Saddam's Capture: Now what?

If Team Exxon really has nabbed Saddam Hussein, what would be the fallout? How should we react? How will Iraqis react?

First, I'm sick and tired of people acting the way they think the public wants us to act, or acting in a manner that Repuglicans can't exploit. But that probably has little bearing here: I think most Americans would welcome Saddam Hussein's capture. After all, he's one of the world's great tyrants (and a notable U.S. ally).

I think the most obvious negative aspect of Saddam's capture would be constant media coverage of the Great Leader basking in the glow of success. We could expect the media to report new polls that show Bush's popularity jumping up many percentage points.

But I would argue that this may be good; better that the sheeple get that surge of respect out of their systems now than have Saddam Hussein captured on the eve of the next presidential election. For I suspect Americans and Iraqis will be in for a major letdown after Hussein is caputured.

Over the short term, at least, Saddam's outraged supporters might actually intensify their guerilla activities. Iraqi freedom fighters will continue to fight for their homeland indefinitely. Liberated of Saddam's ghost, they might actually become more aggressive, too.

Saddam's capture would also inspire a flood of coverage probing his life - a life filled with friends like Ronald Reagana and Donald Rumsfeld. The White House can't be happy about that.

How will Saddam be tried? WHERE will he be tried? Since his victims were mostly Iraqis (including Kurds) and Iranians, he ought to be tried in Iraq. In fact, Iraqis ought to run the entire show.

But George Bush, Inc. will obviously want to run the show - partly to keep Saddam's secrets secret and partly to milk him for all the glory they can get. I suspect Karl Rove will bend over backwards trying to figure out a way to get a photograph of George W. Bush with Saddam Hussein - like a great white hunter with his prey.

What kind of sentence would the White House give Saddam? His crimes deserve nothing less than death or life in prison - but life in prison where? Do they want to publicize the horrors of Guantanamo by sending Saddam there? If they give him better treatment, then people will ask why the prisoners at Gitmo - some of whom may be innocent - are treated worse than a bloodthirsty dictator.

There's one possibility that's positively dreadful: Suppose Saddam Hussein admits he had weapons of mass destruction? Or suppose the Pentagon falsely claims he made that admission? Bush would then be holding all the aces - Saddam Hussein and his elusive WMD's. That wouldn't change the fact that Bush lied his way into a war for profit - but don't tell that to the American sheeple.

On the other hand, the world at large is so fed up with Bush's lies, it's possible the vast majority of humankind wouldn't believe any confession publicized in the U.S. media.

And even if Saddam did lead Team Exxon to weapons of mass destruction, one fundamental truth remains: It won't change anything. We'll still be bogged down in a vile war that we can never truly win. And that simple truth will become even clearer after Saddam is captured.

Frankly, I suspect George Bush may come to regret the day Saddam Hussein was captured - assuming he has indeed been captured. Saddam may represent one great burst of glory - sort of like the dot.com bubble.

that other evil manical psychopathic homicidal dictator

"Saddam and Hussein and George W. Bush captured on same day!"

takes to the streets and celebrates

after all, mustn't forget "RULE OF LAW" Coward AWOL bush inc are guilty of treason. PUNISH THEM NOW

I think that the iraqi restinance will be inspired to get rid of their new dictator (bremmer) who holds parties in saddams former palace

Frankly, I suspect George Bush may come to regret the day Saddam Hussein was captured - assuming he has indeed been captured. Saddam may represent one great burst of glory followed by a sick sucking sound, sort of like the dot.com bubble - or Campaign 2000.

* * * * * * * * * *

Ouch! I think Saddam Hussein's capture could indeed be compared to Campaign 2000 - a big party, followed by massive devastation.

This is actually good news -- if it serves to de-escalate Iraq to a certain extent. It has the potential to ratchet down some of the flag waving fervor, and allow people to focus more fully on the economy. On the other hand, the economy is doing well right now.

Saw an interesting bit on the crawler on MSNBC the other day: Dow Jones breaks 10k, followed by the fact that we just hit a new record trade deficit.

And OPEC is thinking about switching all its transactions from the dollar to the euro. That's a Very Bad Thing.

And there aren't any jobs.

This is a horrible economy, but, like the Reagan economy, it's all pretty and shiny on the surface.

Unemployment and inflation were higher, for example, and people were complaining then, like now, about jobs going overseas and the trade deficit. However, the economy was improving in 1983 - 84 ie, during the election cycle, and people were feeling optimistic. The trade deficit is an electoral loser, so are budget deficits (the two are closely linked, by the way). GDP growth, employment and, to a small extent, inflation, are the winners, and all are moving in the right direction at the right time for Bush, or staying tame (inflation). If Bush is to be beaten, the economy is going to have to worsen (I think this could happen as a result of a good outcome in Iraq, if it happens quickly, because of a hangover effect), Iraq is going to have to take a massive dump, or else this will constitute the greatest electoral anomaly that I'm aware of.

1. "This is actually good news -- if it serves to de-escalate Iraq to a certain extent."

