Is October Surprise on November 5?

According to news reports, the court in the trial of Saddam Hussein is due to reconvene on Sunday November5, at which time both a verdict and a sentence are expected.  I wonder if this could be the October Surprise, designed to dominate the final news cycles, which Bush on Monday the 6th making an address to the nation (he is not officially on the balot) aout how this is yet another success on the war on terror.

See below for a few questions to consider.

1)  Is the date of the verdict just happenstance, or did the administration manipulate this for what they think will be maximum benefit for their side?

2) How do you think the press will cover this subject, both in the forthcoming 3 weeks and when it actually happens?

3) Is there any chance Saddam will NOT be sentenced to death?

4) What if any preemptive remarks should Democrats be making about this?

5) What if any effect do you think this will have on the elections?

Inquiring minds want to know.   I will be interested in any thoughts others might have to offer.

•  yes this is a tip jar aka mojo mug

  so that this diary gets at least one comment.   I am about to become very busy with school stuff, so I thought I'd better get this all up quickly.

  As usual, what happens to this diary is entirely subject to the judgment of the dkos community.

  Enjoy.

  by teacherken on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 04:39:44 AM PDT

  •  one other note -

    if this is really being manipulated, I would expect the administration might announce on Monday that they had captured or killed Osama or al-Zawahiri.    

    by teacherken on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:07:57 AM PDT

    •  But they can't display Osama/Zawahiri . . .

      to the world until say, about November 9 or 10.

      Then their faces will be too mutilated to ever display.

      by nyceve on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:36:32 AM PDT

    •  That would require them to

      capture or kill Osama or al-Zawahiri.

      How are they gonna do that, with their amazing strategic minds?

      by Icarus Ascending on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:55:13 AM PDT

      •  old rules

        you've missed the new rule:

        an announcement by the unitary executive does not require proof

        by njr on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:00:49 AM PDT

        •  Bingo, njr

          by nyceve on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:08:39 AM PDT

          •  They only have to get past

            ...ONE more election.  There are no more to worry about, even if they're found lying.  Again.

            by Randomfactor on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:31:17 AM PDT

        •  Oops, I read that as

          the URINARY executive.

          by vickyny on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 09:04:15 AM PDT

          •  Well, he's certainly

            pissed all over the Constitution, as well as a good percentage of the country's (and the world's) population.

            by DarthParadox on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 09:11:08 AM PDT

        •  It does now

          Once someone has lost all credibility, and Bush has, people will require validation.

          It's a modern-day version of 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf.'

          by Busted Flat in Baton Rouge on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 09:11:09 AM PDT

      •  They got Osama last year

        and are keeping him in the freezer. Plan is to thaw him out about Novemeber 4 and announce: We got him!

        by RudiB on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 11:48:02 AM PDT

    •  I've been saying that for a while.

      Though I say they announce Osama's capture/death on November 3, 2006, give or take a day.  Gotta get a couple days in there for it to sink in.

      by BruinKid on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:28:02 AM PDT

  •  Not THE October Surprise, but AN October Surprise

    They doubtless have many more. And the cables and networks and newspapers will doubtless give this huge, nauseatingly unquestioning play. I'm not sure it'll motivate the GOP base any, though. At this point, nobody's going to be convinced that Iraq was worth it. Nobody's going to forget it's FUBAR. And nobody's going to forget that the GOP leadership covered up for sexual predators. Nice try, though.

    Let's see if they finally bring in OBL and/or nuke Iran. Those would be real October Surprises.

    by Septic Tank on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:19:56 AM PDT

•  Maybe I'm whistling past the graveyard

  but I don't think it would be any significant help to the GOP. It would be an opening for a discussion of:

  • Okay, we got Saddam, but we didn't get Osama
  • And Saddam, clearly a bad guy, didn't have WMD
  • And we have no clue about what to do in Iraq
  • And we crossed the line this month, of having more soldiers killed in Iraq that Osama killed on Sept. 11th

  The media sharks smell blood in the water, and unlike previous years, they will point these things out.

  by Elwood Dowd on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 04:49:28 AM PDT

  •  It's hard to "discuss" that many talking points

    in a day or two before the elections, when it's so exceedingly difficult to get a Democratic viewpoint heard in the media.

    by ChuyHChrist on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:35:32 AM PDT

    •  For the same reason,

      I doubt it would benefit the GOP, either.  There simply wouldn't be enough time for the resonances to have a significant impact on the campaign. Especially because the attitudes that are informing the shift in Democratic fortunes seem pretty deep-seated.  With any luck, too, the American public is going to notice that it's an October Surprise. (or Nov. surp., butchoo get my point.) Miracles do happen!

      by Dale on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:57:51 AM PDT

      •  To add: There's no good timing for this event

        I especially agree about too little notice. And here in Florida, a growing percentages of votes are cast early and absentee so those votes are in the hopper already.

