Bush will refocus on the War on Terror: Implications for candidates

[andym]

Analysis:
Saddam's capture should help American forces against insurgents for two reasons;

1. Pro-Saddam Insurgents will be dispirited
2. Iraqi populace will be much more likely to help against all insurgents (Pro-Saddam or not) now that it is certain he is not coming back.

Number 2 has been the major problem, very little help from Iraqi citizenry.

If this is true, it will take 2-3 months to play out and reduce the attacks.

Political Consequences:
Bush will play this as a victory in the war on terror, and will refocus his efforts on the war on terror.

The war on terror will become his major campaign theme.
Iraq will be less of a distraction-- he may even be able to tout
his "success". WMD issue may be marginalized.

On the domestic front, the economy is improving, if the trend continues even without robust job creation, the mood of the public will be positive-- it's the trend that counts, not the actual state unless the state is Depression.

Democratic candidate will need 3 things to win:
1) Personality/charisma/charm ala Clinton
this is always good, probably our best bet. We need someone more likeable than Bush to Joe Sixpack.

2) foreign policy gravitas for the war on terror, this can't be ceded to Bush because it it a potentially lethal advantage for him.
Gravitas doesn't win, but pulls us close to even.

3) domestic policy-- good ideas will help, but stridency won't work if the trend is positive-- Americans are generally optimists.

Who fits this?
Maybe Clark. He's personable, he has the foreign policy gravitas and has reasonable ideas for what to do domestically, although limited experience in the mainstream domestic policy world.

Perhaps Kerry. Great foreign policy experience and domestic experience, but is not tremendously charismatic

Perhaps Dean but big problem with foreign policy gravitas and "we hate Bush" won't work in the General election, unless things really get much worse in the country. Plus side he is very charismatic, but it seems that he has so much, that people either love him or dislike him.

Perhaps Edwards, he has charisma and good domestic policies, but lacks the foreign policy gravitas.

Not sure about Gephardt/Lieberman--- I think Kerry is vastly superior to both.


Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosely-Braun have not been in serious contention yet.

[K-W]

1. With saddam gone

there is now no risk of him coming back if the US is removed. I would think this would increase the resistance against the US. The US can no longer pretend that they are there to keep Saddam from coming back to power.

[andym]

2. It may temporarily increase resistance from Anti-Saddam insurgents

It may temporarily increase resistance from Anti-Saddam insurgent contingent, but the Iraqi public who just want their own lives back, are much more likely to inform on destabilizers, especially if they believe the US is really ceding power to them.

The pro-Saddam insurgents will be dispirited.

[K-W]

3. Its not as if the baath party had only one leader

I dont see any reason why fighters from thier will be terribly disperited. They have other leaders and in the end they are fighting for thier own power, not for saddam. I think overall this will only increase resistance. I dont think many Iraquis buy the US's claims that they plan to give the people power, and with saddam gone, the biggest reason not to want the US to just get out is now gone.

[andym]

4. Actually, Saddam was the Baath party, it will be decimated

Like Stalin, he created a cult of personality with him at the top.
He purged all other strong leaders, so I disagree with you. The Baath party will be devastated. His supporters will be devastated-- and will be cut off from his future financial support.

[K-W]

7. I agree

what I am saying is that I think that the effect of saddam being captured on the baath forces will be more than made up for by the fact that the main reason that Iraqis would support the US is now gone. The threat of Saddam returning to power is now 100% eliminated. I think overall this will lead to an increase in resistance, not a decrease at all.

[andym]

8. It depends on whether the Iraqis believe we will leave

It depends on whether the Iraqis believe we will leave.
This in turn depends on how soon and how much they are allowed to run their own country.

If we move up the elections, they'll be happy to help us out. If the attacks slow down the move to some kind of autonomy, then they'll not support attacks. It all comes down to our perceived intentions.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Helps Clark....

who is strongest in foreign policy...and therefore becomes our strongest candidate to put up against Bush, now strengthened by Saddam's capture.

Bush will run on this perceived success. Only Clark can neutralize Bush with Clark's immense knowledge on all things international.

http://tinyurl.com/z6v9

Wesley Clark calls for transparant trial of Saddam

By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - U.S. presidential candidate Wesley Clark called Sunday for a transparent trial for captured Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein that ensured him full legal rights under international law.

The retired general and former NATO commander said Saddam's capture was welcome news that could have an impact on the anti-coalition insurgency in Iraq.

"I hope this will see a diminishing in the violence against American soldiers in Iraq," he told reporters as he arrived in the Netherlands.

Clark did not say who should try Saddam, but said the trial should be conducted with "the highest legal standards. There can be absolutely no doubt about the rights of the accused."

