As I write this on Saturday, Nov. 4, I can’t help but think that we might be in for a big November surprise that may bode ill for the Republicans in the 2006. The focus of the news on Sunday and Monday might look very different than it does today.
According to news reports, the verdict in the first of many Saddam Hussein trials is due tomorrow, the Sunday just before the US elections:
U.S. and Iraqi forces drastically tightened security across Baghdad on Saturday in advance of the expected guilty verdict against Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi prime minister said he hoped the ousted dictator will "get what he deserves." . . .
The highly anticipated verdict, planned for Sunday, is expected to set off further bloodshed, underscoring the trial's failure to bring reconciliation to a country fractured ever deeper along sectarian lines.
Lawyers for Saddam have asked for a delay in the verdict, which if granted might push the verdict to a date after the November US election.
NOT GUILTY:
If a verdict of “Not Guilty” is rendered on Sunday, that would be an obvious public relations disaster for the Bush administration, even though Saddam would be tried on other grounds. The Republicans would be likely to lose a lot of support in the voting booth.
GUILTY:
If the verdict is “Guilty,” as expected for Sunday, there are a number of possibly bad consequences for the Republicans in any event.
First, it will look to many voters as if the Republicans orchestrated the verdict to come down immediately before the U.S. November election, especially if the Democrats and the Monday talk show hosts publicly accuse the Republicans of just such a move. While I don’t think the Administration is necessarily above playing politics in such a way, I don’t think that Karl Rove and company would be foolish enough to schedule a verdict so close to the US election, even if such an outcome were within their control.
Second, a reminder of just how slow progress has been in Iraq would not help the Republicans, just as Jimmy Carter’s attempt to influence the 1980 election with a last-minute claim that an Iranian hostage deal was imminent backfired on him, though such a strategy had worked beautifully before each major primary in the spring of 1980 to help him defeat Ted Kennedy.
Third — and most important — a verdict of guilty is expected by many to lead to considerable unrest in Iraq, and perhaps an orgy of violence. If that happens, the press will — and should — cover the violence extensively. I wouldn’t expect the press to downplay any significant increase in violence in the way that they did the Bin Laden message sent on the eve of the 2004 election (most major news organizations never disclosed that Bin Laden appeared to be threatening states that voted for Bush). If riots or mass murders in Iraq dominate the news on Sunday and Monday, it could spell real trouble for the Republicans.
Thanks,
Jim]
[Thanks, Justin,
Jim]
On the other hand, violence spreading outside the borders of Iraq will remind voters that the violence originated in Iraq with Bush's military policy.
Recycled bullshit. See here for details.
succinctly true; and while we were at it, we should have holed that Pilsbury Doughboy lookin' Imam when we had the chance.
In what way?
if he's convicted, then sunni's will be the aggressors.
if he's acquitted, the shia will.
the violence will either reflect the aggressor's position that americans engineered this trial as a fait accompli, or reflect the aggressor's position that we invaded a country under the pretext of liberating its people and we cant even convict the ruthless dictator.
it's really sad.
I think this is a case of the administration believing their own lies. I think they thought that the announcement of the verdict would be another "turning point" in Iraq and this time there really would be chocolate and flowers, unlike all the other turning points that turned out to be illusory. But now, even they realize that regardless of the outcome, the verdict is going to cause an uptick in the violence two days before the U.S. elections. But what can they do? If the Iraqis delay the verdict, then the suspected political motivation for the timing of the verdict will become a certainty.
By playing politics with this war, even if the date of this verdict is a coincidence (which I don't believe for a minute), they have screwed themselves. They deserve to have their noses rubbed in it.
I don't disagree. I can't believe the mess made. It was my understanding that the respondant was bemoaning the fate of the upcoming midterm elections here in the U.S., and I wanted to draw them out.
As to the calls of the four military papers, with all due respect, that is so obviously newsworthy I can't believe you would try to suggest otherwise. The only way that doesn't appear all over the news is through purposeful censorship.
For a legal blog, there sure are a lot of posters who disdain the rule of law and seem to love mob rule, revenge killing, and summary executions. Heck, even some of the contributors seem to think it is better to allow crime victims to execute their assailants on the flimsiest of justifications rather than rely on the vagaries of the justice system.
no - i understood what you were saying - i was just explaining the third point in the post - why violence is inevitable.
i think the negative effect here, politically, will be created more by the violence than a domestic perception that the US manipulated the timing of the verdict (I don't think that they did).
With all due respect, I believe this to be false. Those four "military papers" are owned by Gannett's Military Times Media, the same Gannett that published USA Today. Those publications are no different that USA Today or the rest. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gannett_Company for more information.