        Taking the question one step further, is there an optimal timing for Republicans to benefit from this event?  My answer: No, mostly.

        Yes, partially, because I think the Republicans would do the PR campaign because they'll need GOTV from their Koolaide crowd to win some close elections.

        But no, mostly, because a guilty verdict would be a "dog bites man" news event--unimpressive. I suspect in the minds of most Americans, the big event was catching Hussein and a subsequent guilty trial verdict was a certain outcome.

        by sawgrass727 on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:05:58 AM PDT

        •  Well, We need to get out all of the things

          that might happen in an October surprise.  If we start talking about it now, it will dampen the surprise. If the French have already stated that Osama might be dead, then if he shows up dead in the next couple of weeks it will look like Rove was involved.  Talk it up now.

          by LimosineLiberal on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:13:39 AM PDT

          •  Might be a good idea to be proactive...

            If Rove has a Hail Mary plan there isn't going to be a lot of time to counteract it at this point.

            Why not start a low rumble that would make lots of people highly question any extraordinary last minute event?

            There are all sorts of little phrases that might stick in people's heads.  'Hail Mary', 'wag the dog', 'the little boy who cried wolf', and 'desperation move' come to mind.  

            All of those convey a certain amount of desperation and suggest inaccuracy.  'October surprise' suggests, to me, that the event is real and just held for effect.

            by BobTrips on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:37:53 AM PDT

            •  I also nominate "Osama bin Forgotten"

              Repubs love that phrase (it tests very positive with the wingnut section of my family) and its message.

              It contrasts Saddam vs Osama in a quick, punchy sound bite.

              by means are the ends on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:46:58 AM PDT

              •  I think you might want to pitch it as...

                "Think they'll remember where they stashed Osama bin Forgotten in time for the election?"  

                The credibility of this group of thugs is already quite low.  And further seeds of doubt most likely will fall on fertile ground.

                It would be great if Karl pulls something out of his butt and every one just chuckles.

                by BobTrips on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:13:01 AM PDT

            •  I can't verify this but . . .

              some are saying that Osama passed away in a nursing facility in Pakistan last month.

              by Busted Flat in Baton Rouge on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 09:15:03 AM PDT

            •  Any beautiful blondes out there

              willing to fake their own kidnapping?

              //////////

              by theark on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 09:41:30 AM PDT

        •  Those absentees

          ...are going disproportionately to Republican candidates.  Those aren't the votes they'd have to switch.

          by Randomfactor on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:32:56 AM PDT

    •  I Agree

      The media is going to be in a feeding frenzy over this, including asking rather blatantly, "Does this destroy the Democrats hopes for Tuesday?"

      The only reason I see it possibly failing is that November 5th is on a Sunday.  I'm guessing (though I could be wrong) that by the time the news breaks, it'll be to late for the Sunday talk morons to drive the aforementioned talking point home...and I don't know if one day before the elections is enough time for the news to really sink in, with the elections being on November 7th.
      And bear in mind that this is about 36 hours total before Voting day.  They're going to all be covering the elections extensively.  The more I think about it, the more I wonder which story will be marginalized more.

      It'll actually be interesting to see how they handle the coverage of all this...

      by samfish on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:23:03 AM PDT

      •  And nobody much cares about Saddam

        anyway. I'll bet not 1 in 10 Americans have been paying any attention to the trial.

        by papercut on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:25:14 AM PDT

        •  and those that have see

          it as a kangaroo court. the saddam trial has not been a display of bushco competence.

          furthermore, who's to say that when the verdict comes out, there isn't a rash of attacks from saddam loyalists, or a spectacular attack somewhere as a protest?

