I really hope the terrorists that have been offing Saddam's defense team gets Clark. A truly evil man.

It does really suck how hard it is to get a fair trial when the whole damn world knows you are a vicious murdering goon.

Clark, in the videos running with this story on the TV, looks an awful lot like a just rolled off a steam grate.

Can the Iraqis hang Saddam's defence team as accomplices?

I wonder if Ramsey actually had to pay Saddam in order to get his pathetic name back into the newspapers.

I thought he was already on the team, honestly.

I'll give the guy some credit. He sticks to his principles. He thinks any asshat on earth is entitled to the best legal representation possible, and I agree. And if pimping his name as a former U.S. Attorney General will help (and will get him some publicity), he is more than willing to do so.

In an odd sort off way, Ramsey represents what is best about America. Our system produces, and puts up with, guys like this. Who else would?

Michael - yeah, in theory I agree, but in reality I'm with Sortelli. I hope he dies - slowly, just like the victims of all the mass-murderers he's defended.

My mind could just be screwing with me, but I could swear that I remember Ramsay Clark getting kicked OFF Sadddam's defense team earlier this year... they didn't want a nonMuslim lawyer and he was causing too much trouble.

Was I dreaming? Or does anyone else remember this?

You're right, DaveP. Ramsey was earlier on the defense team and then got fired.

Yeah, he was fired. I guess they already have thousands too many.

But lately there have been some new openings appearing.

Eh. I dunno, Michael. You'd have to define "best legal representation possible." To my mind, the job of defense counsel in a perfect world would be to ensure the defendant gets a scrupulously fair trial, with no cut corners or hanky panky about what evidence gets introduced.

But a trial, alas, isn't about getting at the truth. In the real world, the job of the defense counsel is to get his guy acquitted, by any means necessary: cheap stunts, helping him invent plausible lies that might explain away the evidence, judge shopping, jury stacking. Whatever.

It strikes me that some of the worst most evilist, vile stanky peckerheads on the face of the planet were members of the Kennedy administration. Let's see : Johnson, McNamara, Clark, Moyers.....

Just occurred to me that Moyers was not a member of the Kennedy administration, , still sucks though.

What's really mind-bending is that the current Iraq is -- according to Prime Minister -- is as bad regarding abuse as it was under Saddam.

International | Abuse worse than under Saddam, says Iraqi leader

'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison.'

'We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated,' he added. 'A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.'

[...]

[Allawi] added that he now had so little faith in the rule of law that he had instructed his own bodyguards to fire on any police car that attempted to approach his headquarters without prior notice, following the implication of police units in many of the abuses.

Read the whole thing. Consider this is Allawi saying this, publicly.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq may very well be the biggest security mistake the US has ever made.

No, this does not make me happy. It makes me very very angry, because a catastrophic outcome was seen as a possibility by a great many people, including many in the US military. They were ignored.

Give me a break , where are the newly dug mass graves. There is no guarantee that Iraq will be a pluralistic democracy, although that is what most of us wish and I doubt that you sincerely wish yourself for cynical political reasons.

In any event Iraq is not and will not be the potential threat that itwas before saddam was deposed.

Hm. Most people use good wholesome porn for their 'self-pleasuring' material.

Seems ol' tubby prefers bad news from Iraq.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

In any event Iraq is not and will not be the potential threat that itwas before saddam was deposed.

That's not what Dick Cheney's saying! He says there is a real possibility that Iraq will become a haven for int'l terrorists. In fact assessments show it already is exporting terrorists and terrorist techniques.

Before Saddam was deposed, Iraqis were not attacking and killing Americans on a daily basis.

It is likely to greatly increase instability in the region for years to come.

Iraq is a much bigger threat to the US and EU now than before the invasion, when it was contained, and monitored by inspectors on the ground. Now even the Green Zone is not very safe.

The invasion of Iraq has already cost the US dearly, in lives, credibility, military deployment strength, and more.

And no, this is NOT what I wanted, ever. That's why I opposed the invasion from the start.

Edward Murrow,

it's the war supporters who get their jollies from news and photos from Iraq.

I'm disgusted by the whole lie-based disaster.

If someone had told me that before Saddam's trial even got underway, the Iraqi Prime Minister would be comparing Iraq to Iraq under Saddam, I don't think I would have believed it.

It really is worse than I thought it could be.

