Saddam Hussein Sentenced to Death by Hanging

Bush_saddamConveniently, the verdict was handed down on the Sunday before the U.S. election.

Not surprisingly, the Shias and the Sunnis in Iraq are divided about it, and actually, both sides have valid points.

Said one Shia scholar: “Saddam Hussein was responsible for the brutal massacre of hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims in Iraq. Even a hundred death sentences would not be enough for him.”

And a Sunni religious leader: “It is not a court verdict; it simply demonstrates the high-handedness of the President George Bush who had personal scores to settle with Saddam Hussein.”


  1. mike says

    It is always so frustrating that anybody would presume that the timing of a verdict in an international trial would be easily manipulated for political gain. …Usually misinterpreted by the same people who think that the US government has control over gas prices. I hate his policies as much as the rest, but come on. Conspiracy theories like that just weaken our argument.

  2. says

    Oh yes, the Bush crowd would never, ever manipulate elections through nefarious tricks. How come I remember all of those elevated terror alerts before the 2004 election. How come there haven’t been any since?

  3. michael says

    Raising the terror alert only takes a command. Of course the White House can control that. They cannot control a trial outcome that is under constant international media scrutiny from all sides.

    And, um, where were you when all shampoo and deodorant was banned on airplanes? There have been plenty of blips in the threat level in the past year or so (timely and otherwise for the Republicans).

  4. mark m says


    I don’t subscribe to the idea that the verdict is a political tactic. I believe THE ENTIRE WAR IN IRAQ is a tactic. That pretty much trumps all else.

  5. says

    If the anti-Bush crowd was smart, they would mark this moment with a very simple: “good, the monster got what he deserved” and then turn their attention to how we can fix the mess we made over there. instead, they will continue to try to use this as a lame excuse to spin conspiracy theories. it’s as if they WANT to screw up the momentum gained by the Dems.

  6. rob adams says

    The only thing that could possibly disrupt the momentum towards a Democratic land-slide-victory is a video tape surfacing showing Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi smoking crack in the midst of some HyannisPort orgy involving sheep.

    Be optimistic. Why?
    Cause we’re going to win a big, big, way.

    Start working towards our 2008 Victory.

  7. Mitch says

    Amazing…each and every delay in the trial: The changes in lawyers, each day Hussein had to be removed, the change in judges when family members were assassinated because of these men’s bravery, your friend Ramsey Clark showing up. All of that….perfectly timed by Rove to cause the verdict to come down yesterday. That Rove is amazing.

    But I prefer to look at it another way, I do think the Iraqi’s timed it. It’s simple. They know what’s going to happen if the Democrats win and they don’t want the U.S. to cut and run.

  8. says

    OK, I’ll be the first to see it’s GREAT TO SEE SADDAM’S BEEN CONVICTED. Despite what I think of Bush, it’s a relief Saddam didn’t slip through some legal loophole. And not another Milosovich mishap either.

  9. Marco says

    Cut & Run, Mitch? I see we had our talking points for breakfast this mornng. Did you wash them down with a big glass of “Stay the Course” now with 98% more bullshit?

    Anyway, the court is heavily U.S. backed and influenced and the date was indeed moved to the 5th. You don’t need to wear a tin foil hat to spot bullshit a mile away.

    And to Saddam – Hang in there, you sick bastard. Hang in there for a gruellingly long period of time.

  10. Mitch says

    So which is it for you Marco? Since you want to insult me by yelling “talking points” why don’t you just state your position.

    What should we do about Iraq?

  11. Marco says

    I am constantly amazed by those who throw insults and then complain they’ve been insulted and those who expect a working-class gay guy from Chicago to have a workable plan covering our actions in Iraq while seemingly giving our administration – whose job it is to have an actionable plan in Iraq- a free ride.

    Mitch, if you don’t want to be insulted, perhaps you should try not to insult anyone yourself. “Cut & run” from the insults, have you.

    As for Iraq, we set a definite timetable for withdraw. No more budging. We also start hardcore negotiations with all sects, excluding the Al Queda operatives of course. We let them know, we are leaving and you must meet a set of goals in this set time frame or we cannot support you. We also have to try a little diplomacy with Iran, which we were able to do with Syria bit somehow not with anyone else.

    I’d also be up for splitting Iraq if it comes to that. For my dollar, Wes Clark has the best sounding plan for Iraq.

  12. bananfanfobamboom says

    Ummm, unfortunately for Republican profiteers, there is such a thing as Google.

    The verdict was RUSHED before the election even before the opinion could be written. Just like Katrina, the ONLY thing that Republicans could do in Iraq was not win the war, but to politick around it. They couldn’t even write up the stupid book report but they rushed out the death sentence. Nice try Rethugs, but it’s just another reminder that Rethugs only used 9/11 as an excuse to profiteer in Iraq. Every hero who died there, every family bereaved, has Republicans and their self-hating gay enablers to thank.