          It's very possible that with a saddam verdict on the 5th, everyone will be going into the polls with iraq afresh ablaze in new, dismal chaos.

          by SeanF on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:31:55 AM PDT

      •  Remember time difference

        Baghdad is 7 hours ahead of the U.S. East Coast, so a decision announced in court at 11:00 am in Baghad would occur at 4:00 am here.  Probably too late to make the front pages of the Sunday papers, but it would make the cable news channels.

        Of course, some of the Sunday morning talking head shows are actually shot well ahead of time, on Friday night or Saturday.

        Of course, there's been relatively little coverage of the Saddam trials so far in the U.S., except for the first few days of the first trial.  And since he is already on trial for a second set of offenses against the Kurds, one suspects they don't plan to take him out immediately and hang him (or whatever capital punishment technique currently in use in Iraq).

        by sam3am on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:30:37 AM PDT

  •  i'll wait to see it happen

    We hope the sharks will go berserk when they smell blood.  i think that most will take the past of least resistance, which is something like "LOL!  Saddam 2 B executed!  Vote Republican!"  i don't think a few months of renewed backbone is enough to overcome a few years of ingrained laziness and gullibility.

    by the chavi on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:37:51 AM PDT

  •  Sure we got Saddam...

    three years ago. What ever the verdict/sentence is doesn't change a thing. What will change, if anything, is the level of violence in the Civil War that we have instigated by our illegal occupation of Iraq.

    by Alohaleezy on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:11:04 AM PDT

    •  Right on the money

      Saddam's fate is a foregone conclusion, it's not like there's a ghost of a chance that he'll get off. But, it will send people to the streets and it will cause sectarian violence. There's gonna be celebrating and shooting and it won't be pretty.

      by high uintas on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:14:12 AM PDT

  •  A couple talking points...

    Didn't the Republicans say that the 'dead ender' violence would end once Saddam was captured?

    Seems they were wrong on that...

    Oh and btw, where's Osama? Isn't he the guy involved in 9-11?

    by kredwyn on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:21:40 AM PDT

    •  Osama Bin Forgotten

      

      by Ranting Roland on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:14:07 AM PDT

      •  is that milk from

        my pet goat?

        by Lee on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:49:22 AM PDT

  •  Oh, Ye of Too Much Faith

    The media sharks smell blood in the water, and unlike previous years, they will point these things out.

    ..and Mulder's sister is still alive with the aliens.  I Want To Believe.  Really I do.

    Most of The Media will say what the Administration tells them to say.  If any "things get pointed out," it will be after November 7.

    by Eddie Haskell on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:34:45 AM PDT

    •  Exactly, Mr. Haskell

      I wonder what info the NY Times might be holding back for this election?!?

      by Ranting Roland on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:12:08 AM PDT

      •  Perhaps we should all write and ask them?

        Abundantly. Many of us. Several times each. Make it very public.

        Make them deny it.

        by papercut on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:27:12 AM PDT

  •  How about this (bogus) talking point

    "We got the main tairist in Iraq"

    by RequestedUsername on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:45:05 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, it only took the Pukes 24 years to get

    Saddam for crimes he committed on Reagan's watch, before Rumsfeld showed up in Baghdad, in December of 1983, to shake Saddam's hand.

    by Xapulin on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:42:57 AM PDT

  •  Also...

    the outcome of the trial... seems like we've always known how it will end... so why would Nov 5th have any significance?

    by crkrjx on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:46:28 AM PDT

    •  Oops seems my sentiment had been voiced

      disregard...

      by crkrjx on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:50:57 AM PDT

  •  I am also skeptical that it would help the GOP

    Everyone already believes Saddam will be convicted, the actual conviction will be just make people say, "Oh, I thought that had happened a long time ago."  As evil as Saddam and his rape-room sons Uday and Qusay were, nothing in Saddam's trial had anything to do with WMD, terrorism, or anything else that justifies our invasion or continuing presence in Iraq.

    by litigatormom on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 09:16:51 AM PDT

  •  another reason it wont help BUSH republicans....

    is the proclimation made by some high uppy in the Iraq 'government"  that a sentence of death for Saddam will be followed by a sectarian blood bath of unimaginable proportions....

    how would that help the gop win the election?  in my opinion it wont...it will only serve to further illustrate that Iraq is a (sort of) country totally out of control.

