[presidio9]

The U.S. government itself concedes that an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence agent and an al-Qaida operative in Prague before September 2001 never took place.

Can somebody please let me know when this formal concession occured?

[VRWCmember]

I think this article is an example of extreme wishful thinking on the part of a deluded democrat in denial.

[talleyman]

Actually, we've already captured bin Laden - we're just waiting until two days before the '04 election to announce it...

[tkathy]

These people are delusional. IMO any and all terror attacks will attract voters to Bush like flies to honey.

[finnman69]

this guy is having a bad case of Saddamfreude

[Bluntpoint]

Saddam to speak at next Democratic Convention.

[tbeatty]

Is he really implying that a 9/11 style attack on America would be good for Democrats? He's an idiot.

God forbid another attack happens, but if it does, Americans tend to rally around their leaders. I doubt that Howard Dean, the pacifist, would somehow benefit politically if we were attacked again. Americans will want swift military action, not a UN resolution and world consensus.

The best that the dems can hope for is a dull, dreary year on the war on terror. They lose on the issue of terror and as long as it leads the news, the dems lose.

[sanchmo]

"Come back, Republican! We have you right where we want you!!"

[OpusatFR]

"While Bush steadfastly maintains that somehow we have dealt the worldwide terrorist network a punishing blow by apprehending Hussein, most experts deny that the Iraqi ever fomented much terrorist activity against this country."

Minefield Alert!!!

[Billthedrill]

There's a reason political science professors are never to be found elected to anything. The fact is that we have an entire political party hoping desperately that evil fanatics who hate Americans will kill a few and pull their party's fortunes out of the garbage disposal. Hoping for disaster is one of those things that sounds great on paper but is ludicrous practical politics.

One simple illustration - say terrorists do whack us again, hard, in the U.S. - who does our professorial friend think the people will prefer to lead them in that event, Bush or Dean? Yeah. Me too.

[Darksheare]

I sense desperate and wishful thinking on the part of the writer.
As far as I know, no such concession occured except on the part of Dems parroting the DNC talking points.

[TheCrusader]

What this guy is really saying underneath his smoke and mirrors is that the side which controls the media controls "reality". Unfortunately, the liberals control the media.

[Lazamataz]

An improving economy can only hurt Bush, too.

And the rising poll numbers for Bush? Hurts him.

Everything hurts Bush. It's a Democrat law.

[Shermy]

The U.S. government itself concedes that an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence agent and an al-Qaida operative in Prague before September 2001 never took place

Nope. Untrue. One faction has been very busy trying to dismiss it. IMO opinion, where there's smoke...

[SF Republican]

I believe some of this article is true: it may seem odd, even perverse, to suggest that rooting the Iraqi dictator out of his hole might actually be an ace-in-the-hole for Democrats.

[sanchmo]

And now, a message for the DNC:

"Having a filthy, lice-infested, pants-pooped Saddam captured strengthens the Democratic advantage by showing the weakness of the Bush adminsitration's foreign policy. This will only make it easier for us to defeat him. Little Bush, this man is a war criminal, and we will see that he is brought to trial. He is not worth an old shoe. My feelings, as usual, is that we will win all eight branches of government by a landslide! The republicans are nowhere near the White House... they are lost... they cannot read a compass... they are retarded!! Our initial assessment is that they will all die! I triple guarantee you, that was not Saddam Hussein at all, it was all a camera trick performed by the Joooz in Hollywood!! "

[Nick Danger]

On behalf of the Club, I'd like to apologize for allowing the Professor there to take up your time. Even on amateur night, we try to do better than that.

So... how 'bout those Democrats? Didja see where Madeleine Albright says that Bush already has Osama in custody? Yeah, she oughta know, she and her boss turned down two chances to take delivery of the guy. FedEx guy says "sign here," and Clinton goes "no." He probably thought it was another subpoena from Larry Klayman.

[TheCrusader]

Maybe President Bush needs to publicly address these liberals who are against the Iraq war and who sympathize with Saddam. Bush should ask them bluntly if they prefer we pull our troops out of Iraq and release Saddam back into Tikrit and the Baathist Party. In the name of liberal compassion, of course.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The president's boast that snaring Hussein was a major gain could easily blow up in his face if there is another outrage directed against this country. If such an attack were to take place before the 2004 election, it could spell real trouble for Bush and make the capture of Hussein appear less consequential."

I don't think I'm being unfair in saying I think this prof HOPES there will be another major attack.

[Steve_Seattle]

"George W. Bush has to restrain himself from running victory laps to celebrate the Saddam Hussein capture."

Of course, this totally misrepresents the White House reaction to Saddam's capture. Bush made it clear that - although important - Saddam's capture does not mean the end of the war or the end of American casualties.

[happydogdesign]