capturing saddam can be used by the Dems to show the total lack of effort by the Bush admin to go after the actual terrorists.
It will take a simple pointing out of the facts:
terror attacks are still happening around the globe.
Iraq still is and will be for the foreseeable future a destabilized money pit and our anchor to bear.
The facts are showing that Saddam, who was an evil SOB, was not the threat he was made out to be by our current president.
We are going to hear the stories about how evil Saddam was and the stories are going to be used to justify the war in Iraq, and the costs of rebuilding the country, but the opposition party has to ask the question, are we safer because of the war in Iraq, and could the money have been better spent making this country safer. The opposition party needs to make this priority number one, but as usual the Dems I saw on TV today weren't making these points, instead they were sounding just like Bush saying since 9/11 we have needed to make the country safer, and now that Saddam has been captured, bla bla bla............
I swear the New Democratic party is failing miserably to show that they are an opposition party, and this is why we have a half assed centrist from Vermont who can barely get it together for a debate, and has misspoke and flip flopped, and has no foreign policy experience, who sounds like a faux populist, raising more money, leading in more polls and gathering more grassroots support then all of his fellow Democrats combined. Why is Dean doing this? Because he actually stated he opposed the War in Iraq, and he is acting like an opposition candidate. Before anyone says this is only a small portion of Democrats I need to tell you that I work doing fundraising for the Dems, their comities and their candidates, and the overwhelming message we get from their donors is Get A Fucking Spine You Worthless Fucks!! and Stop Letting The Republicans Walk All Over You!
The really screwed up thing is, we tell them what the people are saying, hell, we told Dean back in March what we were hearing, and he ran with it, and look where it got him. Bush is successful for the same reasons Dean has been, they both use shallow rhetoric, and make bold proclamations, one slings from the right the other from the left, both are full of a lot of shit, but both get people excited.
When Dean makes his argument justifying his not supporting the war in Iraq you will hear him ask "are we safer", and he will say no, and his argument will ring true with his supporters, and other Dems, and the spineless candidates will again have to justify why they agree with Bush and why the Dem voters should support them.
A democracy needs opposing points of view in order to survive, and Dean, for all his faults, is filling the opposition void, and I say good for him.