    the sentencing of Saddam to Death might well be the last straw for sectarian moderates....and a full blown, you cant deny it anymore, civil war will break out across Iraq.

    if i was karl rove I would be working as hard as I could to postpone that sentencing until after the nov election.

    by KnotIookin on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 09:51:44 AM PDT

  •  The MSM won't be having this discussion

    and anything like that would take weeks to bubble up.

    by RudiB on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 11:51:44 AM PDT

•  So in other words

  taking Saddam Hussein out back of the courthouse and putting a round in his medulla will rally the base?
  Have we sunk that far?
  God, I hope not.

  by kestrel9000 on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 04:50:07 AM PDT

  •  A lot of Americans

    were always that low.  We're just realizing it more and more.

    by corvo on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:53:37 AM PDT

    •  true, but

      you have to admit, the context shifts. Bush is saying things lately that were once eaten up by these people and now it really not working.

      The ribbons are magnetic for a reason -- easy removal.

      by marvinolasky on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:20:01 AM PDT

      •  I'm not at all convinced

        that it's "really not working."  I think they're just embarrassed by the current spokesman and wishing they had a better one.

        by corvo on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 12:37:43 PM PDT

•  If that's the surprise

  then we are in good shape.

  Anything that calls more attention to Iraq has got to help the Democrats.

  by plf515 on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 04:50:17 AM PDT

  •  yup - agreed.

    not only is the media FINALLY beginning to catch-on, but i think americans have looked at this circus of a trial as nothing more than a sideshow that has little bearing on the state of conditions in iraq right now.  

    if anything, it may serve to put iraq side-stories back on the front page.

    by sedrunsic on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:27:21 AM PDT

•  No suprise

  It's no suprise that the Bush Administration would manipulate event in Iraq for political gain - the entire adventure exists just for that purpose.

  BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A court trying Saddam Hussein for killing Shi'ites in the 1980s could deliver its verdict on November 5, officials said.

  The U.S.-backed court was due to announce on Monday a final date for verdicts on the ousted Iraqi leader and seven of his former top lieutenants for crimes against humanity, a charge which carries a maximum penalty of death by hanging.

  However, the court said it needed more time to review testimony. Court spokesman Raed Juhi said the Iraqi High Tribunal would reconvene on November 5 although it was not clear if a verdict would be announced then.

  "They are finishing reviewing testimony. If the court has finished reviewing testimony by November 5 there might be a verdict. The court would do whatever it finds appropriate," Juhi told Reuters.

  The entire trial was a sham with less integrity than  the judging in American Idol. It's a bit blunt to have the verdict on Nov. 5th - I've seen polling that shows a plurality of people think gas prices are artificially manipulated for political gain by the Bush administration. The Bush administration is starting to run into the same problems as the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Oh well.

  by joejoejoe on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 04:53:45 AM PDT

  •  Please

    don't insult Simon, Paula and Randy.

    by Upper West on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:52:38 AM PDT

  •  Coulda Shoulda Woulda

    From this, I doubt very much that any verdict will be announced on November 5th.

    Hell, maybe on November 5th they'll declare a mistrial and let him walk! LOL

    by Ottoe on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:56:09 AM PDT

  •  George WOLF! Bush (nt)

    by 417els on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 11:06:12 AM PDT

•  A bit odd

  that in a "trial" where nothing has gone as planned, they set a hard and fast date for the sentencing.

  I wonder if Cmdr. Codpiece will actually want to pull the trigger himself. Hussein "tried to kill his daddy", you know.

  by ekthesy on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 04:56:36 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, with Saddam's revolver Bush has as souvenir

    I wonder how many children have had their daddy killed by Bush in Iraq?  

    by DWG on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:36:04 AM PDT

    •  Not a revolver

      Immaterial to the point, perhaps, but the gun was a semi-auto pistol, not a revolver.

      by drmonkey on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:43:48 AM PDT

      •  let's hope

        Bush is sitting in his office right now fingering it and pretending to be cowboy.  You never know when the world might just be saved by a glorious accident.  Of course, with our luck he will shoot himself in the foot and claim he was the target of a terrorist attack by bin Laden.  

        by DWG on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:22:37 AM PDT

    •  And a more serious question is

      how many daddies have had their children killed in Iraq? Those are the daddies that become "insurgents."

      by The Centerfielder on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:43:59 AM PDT

      •  And the children of our soldiers

        Golly, with 450,000 adult males killed in Iraq in the aftermath of the war, that sure is a lot of insurgents.  You know the sad thing?  There are people in this country that think all the Iraqi daddies had it coming because they were bad guys.

