Don't Fear the Saddam Verdict

Ever since somebody noticed that the Saddam sentencing was scheduled for November 5, everybody around here got paranoid that Rove fixed it for that date, or that it would sway the election to the Republicans. Relax. It will have no effect at all on the election, and we don't need to "get in front of it" as if it was some sort of scandal.

Look, Saddam's guilty verdict has been a foregone conclusion. Nobody doubts the verdict. The real story is what a circus the trial has been (so much that Rove could never have planned a November 5 verdict), and the poisonous climate of post-Saddam Iraq that has the entire country bracing for an increase in sectarian violence. The newspapers will show big headlines of the verdict, as they should. A country will have just convicted its former leader, and sentenced him to death. That's significant as far as it goes. The reaction among Iraqis is also significant. But the political fallout in the US is nil. Not only is the verdict already known here, but the real story in Iraq is the inability to manage post-Saddam Iraq. Remember, when Saddam was captured in December 2003, it was a surprise, and it led many people to believe the insurgency would die out. Remember Howard Dean getting blasted for recognizing how insignificant Saddam was? Bush will surely make an obligatory mention about the "Iraqi people bringing him to justice," but the American people know damn well that the real story is not Saddam's guilt, but Bush's failure to achieve stability in Iraq. So please don't fret over the verdict. Say what we've been saying all along - the Iraq war is an utter failure.  I know this post is along the lines of a "comment," but I thought it important enough to post as a diary considering how much Democrats are fretting over it.

•  Is the verdict Sunday morning Iraq time?

  If so, that's late tonight Eastern. I can't figure out if it's late tonight or late tomorrow night.

  by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 05:17:20 PM PDT

  •  8 hours difference

    it's 4:28 right now Baghdad time.  I don't know when the verdict will be handed down.  

    by dougymi on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 05:25:55 PM PDT

•  A country will have convicted its former leader

  You know what they say, "what goes around comes around". Dare I get my hopes up?

  by truong son traveler on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 05:23:08 PM PDT

•  Anti-gay Gay Nutjob vs. Arab Nutjob

  Something tells me the media is likely to focus on the former.

  by dragon695 on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 05:24:12 PM PDT

•  I was one of those writing about this in a diary

  yesterday, and I agree it will not be a huge factor in the election.  It's certainly not a "scandal".

  But Bush will do a lot more than make an "obligatory mention" of it.  I believe he is scheduled for a speech to the nation on Monday night, and he will milk this for all it's worth, with all the typical talking points you can imagine.

  Will it affect many votes?  Probably not, but he tends to get a small bounce after most of his big speeches, and just a few votes could swing some of these close races.

  My reason for raising it was to help us have our messages ready, since we know it is coming, to defuse any possible impact it may have.

  by UU VIEW on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 05:25:18 PM PDT

•  SO WHAT IT PUTS IRAQ BACK ON FRONT PAGE

  And raises the question we have done all this ......................for this!!!

  by otto vb vs on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 05:27:02 PM PDT

•  Wesley Clark asking for delay in sentencing

  Sadam's defence team has asked for a delay according to this article.  Seems there has been a rush to get the verdict out before the election,

  Movember 4, 2006

  AMMAN, Jordan — Defence lawyers called Friday for the judges to postpone their verdict in Saddam Hussein's Dujail trial — which is expected Sunday — and allow them to present their final arguments in defence of the deposed president.

  The call came in a letter addressed to the presiding judge of the Baghdad court that has been trying Saddam and his seven co-defendants on charges of crimes against humanity for the past 13 months. A copy of the letter was given to The Associated Press in Amman.

  The 10-member defence team, including former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, wrote that it would be premature to deliver the verdict on Sunday "because the court did not receive the final defence statements yet."

  The letter asked the judge for permission to "read the defence final statements and for the court to set another date for the defence argument in not less than 60 days' time."

  It was not possible to confirm that the judges had received the letter on Friday, the weekend in Iraq.

  When the trial adjourned for the judges to consider their verdict on July 27, Saddam was represented by court-appointed lawyers as his own counsel had boycotted the trial since the June killing of their colleague Khamis al-Obeidi, the third defence attorney to be slain during the trial.

  Saddam and seven former members of his regime have pleaded innocent to the killing of 148 Muslim Shiites from the northern Iraqi town of Dujail in 1982. The inhabitants were shot after an attempt to assassinate Saddam as he passed through the town.

  He is widely expected to be convicted and condemned to death. Iraq has cancelled all leave for its soldiers on Sunday, apparently fearing that such a sentence could provoke an upsurge in attacks. Supporters of Saddam are believed to be a major player in Iraq's insurgency.

  On Thursday, the defence team issued a press statement saying that Saddam was innocent and his trial had been political. The verdict would be America's "last kick before dying" in Iraq, the statement said.

  http://www.thestar.com/...

  by Craftyjani on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 05:33:11 PM PDT

  •  "Ramsay," not "Wes" (N/T)

    by genespleen on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 05:42:20 PM PDT

    •  er..."Ramsey," not "Ramsay" (still N/T)

      by genespleen on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 05:43:38 PM PDT

    •  Funny, when I saw Wes...

      I thought--wow, that's a masterstroke of diplomatic genius:  ask for a delay so that the US election (which is being blame for the current violence) won't add additional fuel to the situation.

      Wes would look great and prescient.

      by mem from somerville on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 06:13:26 PM PDT

  •  Once again politics over the law

    Even Saddam deserves a fair trial.  If his lawyers say they need more time, they should get it.

    Once again, politics over the rule of law.  

    This is similar to what they did by pressing for the London investigations to be released earlier than the police wanted.

    Of course, criminals do not care about the law.

    by Ningen on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 06:25:41 PM PDT

•  All hell will break loose in Iraq

  when the verdict is given.  We don't have enough military there to stop it even though they've shut everything down.

  That's the only thing I worry about.  I don't think anyone will go to the polls here on Tuesday and vote republican because of it.

  by nupstateny on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 06:27:00 PM PDT

•  Actually I think the real story will be

  what happens in Iraq.  From all we've heard it's going to get very nasty there very quickly (er, I should say,  nastier, since it's already very nasty!).

  That won't be good for Bushco.

  Just got back from the Lamont Rally in New Haven.  Great Time!

  Go Ned.  Rick the Boat!

  by mombadanes on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 06:55:05 PM PDT

•  Big curfews

  Yes, there are huge curfews in Iraq. It will be mayhem in Iraq. If it's a death sentence, there will be outrage in the Sunni areas. If it's not a death sentence, the Shi'ites will rampage through the city.

  by Elrod on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 07:01:36 PM PDT