That's all over the map. My main concern is for the Iraqis, and they'll have no hope until they've booted Team Exxon off their soil.

2. "It has the potential to ratchet down some of the flag waving fervor, and allow people to focus more fully on the economy."

True, though the media will focus on Saddam Hussein over the short run. And if the economy takes another hit, they'll just find another interesting story.

3. "On the other hand, the economy is doing well right now."

Uh, no - it isn't.

Uh, no - it isn't.

You keep believing whatever it is you want to believe; I'll believe the data and what I see with my own eyes. After three years of laying people off, I just got new hires assigned to me starting next week. Some friends of mine also tell me their companies are hiring. But hey, the economy is awful -- terrible, and beating Bush is going to be a walkover. I'm surprised, in fact, that Republicans aren't lining up at the chance to slap him around in the primaries. Any day now, someone will come forward to challenge the weakling, and give the Republicans a real chance in the general election.

It doesn't justify, in any way, the invasion of Iraq.
It doesn't erase the lies the bush regime spewed to order the invasion.
It doesn't bring back the lives of the fallen US soldiers, or make whole those who have been maimed in this armed robbery. That goes for the reportedly tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered or maimed by our freedom bombs.
It doesn't wash the blood from the hands of the bush regime, at all.

I think most Americans will realize that.

I also think the bush regime has come close to running out of rabbits to pull out of its hat. They've had the "bush economic turnaround" and the turkey photo-op in Baghdad and the Dow topping 10,000 - and he's still barely above 50% in the polls. I'll bet they've had saddam for a while, planning to use his capture as a boost much closer to the election, yet having to pull out all the stops now to keep the whole ship of fools afloat.

He might get a tick up in the polls for a few, but this really changes nothing. Although, I am starting to wonder if maybe there's some really bad news coming - maybe out of Iraq, maybe not - and this is a cushion to soften the blow.

I cannot be suspicious enough of this group of lying thugs - the ones in the WH, that is.

But re:

I think most Americans will realize that.

Most Americans have proved themselves nothing but a huge disappointment in realizing anything.

No, no, not trying to be a defeatist here, I swear -- just a realist, trying to divine what's going to happen tomorrow, and the day after.

Yes, they will realize everything we've been trying to make them realize -- but in time for the '04 elections? I fear that this revelation will come only to the next generation, through history books.

How (and this is a sincere question) do we drill it into their stubbornly thick skulls?

I'm trying, as hard as I can, to make Joe Sixpack understand the truth of the * admin on a level Ol' Joe can relate to. And while I am as happy as anyone that one of the world's worst tyrants is/may be in custody, I don't know how to achieve what is already a daunting goal (to use a '60s cliche): consciousness-raising.

So how do we do it now as Herr Dimwit basks in all his glory?

That's not necessarily a question that needs to be answered immediately; the news is too fresh, and we all need to get over the surprise, settle down, and absorb what's happened. It's just something we all really need to consider very seriously while this news sorts itself out over the next few days, weeks, months.

are stupid enough to think Saddam was behind 9-11. Don't get your hopes up.

They'll "get it" only after the 2004 elections are ancient history.

Iraqi council OKs war crimes tribunal - U.S. administrator must sign off on plan to try Saddam's regime -
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/08/sprj.irq.main/


Iraq War Crimes Tribunal Planned
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/05/iraq/main587125.shtml
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 5, 2003
The law calls for Iraqi judges to hear cases presented by Iraqi lawyers, with international experts serving only as advisers.
(AP) Iraq's U.S.-appointed government will establish a tribunal for crimes against humanity in the coming days that could try hundreds of officials, including Saddam Hussein and his top aides, Iraqi and American officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

He will be the hero... for a while.

Fortunately, not a month before the elections.

Attacks will continue but they won't be able to blame Saddam.

I have no idea what they are going to do with him. Whatever they do, it will be what they consider to their best advantage. In a just world, he would be tried in international court for crimes against humanity. But, I'm not betting on that...

Turn off the news for the Holidays, it's going to be puke inducing.

Then he cant blame saddam is right.It will take awhile for the corporate "news" to question this.
i posted this on the other thread
i think that if this does pan to be saddam they already had him and dragged him out when a dem is showing a stronglead over bush (kinda coincdental that same weak dean takes lead w/gores endoresment .....i had this same theory about his sons that they were already dead andjust dragged them out when bush needed a boost in numbers)

But (to mix metaphors, and rather crassly at that) with Saddam's capture as *'s ace in the hole, do you * shot his load too early? What's he got left (unless it's the sudden death of Reagan just days before the Repuke convention)?

This will be year-old news on election day. It will dominate the media for a month or two at most.

But it may have an effect on the Democratic primaries. The media will be focusing on "what this means" for the anti-war messages the candidates have and try to make them sound irrelevant.

However, I also wouldn't be surprised if there where an upturn in attacks in Iraq after this, which would nip some of that in the bud.

...the best tack is to return to the basics, i.e., repeating, ad nauseam, the long, evolving procession of *'s "reasoning" for war, as each reason was shot to hell. We know Saddam's capture has absolutely no effect on *'s lies; now we have to get serious about re-framing the entire issue.