        Let's not forget the children of our soldiers that lost their daddies in Iraq.  Bush sent them to their deaths, but I suppose he cannot possibly be held accountable for that.  

        by DWG on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 08:18:22 AM PDT

•  Answering your questions

  First without sounding like I'm wearing a tinfoil Yukata I really believe the docket was manipulated by the Bush administration. Because in their minds it serves a purpose to show that they are tough on the War on Terror even though Saddam had nothing to do with it.

  As to the press coverage: The press only seems to cover the trail when he makes some kind of wild outburst. Other wise they just seem to ignore it. When the verdict is handed down it might last through one 24 hour period as I don't believe they see it as a story with legs or of much interest to the American public.

  Will Saddam get the Death Penalty: With Send Them to the Chair Bush in charge of course.

  Fox News of course will make it sound like Hitler himself has been brought to justice as will all the other tin foil hat wearing right wing press.

  As for a surprise: This isn't it. The weather report would be a better surprise.

  by Mishima on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 04:57:25 AM PDT

  •  All it needs is one 24hr period if it's Nov 5!

    The whole Saddam trial is just disgusting.  He was a dictator who ruled through force, so obviously he killed and tortured people.  The thing is, every country kills people to maintain security and stability.  If any of us rebelled against the U.S. we could be killed.  I'm not excusing or justifying the bad things that Saddam did, but I just feel the picture is a lot more muddled than how it is commonly presented.  

    Also the trial is just a sham anyway.  They should have just taken Saddam out and shot him.  The trial has very little credibility.  

    by Asak on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:35:05 AM PDT

    •  Nope. Weak. n/t

      by Fishgrease on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:47:10 AM PDT

      •  Huh?

        N/T doesn't work when you can't tell what you're talking about from just the title.  

        I stand by my statements in any case.  The trial has little credibility and also the circumstances are a bit muddled.  Every country kills to maintain stability, even this one, maybe especially this one.  The question of separating the individual from the government is important, especially in a dictatorship where an individual is the government.  

        People like to say that Saddam is bad and everything he did was wrong as if that answers every question.  It doesn't.  

        by Asak on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:52:39 AM PDT

        •  despite your caveats

          you are essentially excusing saddam in some way. saddam was a particularly evil character. worse than evil, he was unpredictable. even all of his despotic neighbors thought he was nuts.

          by SeanF on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:36:24 AM PDT

          •  What nonsense

            Asak's points were quite valid.

            Mitch Gore

            Wanna win in '08...?

            Put your money where your mouth is.

            by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:06:43 AM PDT

            •  hardly

              by SeanF on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:18:17 AM PDT

              •  Wow... that was an informative rebuttal

                Mitch Gore

                Wanna win in '08...?

                Put your money where your mouth is.

                by Lestatdelc on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:44:00 AM PDT

                •  truly rich

                  it was only what your snotty "rebuttal" deserved.

                  by SeanF on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 04:18:45 PM PDT

          •  what was unpredictable about Saddam?

            I think one could argue that was pretty predictable. When we put him next to the current leaders in Iran and DPRK, even more so.

            by marvinolasky on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:46:13 AM PDT

            •  launching wars against

              iran and kuwait makes you unpredictable. regardless of what you or I think, the Saudis, Egyptians, and many others thought of him as a regional pariah.

              to say he wasn't is ignorant, and plays into the republican frame that dems don't understand the threats out there.

              The correct response is yes, he was a bad guy and a destabilizing factor in the region. But he was a REGIONAL threat who had been contained by sanctions regime. Not a global threat. Invading Iraq is around 10 times out of proportion to the threat he posed.

              by SeanF on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:17:11 PM PDT

              •  Funny

                Bush I had no position about Saddam's dispute with Kuwait and explicitly had April Gillispie say as much, that the United States took no position in his disputes with Kuwait over lateral drilling, disputed islands in the Tigris-Euphrates delta, etc. Likewise, the United States gave support to his invading Iran.

