Posted on 12/12/2005 2:13:14 PM PST by Pikamax
Even if you hate George Bush, must you be a Saddam groupie?
Anti-war activists are so confused, says Christopher Hitchens
Not many months ago, on The Los Angeles Times Op-Ed page, a former attorney general of the US defended his decision to appear as an attorney for Saddam Hussein. Ramsey Clark made the perfectly obvious and irrefutable point that his infamous client — his ‘‘demonised’’ client, as he phrased it — was as much entitled to a defense counsel as the next man.
Nobody disputes this proposition, least of all the Iraqi court that Clark described as illegitimate before it had even opened proceedings. So now, Clark — one of the chief spokesmen of the American antiwar movement, leader of the Answer coalition that filled the streets with protesters and compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler — is indeed in Baghdad, seated at the defense table for a client who last week terminated the proceedings by comparing his own stand in the dock to the heroic struggle of Mussolini.
A core of principle is involved here. Saddam stands accused of some of the most revolting crimes ever perpetrated by any despot. A defense lawyer is (presumably) engaged to acquit him of such charges. Yet before he had even had his credentials accepted by the court, Clark announced his client was a) guilty of disgusting atrocities and b) justified in having committed them.
To be exact, in interviews (last week), Clark addressed the charge that in 1982, after an apparent attempt on his life in the Iraqi town of Dujail, Saddam had ordered the torture of about 150 men.
Far from denying that any such horror had occurred — and it is one of the smaller elements in the bill of indictment — Clark asserted that it was justifiable. He has now twice said that, given the war with the Shiite republic of Iran, Saddam was entitled to take stern measures. ‘‘He had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt,’’ he said.
To this he calmly added that he himself had more than once been shoved aside by Secret Service agents eager to defend the president of the US (and of course one remembers the mass arrests, beatings and executions that followed the assassination attempts on presidents Ford and Reagan). It is as if Saddam had not started, by his illegal, blood-soaked invasion of Iran, the ‘‘huge war’’ that Clark cites as the excuse for Saddam then turning his guns on Iraqis.
Does the former absolute owner of Iraq quite realise that one on his team of attorneys is proudly trumpeting his guilt?
Never mind for now whether the despot has engaged a bad counsel: this raises another subject. In the run-up to the war, almost whichever way the debate was going, one could count on the president’s opponents to stipulate that, yes, Saddam was certainly a dreadful and criminal figure. This position was hardly optional, given the Alps of evidence assembled over the years, much of it later excavated in mass graves and torture centers and in the ruin of two neighboring states.
Yet now, one of the best-known spokesmen for the antiwar cause appears across the world’s TV screens, openly saying the Hussein system was justified all along in its aggression abroad and fascism at home.
I was, and still am, one of those who advocated publicly for the overthrow of Saddam. In debates, I proposed that most participants could at least agree on something. Whatever one’s view of the propriety and competence of the intervention, it could surely be accepted that human rights groups in Iraq could use some help digging up the mass graves and identifying the fundamentalists on both sides of the argument; that the Kurdish people — the largest stateless minority in the region — were in need of solidarity; and that the ‘‘marsh’’ Arabs, victims of one of the worst ecocides ever inflicted, were calling for help.
For the most part, the antiwar faction has subordinated everything to its hatred of Bush, folded its hands and watched coldly as Iraqi democrats struggle in a sea of chaos. That sham neutrality is bad enough. But now, the antiwarriors do have a permanent representative in Baghdad, in the form of an apologist for the past crimes and aggressions of a man who makes his hero, Mussolini, seem like an amateur.
What will Sheehan and the other humanitarians say this time? Or are they simply pro-war and on the other side?
Hitchens bump
Yet the Far Left claim that the current President Bush had no right to avenge or prosecute those (hint: SADDAM) who tried to assassinate the previous President Bush?
It's ok for Islamic despots to "act firmly" against their enemies but it's not ok for America to "act firmly" against her enemies. We certainly know which side Mr. Clark is on (but most FReepers knew that before this anyway.)
interesting to VDH fans ping
Hitchens has a sizeable vocabulary, yet still doesn't adequately express my contempt for Ramsey Clark.
