Saddam sentenced to death

[Black Dog]

The actual verdict (which was a foregone conclusion) is less interesting than the timing of it.

[BubberMiley]

I find it odd that the Republicans, with a straight face, can whine about the "timing" of disclosures that their higher-ups are having gay sex and taking meth, and yet, coincidentally, this verdict comes down two days before the elections. I would say the ethics of timing a court judgement to coincide with an election are far more questionable than timing a gay meth-head's disclosure.

[sharkman]

How long did ole Saddy have to wait for the verdict? If it had been given any time in the last month, there could have been claims of beneficial timing. Three days befoe the election does help the Republicans some, but it would have been much more helpful a couple of weeks ago when there would have been time for it to really sink in. And see the guy hanged.

In other timing questions, the gay hooker who blew the whistle on Haggard says straight up he did it now to affect the election. There seems to be plenty of these 'timing' events this election.

[Black Dog]

How long did ole Saddy have to wait for the verdict? If it had been given any time in the last month, there could have been claims of beneficial timing. Three days befoe the election does help the Republicans some, but it would have been much more helpful a couple of weeks ago when there would have been time for it to really sink in. And see the guy hanged.

Actually, closer is better. People have short memories, especially when it comes to things outside of their own backyeard. Drop the verdict a month ago and you blow your wad early. Now, it's fresh on people's minds. And really, why would the GOP want this to "sink in"? They thrive on visceral, emotional reactions, not thoughtful analysis.

[JerrySeinfeld]

How long did ole Saddy have to wait for the verdict? If it had been given any time in the last month, there could have been claims of beneficial timing. Three days befoe the election does help the Republicans some, but it would have been much more helpful a couple of weeks ago when there would have been time for it to really sink in. And see the guy hanged.

Actually, closer is better. People have short memories, especially when it comes to things outside of their own backyeard. Drop the verdict a month ago and you blow your wad early. Now, it's fresh on people's minds. And really, why would the GOP want this to "sink in"? They thrive on visceral, emotional reactions, not thoughtful analysis.

Yes, because as every good "thoughtful and analytical" lefty knows, one-off gay meth head republicans have a much more serious bearing on the world and are much more newsworth than the trial and conviction of internationally-known tyrants.

Or maybe I'm wrong - maybe they're just relying on emotional reaction and not thoughtful analysis

[sharkman]

I was thinking of the impact of seeing Saddam swinging before the election.

What are your thoughts on the Foley scandal? Did it happen too early to help the Dems? Personally, I think it aided them greatly and had there been no other scandals they could have won on that alone. Lowering gas and oil prices, a still healthy economy and North Korea all helped the Republicans. And this last weekend of Haggard and Saddam is sure to effect things even more.

[Black Dog]

Yes, because as every good "thoughtful and analytical" lefty knows, one-off gay meth head republicans have a much more serious bearing on the world and are much more newsworth than the trial and conviction of internationally-known tyrants.

I haven't been following the gay methhead preacher story, so I have no idea what your blatering on about. I'm not sure how the methhead preacher business would have any bearing on the election (was he running? I don't think so.) or would help the Dems.

Or maybe I'm wrong - maybe they're just relying on emotional reaction and not thoughtful analysis

Gee, jerry, next you'll be shocked that they use scantily clad women in ads because-gasp!-sex sells.

[Black Dog]

What are your thoughts on the Foley scandal? Did it happen too early to help the Dems? Personally, I think it aided them greatly and had there been no other scandals they could have won on that alone. Lowering gas and oil prices, a still healthy economy and North Korea all helped the Republicans. And this last weekend of Haggard and Saddam is sure to effect things even more.

I missed the Foley business too, as I was out of the country. But from what I've pieced together since, it's a perfect example: as far as the press and Joe Average is concerned it's "Foley who?" A month is an eternity in politics, moreso in the news. I'm not certain the Saddam thing will help the Republicans (who'd be better off drawing attention away from Iraq).

[jbg]

I find it odd that the Republicans, with a straight face, can whine about the "timing" of disclosures that their higher-ups are having gay sex and taking meth, and yet, coincidentally, this verdict comes down two days before the elections. I would say the ethics of timing a court judgement to coincide with an election are far more questionable than timing a gay meth-head's disclosure.

I think both were conveniently timed. It is a fact of political life that anyone, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, NDP, Conservative, times news developments to avoid peaking too early. If it were more skillfully timed, midweek last week would have been better, to have more impact on the news cycle.

[BubberMiley]

The only problem is it clearly demonstrates how it's just a kangaroo court, and kind of besmirches the efforts of all those soldiers who think they're fighting the good fight. If it was all for a corrupt show trial timed to make the Republicans look good just before an election, I think most would have rather they just put a bullet in his brain back in 2003 and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

[KrustyKidd]

The article also says popular uprising. Stop being so selective in your quotes.

I never said nor alludded to the people never rising up in protest. All I did was to prove that your argument was wrong in that they never would have succeeded by themselves. No, they did not need the US but they did need to have insiders of the party with control of the military to do it. The results were far less than a 'people's revolution' in that the party members and elite won rather than the common person leaving the entire process 'meet the new boss, same as the old.'

You knew all that though right? Probably actually did some reading yourself for the first time after telling me I needed to?

[Remiel]

Right before the election is the best timing, because that leaves too little time for the appeals process to start up. And the appeals process could probably take quite a while, too.

[August1991]

A month is an eternity in politics, moreso in the news.

In America maybe but most certainly in Alberta. Americans and more certainly Albertans have a simple, naive view of politics. IME, Albertans were not political people.

But in Iraq and Rumania, I think not. Ceausescu was judged, sentenced and executed in a matter of hours by an arbitrary panel. Saddam faced a different process. I don't think it really matters.

In both cases, people faced down a tyrant.

Ceausescu was executed in late December 1989. Saddam will likely suffer a similar fate in December 2006:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC he expects Saddam Hussein to be executed by the end of 2006.

BBC