bush took the focus off of finding the head of the Hydra to resolving an old grudge and trying to score himself a victory that his daddy couldn't pull off (mainly because poppy41 realized what a problem it would be).

[Hooper]

14. OBL

The comment was made


*But to you point, I think that if Osama suddenly turns up in custody in Afghanistan, Democrats are going to be able to point and the dead soldiers in Iraq and say, "If he was in Afghanistan all along, why in the hell did you invade Iraq?" It's not "spin" to say that if we had deployed our forces to Afghanistan in the first place, we might have had Osama bin Laden months ago, and Afghanistan wouldn't be the political basket case (and safe harbor for terrorists) that it is today.*

So, the premise from the quote is that we went into Iraq to find OBL. I have never heard any citation to that effect. Perhaps you have the citation?

Onto your tangent, it seems you are arguing a completely different point. You are not saying Bush claimed we went to Iraq to capture OBL. You are saying he ignored what you feel was the real task, the capture of OBL, and instead decided to resolve what you call an old grudge. I don't think that line of reasoning is really pertinent to the question at hand.

Additionally, we did not stop hunting for OBL. Our military continues their efforts to bring about his demise or capture. Our efforts in Iraq did not change that.

I do agree with you on one point though. The US did have a grudge against Iraq, if the term *grudge* is correct, and there were many reasons for the US to remove Saddam from power.

If you are questioning whether OBL has been marginalized, I point out the complete dearth of terrorist acts in this country since our efforts in Afghanistan began. We have had a long period now without being attacked by OBL or his cohorts. While we cannot expect that to last forever, I do believe it gives credence to the claim that OBL has been marginalized. Whether he remains marginalized only time will tell.

FWIW, I am with the camp that thinks OBL will be caught or killed between now and the election.

[zbdent]

15. Okayyyyy,

First part - you are quoting somebody else and attributing it to me. Make sure you reply to the correct posts, please.

No, we didn't go into Iraq to find OBL. We went into Iraq to find the WMDs. The inference was that OBL and Saddam were in cahoots. Constantly referring to OBL and SH in nearly the same sentence or breath, along with trying to say that SH had ties to Al Qaeda (or whatever the pundits are calling them now) based on something akin to the game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, is trying to tie OBL to SH.

You don't even get the "agreeing point" correct. W had a grudge on SH - "He tried to assassinate my daddy!". Poppy 41 was the one who decided that actually marching to Baghdad (with forces at least twice the size of W's invasion) would be a political, if not literal, bloodbath. The coalition backing the US at the time was much larger, and filled with more of the key countries then than W's "coalition of the to be named later", mostly countries that have the GDP of Donald Trump.

I laugh at your reference to the "complete dearth of terrorist acts in this country since ...". Anthrax and snipers apparently don't count, but Greenpeace and environmentalists do?

And, if you want to go that route, then remember that there had been no terrorist attacks on US soil between March 1993 and September 10, 2001. Oh, wait, that was Clinton. Apparently your definition of "terrorist attack" has nothing to do with Tim McVeigh, churches, mosques, etc.

[Hooper]

13. Tombstoned?

Looking to understand the issues from a new perspective is cause to get tombstoned? Please note, I have not made any commentary, I have merely asked a question...

I have heard the claim that Bush cited a relationship between Iraq and OBL as proof that we needed to go to war in Iraq. I have been unable to find any citation supporting the claim, nor has anyone been able to provide such a citation. Would you happen to have it handy?

[zbdent]

16. Is this quote from the official white house web site close enough for you?

Not to fight . . .

On Saddam, "He's a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda."

Al Qaeda is synonymous with OBL. Bush's "parts are interchangeable" line of simplistic thinking (fostering so much in the true believers).

November 7, 2002. On the White House web page. (Not the joke one, but www.whitehouse.gov)

Check it out, and you will find the above quote.

I did get this from "The Deluxe Election Edition Bushisms", but the quote they used was "He's a threat because he deals with al Qaeda". I verified this on the white house web site, even though the Bushisms quote uses the past tense.