CNN reports accusation of political timing of Saddam Hussein verdict, without noting administration's pattern and practice
SUMMARY: CNN reported a claim by Saddam Hussein's lawyer that the release of the
verdict in his trial on charges of crimes against humanity two days before U.S.
congressional midterm elections is timed to influence that vote, but CNN did
not provide evidence that might lend credence to such an accusation: If true,
this would be far from the first time that the Bush administration has timed an
Iraq- or national security-related event for political advantage.
Two October 29 reports on CNN repeated a claim by Saddam Hussein's lawyer that the release of the verdict in his trial on charges of crimes against humanity two days before the Nov. 7 U.S. congressional midterm elections is timed to influence that vote. However, CNN did not provide evidence that might lend credence to the accusation: As Media Matters for America documented, if it is true that the administration has exerted its authority over the Iraqi court in this manner, this would be far from the first time that the administration has timed an Iraq- or national security-related event for political advantage.
As noted by the weblog Eschaton (written by Media Matters senior fellow Duncan Black), on the October 29 edition of CNN's Sunday Morning, CNN anchor Betty Nguyen reported that "[a] letter from Saddam Hussein's lawyer to President Bush ... accuses the White House of trying to time the verdict before the midterm elections." In a later segment, CNN video correspondent Arwa Damon reported that Saddam lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi "accuses U.S. President George Bush and the U.S. administration for deliberately orchestrating the date" so that the verdict in the first trial of Saddam -- involving allegations that he committed mass murder in the Iraqi town of Dujail -- will be announced "just two days before the midterm elections." Damon continued: "We were expecting a verdict mid-month. It was, however, delayed." On the October 29 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, CNN anchor T.J. Holmes said, "The verdict is to be announced a week from today, a date Saddam Hussein claims is timed to the U.S. elections two days later."
On October 3, the Associated Press reported that the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) "postponed the verdict" beyond October 16 -- the date it was originally expected. 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."
As Media Matters noted, SICT was established on October 9, 2005, by the Iraqi interim government for the sole purpose of trying Saddam and members of his regime for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Though the SICT is a creation of the Iraqi government, it is heavily influenced -- legally and financially -- by the U.S. government.
Media Matters noted several documented and reported instances of the Bush administration manipulating the timing of announcements or actions for political benefit. For instance, a September 7, 2002, New York Times article reported (subscription required) that the White House's "meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein" was timed for "after Labor Day." The Times article quoted then-White House chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.: "From a marketing point of view ... you don't introduce new products in August."
As Media Matters noted, the Los Angeles Times reported on October 11, 2004, 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. Recently, as Media Matters noted, 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 and 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."
From the October 29 edition of CNN's Sunday Morning:
NGUYEN: Well, a letter from Saddam Hussein's lawyer to President Bush -- it warns violence in Iraq will worsen if Hussein is found guilty. It also accuses the White House of trying to time the verdict before the midterm elections. The letter was emailed to CNN's Baghdad bureau.
[...]
NGUYEN: Saddam Hussein on trial -- his lawyer on the offensive. Now, the attorney has written a letter to President Bush, and it warns of more violence in Iraq if Hussein is found guilty. CNN's Arwa Damon joins us now live from Baghdad.
Arwa, we understand that this letter questions the expected timing of the verdict, which, right now, could happen next Sunday.
DAMON: That's right, Betty. In this letter, Khalil Dulaimi -- he is the chief attorney for Saddam Hussein's defense team -- accuses U.S. President George Bush and the U.S. administration for deliberately orchestrating the date that the Dujail verdict will be heard so that it lands just two days before the midterm elections. We were expecting a verdict mid-month. It was, however, delayed. In that letter, Dulaimi also blames the U.S. administration for the violence that we have seen here, for sectarian violence that we have seen increasing here, and warns that if Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants are found guilty in the Dujail trial, that there will be only more violence.
