WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

The US-backed special tribunal in Baghdad signalled Monday that it will likely delay a verdict in the first trial of Saddam Hussein to November 5. Why hasn't the mainstream media connected the dots between the Saddam's judgment day and the midterm elections?

Here's how the story was reported pretty much everywhere: "An Iraqi court trying Saddam Hussein for the killing of Shi'ite villagers in the 1980s could deliver a verdict on November 5, officials said, a ruling which could send the ousted leader to the gallows…"

A possible death-sentence for Saddam and his top lieutenants on November 5? Now, shouldn't that raise a few eyebrows somewhere? If you happen to have a calendar close at hand, pull it over and take a quick look. That verdict would then come, curiously enough, just two days before the midterm elections. It's the sort of thing that--you would think--that any reporter with knowledge of the US election cycle (no less of how Karl Rove has worked these last years) would at least note in an article. But no, you can search high and low without finding a reference to this in the mainstream media.

I must admit I hadn't thought about this myself until a friend forwarded me "No Comment," the e-mail newsletter that Scott Horton sends out from time to time. ("It's intended as ironic. All I do is comment.") Horton, who likes to identify himself in his newsletter as an "obscure New York lawyer," is actually an adjunct professor at the Columbia University Law School, as well as chairman of the International Law Committee at the New York City Bar Association. He makes frequent trips to Iraq, working as an attorney "representing arrested local-hire reporters of US media."

Once he had pointed out the timing in his newsletter, I couldn't get it out of my head and, since a Google search and a spin through various mainstream articles on the changed verdict date, brought up only a couple of passing mentions online of its relationship to the US elections, I called Horton directly. Here's what he had to say when I asked whether he thought Karl Rove might have anything to do with this:

"For sure. That November 5 date is designed to show some progress in Iraq. This is the last full news-cycle day in the US before the elections. It'll be Monday. And the American public will see Saddam condemned to death and see it as a positive thing.

"When you look at polling figures," Horton said," there have been three significant spike points. One was the date on which Saddam was captured. The second was the purple fingers election. The third was Zarqawi being killed. Based on those three, it's easy to project that they will get a mild bump out of this.

"After all, almost every newspaper reserves space for Iraq reporting every day. This just assures that they will have a positive news story to feature. I find it amazing not that journalists don't editorialize on this, but that they report the story without even noting that this is right before the midterm elections. That's pretty amazing to me!

"This is not coincidence," he continued. "Nothing in Iraq that's set up this far in advance is coincidental. Look at Michael Gordon's book Cobra II. One of the points he drives home is how everything in the battle for Baghdad was scripted for US media consumption.

"In fact, in my experience, everything that comes out of Baghdad is very carefully prepared for American domestic consumption.

"As for Saddam's trial itself, I've spoken with dozens of lawyers and judges in Iraq and they have a uniformly very negative opinion of this special tribunal. Everybody -- pretty consistently across the board, and despite the fact that there's no love lost for Saddam himself--has a high level of irritation about the tribunal. Judges have said to me, ?'I wouldn't serve on that. I wouldn't have anything to do with it. It's a blot on our country.' Their main point of criticism is its lack of independence. There is a team of American lawyers working as special legal advisors out of the US embassy, who drive the whole thing. They have been involved in preparing the case and overseeing it from the beginning. The trial, which is shown on TV, has mild entertainment value for Iraqis, but they refer to it regularly as an American puppet theater."

Still, scheduling the announcement of what will almost certainly be a future execution to give yourself one last shot at a bump in the polls?

Welcome to Bushworld.

A line item veto would provide another avenue for a president to exercise undue control over congress. He could and I have little doubt would veto all those items that favor his political enemies and allow to stand all those of his political allies.
If congress wasn't rife with political hacks and corrupt congress people they would do the right thing and do away with the pork laden system called earmarks.

This at face value would appear to be the realistic view. However, the President could not allow items that favor supporters and veto items that favor opponents without hurting the supporters? Why? Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness

Foxy

Quote:

This at face value would appear to be the realistic view. However, the President could not allow items that favor supporters and veto items that favor opponents without hurting the supporters? Why? Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness

.

Sorry, I disagree. Most politics are local and pork barrel politics only help an incumbent, if they can bring home the bacon.

Foxy
Regardless of which side of argument one is on. Would it even be a question if earmarks were discontinued.
Could funds for a bridge to nowhere be approved on it's own?

Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness.

Quote:

Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness.

Sheeeyit, Bush doesn't seem to give a goddamn about whether or not he is 'avoiding criticism.'

In their second term, they don't have to worry about re-election, so there would be effectively no break on the Prez' power, for years, to shut out the minority party completely. Not cool.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Because the opponents would use the veto as a powerful campaign weapon against both the President and the supporters. Nothing quite riles up the populace like clear cut and blatant inequities and unfairness.

Sheeeyit, Bush doesn't seem to give a goddamn about whether or not he is 'avoiding criticism.'

In their second term, they don't have to worry about re-election, so there would be effectively no break on the Prez' power, for years, to shut out the minority party completely. Not cool.

Cycloptichorn

We aren't talking about Bush. He's not running for re-election. We were talking about the pros and cons of giving the President....that's ANY President....the line item veto. And there are reasonable points to be made on each side of that particular issue. The check on the power of the Presidency lies in the power of Congress to override ANY of the President's wishes including a veto.

But you're right. President Bush, unlike his predecessor, doesn't get up each morning and check the daily polls to see what his position should be that day. So, right or wrong, he says what he believes and he is very consistent and unwavering on those issues he believes in. Those who don't like the consistency condemn him. Those who favor an elected official saying what he means and meaning what he says rather admire that even when they disagree with him.

I'm still not convinced that the existing veto power isn't enough. Exactly why would it not be adequate to address the problem of pork?

FreeDuck wrote:

I'm still not convinced that the existing veto power isn't enough. Exactly why would it not be adequate to address the problem of pork?

The problem is that our honorable legislators stick all that pork into unrelated bills that really do need to be passed. So the only way the President can veto the pork is to veto the critical vital legislation that needs to be passed. And yes, our honorable legislators put the pork into the most critical bills to make it almost impossible for the President to veto the legislation without doing serious damage to other things.

I of course use 'honorable' sarcastically because I think it is thoroughly dishonorable and dishonest for them to do that. And this is why I would support a line item veto even on a limited basis so that the tax payer doesn't get saddled with hundreds of millions of dollars of stuff earmarked purely to buy votes.

Look America. I'm not going to sign this bill while it has all these earmarks on this. We need money for our troops and to keep the gov't running, but this is highway robbery and blackmail and I just won't be a part of it. If you love America, get on your goddamned phones and tell your Congressmen/women to stop loading pork onto our critical bills.

The problem is that our honorable legislators stick all that pork into unrelated bills that really do need to be passed. So the only way the President can veto the pork is to veto the critical vital legislation that needs to be passed.

Foxfyre wrote:

The problem is that our honorable legislators stick all that pork into unrelated bills that really do need to be passed. So the only way the President can veto the pork is to veto the critical vital legislation that needs to be passed.

Right. But the veto just sends it back to the house it originated in. It's not like they can't take the pork out and send it again.

I understand what you're saying, but I agree with cyclops. We need a president that will call their bluff. When congress has such low approval ratings to begin with, one would think they couldn't survive a battle over pork.

BTW, not to be a stickler, but according to the constitution a vetoed bill goes back to the house it originated in. Of course, it does still have to be passed by both houses, but the point I was making is that it goes back to congress and they have the opportunity to remove the pork and resubmit it.