Hussein Verdict: News at 11

Media Should be Asking How and Why Saddam Verdict Was Set for Two Days Before Midterm Elections

Washington, DC -- The Bush administration has a long history of timing national security-related actions with the political calendar, and the media should be asking if it has done so again. The verdict of the Saddam Hussein trial, which was originally scheduled to be announced on October 16, 2006, has been postponed until November 5, 2006, just two days before the U.S. midterm elections.

Given the importance of the midterm elections, the administration's documented history of manipulating Iraq and terrorism announcements for political gain, and the heavy influence of the U.S. on the Iraqi court, David Brock, President and CEO of Media Matters for America, today called on the media to question the new date set for the release of the Saddam verdict.

"Why has the verdict been postponed? Is it designed to influence this fall's election? Is this yet another example of the administration playing politics with our policy in Iraq? These are the questions the media should be asking," said Brock. "Forget the October surprise -- it looks like Karl Rove and the Bush Administration have been preparing for a November surprise. They have a documented history of timing major national security announcements for their own political gain. With Saddam Hussein's verdict being delayed until two days before this year's midterm election, the media should be asking the administration about this transparent grab for political advantage."

Verdict Postponed

The verdict for the Saddam Hussein trial was originally scheduled to be released on October 16, 2006. On October 3, the Associated Press reported that the verdict would be postponed beyond that date. And in a New York Times article published on October 16, a senior court official announced November 5 as the new date, citing disagreement among the judges on Hussein's sentence as the main reason for the delay.

• On October 3, the AP reported that the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT), the judicial body carrying out the trial of Saddam Hussein, had "postponed the verdict in the former leader's first trial" beyond October 16 -- the date it was originally expected. At that time, according to the AP, the verdict was postponed because judges were "considering the possibility of recalling some witnesses," and a court spokesman "said he could not say when the verdict would be issued."

• On October 16, the AP reported: "A verdict against Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants charged with crimes against humanity in connection with an anti-Shiite crackdown in the 1980s will be announced Nov. 5, a senior court official said Monday. Sentences for those found guilty will be issued the same day, he said." An October 16 New York Times article noted: "Other court officials have said in recent days that a major reason for the delay is that after nine months of hearings, the five judges in the case have failed to reach agreement on a sentence for Mr. Hussein and appeared to be undecided between a death sentence for him or a penalty of life imprisonment."

• In an October 17 entry on The Nation's weblog, The Notion, Nation Institute fellow Tom Engelhardt noted that the media, in reporting on the postponement, failed to mention that it had been postponed until two days before the midterm elections, writing, "It's the sort of thing that -- you would think -- that any reporter with knowledge of the US election cycle (no less of how [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove has worked these last years) would at least note in an article."

While it cannot definitively be said that the verdict was, in fact, postponed so that it would influence the November elections, the postponement suggests several obvious questions, which the media have yet to raise: Are there still witnesses that the judges need to recall? If so, and if there is no verdict yet, how can there be a date certain for the verdict? How did the Iraqi court arrive at the November 5 date? Did Iraqi officials consult with U.S. officials in arriving at that date? More important, given the heavy influence of the United States on the court and given the administration's history -- evidenced below -- of timing national security-related actions to the political calendar, was the verdict's date set to provide maximum political benefit for the Bush administration and congressional Republicans?

History of Bush Administration Manipulating Timing of Iraq and Terrorism Announcements for Political Purposes

There have been several documented and reported instances of the Bush administration manipulating the timing of announcements or actions in the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism for its own political benefit.

• On the October 24 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, CBS News White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reported that a White House official told him, "[D]o not expect to see anything significant prior to Election Day" "as far as a significant change" in the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Axelrod then quoted the official as saying: "You're not going to see anything before November 8th. It would be political suicide, and Karl Rove would never allow it."

• On September 6, Bush announced that 14 terror detainees had been transferred from secret CIA-run prisons to the Pentagon's detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. In an article for the September 18 edition of Newsweek, investigative correspondents Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff quoted an anonymous senior Bush aide acknowledging that Bush's announcement was timed so that the administration might frame the debate over the fight against terrorism in the days before the September 11, 2001, anniversary.

• In an article for the September 10 edition of Time, White House correspondent Mike Allen reported that after Bush's announcement, the White House and Republican Party leaders almost immediately contacted conservatives in the media, urging them to promote Bush's speech "in the context of the election."

• An October 11, 2004, Los Angeles Times report said that the Bush administration planned to delay major assaults on insurgent strongholds in Iraq until after the 2004 U.S. presidential election, fearing large numbers of U.S. military casualties. At the time, TV news broadcasts did not mention the Times article prior to the election; however, on November 8, 2004, the top story on each of the major TV networks' morning shows was the U.S.-led forces' assault on Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah.

• A USA Today article on May 10, 2005, quoted former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge saying that there were times during his tenure when the administration pressured the Department of Homeland Security into raising the terror threat level, even though there was little evidence warranting such a move.

The Bush administration acknowledged that it timed the launch of its campaign to build public support for invading Iraq to coincide with the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks and the 2002 midterm elections, according to a September 7, 2002, article in The New York Times.

To read more, CLICK HERE.