Ramsey Clark sucks

The New York Times has done it's best to make Ramsey Clark- ex-US attorney general and Saddam's Lawyer- look a little better than the douche bag that he is in their piece on him. But thankfully, the truth shines clearly through the cracks of their B.S.: It is a remarkable roll call, the men who have had him at their side at times of confrontation with America and its government: Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, Slobodan Milosevic of the former Yugoslavia, Charles Taylor of Liberia; and, at home, fringe figures like the Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, the right-wing gadfly Lyndon LaRouche, and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life term in an American jail for his role in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Are we getting those names? Qaddafi, Omar Abdel Rahman, Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, David Koresh and Saddam Hussein. Those are the men he defends and stands by. Nice bunch, No? But the NYT wants to assure us that he is not in it for the money: "Not a penny," said Mr. Clark, who added that he had taken no fee from many of his more contentious clients. What about the air fares on his shuttles between Baghdad and New York, where Mr. Clark lives with his wife, Georgia, in a Greenwich Village condominium? "Economy class," he said, $1,400 for the 13-hour leg from New York to Amman, Jordan, and a 500-mile additional leg to Baghdad. Mr. Clark made the journey twice in the last week, sandwiching legal work in New York between appearances at the Hussein trial. While the air fares have been paid with the Hussein legal team's funds, he said, he was paying for meals and taxi rides himself. Ok, right, I believe that. Sure! I bet. So why does he do it? Mr. Clark said in the interview that beyond the personal right to justice, there was the need for a broken society like Iraq to find ways to heal its wounds. "If you don't give Saddam and the others a fair trial now, you're not going to get peace," he said. "Emotions are so inflamed, it would be hard to make things worse. So if there is a perception that the trial is simply war by other means, people will be deeply angered, and they'll say, 'You're perverting justice so as to destroy a man who is your political enemy.' " So it's about Iraq healing its wounds. Ok! And I am sorry, but saying that people want Saddam Hussein destroyed because he is their political enemy, is, well, the understatment of the millenium. I don't know. They probably want him destroyed for all of the shit he did and the wars he waged and the people he tortured and murderd, not because he is the leader of the Baath Party. What kind of crack is that dude smoking? Oh, but wait, he justifies this stuff: At his trial, Mr. Hussein is charged with crimes against humanity in the killing of 148 men and teenage boys from the Shiite town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, after an assassination attempt against Mr. Hussein there in 1982. But Mr. Clark suggested that Mr. Hussein's secret police had reason to act harshly against Shiite assassins who, he said, almost certainly had political links to Shiite-ruled Iran, then in the early stages of an eight-year war with Iraq. He compared the actions of Mr. Hussein's secret police with the muscular behavior of an American president's security detail. Oh, this is gonna be good. "Just look at how our Secret Service works," he said. "I've been knocked down several times when they see some kind of threat." But they never killed you, or tortured your son, or raped your wife, daughters or sisters. But, sure, you got knocked down. That's like the same thing. In any case, he said, he could not see how Mr. Hussein could be blamed for the killings. "He was the president of the country, he was in a war, he was a pretty busy guy," he said. "I can see this as a case of some of his juniors overreacting." So this is your defense? He was too busy to notice that his men are killing and torturing his people? Are you fuckin kidding me? And if that's not enough to piss you off, here is how His meeting with Saddam in his cell went like: Mr. Clark said. "He seemed quite mellow, and he read us two of his poems, about family life, about mothers and children, and about the possibility of violent death." Did he include the violent deaths of his daughters husbands in his poems? They could serve as a good link-up, You know? No, never mind. Mr Clark would also like you to please remember, that if you think of Saddam as a monster, then you are a prejduiced human being: In both periods, he said, he was engaged in confronting prejudice - in the case of Mr. Hussein, Colonel Qaddafi and others, prevailing against people "who have a habit of seeing the world in black and white, as good and evil, of demonized characters stripped of all humanity." That, he said, was what America had done to Mr. Hussein, and, in a way, to Mr. Clark. Ehh, nahh. I am not being prejudcied. I am not pre-judging. I am Judging. No one needs to demonize Saddam. He doesn't need the help. Ask any Iraqi and he will tell you all about the shit that this guy did. You can call me prejudiced against Iran Ahmeddinjad all you want, and you would be right, but not Saddam. Never Saddam. A 6 year old can look at this guy and tell you he is made of the same disgusting mold of Hitler, Stalin and Polpot. The fact that he writes poetry means nothing to me. Hitler was a vegeterian artist; Polpot was a history teacher and neither one of them can pass for human. Saddam is in that same category. As for you, Mr. Clark, your history speaks for itself. I don't think anyone can demonize you either. You are doing a bang-up job yourself.