From the October 29 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
HOLMES: Onto Saddam Hussein now. His lawyer says there's going to be trouble if the former Iraqi president's trial ends with a conviction. The verdict is to be announced a week from today, a date Saddam Hussein claims is timed to the U.S. elections two days later. Hussein's chief lawyer says he's written a letter to President Bush warning him, quote, "against the death penalty and against any decision that would inflame a civil war," end quote.
And its amazing that they despise Bush so much that they make Saddam seem like a helpless victim. Hate has no bounds does it?
Go back to Free Republic, you namby-pamby.
GET REAL!!!!!
The Bush Administration is the best "Wag The Dog" this nation has hever wittnnesseen!!!
Your hatred is here for all to see. Of course much like your twin Art you can never back up the silly claims you make. You are both simply pitiful
Invading a foreign land, killing hundreds of thousands of it's people, imposing a puppet government and wasting trillions in precious taxes in a time of deep deficit....all because they hate one single man who has never threatened their country. That's not sane...not sane at all.
Saddam trial verdict may be delayed again
Oct 29 5:47 AM US/Eastern
The chief prosecutor at the court trying ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity has said that the verdict, due in seven days, could be delayed again by up to two weeks. Two weeks ago the Iraqi High Tribunal delayed the judgement in the trial of Saddam and seven co-defendants for ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite villagers from the village of Dujail until at least November 5.
But chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Mussawi told AFP: "There are checks which still have to be completed.
"If the judicial body overseeing these checks has not finished by November 5, I expect the court to delay its next hearing by one or two weeks before announcing the verdict," he added on Sunday.
[link to www.breitbart.com]
if i was running MMMFA, Media Matters Matters For America, I'd have your news article up under the banner, "MMFA falsely and baselessly claims Saddam verdict is timed to influence the election, despite the fact that it may be delayed."
MMFA only cares about putting forth their agenda and will make assumptions and jump to conclusions without waiting until all the facts are in. This is just the LATEST example.
Savage made a good point, Brock - how can you be an ex conservative? You're nothing but an opportunist who plays off the hatred that the left has for right wing pundits and you USE them by replaying what they say to a new audience in order to make a profit. You love BillO because he lines your pockets. If I was Fox News I wouldn't let you rebroadcast ANY of my clips.
If I recall, Michael Savage is an ex-lefty. Should we discount his opinion because of this? And really, how much money do you think Brock makes doing this work? If I recall, he used to get paid quite well and got to appear on television quite a few times when he was part of the anti-Clinton Republican dirty tricks team.
The article also serves up several other points that lend credibility to the accusation. MMFA never said it definitively was the case. But it's worth looking at this incident and past incidents to come to a reasonable conclusion, is it not?
Also, I did a search on news.google.com for your article. I found about 8 instances. All of them are from Australian news sites. I think you'll have to do better than that.
You’re doing they exact thing you claim MMFA is doing. What TAZ posted doesn’t dispute anything MMFA has said. MMFA is pointing out that the Bush administration is the most calculating and power hungry administration in American History and no one should be surprised that they would do something like this for political gain. If the administration isn’t involved in the timing of the verdict it would be a severe deviation from what they have done in the past.
There’s a simple way to keep Brock from making a profit off of them: your far right friends should stop disgorging lies, distortions, misformation and disinformation onto their gullible, obedient, and unquestioning [or maybe just equally unscrupulous] audience.
Just wild accusations that he can never back up. Hey Art why not just once, try to be honest about something. I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.
allow me to be HONEST: you are a partisan hack who would defend mmfa even if they claimed that bush was a suicide bomber in college.
You don't know one thing about me, and you are lying yet again. I don't agree with everything that MMFA does, and that is a real fact. However I will defend it against a partisan flunkie like you, who does nothing but spread lies and hate on this site. It is so easy to debunk your ridiculous accusations that is takes no time, and I usually get to pick myself off the floor from laughter.
Not to worry, Artie. It will never happen. MMFA would NEVER make such an irresponsible claim such as that.