Way to parrot Instapundit. That whole line of reasoning is disingenuous, of course. You are all willing to embrace the Army Times when they conduct surveys (not polls) what percentage of military personnel consider themselves Republicans. The Army/Navy/Marine/Air Force Times are like a Trade publication for the career military. The editorial position of the papers is very much a reflection of the sentiment of the career military. To ignore their call for Rumsfeld's resignation would be like ignoring the Wall Street Journal's call for the resignation of Ben Bernanke.
That's also newsworthy, but it doesn't make it a non-story. This is obviously going to be in the news (and has already been in the news) because it is a very bold move by these papers that people will be talking about at water coolers. This is not simply a run of the mill "endorsement."
The media just spent 2-3 days talking about John Kerry's misstatement, while scarecely representing his position beyond the phrase "botched joke." Are you telling me that was worth 2-3 days in the news and this is hardly worth a mention?
I don't believe Bush scheduled the verdict either, but I think that if he lacks the influence to postpone it a number of days, that's just about as bad.
The problem with war trials is that they look like the victor’s justice. I believe (but have not verified) that Roosevelt wanted to simply shoot the top Nazis. Stalin wanted to put them on trial as he had a penchant for this sort of thing. The Nuremburg trials were an exercise in hypocrisy as the Allies themselves engaged in forced resettlement of ethnic peoples, and the use of slave labor (euphemistically called “reparations in kind”). Now it’s true that Nuremburg provided a forum to expose Nazi atrocities, but we don’t seem to be getting this with the trial of Saddam. The US seems to be getting more bad press than Saddam during his trial.
Well, the U.S. brought a lot of the bad press upon itself. If it wasn't so pigheadedly opposed to the ICC and international law it could have encouraged the trial of Saddam in an international forum. And we learned a lot from Nuremburg and the post-war trials of Japanese war criminals. The latter were especially condemned as "victor's justice" and seen as patently unfair. To remedy the flaws we came up with the Uniform Code of Military Justice to ensure that war crimes would not be handled in an ad hoc manner. But of course, George Bush chose to go back to the flawed policies of the Japanese war crimes (in fact he chose those proceedings as a model for the Military Commissions) trials after 9/11 rather than listening to the professional military lawyers at the pentagon.
So the U.S., or rather our incredibly incompetent administration, has no one to blame but itself.
Also they have been given the name "Army" Times, along with all the other branches and they have taken full advantage of that lended authority to speak for the professional military- the members of which have a duty to remain apolitical.
The timing of this is abysmal and reveals that they want to abuse the title that yhey have been intrusted with in an oppurtunistic fashion.
The troops and their families that think differently are pre-occupied trying to win the war and supporting it stateside without their family members.
Do you think Ganett gave a damn about giving those that felt differently enough time to counter? It is disgaceful how Garnett has borrowed their authority from those too busy serving.
Do you think us military peons who's voices they have stolen have anything near the resources they have to try and counter them?
In addition, the Military Times don't do their own polling they were only reporting polling done by the Annenberg Foundation.
(I apologize for posting here but I cannot figure out how to post on the appropriate thread.}
-then describe an appropriate punishment for his crimes.
Time's up.
INSULTING MILITARY COMMANDERS: The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are “toeing the line” is an insult to their judgment and integrity.
They can't quite fumble through an issue without accusing somebody of insulting the troops. I can't wait until they start accusing the troops of insulting the troops.
This is also manipulative because (as I understand it) the military newspapers are not naming sources because they don't want to out members of an organization who is taught never to undermine publicly the wisdom of its civilian leadership.
"War trials have outlived their usefulness. Saddam should have been shot on site upon his capture. Saddam's trial has been nothing but a circus."
I don't think it would have been necessary to shoot him on the very site of his capture. They could have moved him to a more official place for an execution. An invading, occupying power executing a former head of state without benefit of trial, however...well, that would have been quite a sight.
You mean the intelligence community that has been in open revolt against the president for years and has strategically leaked classified information in an effort to undermine the elected leadership.
Our "intelligence community" is simply not believable. On anything they say, really.
You wrote:
I often wonder if Rush Limbaugh is Jim Lindgren's main source of information. . . . The line about how the press hid Osama's supposed threat to Bush-states sounds like something straight from Rush's head to this blog.
Your comment has not the slightest evidence to support it.
I don't think I've heard Rush Limbaugh even once in a couple of years, and I'll bet that I haven't heard him more than a half dozen times since he came on the scene about 15 years ago. Also, I linked my earlier post from the weekend before the 2004 election, so it was obvious where I got the facts I was referring to.
Try reading before making nonsubstantive, insulting comments.
Jim Lindgren
A year's unsupervised probation, with 160 hours' community service.
In the Kurdish regions.
That should solve the problem. Even if we never get the benefits of 159.75 hours of community service. (I allow 15 minutes on the assumption the Kurds might be surprised and a little slow to react).