Hussein doesn't have a collection of Freepers lying about and denying his crimes, so there's not really the same grounds for disagreement that exist as in the case of Milosevic.
As to Clark, I don't subscribe to the hyperpolarized view of politics prevalent on FR. He has been found wanting in his choice of party and statements regarding Iraq since announcing his candidacy, either of which are enough to disqualify him for consideration for my vote.
Milosevic's trial, and Clark's testimony therin, however, is a seperate issue from his candidacy. If you are ultimately unable to seperate the two, then that's an issue for you to work upon, not me.
I'm not denying his crimes-- I have said repeatedly that I wish he would be executed. I don't mitigate his crimes, I am sickened by them and think the trial has obscured his crimes.
My beef relates to Clark and the Euro-Leftists who are elevating him. Can you please acknowledge that Clark's present political philosophy and exploits in the Balkans eliminate him from being a useful witness against Slobo?
Answer this directly, had Clark's Iraq doctrine prevailed in the Balkans, would Slobodan be at the Hague?
If you answered my queries honestly, there is only one honest judgement. He should not have testified. He is a disgrace and a morally blind self promoter. I say "Death to Slobo and political Death to Clark." You should feel the same way!
Would you have had Joe Kennedy or Charles Lindbergh testify at Nuremberg?