Its too well established that Bush was an arrogant, drunken, coke-snorting frat boy during his privileged Ivy League matriculation.
Besides, he obviously would never have the stones to blow HIMSELF up.
Now, if you were talking about Bush ordering SOMEONE ELSE to become a suicide bomber...
But, what the hey, Artie. Feel free to give your trolling another shot. Someday you might get lucky & score a point or two.
In another thread a few days ago you BRAGGED that Karl Rove had arranged for the Saddam Hussein verdict to be announced two days before the election. Remember...? You were boasting about how the Republicans might lose the House but would retain the Senate... which you said was more important because of the potential for two more Supreme Court justices before 2008. Remember...?
Artie, do you wonder why people here have no respect for you?
Maybe under the name Soion? The lack of coherent, logical arguments would seem to indicate this.
I had never heard about this notion that the Saddam Hussein verdict was being timed by Karl Rove to coincide with the elections until Art brought it up a few days ago. Maybe, Art is suffering from the disease that is afflicting the Bush White House... they can't keep track of everything they say.
A few days ago you BRAGGED that Karl Rove had arranged the timing of the Saddam Hussein verdict to be announced twoo days before the election. Remember that, Artie...?
Maybe you should stay the course instead of cutting and running from your previous statements...
If Saddam is on trial for ordering the killing of 148 people...what's the US-caused death count by now? It must be close to 2 million by now. US government has actually killed more Iraqis in the last 15 years than Saddam has.
Ha ha ha, Daveblaze, you stupid hump! How much coverage you think a verdict will fetch in the Saddam trial when around the same time, Mark Foley is going to come swishing into the limelight with revenge against Republicans on his mind? Foley is going to make Hastert and his other feckless cohorts pay dearly for throwing him over the side. I expect he'll be on Larry King, the View, Oprah and Maury Povich before you can say "I'd like to french kiss Bush's behind."
I'd like Mr. Foley to tell us all exactly when and by whom in the R
To finish my post... I'd like to know when and by whom in the Republican leadership Mr. Foley was warned to stay away from Congressional pages. That certainly may clear up any lapses in memory that Speaker Hastert has experienced.
So it seems there's a question about the timing of Saddam Hussein's verdict...I just have two questions...First, if we're being really honest with ourselves, don't we kind of have to admit that the American public sort of already has a foregone conclusion about Hussein's guilt? In my humble opinion, the only way the public will get all riled up about this is if Hussein is acquitted. And that seems how likely?? Second, if this is some nefarious GOP plot to skew the elections--Really, is this the best they can do? Hussein is a non-issue in the eyes of so many today. Isn't the concern over Iraq today really about the horrible way the war has been prosecuted SINCE "Mission Accomplished?"
I thought the same thing. It wasn't until Artie brought it up favorably a few days ago that this was part of his Republican Party's October surprise master-minded by Karl Rove that I even read any suggestion that this would help them in the elections. But, then, maybe the Repubs are looking for any break they can get. Maybe Rove's focus groups indicated it would help. Who knows...?
Don't you think the White House will tout Saddam's conviction as a major event in the "war on terror", perhaps even worthy of Bush addressing the nation? I suspect that the administration will say the conviction is also proof of progress in the development of democracy in Iraq as well. I am certain of one thin, however... that the White House will spin the hell of Saddam's conviction. Whether it makes any difference to Americans at this point, though, is another question, as you point out.
They'll make a big deal out of it.
One thing to keep in mind is that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn't pay much attention. These are the people who don't know who Nancy Pelosi is, don't know about the Downing Street Memo, don't know about the recent Intelligence report which concluded that Iraq has made terrorism worse, don't know who Karl Rove is...and still think WMDs were found in Iraq and that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks.
These are the knuckledraggers who will see the news of Hussein's conviction as a great victory for America and Puddinhead George, and might actually be influenced to push the button for a Republican because they're "keeping us safe from turrists". Sad but true.
