Why I'm Willing to Defend Hussein

"Late last month, I traveled to Amman, Jordan, and met with the family and lawyers of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. I told them that I would help in his defense in any way I could.

The news, when it found its way back to the United States, caused something of a stir. A few news reports were inquisitive — and some were skeptical — but most were simply dismissive or derogatory. "There goes Ramsey Clark again," they seemed to say. "Isn't it a shame? He used to be attorney general of the United States and now look at what he's doing."

So let me explain why defending Saddam Hussein is in line with what I've stood for all my life and why I think it's the right thing to do now."


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-clark24jan24,1,6939035.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions&ctrack=1&cset=true

the link requires to one to register which i refuse to do. anyway to put one up that doenst require registration?

david

http://www.bugmenot.com/
It gives you a name and password to use, so you don't have to register.

login: dvdgmlwsk
password: 77junic

http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=%0D%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com

It is good we have a few.

Principled men are hard to find.

was a functioning society.

*PNAC's Iraq is NOT.

and Hitler's Germany and Kim Jong Il's North Korea and Mugabe's Zimbabwe and the Taliban's Afghanistan. "Functioning" isn't much.

in the good ol' US of A.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I, having lived on several continents and speaking several languages and all, could never even BEGIN to understand the depth of your posts.

"USA! USA! USA! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! We kick your ass and take your gas!"

Is that better? :eyes:

Now, see if you can keep it up.

We'll all see if YOU can.

the administration did demonize him. True, he may be a tyrant, as many will state and I agree he probably was, but he is being tried and cannot go into the trial as a condemned man, or it would not be a fair trial.

Evidence has surfaced recently that we paid off a witness to testify to his cruelty - much like was done in the first Gulf war. If he was as bad as they say, we would not have had to do that.
*********
"Testifying before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2003 about the rebuilding of Iraq, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the story of Jumana Michael Hanna, an Iraqi woman who had recently come to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad with a tale of her horrific torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime.
<snip>
And on Thursday, the Post itself published a follow-up article saying that Hanna, who was granted refugee status by US officials on the basis of her claims of imprisonment, torture and sexual abuse, "appears to have made false claims about her past, according to a fresh examination of her statements."
***********

Also, the alleged mass graves have yet to be discovered:

"Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

again, any more I find myself skeptical of any information the government tells me - all I know about Hussein is what has been presented to me, and if a lot of that info has been discredited, I find it harder to believe the remaining info.


<joke> Which is why I am not a NeoCon </joke>

americans still believe in the values of the constitution and still have personal integrity...

To bad his lesson will be lost on this administration and its sycophants..

I read Clark's article until about the fifth or sixth paragraph down, stopping when he referred to the Bush administration's "demonizing" of Hussein. Right there that told me that Clark is off the deep end, caring nothing about the consequences of his words, willing to forego engaging people in a principled debate about Iraq War issues all for -- what?? I can't figure out his motives or logic. What is he trying to accomplish? I simply do not understand Clark's seeming need to muddy the Iraq War issue. Doesn't he understand by saying the US "demonized" Hussein he drives most Americans farther away from his viewpoint?? Was the US-lead invasion of Iraq wrong? Yes. Why does that fact seem to necessicate in Clark's mind excusing and defending Hussein?? (not literally, as in being his lawyer, but in the polemic way he is doing it.)

Like we Dems don't have enough trouble as it convincing Fox-brainwashed Americans that Bush is reckless and irresponsible!! Now we've got Ramsey Clark running around sounding like some Democrats think Hussein was a real sweet guy. It wouldn't be an issue if Clark wasn't always identified, as he is in this article, as Attorney General under President Johnson. AAARRRGGHHH!!!

Granted Saddam Insane, who was backed by
our CIA for many years, was a dispicable
dictator, but we have many pals in the
world who are dictators, tyrants, despots.

Looking behind the curtain may not be
pleasant for a lot of people, but isn't
truth really God's biggest value?

If you can't look into the light, keep
your eyes closed.