                Mitch Gore

                Wanna win in '08...?

                Put your money where your mouth is.

                by Lestatdelc on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:43:07 AM PDT

                •  tell me how any of that

                  makes saddam "predictable".

                  by SeanF on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 10:35:44 PM PDT

        •  Okay

          I'm saying that it will have no effect on the election.

          That plain enough?

          by Fishgrease on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:32:15 PM PDT

  •  in thinking about this...

    I have in mind a the kind of republican base voter who likes tough talk because they are "realists." By that I mean, they are the "nuke'em" type. They would be a clear target the target for such "get Saddam's death sentence in the news" strategy.

    This type was obviously gung ho about the war (finally a president with balls!, they said), but as realists they don't care about democracy in Iraq.  

    Now, if you don't care about democracy in Iraq (or you recognize that an theirs is not democracy anyway) you are left with a pretty clear fact:

    deposing Saddam did not help US security interests.
    

    When this person sees Saddam now, they don't see someone who attacked the US or was even capable of it. They see someone who, before we invaded was less of a threat than the terrorists that currently operate in Iraq. In that sense, Saddam's face is the image of failure.

    Maybe I'm dreaming, but the decline in Republican support is not about Foley. It's about regular people putting 2 and 2 together and realizing that most of what they heard and hear is simply not true -- even from the perspective of someone who wants a president that routinely bombs other countries preemptively.

    by marvinolasky on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:42:04 AM PDT

•  This Administration manipulates every thing for

  maximum political effect.
  I don't think this is going to be a big deal.

  by cabinetman1 on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:00:09 AM PDT

•  I doubt it will rally the base

  or effect the war over here, killing Saddam might actually incite what remains of his supporters and make them more steadfast.  I would expect to see another Al Qaeda figure captured.  The Iraqi National security advisor mowfawek al-rubaie earlier last month had announced the capture of the #2 Al Qaeda guy in Iraq.  It turned out they had captured him two months ago.  Just as likely I think the killing of Al Zarqawi also needs to be scrutinized with the public eye.  I have heard some on the ground rumors regarding that, but until a transparent investigation takes place I am not putting a lot of stock in them.  But it is blatantly obvious what they revolve around.  People don't have Air Force Bombs of the 500 pound variety fall on their head and live.

  by Peter Laesch on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:03:30 AM PDT

  •  The number 2?

    What a load of shit.  Have you noticed whenever they catch someone it's the number 2?  It's a load of bullshit.  Every time it changes nothing.  The only conclusion anyone can come to is either the importance of these guys is highly inflated (in other words they're not really #2), or despite their importance they can easily and immediately be replaced so their capture is irrelevant.  

    by Asak on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:37:40 AM PDT

  •  Indeed.

    It's not too late to re-install Saddam as leader of a fractious Iraq.  They could bring him out in shackles like a de-fanged Abominable Snowman, and put him in charge. Think of Bush as Hermey the Misfit Elf.

    by Exclamation Point Brian on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:08:17 AM PDT

    •  There ya go!

      I've been wondering when that would happen.  Maybe the Sunnis will grab him and pronounce him President of central Iraq.

      by tle on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:52:36 AM PDT

•  No effin' way.

  This would be the lamest idea to rally GOP voters ever, even lamer if it is meant to swing undecideds.

  Undecided Voter: "Welllll, Rick Santorum is batshit looney in every conceivable way, but Hussein IS on trial. So, hmmmm. Guess I'll vote for RIcky!"

  by ablington on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:15:23 AM PDT

  •  I partly agree with you...

    but just in recent years commentators at least have made precicely these sorts of arguments.

    And a reworded version would go like this:

    "I voted for Santorum last time, but now I don't feel like supporting him (I mean he is an embarrassment) or the party (just a total failure)."

    [Saddam appears on screen with death sentence]

    "Oh yeah THAT's why I vote Republican, because the democrats don't have the balls to protect America.  If they were in charge Saddam would still be in power!!!! Where's my calendar -- need to mark election day and call the whole family."