Without yer buddy Saddam, it is less likely that any of the insurgents can procure WMD. The great threat is and was STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM.

Worse case scenario is civil war in Iraq, however the Sunnis do not have the resources that the Khurds or Shites have and it is probably not in their interest to pursue that course since we could and probably would support the Khurds and Sheites. Even the worst case scenario is preferable to an an Iraq led by Saddam.
Unfortunately for you, Iraq will be a success. Do you think the tribes that were opposed to Saddam are going to tolerate terrorist acts committed by a minority of the population ?

It really is worse than I thought it could be.

Tell me about it.

I'm 24/7 with the astroglide and the chafing lately.

The great threat is and was STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM.

Al Qaeda doesn't need state sponsors (rogue states). It needs failed states that cannot control its borders or its fundamentalist supporters.

Where have you been the past 4 years?

Saddam was the buddy of YOUR guys. The left supported democratic movements in Iraq while Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand.

For AQ to do anything on an international level they do need nation states to aid and abet them. They are well contained now.

Saddam was not one of our guys. Iraq was a client state of the U.S.S.R . (Iran until the fall of the Shah was a client state of the U.S.). We played Iraq and Iran off against each other during the Iraq-iran war, and we held our noses for a short time in aiding Saddam to make sure that niether one of these countries could gain regional hegemony. We were allied with the USSR in WW II . we never were buddies of the Soviet Union.

How about a link outlining the left's support of democratic movements in Iraq while Saddam was in power?

Iraq is a much bigger threat to the US and EU now than before the invasion, when it was contained, and monitored by inspectors on the ground.

Didn't Saddam kick the UN inspectors out for 5 years, only allowing them to return in a belated attempt to forestall the US? Some containment.

Wasn't he firing on UN-authorized aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone? Some containment.

Wasn't he embezzling huge amounts of money from the Oil-for-Food program and using it to buy off key officials in France, Germany, Russia, and Britain? Some containment.

If you derived *any* level of comfort from the pre-invasion 'containment,' I think that you are both naive and cruel.

Saddam was the buddy of YOUR guys. The left supported democratic movements in Iraq while Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand.

The old 'he-was-a-friend-in-the-1980s' canard. I can't believe you can repeat that and maintain any sort of claim to honesty.

The former prime minister that is citing all these abuses, obviously wants the U.S. to stay in order to better maintain stability there. I see no documented evidence of any widespread abuses yet so I am sceptical.

I suppose that you want the U.S to stay the course as well. You can't have it both ways. It is so abundatly clear that you do not give a damn what happens in Iraq as long as the U.S. is humiliated in another defeat.

geoff,

UN Inspectors were on the ground, till Bush kicked them out. That was containment.

Wasn't he embezzling huge amounts of money from the Oil-for-Food program and using it to buy off key officials in France, Germany, Russia, and Britain? Some containment.

Uh-oh. If bribery is a crime worthy of an invasion... wasn't Halliburton CONVICTED of bribery? Jeez. Talk about moving goalposts.

If you derived *any* level of comfort from the pre-invasion 'containment,' I think that you are both naive and cruel.

If you derive any level of comfort from the post-invasion civilian death toll, on-going abuses, use of chemical weapons on personnel (Pentagon's assessment of WP in other contexts), etc., then you are naive and cruel.

If you derive any level of comfort from Iraq's new role in the export of terrorism, you are seriously misguided.

The old 'he-was-a-friend-in-the-1980s' canard. I can't believe you can repeat that and maintain any sort of claim to honesty.

I posted a quite lengthy report on this. It's no canard. It's the truth. I'm surprised you deny it, really.

I will post the leftist support for Iraqi dem movements from the same time period when I can.

john brown, I want peace and security, here and abroad. I actually agree with the Bush angle about the best means of making a safe world being to promote democratic govt.

But that's why I opposed the invasion. At this point I really am skeptical that the US can accomplish much there. 80% want us out, about half believe attacks on US forces are justified. The US military is suffering with each month it is over there at ~150,000 troops.

I don't think the misplaced pride of some fighting keyboarders is a good reason to hammer the military. I think it's time to listen to the US military leadership, which was too-much ignored from the planning to this moment.

If Congress needs to meet behind closed doors with military leaders, then DO IT. Congress should recognize the failure of leadership in the WH, and start doing its job.