The case "needs to be as public as possible and the evidence needs to be aired and charges brought," he said.

Clark, contesting for the Democratic nomination for president, declined to comment when asked how Saddam's capture could affect the race or the standings of President George W. Bush.

Clark was on his way to The Hague where he has been summoned to testify in the war crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
______________

12/7/03 Hardball Interview with General Wesley Clark:

MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?

CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs to be tried in international court.

MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They don't have capital punishment at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that's a separate issue.

MATTHEWS: No, it's a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not execute people at the Hague.

CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we handle the war on terror from here on out.

MATTHEWS: But doesn't life in Holland beat life in a cave?

CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're cold, they're really miserable.

KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN POLICY VERSUS UNINFORMED INDIFFERENCE

11/31/03 Hardball Interview with Howard Dean:

MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?

DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...

MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or would you let The Hague do it?

DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as long as he is brought to justice. I think that's the critical part of that.

MATTHEWS: How about Saddam Hussein? Should we try him in criminal and execute him...

DEAN: Again, we are allowing the Bosnian war criminals to be tried at The International Court in The Hague. That suits me fine. As long as they're brought to justice and tried, and so far we haven't had to have that discussion because the president has not been able to find either one of them.

[andym]

6. I agree

I think that Clark becomes the strongest potential candidate for the reasons I detailed in my original post.

[LuminousX]

9. Domestic Issues still on the horizon

Bush is doing nothing about unemployment, environment, and fixing the debt.

[andym]

10. I agree up to a point.

I agree up to a point.

Jobs will be an issue. But as I said, if the economy continues to expand, it is very likely that the positive trend alone will be enough for the public to give Bush the benefit of the doubt that the jobs situation will improve. + growth Trend > lack of job creation.

The debt is more an issue for conservative voters. This is our best hope-- that they just don't turn out to vote for Bush.

Environment has never been a make or break issue with the General public unless they feel their lives are imminently threatened, and even though Bush is terrible, it will be difficult to make it a major issue.

[askew]

11. Dean is still the best choice.

I have to agree with you in part, SH being captured will most likely shift the focus in this year's race. This race is actually starting to resemble 1992's race more and more. While I don't think GWII has been a success, Bush will probably try to argue that it was after today. So your points below will become more important. I do really disagree on which candidate can offer all of these points though.

1) Personality/charisma/charm - hands down Dean. He has the most supporters by far. And not just because he is "angry" or because he is "anti-war". I was going door to door this weekend in Iowa with other Dean supporters and I kept hearing the same reasons for supporting Dean from "I just like him" to "It's about time someone stood up for us." I think the press is trying to spin Dean as angry and one-note, because they don't understand his campaign or supporters. For a second choice, I would say Edwards. He seems to come across quite well. This is definitely Kerry and Gep's weak point.


2) foreign policy - I am going to disagree here. Bush is going to have a huge advantage here because of 9/11 and catching SH. What we need is a candidate who can stand up to Bush across the board on foreign policy. I don't think the experience is as important now as backbone. Personally, I liked both Clark and Dean's handling of SH's capture. They didn't waffle in their stances, which I thought was really important.

3) domestic policy-- good ideas will help, but stridency won't work if the trend is positive-- Americans are generally optimists. Again, I am going to go with Dean. He has a great record as Gov. of VT for 11 years. He has a campaign filled with hope (even though the press refuses to acknowledge it). He has taken on some important issues in the economy (re-regulation of corps.), education (No Child Left Behind), and healthcare (his healthcare plan). Polls have shown over and over that domestic issues are the most important to Americans and Dean has been spending time on these issues for months. He even tried to steer the last debate back to domestic issues. Gephardt would be my second choice domestically. He does have a strong background of supporting labor. Clark doesn't have any elected experience in domestic issues, which is a huge issue for me.

Who fits this? So, in the end, I still think Dean is the best choice for the general election, even after SH's capture. I still think we will win regardless of who the candidate is, because GWB has been such a massive domestic failure and people are beginning to realize that.

[blm]

12. Well, who uncovered the international funding of terrorists in the mid80s?

Who uncovered government links to the funding of terrorism?

Who wrote the legislative guidelines in the 90s to pursue terror funding (which Bush ignored pre 9-11)?

Who wrote the book "The New War" in 1997 which connected international governments and their covert support for terrorism and noted that the battle against terrorism and dealing with the root causes of terrorism should be priority number one?

Who has military brass funnelling information to him that proves invaluable in criticizing Bush's military strategy? (as in the spectacular failure at Tora Bora)

Who can meet and best Bush on that battleground?