The Show Trials to Come Will Benefit Bush and Hurt Dems

[MiniMoog]

There's been much thoughtful analysis here on the potential calamity or benefit to various dem candidates regarding the capture of Saddam. For the most part I've read threads and comments that offer a direct impact to the upcoming primary race; does this hurt or help X? There's also been observations that the Saddam capture is insignifant and will blow over as a news item in a few weeks.

I disagree.

I believe that regardless if (place your candidate's name here) receives the nomination, what we are about to witness will be a stark, well funded orchestration of the Bush PR machine bloodbath in full throttle to claim the 2004. And it's beginning in earnest today.

Imagine this: In a few months, Saddam on Trial is the banner Ad. There will be hundreds, thousands of victims testifying on the brutality, the sheer barbarism of Saddam's regime. The mass graves, the assasinations, the blindings, bodily mutilations, the death squads. There will be many women tearfully recounting gang rape, murder of family members, men castrated, torture chambers...the parade of atrocities will be vile, heartbreaking, and shocking. It matters not where this Show Trial will be held. The world will be watching. And we all will be inundated with graphic accounts of this disposed despot with spin doctors and pundits in orgasmic frenzy over our benevolence.

The question will not be about WMD, illegal war, death of Americans, AWOL, medicare. The caption will read: President Bush caught the most evil man in the world. And they will pour every cent of the $200 million to make sure middle America never forgets. The Twin Towers will burn again and again. His Flight Suit will fit, the Fake Turkey moment will sparkle with confidence.

And with an incumbent in time of war this is a PR coupe. And they can and will slam us none stop AFTER the primaries with this. The bad guy on trial is the final act of this insane script. I think it has legs and it will play --- hard.

And if the restructuring of Iraq proceeds (as it will) with oil sold to Europe on the Euro, this will give Iraqi's purchasing power. Bush will be able to have it both ways. A war economy that creates jobs. Manufacturing can and will be stimulated in the U.S. and goods will be bought by the Iraquis. Jim Baker's role is paramount and this is part of his mission. Nasty as he is, no one is as ruthless and effective as "the knife." Check the Dow and watch (by manipulation) it soar next September/October. Even if Bush doesn't win the GE there's that sticky problem about the electoral college, Diebold, and the PNAC plan. If Osama is heralded in at the last moment...

This is not a doom and gloom "they gotus by the balls" post. Contrary. The events today have left me soberly considering the overall strategy. I would like the opinion on how the Democatic Party and (place your candidate's name here) will to combat this. This will be about perception, nothing more.

--MiniMoog

[aquart]

1. Saddam's regime.

That's the problem. Who has the right to prosecute a legitimate (as in internationally recognized) head of state?

Not us. Not the US. Because if we do, everyone on the planet will be able to say, the United States thinks it owns the world.

And the economy will continue to tank because nobody wants to do business with a destabilizing force and any nation that thinks it owns the world is a major destabilizing force.

So I wouldn't worry too much about the show trial. Worry about Halliburton buying US assets in euros.

BTW, you seem convinced that there won't be any problem getting witnesses. You sure?

[Junkdrawer]

2. See "Kangaroo Court"...

Term descriptive of a sham legal proceeding in which a person's rights are totally disregarded and in which the result is a forgone conclusion because of the bias of the court or other tribunal.

Time for prosecution: 10 Months

Time for defense: (and the potentially damaging revelation of past secret US support) 10 minutes

[oasis]

3. Saddam will never see the witness stand. He'll exit ala Jim Mcdougal

after telling them what they want to hear, regardless of the facts.

That's the late Jim Mcdougal of Little Rock.

[MiniMoog]

5. The Trial is a Product

that will be packaged and sold to the right demographic with enough bitter juice to suckle until after next Labor Day. I'd bank on it. And if I was part of any of the potential winner's campaign I'd begin storyboarding a counter-attack.

[TexasPatriot]

25. you're so wrong

having Saddam alive lets Bush revisit his success over and over and over and over and over and over again. There's no chance that SOB dies before this election cycle is over.

I want you to imagine the debate in the fall, when GW is up there talking about how Saddam was captured and he was evil and supported tearrr (in some rambling misguided response to a question on healthcare no doubt).

