The Iraqi court is scheduled November 5 to deliver a verdict for Saddam Hussein over the killing of 148 Shi’ite Muslims in the village of Dujail, two days before mid-term elections in this country.  If he is found guilty, Saddam could go to the gallows.  So why would the court change its agenda based on the mid-term elections in the United States?  According to Mariam Karouny in Baghdad, “A guilty verdict could reflect positively on Bush as a vindication of his policy to overthrow Saddam in 2003.”  I’d like to think that Saddam’s conviction would be no small victory for the people of Iraq.  And being witnesses to how a functioning democratically-elected government of Iraq will administer justice, I just don’t see them delaying the announcement of the verdict one minute. 

We have been hearing for years that Iraq is ‘Bush’s war,’ so I say to the victor goes the spoils.  They can’t take credit for prosecuting this war because they’ve been consumed with fighting to defeat Bush because of the war.  I think I’ve said this before, but it bares repeating.  If it’s good for Bush, it’s bad for the democrats. 

A guilty verdict would be a correct verdict.  And it wouldn’t hurt Bush if it came down on Nov. 5.  Although Bush isn’t running for anything, the democrats’ anthem has been all anti-Iraq war, anti-war-on-terror, anti-Bush, all the time. 

Regardless of when the verdict is announced, the American people already understand which party is tough on terror, and which party wants to confer constitutional rights to enemy combatants.  That Saddam will be found guilty is, IMHO, a forgone conclusion. 

We’ve seen how events external to an election can flip the outcome, as in Spain.  So what kind of message does this send to the people of Iraq, trying to get things together over there, to find out that the other political party in the US wants to get out of Iraq at any cost, and leave them to the terrorists and death squads, and rape rooms, and torture rooms?   With friends like that, who needs enemies?  It makes being an ally of the US a risky venture at best.  Another message that is sent around the world.

It will be instructive to see the democrat leadership’s reaction to a guilty verdict, after years of defending him.  It’ll go something like this,  but you ‘haven’t got Osama yet, where’s Osama?’

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A court trying Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity could delay its verdict by a few days, the chief prosecutor said on Sunday, in a move that would shift the announcement until after U.S. midterm elections. Read on 

related update

The media has never been accused of being either ethically or morally upright in the way they carry out, some might say abuse, their journalistic responsibility.  Just look at the speculation, or rather the eager anticipation, that Newsweek and MSNBC exhibit in this article.

Responsibility is sacrificed in favor of enabling the enemy.  In their view, enabling the enemy will also enable Democrats to get elected.  Given the chance to do either, they will.  And if they can do both, all the better.

Watch for Al Qaeda’s press release at a mainstream media outlet near you.

CNN, the network that admits withholding news unfavorable to Saddam, is another example.

CNN demonstrates the synergy between the insurgents in Iraq and the media.  If their ratings are so bad that they need to show videos of insurgent snipers killing our soldiers in Iraq, then they need to be expelled from the battlefield. Let the enemy do their own propaganda.  But who thinks this is put out for ratings?  It would fly well with terrorists in Iraq, and Iran, and Pakistan, and Afghanistan.  So in that sense, ‘ratings’ could be a factor.

The truth is, this is merely another episode that helps to undermine the administration and the war effort, which has been the objective of the MSM and their friends in the Democrat party for years.

CNN’s David Doss, executive producer of Anderson Cooper’s show said:

“We also understood that this kind of footage is upsetting and disturbing for many viewers,” he said. “But after getting beyond the emotional debate, we concluded the tape meets our criteria for newsworthiness.”

and

“Whether or not you agree with us in this case, our goal, as always, is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can,” Doss said.

Consider this.  We have been flooded with images, and videos, of our soldiers being attacked by IED’s in their humvees, trucks, and tanks.  We see them in their hospital beds.  We have all seen images of vehicles blown apart that had our soldiers in them. Now we get videos of an enemy sniper killing one of our soldiers.

OK fine.  Lets recall images that they and the rest of the MSM thought differently about.  Images that, from their perspective, were neither ‘newsworthy’ nor ‘unvarnished truth.’

• Our citizens, choosing to commit suicide by leaping from the upper floors of the WTC rather than be incinerated at the hands of the terrorists.
• The gruesome be-headings of Americans at the hands of the terrorists.  If it was reported at all.
• We shouldn’t see the video of 9/11, because we, as a people, don’t have the mental toughness.

Where is CNN’s concern for the family of that soldier, not to mention the sensibilities of Americans period? 

CNN’s Doss also said that they

understood that some critics might find that the tape had public relations benefits for the insurgency.

Well of course.  And look at the choice they made.  The media bias cannot be subtle any longer.  Its in your face.  You see, any unvarnished images of what our vicious enemy does to us, both here in the United States and overseas, would tend to underscore why we are in this war to begin with, and why the President is doing what he is doing to protect us, (Patriot act, military tribunals, effective interrogations, terrorist surveillance program) and is the reason they won’t show them.  But, showing a video of one of our guys getting murdered tends to support their agenda of portraying this war as not winnable and that we should  just get out of Iraq.

I haven’t seen anyone question when CNN got that video.  On its face, showing the video is over the top, no matter when they got it.  What if we were to learn that the video was held for a period only to show near election-time?  And given recent history on this subject, who in their right mind would not suspect that?

Tune in to the al-CNN network for more terrorist propaganda, and Democrat talking points.

SeattlePI

KESQ NewsChannel 3 Palm Springs, CA: House Defense chair asks Pentagon to remove embedded CNN reporters

A staffer of Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of California, who is the senior Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, is looking like the one who shared the report to the New York Times, just weeks before the election.  As an investigation begins in the committee, his security clearance is suspended.  That, according to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan.

NewsMax article snippet:

Hoekstra acted after another Republican on the intelligence committee, Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, pointed out that the Democratic staff member requested and received a copy of the document from the office of U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte just days before the leaks began to appear.

It’s about time that the Justice Department gets to the bottom of the leaking of top secret documents to the media.

In the you have to read it to believe it department, it is hard to believe that two of our border patrol agents will be serving time in prison for putting down violent drug smuggling illegals that violently attacked them.  Debbie Schlussel has the details in American Tragedy.