Thursday, November 02, 2006

Is Saddam's Sentencing The "November Surprise"?

Scott Horton has been sounding the alarm regarding an orchestrated "November surprise" to assist Republican candidates just before election day: the Nov. 5 sentencing of Saddam Hussein.

The Columbia University law professor told The Nation: "when you look at polling figures 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. ... This is not coincidence. Nothing in Iraq that's set up this far in advance is coincidental."

-- The Nation, Oct. 17

19 Comments:

Anonymous Dave G. said...

Meh. I don't see it with this. Those events referenced above were mostly surprises -- Saddam's capture, Zarqawi's death. (The election wasn't a surprise, but a big turn of events.) But Saddam's in jail. This will mean he stays in jail or dies. Meaning what, exactly? We've already got the guy.

Plus, there's talk it may end up being delayed as well.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/01/BECHTEL.TMP

11:50 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

My bad. posted the wrong link.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/10/30/worldupdates/2006-10-30T012519Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-274121-3&sec=Worldupdates

11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He told "The Nation". Now there is a nice Stalinist organization that nobody should trust.

12:36 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Maybe he'll be sentenced to rule Iraq again...

12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, you don't even know what "Stalinist" means. Using your hyperbole, Fox News must be fascist.

Dumbass.

3:58 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I'm starting to think the November surprise is either A) the Bush administration publishing information on how to build a nuke on a gov't web site -nice job - or B) the biggest evangelical leader in the country exposed as a closet case.

10:30 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

The Republicans' attempt to publish info vindicating them from criticisms of phooney pre-Iraq invasion WMD claims, which instead could have released nuclear secrets to terrorists, demonstrates Bush and the Republicans care more about political saving-face than protecting the country from terrorists.
It's past due time to clean House (and Senate).
Let's put these Republicans next Tuesday out on the curb with the garbage.
http://tinyurl.com/vkmbs

12:10 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Whomever posted that information on the government's website was obviously extremely careless, but leave it to the libs to apparently miss the other major observation here, which is how wrong they have been all along in claiming that Saddam Hussein's WMD programs were not a real threat. So typical of you guys not to mention that fact.

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Trinity said:
Whomever posted that information on the government's website was obviously extremely careless, but leave it to the libs to apparently miss the other major observation here, which is how wrong they have been all along in claiming that Saddam Hussein's WMD programs were not a real threat. So typical of you guys not to mention that fact.


You're such an amazing apologist, Trinity. These idiots put that information out there because they didn't think our intelligence reports were best left to being handled by, oh, people in intelligence, instead trying to marshall the blogosphere, as if a bunch of conservative (or liberal) bloggers have any real experience in interpreting such data.

Meanwhile, as for WMDs, the article from the NYT and WaPo clearly states that Saddam was looking to build a weapon before the first Gulf War, which everyone knew. It also said he had designs on weapons, which everyone knew and agreed on. What we didn't agree on was A) that he had "reconstituted nuclear weapons" in the words of Dick Cheney or B) that the right decision was to invade that country when we had inspectors back in the country (one of the few decent things Bush did), working to make sure he didn't get anywhere near building a bomb, which he, once again, wasn't even close to! But to you conservatives, the fact that he was dangerous is enough justification to do the "see, we win ha-ha" idiot dance, as if somehow, any shred you find of weapons out there justifies the chaos we've gotten ourselves into. As if any of this still does not point toward doing something prudent rather than cavalierly sending our troops into a senseless war the way this moron did.

Nobody thinks Saddam was a great guy or some kind of model of decency, he was a thug, pure and simple. But the threat of nukes turned out to be a canard, with much of the programs degraded, leaving him with a) the idea to try to get weapons and b) lethal but less dangerous stuff like chemical weapons. And we sure as hell didn't send 150,000 soldiers to Iraq over chemical weapons that could threaten his neighbors. No, it was the "nuke nuke nuke" nonsense, which has been a non-starter from the beginning. But who cares? Bush is god, so everything he does is great according to your side. What rot. What nonsense.

4:17 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

From the NYT article:

"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."


So what the NYT is saying is that these documents show that Iraq had all of the plans and designs with which to build a nuclear bomb. They had all the "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building."

But what it sounds like YOU are saying, Dave, is that somehow they weren't a threat? Other countries like Iran could have accessed these advanced nuclear weapons plans on-line and used them to make a bomb, but Saddam Hussein's having these plans wasn't anything to worry about? I don't get this rationale.

12:53 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said But what it sounds like YOU are saying, Dave, is that somehow they weren't a threat? Other countries like Iran could have accessed these advanced nuclear weapons plans on-line and used them to make a bomb, but Saddam Hussein's having these plans wasn't anything to worry about? I don't get this rationale.

