Unfortunately, it was not Ramsey Clark.

Who says the MSM never reports good news out of Iraq?

How could killing one lawyer derail the trial? Doesn't he have a gazillion attys?

I was under da impweshun dat open shotgun season on dose waskawy attorneys doesn't stawt until da middle of Novembuh. Must be bow season.

Ace, I don't know - it could just as easily be an attempt to intimidate the defense team by someone with a grudge against Saddam. That category includes about 85% of the country's population - a big pool to draw from.

Just because the Iraqi government is trying to do this in an orderly way doesn't mean there aren't a host of freelancers impatient with this whole "trial" thing.

You could be right, though.

"Pro-Hussein"? Are you high on Kool-Aid again, or are you just a moron who can only see things in black and white?

EP, can't it be both?

Maybe EP's correct. Since we're talking about the NYT, it's more likely to be anti-American than it is pro-Hussein. You know, fair, balanced, all that.

"You know, fair, balanced, all that."

Just like Fox News...

Sue Dohnim, would you call the NYT's reporting on WMD's leading up to the war "anti-American?" Cheney used the NYT stories as evidence for his contention that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Would Cheney use a reference a publication that was "anti-American?"

Looks like someone took one of shakespears lines seriously AND LET US THE FIRST THINGS WE WE SHALL KILL ALL THE LAWYERS

Uhh, Spurwing, setting aside that wasn't quite the line, you understand Will's context -- right? Is there much chance of focusing here?

Bill, would you call the NYT's reporting on WMD's leading up to the war "anti-American?

No, we would call it accepted wisdom of the time. Dems and Republicans alike were all strongly on the record believing Iraq had WMDs from the Clinton administration forward. In fact, the big leftist bed wetting line when we went after the SOB was that our guys would be hit with those WMDs. The anti-American part came when we did something about the problem of Saddam not accounting for those WMD stocks, his torture state, his breaches of the cease fire, the breakdown of sanctions in the "Oil for Food" scandal, etc.

Remember?

"EP, can't it be both?"

No, then it wouldn't be enough of a black and white situation and thus too complicated for the tiny brain of a progressive. IRONY!

I don't usually result to vulgar language, but fuck the NYT and their fabrications of WMD stories.

VRWC Agent makes up more junk: "No, we would call it accepted wisdom of the time. Dems and Republicans alike were all strongly on the record believing Iraq had WMDs from the Clinton administration forward"

TRUTH ALERT: Many good journalists, as well as inspectors, were screaming that the WH stories of WMD were CRAP. Huffington gives a quick rundown here.

Don't like Huffington? Fine. See if you can manage to look at the PUBLISHED STORIES and their sources, instead of the person who put them together.

Here's more on how Tim Russert helped sell the lies about Iraq and WMD.

Oh, and I don't know about the NYT, or care, but I think IMO this trial should be at the Hague, as Milosevic's was.

Iraq needs and deserves a Truth Commission. Obviously the crimes against the Iraqis weren't the work of a single tyrant. Iraq has a deep social wound, and a real Truth Commission is the best known approach to resolve that kind of problem.

TRUTH ALERT: Many good journalists, as well as inspectors, were screaming that the WH stories of WMD were CRAP. Huffington gives a quick rundown here.

Ummm...that there was dissenting opinion doesn't mean it wasn't the prevailing view. An idea doesn't have to be unanimous to be common wisdom. That the dissenters turned out to be right didn't make those on the other side of the question liars. Various intelligence services were the truest of true believers, perhaps because last time they didn't think he had gotten very far with his weapons programs when, in fact, he had.

Geez, hyperventilate a little less. I think pushing the WMD angle so hard was a bad idea, myself, not least because it seemed the easiest but weakest argument. But it was only one among many.