    Yesterday, the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal announced that Saddam Hussein had been found guilty and would be sentenced to death. But it didn’t release the official verdict. NBC News has the story:

    The full verdict, a document of several hundred pages, explaining how and why today’s judgment was reached was not released. U.S. officials said it should be ready by Thursday. So why issue the verdict today? U.S. court advisors told reporters today it was delayed mainly for technical reasons.

    The court was created by the administration-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority and the administration still exercises considerable control over the court. The New York Times reports, “American influence…has been undeniably pervasive, with about 90 percent of the $145 million in annual costs for the court and associated investigations paid for by the United States Justice Department, and lawyers sent by Washington acting as advisers.”



  13. Mitch says

    oh please….

    From the New York Times:

    ” American lawyers in Iraq dismissed suspicions that the verdict had been delayed to give the Bush administration a political victory in Iraq close to Tuesday’s elections.

    Accusations by Mr. Hussein’s supporters that the trial was manipulated by United States officials were not borne out, American lawyers who followed the case said. An office organized by the United States Embassy helped the tribunal with the investigation and provided legal and logistical assistance. But the Iraqi judges frequently ignored their advice and generally insisted on sticking with familiar procedures from the Iraqi justice system.

    “The U.S. government was not the puppet master of this tribunal,” Mr. Scharf said.

    Mr. Drimmer said that “the trial conduct was a step back from the kind of international justice we had hoped for,” and added, “But ultimately having Saddam Hussein prosecuted in a transparent proceeding is a major step for Iraq.” “

  14. banamafanafobamboom says

    Ummmm…did you mean to post grey space that said nothing for your argument?

    You quote the Americans who RAN the trial denying that they ran the trial. Hello? Did you see what you were cutting and pasting?

    Also, dear, not helpful to your smokescreen to have pasted one sentence too much — “a step back from the kind of international justice we had hoped for,” — or did you think that “Oh please” would say it all? Control your mouse better and you’ll force us to google the rest of the article to see the part that proves you wrong. Don’t give it to us yourself.

    In any case, Bush got his poll bump way back when they planted him in the spider hole. Three years later, and 200 BILLION dollars in Halliburton profits later, we know that electing Republicans means 10 MORE YEARS in Iraq, and after that…an Islamic radical state. Thanks a lot for nothing, Log Cabin Republicans. The blood is on your hands too.

  15. bananafanafobamboom says

    Ummm…what paper spread the lies that there were WMDs in Iraq, and had to fire Judith Miller, who was fucking with Bernie Kerik and getting every lie from Chalabi into her stories?

    Umm…think it was the New York Times. One Iraq, they were cheerleaders for this war, and like the Log Cabin Enablers, they have the blood of every Iraq hero on their hands, as well as Matthew Shepard’s.

  16. bananafanbobamboom says

    Oh and by the way, for those of you who think Saddam getting hanged will turn Iraq into a democracy and then all the candies and flowers will appear on the street instead of roadside bombs: Here’s what Bush and the Republicans got us into.

    Zalmay Khalilzad, the plainspoken dealmaker and Republican insider who has won praise and criticism for attempts to broker Sunni political participation in Iraq’s fragile government, is likely to quit his post as U.S. ambassador in Baghdad in the coming months, a senior Bush administration official said Monday…..His replacement in Baghdad may be Ryan Crocker, a senior career diplomat who is currently U.S. ambassador to Pakistan.

    ….National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, during a Baghdad visit on Friday, told [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] that Khalilzad would leave about the first of the year and replaced by Crocker, according to two top aides to the Iraqi leader. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release information.

    Khalilzad is a pretty competent guy in an administration with a dire shortage of competent guys, and we can ill afford to lose him. Mark Kleiman runs down the list of possible reasons for Khalilzad’s departure (Iraq is a lost cause, Bush wants to engineer a coup and Khalilzad wants no part of it, Maliki demanded a new ambassador), but leaves out the possibility that three years in Afghanistan and Iraq is simply as much as you can expect from anyone. He might just be exhausted.

    Still, I suspect Mark is right: “If Khalilzad still thought his strategy had a chance of success, he wouldn’t be talking about leaving.” That’s probably so. Like I said, it’s bad news.


    so there you have it…Bush’s war in Iraq…it was a slam dunk…just like Katrina.

    Oh, and umm….where’s bin Laden? Probably with all his relatives that Bush sent out of the country on 9/12 on chartered airplanes. Don’t forget, they will all be in business together another 40 years, to match the 30 that they have ALREADY been in business together. Bush’s father was with a bin Laden on the morning of 9/11. They are in business together.

  17. says

    QQ!! [url=]buy viagra[/url] ,,, freddy [url=]buy cheap tramadol[/url] *** nice [url=]buy soma[/url] yeahh %^^& [url=]buy cymbalta online[/url] =))) [url=http

Leave A Reply