Now imagine a Clark response:
Well Mr. President, there is no question Saddam was a heinous monster. As most of America has seen repeatedly in your $50m of ad buys all summer - we're all very aware of the atrocities committed by the man. But the day he was captured, I was in the Hague testifying against another evil monster that I personally saw brought to justice and put away. Of course, in Bosnia we really were welcomed in the streets as liberators, and after it was over, we brought our troops home, actually created a stable democratic government, and did it without losing a single US life. It's unfortunate you can't say the same. I think I can do better.

I dont see how any other candidate has an answer that shoves Iraq so far up W*s ass.

[jjmalonejr]

4. Interesting Theory...

...but I think that BushCo has a lot less control of the events on the ground than you suggest they do. I don't believe that they concocted the timing of capturing Saddam Hussein. If they could've captured him months ago, they would have done it. They're pooping their pants right now about the growing insurgency, the terrorist infiltration, the public unrest, and the impending civil war -- serious problems that they were thoroughly and completely unprepared for. Their arrogance prevented them from anticipating these things. They believed that Baghdad would fall, the Iraq army would surrender, Saddam would be captured or killed (either by Americans or his own people), and Iraqi civil society would continue to function as the cheering throngs greeting them with waves and kisses.

Now they got a dog on their hands, and this dog might bite.

I guarantee that they will spin it however they can spin it (perhaps taking some of the suggestions from your post!!), but they sure as hell can't control it. Yes, the seek to control everything, but the Universe has a funny way of just sort of doing what it wants to.

I refuse to wish for anything but good things to happen in Iraq, so I'll just have to rely on the good judgement of the American voters in 2004. (God, help us...)

[MiniMoog]

6. Yep, they can't control everything on the ground

and it's true that it's a mess beyond their expectations.

But - the Bogeyman isn't in the shadows any longer. This could be played out cathartically for the Iraqi's and as the Cabal's telegenic justificaion for four-more-years.

[Betty]

7. I would think

that if it ever comes to a trial where Saddam is allowed to speak, he might be very happy to tell, in detail, about all the help he got over the years from the US back when he was our puppet. And I am willing to bet that the names of many prominent repugs will come up in that discussion. I have seen that picture of rummy shaking saddam's hand many times today at DU.

[bearfartinthewoods]

9. the only thing even partially standing between sadamn

and the vengence of the iraqi people is the US protection.

he may continue his client status out of concern for his own hide, don't you think?

[Betty]

11. Yes,

I think that the US may not be so quick to turn him over to the Iraqis. He probably has way too much incriminating info on our own home team criminals.

[Dommael]

10. Trial?

Can the Neocon Cabal afford to put a microphone in front of Saddam's mouth with the whole world listening?

The rest of the World Powers need to step in and ensure the trial is handled fairly akin to the Nurenberg trials. The Neocons can't afford to have that happen because when the history of his dictatorship begins, the truth comes out that the Bu$h cabal has been making business deals and highly questionable ethical decisions having to do with money and power.

I just can't believe Saddam will be allowed to go to a trial.

If our trial ends up a mirror like our foreign policy ("you're either for us or against us") the world is going to go nuts and everyone will know the Judicial branch of the United States government has been bought and sold to the Neocon Cabal.

::smoke::

[bearfartinthewoods]

8. not ALL dems

only the ones who have made their raison d'etre that we should not have stopped saddamn from doing all the heinous things they will learn about day after day after day.

[MiniMoog]

13. An interesting bit of news I received

One camp I talk to "claims" that the smoking gun for the Bush Cabal and the impending "trial" of Saddam is this Perry Mason moment...

He's gonna tell us where the WMD's are. (they weren't there before: hint, hint).

And then we're gonna go get them.

And it's wrapped up in pretty Autumn election giftwrap with paper tigers.

Will Saddam spill the beans if on trial about his incestuous relationship with us? That he's been a fat cat enabling butcher on the CIA payroll? That he was Rummy and Poppy's bestest friend?

Tell me this: with the blitzkrieg of images and spin, which do you think will float to the surface of the American voter?

I think it's dangerous, down right dangerous, to underestimate the sheer power, stamina and unrelenting sophistication of the Bush PR machinations. And tell ya what. My guess is they have a plan A and B.

What's ours?

MiniMoog

[Malva Zebrina]

18. such as

these are the results of the Bush indiscriminate bombing and killing of Iraqi civilians. This is Bush's folly, not Saddam's.

These are only a smidgeon of the thousands that were similarly wounded or killed. Our vaunted president, who has not been further vaunted for capturing the evil Saddam, who killed thousands of his own citizens, has been outdone, actually, by our vaunted president. And the American people will praise him and adore him for capturing the virtually impotent "tyranical" dictator and for, concurrently, his pre-emptive attack on Iraq and Saddam and all of those somewhere around ten thousand innocent people.