Perhaps the Saddam trial verdict won't be any surprise to the American public but the media will make hay of it anyway, anything to help their boy George. Suspicious timing simply fits the pattern of dirty Repub campaigning, like the terror alert warnings (see Olbermann's video on that for some interesting timelines). After Six years of Rovian politics, public cynicism has surely grown by leaps and bounds.
Anyway, other suspicious election timing has got to be the low low gas prices. Some guy complained in the local county paper about the local electric cooperative company's "Manager's Report" so I had to read it for myself to see what his fuss was about. I have to share this text, y'all might appreciate it:
"Why Have Gas Prices Dropped?" by Jeff Loven, "The Electrifier"
"It is amazing to me how the United States' gasoline market works. Gas prices have dropped at the pump in the last few weeks, and the American public is now paying about 20% less than they were over the summer. It makes me curious as the why gas prices are dropping at such a high rate after being over $3.00 for most of the summer. Don't get me wrong. I am as happy as anyone that prices are dropping. But doesn't it make you wonder why?
Take a closer look at what has happened in the last few years with regards to the price of gasoline. In October of 2001, the average price across the nation was $1.25 per gallon. Over the next four years, the average price slowly moved upward to $2.30 without the aid of any major disaster. After Hurricane Katrina, prices skyrocketed to over $4.00 in some areas. In the aftermath of the nation's worst natural disaster, we understood how the laws of supply and demand would influence price in the short term. Even though the refineries were repaired and new supply lines have been opened for several months, the price is just now starting to come back down.
Doesn't it make you wonder why it is happening now? What has changed all of a sudden to drop the price? It's not the demand for gasoline. That is actually up a tenth of a percent over a year ago. And I don't buy the argument that hurricane season is over either. As I write this report it is only mid-September. Did we forget when Hurricane Opal hit?
How about the fact there is an election coming up in November? The folks who run the oil industry and control the nation's gas prices do not want to see their buddies kicked out of office by unhappy voters. They certainly have reason to worry.
In 2005, Exxon alone posted $340 billion in revenue; $36 billion of that pure profit-- the most ever recorded in history by any business of any kind! The other oil companies have posted record profits as well, and we have all contributed to their bank accounts. Now they seem to be concerned that the public has had enough and might want a change. So what do they do? Drop the price before the election in an attempt to remove the focus off high gas prices and let the people in Washington take the credit for it.
When gas prices rose this past year, it was the Middle East crisis or a hole in the pipeline that caused the spike in cost. What about the 700 million barrels of oil the U.S. had in reserve? Situations like the past year are why these reserves were created in the first place, yet not once did the President release them into the market to help decrease the cost of gas. Furthermore, Congress did nothing to push him towards such a decision. But why would they? Their friends in the oil business and largest campaign contributors were making so much money off the American people. And whatever happened to the investigation on price gouging Congress was conducting against the oil companies?
I hope the American public sees what is happening and will use their power at the ballot box to correct this situation. Let's put the people in office who will take care of us as American citizens and put our needs first -- not large companies making record profits. Please remember to vote on Tuesday November 7.
It is your chance to make a difference."
Yes it does. And although there may be a benign explanation, the way this administration has conducted business makes you wonder... particularly because Bush and Cheney have roots in the oil industry. Remember that Cheney went to the Supreme Court rather than divulge whether he met with top oil executives to formulate the administration's energy policy. I remember that when some oil execs finally admitted meeting with Cheney they said they were only discussing "supply and demand"... another euphamism for what, one wonders.
That even with Exxon's record profits this year, they still refuse to pay out the $5 billion they were ordered to pay to the people of Alaska affected by the Exxon Valdez spill.
Exxon should be boycotted.
With the timing of the Hussein verdict and another bin-Laden sighting on the horizon, of course it's a blatant attempt to scare the voting public.
I agree, I would bet one comes before the end of the week. The Republicans will stop at nothing to scare the American people.