FYI, Hichens is goign to take apart Scott Ritter in a a debate on Dec. 20.
It would have been much better to have had Saddam tried in the Hague, so that the world could see the evidence of torture and killing, and the trial wouldn't be going on in a war zone. Instead, the Iraqi court appears to be incompetent, fueling the image of a kangaroo court under an occupation force. This whole clumsy exercise threatens to generate some sympathy, particularly among Sunnis who are suffering the greatest losses after Saddam's overthrow.
What will Sheehan and the other humanitarians say this time? Or are they simply pro-war and on the other side?
Doesn’t even need an answer, of course.
But the “they hate George Bush” excuse doesn’t even scratch the surface, when you consider that many of these leftists have been up to these shenanigans for fourty plus years.
The fact is that they hate the United States, and George Bush (to his credit) represents much of what they hate about it.
Your poster has come a long way baby!!
Common sense, logic, reasoning, lessons from history, are characteristics which cannot even begin to break into the mind of a radical leftist. The left's agenda is more important than the common good of the country and the people. They are hard-wired to reject any sensible viewpoints.
Saddam Hussein could've murdered Ramsey Clark's family, but Ramsey would've found a way to lay blame on his own family or somebody else.
Thanks! I just added the three "little people" near the front.
Where & when will this event occur? Thanks for the heads-up.
The Sunnis are suffering the greatest losses? Yeah, kinda like the Nazis after the defeat of Hitler & his Germany. A trial at the Hague is exactly where Ramsey Clark and the rest of the socialist-facists, would love to portray/betray the Iraqi's long coming & well deserved justice upon these Bastards of Humanity. Thanks for the insightful view, to your benevolent nature.
http://tickets.tarrytownmusichall.org/performancedetailpopup.asp?evt=349
Scott Ritter vs Christopher Hitchens -Iraq War debate
Thanks again!
...In the run-up to the war, almost whichever way the debate was going, one could count on the president’s opponents to stipulate that, yes, Saddam was certainly a dreadful and criminal figure. This position was hardly optional, given the Alps of evidence assembled over the years, much of it later excavated in mass graves and torture centers and in the ruin of two neighboring states.
Yet now, one of the best-known spokesmen for the antiwar cause [Ramsey Clark] appears across the world’s TV screens, openly saying the Hussein system was justified all along in its aggression abroad and fascism at home.
I was, and still am, one of those who advocated publicly for the overthrow of Saddam. In debates, I proposed that most participants could at least agree on something. Whatever one’s view of the propriety and competence of the intervention, it could surely be accepted that human rights groups in Iraq could use some help digging up the mass graves and identifying the fundamentalists on both sides of the argument; that the Kurdish people — the largest stateless minority in the region — were in need of solidarity; and that the ‘‘marsh’’ Arabs, victims of one of the worst ecocides ever inflicted, were calling for help.
For the most part, the antiwar faction has subordinated everything to its hatred of Bush, folded its hands and watched coldly as Iraqi democrats struggle in a sea of chaos. That sham neutrality is bad enough. But now, the antiwarriors do have a permanent representative in Baghdad, in the form of an apologist for the past crimes and aggressions of a man who makes his hero, Mussolini, seem like an amateur.
What will Sheehan and the other humanitarians say this time? Or are they simply pro-war and on the other side?
Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.
FYI
DEc. 13 2003 American forces captured a bearded and haggard-looking Saddam Hussein in an underground hide-out on a farm in Adwar near his hometown of Tikrit. 2 other Iraqis were arrested.
"I Punched Saddam in the Mouth"
River Front Times ^ | April 13, 2005 | CHAD GARRISON
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1391805/posts
Posted on 04/26/2005 10:30:35 PM CDT by West Coast Conservative
Thanks for the ping, great read. I've sent it to the anti-Bush folks I work with. Since I'm leaving early due to illness I should be safe. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.