Trinity There is ample evidence that Saddam wanted WMDs, Chemical weapons, or an Atomic Bomb. This want was as strong as my want now for GWB and Dick Cheney to be removed from office, but there are too many roadblocks for this to happen. His desire for WMDs was just as strong as the current desire of the medical community to solve the Embryonic Stem Cell solution to curing many diseases. Once Saddam tasted the power of owning WMDs, chemical weapons and other top-notch military weapons sold to him by the Reagan Administration, he lusted for more. They gave him comfort against any attack from Iran or any up-rising by the Iraque populace. Want and getting are distinctly two different things.

But as has been written by several well known experts, Saddam was contained and stripped of any ability to reconstitute any weapon or build any new ones due to:
1. the first Gulf War
2. International sanctious
3. The no-fly zone.
4. Many satelite images taken showing no such re-constitution.
5. Intelligence information from many sources
6. Oil for food program(only benfitted many of Bush's/Cheney's oil buddies and maybe themselves)

Bush/Cheney/Rummy knew that Saddam was weak militarily, had no WMDs and therefore; is reasons why they were so convincing that taking Iraq would be a cake walk while taking only a few weeks and was saying we would be greeted by flowers. Also, is reasons why the "Mission Accomplished" bannner was prepared weeks before Bush's fake aircraft landing( people know as well as I do that Bush never earned his wings!) and why Congress set aside Millions to celebrate victory before any real victory.

Trinity there is nothing you can say that will not convince me that the real reason we invaded Iraq was to get control of their oil fields!!

My guess is Iran and others did get usefull information from the Republican sponsored government web site. If you are not outraged about this giveaway of vital information due to the sole purpose of the Republicans wanting to find a glimmer of hope that another reason other than getting their oil was the real reason for the invasion, then I really question your patriotism!.

3:03 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:04 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

That was a powerful rebuttal, Whoop.
Much of the USA is now pleading "temporary insanity" for having gone along with the neocon Bush Gang's decision to invade Iraq.

Now we have the rational people, including those of us who were shunned from the onset on for trying to say the decision was a bad one, who are continuing to address the facts so the country might be able to pull itself out of this horrible mistake.

And we have the apologists, like Trinity, continuing to scour for evidence, like documents that had been officially debunked as far as showing Sadaam had any imminent WMD capabilities, to try to keep the country embedded in it.

Well, one of the main purveyors of the documents, Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania is going to have plenty of time after January to read the documents and come up with all the WMD interpretations he wants.

*I reposted to offer a further clarification.

9:27 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

But what it sounds like YOU are saying, Dave, is that somehow they weren't a threat?
I can't have an argument if you insist on tying both your hands behind your back.

10:44 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"Trinity there is nothing you can say that will not convince me that the real reason we invaded Iraq was to get control of their oil fields!!"


You might want to remove the double negative from that sentence. ;)

And we do not want control of Iraq's oil fields, whoop. If that were the case we would have seized Kuwait's oil back in the first Gulf War.

5:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trinity said, "And we do not want control of Iraq's oil fields, whoop. If that were the case we would have seized Kuwait's oil back in the first Gulf War."

I suppose if we wanted to show Sadaam he was wrong for slaughtering his own people Rumsfeld wouldn't have shaken Sadaam's hand in a show of support and unity a year after the atrocity for which he was just convicted and sentenced to hang happened.

Weak, Trinity. Very weak.

9:06 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Nice deflection, but why didn't you address my point, i.e., that we could have taken over Kuwait's oil resourses during the first Gulf War, if that was what we were after in the Middle East. Why didn't we? (sounds of crickets in the still night)

12:12 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

The point from our side is this: it is possible to see Saddam was a threatening human being with a threatening regime without agreeing that the right decision was to invade the country. Find me examples of people who belive he was somehow a nice guy or some bullshit to support your assertion. He was a turd, and we all know it. What was disputed was whether it was the right move or not to invade, which I fervently believe it was not.

9:45 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...
whoop4467 said...
"Trinity there is nothing you can say that will not convince me that the real reason we invaded Iraq was to get control of their oil fields!!"

You might want to remove the double negative from that sentence. ;)

And we do not want control of Iraq's oil fields, whoop. If that were the case we would have seized Kuwait's oil back in the first Gulf War.


Trinity - A true thanks for the double negative correction. My college english teacher would be dismayed.

Trinity Your Kuwait statement is a "Red Herring". Why attack a nation that already sells it's Oil to us. Bush senior is a little brighter than his son or listened to his advisors better. Attacking a country just for its oil would be dumb. Armageddon here we come!!Oh, that is precisely why invading Iraq for its oil was a dumb mistake. Bush/Cheney/Trinity and many other repukes have tried many stories for many days( now about 4 yrs)to cover up the real reasson to invade Iraq, to get their OIL. At least you current repukes were smart enough to realize that stating or hinting that invading Iraq just for the OIL would have been catastrohic. Congress and the world would not have supported it no matter how dependent or addicted to OIL we are.

When are the repukes going to come out with another reason for invading Iraq??

6:07 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares