Shameless White House Politicizes Saddam Verdict

By: Lowell
Published On: 11/4/2006 6:46:55 AM

Just as the White House politicizes everything else, it is now trying to gain political advantage from the verdict - is there any doubt what it will be? - in Saddam Hussein's trial.  The verdict is scheduled for tomorrow, just 2 days before crucial mid-term elections.  Gee, do you think this just POSSIBLY could be a coincidence?  Nah, the Bush Administration would NEVER do such a thing.  Would it?

Well, here are a few thoughts on the matter, contained in an e-mail I received late last night from the Center for American Progress.  For more on the fiasco that is Iraq, see here for the story of leading "Neo-Cons" turning on the Bush Administration (key quote, by leading neo-con Kenneth Adelman on the Bush Administration: "Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.") Nice, huh? And George Allen followed THESE people blindly?

IRAQ
Trials and Tribulations

On Sunday, the nine-month trial of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and his seven co-defendants is expected to conclude, with the court delivering its verdict. Should Hussein be convicted, it will be an historic and welcome development for the Iraqis who suffered under his rule. But already, the White House is trying to make it into a political spectacle. Yesterday on CNBC, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said the verdict would "absolutely" be "a factor" in Tuesday's midterm elections and proof that the "Iraqi government that has been doing what the president has said all along." Snow portrayed Sunday's decision as yet another turning point for Iraq, calling it "a benchmark episode." Snow's spin matches President Bush's rhetoric when Saddam was captured. Bush said his capture marked "the end of the road...for all who bullied and killed in his name" and predicted "Iraqis can now come together and reject violence." But that was three years ago. Since that time, violence in Iraq has spiraled out of control as the country edges closer to complete chaos.

WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE SADDAM HAS BEEN CAPTURED: Saddam hasn't been a threat in Iraq since December 13, 2003, when he was captured. Since that time, 2,385 U.S. troops have died and more than 18,000 have been wounded. Attacks in Iraq have increased 400 percent even though there are 22,000 more U.S. troops on the ground. Saddam's anticipated conviction is gratifying but will not end this cycle of violence.


SADDAM TRIAL IS NOT EVIDENCE OF A FUNCTIONING IRAQI JUDICIAL SYSTEM: Yesterday, Tony Snow said the upcoming verdict was evidence of an Iraqi government that can "sustain itself, defend itself, and govern itself." Actually, it is an illustration of just how much the Iraqi government leans on American resources. AFP notes, "Saddam is being held in a U.S. jail, that the trial is being held in Baghdad's Green Zone, which is controlled by the US military, and that U.S. legal experts have had an omnipresent role in preparing the case against him." Many Iraqi judges are being intimidated by militias and 11 have been killed so far this year. One Iraqi judge told Reuters, "We can't do our job properly with all these pressures. ... [Militias] are controlling everything everywhere, and they do whatever they want. They don't even hesitate to put pressure on us openly."

VERDICT COULD PROMPT SPIKE IN VIOLENCE: While the White House is spinning the verdict as "a benchmark episode," many believe that, no matter what the outcome, violence could increase. Ibrahim Khalid, 52, a Sunni from Baghdad's Azamiyah district, told the AP that if Saddam is sentenced to death, "Violence and killings will increase and Saddam will turn into a national hero among Sunnis." Meanwhile, if he avoids the death penalty, "Many Shiites...will be enraged." The nine-month trial has "widened the gulf between Iraq's ethnic and religious groups at a time when sectarian reprisal killings are spinning out of control." Many Iraqis "believe the proceedings are intended to distract attention from failures to restore order and build a functioning government."

POLITICALLY TIMED?: The verdict was recently rescheduled to come just two days before the U.S. midterm elections. The timing has raised eyebrows, especially because the Bush administration exercises considerable influence over the trial. The court itself was created by the administration-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority. The Washington Post reports, "The U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Regime Crimes Liaison Office run much of the day-to-day arrangements for the trial. Plainclothes security workers, many of them Americans, and Iraqi soldiers guard the turreted, fortress-like former Baath Party headquarters in the American-held Green Zone where the trial is playing out." The New York Times reports, "American influence...has been undeniably pervasive, with about 90 percent of the $145 million in annual costs for the court and associated investigations paid for by the United States Justice Department, and lawyers sent by Washington acting as advisers."

So, Saddam will be found guilty tomorrow and sentenced to death.  Good riddance to one of the world's worst human beings. But if the Bush Adminitration thinks that this absolves them for all their lies and screw-ups, all the death and destruction, all the costs of this botched quagmire of a war, they are sorely mistaken.  On November 7, the Bush Administration will receive its own verdict - that of the American people - loud and clear.


Comments



If this is the "November surprise" (tokatakiya - 11/4/2006 12:26:16 PM)
look for it to backfire terribly.

It will cause a huge spike in violence in Iraq that, if all goes well, will only last 2 days (but probably much longer).

We all know what day is 2 days after the verdict...

GOTV.



Sadam verdict (pammiekin - 11/4/2006 12:31:34 PM)
And a guilty verdict is good for the GOP.....why?  I don't get it. 


Saddam verdict (libra - 11/4/2006 9:39:01 PM)
And a guilty verdict is good for the GOP.....why?  I don't get it. -- pammiekin

Well, they're not prepared to admit that the whole Iraq fiasco has been about "Blood (yours) for Oil (theirs)"... The original excuses -- "Saddam's got nukes", "Saddam's hand in hand with Osama, shares responsibility for 9/11" -- were disproved as so much soapy water in our eyes... Which has left them with the excuse they cobbled up last of all: free Iraq from the tyrant and spread democracy to the Middle East. And, because Americans in general are very nice people, they "bought" that argument; some *still* think we're doing good in and for Iraq...

If Saddam is convicted, by *Iraqi* court, instead of being shot somewhere on the quiet, it proves that Iraq is now a free and democratic country - mission accomplished. Just as the Chimperor had promised. All with great pomp and circumstance and very visible to all and sundry -- watch it being discussed on CNN and all other stations Sunday, Monday and, with luck, Tuesday too (just in case you're not convinced it's all hooey, we don't want you to be voting). God willing and the creek don't rise, the pundits will be so full of discussing the verdict and its ramifications, there'll be no reporting from Baghdad other than a coupple of interviews with the judges...

Ask me, they should have shipped Saddam off to Hague, where the judges would be more likely to be impartial and where they'd have been safer besides. But, of course, it would not  be as much of a credit to the s-administration. And, of course, the Chimperor doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of Hague Court, does he?

Slightly OT but... Does it strike anyone else (other than me) as being weird that Saddam -- who's unquestionably a bastard, personally responsible for thousands of deaths, is being granted more rights than the so-called "terrorist *suspects*", who are being stashed in Gitmo and not allowed access to an open court because of what they might reveal about the "enhanced interrogation techniques"??? The only thing *Saddam* had to complain was the lack of respect shown to him as the President of Iraq...



Saddam verdict -- PS (libra - 11/4/2006 11:13:24 PM)
So I was wrong :)

The reason we won't have to view carnage in Iraq following the verdict is not that the pundits will take over and talk us all to death. It's because there'll be no carnage:
http://www.washingto...