[moondust]

12. The next major act of terrorism

will remind everyone that this was a very expensive sideshow that didn't have to happen as it did when it did because it was not a priority.

[amazona]

14. there must be a full open public trial

What, are we suddenly going to turn away from our demands for a public trial for war criminals because it might hurt a campaign? Sheesh. Let us have some consistency. I demand full open public trial for all war criminals. Be they Saddam. Be they Osama or Omar. Be they Bush.

Clark is stepping up to the plate and demanding a transparent public trial. He is right. If we don't stand up and demand this, how can we continue to gripe about the lack of trials for Pinochet, Kissinger, and the rest?

Justice must be done where we can do it. There is a chance of justice here. It will be decades, if ever, before Whistleass is placed on trial. We have to start from where we're standing. The more monsters who face trial, the more the other monsters have to shiver at least a little that there is always the chance that they will stand trial.

[Nederland]

15. Spot On

I can't believe the number of posts I've read today with people claiming this doesn't matter. This may not make as huge a difference in the primary as the anti-Dean crowd would like, but it will make a huge difference in the general if an anti-war candidate gets the nomination. If the Democratic party nominates an anti war candidate like Dean I fully expect to hear campaign ads saying something like this:

"If Dean had been President these last four years, Saddam Hussein would still be sitting in one of his palaces."

Those who fail to see the effect this type of attack would have on the average voter are out of touch. Oh you can talk about how if Dean were President we wouldn't have hundreds of US soldiers dead, but you'll get nowhere with the swing voter. The mushy middle that doesn't pay much attention likes a guy who kicks ass and wins. Right now, that's Shrub.

[MiniMoog]

17. Exactly Nederland

Jingoism, any jingosim, from whomever becomes the nominee will not be an effective counter. Neither is, "If I was President at the time..." revisionism.

And I agree with the above poster who said that the Trial should be open and transparent. That still doesn't negate that the Cabal will use it to its advantage. Remember: Most American's are not nearly as informed as the political junkies that inhabit DU.

And, oh yeah...Rush has airtime again. It'll be like a Court TV blow-by-blow of some sordid sex crime.

[snyttri]

16. A legitimate intenational tribunal will call attention to Bush's eviction

of weapons inspectors before the war and the weak evidence for WMD. Maybe someone will care if there isn't a legitimate international trial.

[legin]

19. Yup MiniMoog

Start of trial date about beggining of October 2004, enough time to get all the juicy details out into the public domain, but not long enough for people to get bored of the issue.

Probably not held in Iraq because that is going to be one of the incentives to co-operate that will held over Saddam's head to make sure he says the right things.

[legin]

20. Held in New York

to get the symbolic attachment to 911.

Hell this script writes itself.

[MiniMoog]

21. How about some concrete scenarios?

Folks, I don't think we should take this lightly at all. We can joust and joke about the Cabal and our imcompentent CIC. But when it get down and dirty this is an AD CAMPAIGN. As disgusting as it appears to ride the coattails of this travesty, this is exactly what will happen.

I want to hike this up a notch. Take a candidate. Any candidate and presume he is the winner of the primary.

How would Dean combat this? Can he?
What about Clark, Kerry, Gep, or Edwards??

Because, very pragmatically, whomever the winner is is someone we need to get behind (except for those that will pull their support because their guy fizzled). And I don't mean "rah rah you got the power."

My scenario entails Bush being tried as a war criminal, even in abstentia. That would give us some heat. Whether he showed up or not.

Thoughts...

MiniMoog

edit to add abstentia

[legin]

23. Agreed. We better start planning for this

One thing that needs to happen is that control of the trial is out of the u.s.'s hands, so that bush* and Rove cannot control the time-table or the agenda or the information that comes out of the trial.

The trial needs to be held in the Hague and after the 2004 election.

[legin]

24. Another thing

if it is held in the u.s. only the 'right' reporters will be allowed access to it because "there is only a limited amount of room in the court room, there is not room for everybody".

[ILeft]

22. I agree that they have it all planned out to their great advantage

If the Bush Regime didn't believe this would wrap up 2004 for them, they would have retrieved Saddam Hussein with a mini-nuke instead of troops. With the US media under their control, there are so many ways they can work this in their favor.