Bin Laden reminds U.S. voters that the G.O.P. lied and lied and lied and actually wants Osama on the loose forever to serve as a ready made Bogey Man.

Good question.

Why not look for an answer from the fellow who keeps peddling the notion that Iraq is “the central front in the War on Terror”? That the fractious parties we’ve engaged are all a common enemy?

Which will it be, Jay? Are U.S. troops in Iraq fighting terrorists? Or are they fighting Iraq?

Oh, and how about the sailors on the Cole? They were forward deployed in a foreign country. Or how about the marines in Beirut? Tell me how a suicide bomb in a market in Baghdad differs from a suicide bomber plowing into the Cole? Both are terrorist acts directedat American interests and forces. You can’t have it both ways, Jay. If we’re fighting terrorists in Iraq then you have to count terrorist attacks in Iraq in your assesment of the war on terror.

Another two years and the Bush record will catch up to Clinton’s seven attack-free years. Of course, leaving out 9/11 is cheating. Who was president on that day?

Has the man who was responsible for the logistics and coordination of the 9/11 attacks been captured?

Has OBL been captured “dead or alive?” Wait, what did Bush mean when he said “I don’t think about him much any more”?

Have there been any attacks against US embassies abroad since 9/11?

Yes. The Green Zone has had rocket attacks and suicide bomb attacks.

Question for you. What should the US do about OBL? Ignore him? How well did that work in 2001?

You forget one thing: Iraq and Afghanistan. There are terrorist attacks everyday against American forces and American interests in those two places. It’s a little too convenient to bring up the Cole or the Emnassies bombing while overlooking attacks going on in Baghdad or Kandahar.

Have there been any attacks in the United States since 9/11?

Answer: No.

Have there been any attacks against US embassies abroad since 9/11?

Answer: No.

Have there been any attacks against warships or aircraft carriers refueling in other countries since 9/11?

Answer: No.

Has the man who was responsible for the logistics and coordination of the 9/11 attacks been captured?

Answer: Yes

bin Laden hasn’t been captured, yes, but as I have said before, even if he were killed or captured tomorrow, guys like you Factcheck wouldn’t give a rats ass. You come straight with your, “It doesn’t change anything” canned response that the left has used every time one of the top guys is killed or captured.

Can you even explain in any detail exactly what the Democratic Party would do so differently? Can you Oliver? And I don’t want to hear any nonsense about moving resources away from Iraq. That’s a bland election year bullshit answer. What would your party do differently, that you also think would be better?

I know. The Democratic policy of indifference and putting a person in jail every once in awhile is precisely what laid the groundwork for an attack of the magnitude that took place on 9/11.

It may surprise you to know that there are a lot of people who are good friends and yet on the polar opposite of the political spectrum. I think the anonymity of the Internet and our propensity to write things we might not otherwise say to people in person, is a big reason why there is the perception that all liberals and conservatives hate each other. It sounds cliche, but some of my best friends are dunderhead liberals.

That being said, the people who know about Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha et al are people that follow politics very closely. The average voter, liberal or conservative as Oliver points out, doesn’t know who these people are.

Broader themes work in campaigns, not targeting specific people.

I’m not sure I agree with you or Oliver on this one. Look, I recommend to everyone to make friends with a dittoheat wingnut coworker or cosy up to a similar relative to get some perspective on why this can be helpful…

See, at any moment in time, this wingnut loyalist will be able to tell you who the boogeyman-of-the-day is when you listen to his ranting. Remember how once Bush took office, Tom Daschle became the new “Clinton” in terms of Daschle’s determination to subvert America and corrupt the purity of essence of our precious bodily fluids.

Later on, out of nowhere, we could hear our wingnut friends, unprompted, complaining about the subversive nature of Richard Clarke, and more recently John Murtha has recently become the Republicans’ newly-found traitor in our midst.

The point, in all of this, is that Republican loyalists need someone to be angry at/blame. Pelosi is the latest in this string of boogeymen that Republicans are instructed to direct their ire at in order to keep their endorphins running high and keep them in a constant state of agitation and anger necessary to keep them going to the polls. So hang out with your right-wing coworker or relative and see if he or she starts some unprompted bitching about Pelosi.

Jay is right about Gingrich’s being in the spotlight before the gov’t shutdown. It’s the fact that he made himself a star that caused him and the Republicans all that trouble in ’96 and ’98.

That’s incorrect (partially). Gingrich was a star before that happened. The GOP taking over control of Congress was big time newsworthy event. Gingrich gave an address on national television which was unheard of by a Speaker of the House. There was a nationally televised roundtable discussion he had with college students on MTV.

When the government got shut down (with Clinton’s signature mind you), Gingrich was blamed thanks in part to a drooling media happy to blame it entirely on the GOP. That started Gingrich’s descent with regard to popularity.

That being said, I agree that this strategy is not the right way to go. I’d go back to what works and that is painting the Democratic party as one that is soft on terrorism, which is true.