Clark is making it harder for the truth to come to light!! Like you said, "granted, Saddam....was a despicable dictator." When Clark uses phrases like the US "demomizing Hussein", he makes it sound like Saddam was a pussycat. This just plays into Bush's ability to dismiss the anti-Iraq War viewpoint. The RW and Fox is horrendously good at linking two separate facts to diminish our arguments. For example, when commenting about Boxer's grilling of Condi Rice, I bet one of the Fox guys will mention Clark's statement, thereby diminishing Boxer in viewers eyes. We've got enough trouble as it is, we don't need Clark making an uphill climb even harder. I still don't understand why he would say somthing like that, particularly at this juncture. Doesn't he pay attention to what's going on in the US and media situation here? Doesn't he realize the counter-productive effect of his words?? It's like he's handing the Bushies a club to beat us over the head with!

Sorry, got all worked up. I'm just SO frustrated. I'll shut up now.

He is pointing out that the U.S. deliberately attempted to create a portrait of Hussein in order to rouse a specific response. It is a characterization of the U.S.'s deliberate policy choices in terms of language and propaganda, not an argument as to the factual nature of Saddam's thuggery.

I could say that the U.S. "demonized" the Japanese during World War 2--that is just a comment on the rhetorical techniques used to provoke desired responses from the populace, not a statement of fact about the Japanese character.

They haven't even figured out yet that they're being manipulated. The biggest problem is that there's a whole cable news network out there just waiting for fringe Democratic figures like Clarke to provide more dirt for their manure-spewing operation (that sounded kinda cool, but did that make sense??? what I mean is, Clark's statements may be used to disparage the valiant but not yet generally well-understood anti-Iraq war and anti-neocon effort)

demonized him in their own way, so the
public is safe for now from the truth :eyes:

or that Clark is "excusing" Hussein. Clark is defending the right to due process. Shouldn't everyone in the world be entitled to that?

I wish he'd chosen his words more carefully. The "due process" argument was where I thought he was going with his piece. That's a persuasive argument, especially where Clark was pointing out that a fair trial with an effective defense would help by laying out a complete and full record for the Iraqi people. That's compelling.

Where he lost me though was the "demonizing" part, especially since he saw fit to link it with the US-caused deaths in Iraq. Now he's falling right into the Bush propagandist's hands. Why can't Clark just say that Saddam was "bad" but that that in itself doesn't justify US invasion if he feels the need to get into the politics of the Iraq invasion (there's lots of bad guys out there in the world -- why did we pick Hussein? -- that's the better argument.) I wish he'd just stopped at the "due process" explanation for his actions and left it at that.

you're much too preoccupied with how things "sound". Everything he says is true. If his emphasis was not in the right place for your taste, so be it.

He is going way out on a limb in doing this, because it's the right thing to do. Any lack of candor is more than compensated for by his courage.

the warren terra changed everything.

Bush et al did demonize Hussien...nobody claimed he was a nice old soft snuggly teddybear..

He was a dictator..one who used brutal means to retain control...but he was not the anti-christ painted by bushie boy...and he was not the worst dictator in power at the time..(Syria and Saudi Arabia were both rated worse by Human Rights Watch)...

Most Americans couldn't point to Syria or Saudi Arabia on a map (maybe if they were labeled, but I'm still not so sure.....). Clark's "demonizing" phrase can be interpreted various ways. Since you're a well-read, knowledgable person, you can give them a fuller meaning. Average Joe out there, however, thinks Clark is saying Saddam wasn't really a bad guy. Clark should know better, in my opinion, than to say something so prone to misunderstanding. I'm old enough to remember when Clark was a heroic figure. I can't understand why he seems to be foolishly undermining the immensely important effort to stop Bush and his insane "ridding the world of tyranny" crisade.

careful in his wording..but tbh I don't think it would have mattered cause no matter how carefully he picked his words the reaction would have been the same..all they would have heard was that he was defending SH...

You're exactly right, just the idea of defending Saddam causes an intense negative reaction in today's climate. Still, Clark added several metric tons worth of fuel to the fire by getting into the political argument ("demonizing") and not just sticking to the more compelling "due process" argument. Just gives more ammo to yuckheads like Sean Hannity.

Adams incurred a lot of criticism, hostility and even personal endangerment for defending the British soldiers at their trial for the Boston Massacre. He made an eloquent statement about the Rule of Law.

And a true believer in the importance of due process to just law.

So take your pick.