Copyright 2003 Ben S. Pollock
Monday, December 15, 2003. The Army’s capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ultimately is bad politically for King George II. Better explain why.
Yes, it looks good: George W. Bush was right. Saddam went down like a coward not a martyr. The post-war skirmishes that have been ridiculously costly in GI’s lives will die down quickly. Yes, George appears a hero. He saw a dictator and brought him down.
But there are dictators all over the world, and many that the U.S. government uses, even supports in one way or another, that George II is not taking down. But Where’s Waldo? Waldo bin Laden, that is. Terrorism has little to do with Iraq. And where’s the economy back home? The recession is only over numerically.
The Second Iraq War gave Democrats a target on Bush, true. The longer Saddam held out — or if his bones, presuming his death, never were found — the more vulnerable Bush would seem. But this is a single aspect. It absorbs the perceptions of other problems, like terrorism first then overall foreign policy and certainly overall domestic policy.
With Saddam caught alive and by the U.S. not bounty hunters, Iraq will get that government built by Washington. Iraq news will move inside from the front page or from top to the fourth story in on TV. This will cause the newscasts, including the talk spinners, to focus on the rest of Bush’s leadership. Rivals’ comments about Osama bin Laden or the alleged economic recovery will now get more notice. Not good for Bush’s re-election. Surely the Democrats see this and are planning to capitalize on it; I bet the Clintons spotted it instantly. -30-