As for the Dem primaries, I would think the initial effect would be a decrease in support for Dean, and an increase for Clark. Other than that... what might I be missing here?

Oy, be back after I wake up in a few hours. Headache has turned into big-time migraine.

If this is true, how will it effect the Dem primaries?

Specifically, does the Dean take on the war now doom him?

Will the Senator supporters now gain traction?

Pardon me, Clark supporters, but does your candidate now have a solid reason for challenging Bush?

I know that it isn't all about Saddam, but if he has been captured, the press whores will prop Bush endlessly.

is that it will hurt Dean.

I like Dean, but 2004 is not the year to run a doctor - it's the year to run a strong military leader.

BTW - I see this hurting Clark as well as Dean. What doesa defense candidate bring to the table now?

We had better find some traction against Bush.

But Bush is going to make sure that Americans are scared of terror in 2004.

When voters are scared of "terrorists", do you think they want a doctor or a general as their leader?

2004 is not the time for Dean. He has time in the future. We need someone who can be seen as strong on defense. That will be the key issue, no matter what the polls say now.

Americans are still scared to death.

we will have to wait untill a couple weeks to see how the iraqis respond more us deaths people will go towards kucinich or dean less i think it will go to clark but it also depends on how bush handles or mishandles it ie will he pull out more troops or wont (there by showing it wasnt for saddam ) it just depends on a lot of things

War on terror (?) is NOT the singular reason I'M voting to kick that sociopath out of the White house! For me, it's about our society going down the tubes in terms of joblessness, poverty, health care, corruption in high places etc... It's also about mending fences with our long time allies.
Bush is a closet fascist and presents a threat to the whole world....starting with our own country! Even if he hadn't gone to war in Iraq, he is STILL DANGEROUS.

well, they will make Bush a hero.

Saddam caught, DOW over 10k....They will claim Bush's every fart a stunning achievement.

Ah, those were simpler times . . .

everything's up in the air now, this might hurt Clark, who for long argued that the Iraq war was a "sideshow" and a "strategic blunder."

but how does this hurt Dean? he put his trust in the president and the president followed through! :*

as fiercely as it has.

FOREIGN POLICY AND NAT'L SECURITY (hint hint)

There will be an increase in insurgency now that the parties involved no longer see Saddam as a threat. And where the hell is Bin-Laden?

primaries, frankly. I don't think Bush and Co even care about that.

Now, what will happen is we'll have a repat of this event in a few more months with the capture of Bin Laden, just in time for the GE.

there is going to be a MASSIVE fight over the custody of this guy.

pull the troops or some of the troops out and attacks increase it will show that the war wasnt about saddam at all it will take awhile for the press to make this connection though

I don't care what the political implications of Saddam's capture are.

I'm glad he's been caught. I'm happy for the U.S. military and I'm happy for the Iraqis. I don't think this is going to end the problems in Iraq, or in the U.S. with the Bush administration, by any means.

But I hope this brings the world one step closer to peace. It gives the U.S. military less of a compelling reason to continue the occupation of Iraq. Good for both sides.

Bushco will get a one or two week bump out of this, but the quagmire that is Iraq will continue, in not even escalate. Ongoing attacks after Saddam's capture will show up the little noted fact that these guerillas and soldiers are not fighting because of Saddam(at least not for the most part), but are fighting to get the US out of Iraq.

So while the whore media will sing huzzahs to Bush, the war will grind on, and more people will die.

saddam hussein, so fucking what?
we've had our troops killed and killed many, many innocent iraqi people who would have never been killed by saddam to accomplish what? liberation?
when did liberating countries who pose no threat to us become the goal of this country?
liberals must never let go of the argument that there was a way to get from point ''a''{i.e. saddam and the ba'thists} to point ''b''{a freerer iraq} without war. iraq was a big 0 in the war on terror -- and may still not be a major ''threat''. al queda and extreme fundamentalists are the problem. those are and should remain the main talking points re: iraq and saddam.

will mean much of anything in the longer run. The Cabal still intends to take over Iraq, build air bases there, and keep on trying to take over the entire Middle East. Another freakin diversion. Unless we can get the bushies out of here, I don't think anything will change. On the road to destruction!!!

CONGRATULATION to our soldiers.

Positive ID on Saddam.

Media manipulation begins now!

On your mark, get set, GO!

I don't think this hurts Clark as much as Dean. Clark has declared himself a "Leader"...the war on terror is not over. And in fact that will the Republicans main issue for sure now.....the war on terror and Saddam's capture.

Clark can counter that argument the best.

Dean has no Foreign policy experience....and therefore becomes handicapped at taking Bush down on this one.

... even more so now after the presumptive "hero" worship which will accrue to the "strategically brilliant" President Bush - nominate Dr. Dean, with the electorally mortal wounds with which he steps up to the battlefield, and prepare to accept forty more years of effective (via SCOTUS) regressive, wingnut, christian fundamentalist control of this country and its citizens.

Democrats should side with the Iraqi people. Make Bush defend retaining control of Iraq.