    Now I'm not arguing that this rationale will be the norm (see my other post) but it isn't as unrealistic as you put it.

    by marvinolasky on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

•  if they

  if they were executing him on the 5th that would be something since this country loves blood, but the mere sentencing of him?  nah that brings up the whole kangeroo court thing.

  by pissedpatriot on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:16:51 AM PDT

  •  but they could execute him immediately

    once he is sentenced.   That is possible under the current system in Iraq.

    by teacherken on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:22:07 AM PDT

    •  is this verdict on the second trial?

      The gassing of Kurdish villages? Or the resumption of the first trail, where the verdict and sentencing were delayed?

      Because there's a major problem with sentencing him before the second trial ends; to wit, the sentence must be carried out within 30 days, which (if it's for trial#1) will shortcircuit trial#2, and leave a lot of Kurds feeling cheated.
      Then we get our second breakaway province in Iraq, and Turkey comes aknockin'.  

      by kamarvt on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:36:30 AM PDT

      •  How many times can he be killed?

        I don't condone the death penalty, but I don't really see how the Kurds could feel cheated if Saddam is dead.  

        by Asak on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:39:05 AM PDT

        •  they want their day in court

          I don't remember the date, (or I'd link to it) but NPR recently did a story about how an early verdict in trial #1 would be a major destabilizing factor for the Kurds.
          Whatever BushCo wants, I don't see the Iraqi judiciary going for that.

          by kamarvt on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:41:50 AM PDT

          •  I think that's true

            The Kurds want a real trial for the world to see.

            I wish I had confidence though that Iraqi courts were independent enough.

            David Brooks just said yesterday that Bush is considering "replacing" the government.

            by marvinolasky on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:58:37 AM PDT

•  my worry

  my worry is that the october surprise is a diebold patch.

  by pissedpatriot on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:17:50 AM PDT

  •  Or

    an extremely lethargic group of election officials and poll workers.

    by mrblifil on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:57:24 AM PDT

•  C'mon we can take punch outta any october surpris

  I sometimes feel dems are sittng around the
  campfire waiting to be scared by ghost stories.

  Start now and take the punch out of any republican tricks and surprises. Some ideas:

  start a game around your worksite water cooler to guess what the October surprise will be.  Offer daily prises for the best surprise.  Make the surprise you give a dem position, use intelligence and imagination.  

  Call your local candidates and get them to make a statement on their position of:  fill in the blank.

  I would like to hear what exactly is the republican candidates actual response to each and every announcement of investigation and indictment

  This is what dems should be doing

  Propaganda is the easiest thing to debunk.

  by Valerius on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:18:49 AM PDT

  •  Have the wide angle shot of the Sadam statue tip

    Have the wide angel shot of the 911 bush laura pond memorial

    Then ask...

    Do they think we are dumb and dumber?

    by 88kathy on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:04:57 AM PDT

  •  Yep...

    Get people talking about what last minute desperation move Rove might pull.  

    Implant a questioning attitude.

    by BobTrips on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:50:41 AM PDT

•  They'll "find" Bin Laden...

  by Stand Strong on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 05:18:49 AM PDT

  •  Osama's tape didn't influence the '04 election

    Does anyone remember Osama's tape that was released three days prior to the '04 election? It was the one where he said that locales that vote for Bush will be more heavily targeted by Al Queda. It was the first tape that he released that proved beyond a doubt that he actually lived through the Tora Bora battle. Didn't matter. Everyone knew who they were voting for by then. By contrast, Saddam didn't attack us and was never a threat. If Osama was truly a bad guy and didn't have any sway, I don't think Saddam will.

    by bobinson on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:26:53 AM PDT

    •  The hell it didn't!

      It is in fact the only explanation that doesn't involve vote tampering for the results of the '04 election unless 50 years of polling science is completely worthless.  I know, I know, there's a little to a lot in those two alternate contingencies (OH vote tampering and polling science not really being a science respectively), but I'm'a simply sayin'.

      Not even listening to HateTalkProFacist radio conciously (as I don't), even the sources I was flipping by (and let's not forget Fox News) was all about "you heard it here folks, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Osama" for 48 hours before the election.  I can't believe that either directly or indirectly didn't percolate through the aether.

      FWIW, no less sources than John Kerry and Wesley Clark have both come out in the last two years expressing their opinion that the tape was decisive in the outcome.

      BTW, I like your .sig. :)

      by waytac on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:56:41 AM PDT

•  asdf

  People look