Maybe I am naive, but I believe it is human nature to want to live in a state of freedom .I recognize that the conditions for a democracy are not common, but I believe that Iraq is largely a secular state and has a relatively well educated populace. I doubt that many believed Japan would ever be a democracy in 1945.

I do not believe that authoritarian regimes can last in this day and age in the long run. Would you enjoy living under a regime headed by Islamist fundamentalists or Christian fundamentalists for that matter.

Democracy is a potent force and I have faith that reason ultimately prevails. There were some on the left such as Hitchens who supported democratic reform in iraq, but I beleive most leftists turned a complete blind eye to the atrocities and suffering that occurred in the Soviet Union and the warsaw pact countries and other left aligned nations (such as iraq). Yes Iraq was aligned with the Soviet Union.

If Iraq were to succeed in becoming a democracy, the benefits for the U.S and the world would be tremendous.

Oh yeh WP is not a chemical weapon. I was in an artillery battery in the army and we fired WP in training missions all the time. It is used to obsure our ground troops which means that it is fired within close proximaty of our own troops. WP is also used to mark targets and also used against enemy armor.
WP is a toxic chemical but is not dangerous in the concentrations used in artillery rounds. To say that we are using chemical weapons is an outright lie and just goes to show that you and your kind will say (I doubt you honestly beleive we are using chemical weapons) anything to discredit and malign the U.S. and our armed forces.

UN Inspectors were on the ground, till Bush kicked them out.

UN inspectors were on the ground for a year, after being absent since 1998, and when they came back they said they were horribly understaffed. That's not containment. UN inspectors were not searching for weapons - they were verifying the destruction of the weapons that Iraq chose to show them. That's not containment. This is like having no police presence in California for 4 years, and then walking back in with 300 officers to try to verify that there are no illegal weapons. Your containment is a farce.

If bribery is a crime worthy of an invasion... wasn't Halliburton CONVICTED of bribery? Jeez. Talk about moving goalposts.

If bribery is denying Iraqis food and medicine, it is a crime worthy of invasion. If the other countries on the Security Council can be shown to have had a vested interest in voting against the invasion, then their objections can be discounted. If Saddam was using the money for weapons purchases and funding terrorist activities (as he did openly in Palestine), that's a crime worthy of invasion.

Comparing this to Halliburton is foolish.

If you derive any level of comfort from the post-invasion civilian death toll, on-going abuses, use of chemical weapons on personnel (Pentagon's assessment of WP in other contexts), etc., then you are naive and cruel.

The civilian death toll is remarkably low, and there are some indications that even the numbers in the low 20 thousands may be high by a factor of 3. In any case, the casualties inflicted by the coalition are being dwarfed by those of the insurgents. The WP story has been pretty thoroughly debunked - calling it a chemical weapon is symptomatic of a complete lack of understanding of the military. Which makes you consistent, I guess. As to the 'on-going' abuses, it depends on what exactly you are talking about.

I think it's time to listen to the US military leadership

Give me a quote from an active-duty military leader within the last 6 months that says they think the situation is hopeless. In actual fact the situation is looking better than it has in some time. The military's training operations are proceeding, the Iraqi army and police forces are growing in size and competence, and the number of intelligence tips has skyrocketed in the past few months. The Democrats push for a withdrawal timetable is looking an awful lot like a race against success.

On the subject of the weapons inspectors. Why do you think Saddam was trying to bribe and intimidate them if he truly had not WMD or WMD facilities.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20154

CONTAINMENT:
Because there's nothing so patriotic as leaving your dangerous mistakes lying around for the next Admisnitration to trip over... and then bitching at them for cleaning up after you.

Oh yeh WP is not a chemical weapon

Except when it is. ThinkProgress found a Pentagon document, formerly classified, from 1995 that calls phosphorus bombs "chemical weapons."

Titled "Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical," the document says:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. [...]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.
-------------------
In fact, an instruction manual used by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, tells senior officers it is against the "laws of war" to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets. This document, first disclosed by the UK Independent, reports that the Army manual "makes clear that white phosphorus can be used to produce a smoke screen, but that 'It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP [white phosphorous] against personnel targets.'"

DaveP takes it out on George Herbert Walker Bush: Because there's nothing so patriotic as leaving your dangerous mistakes lying around for the next Admisnitration to trip over... and then bitching at them for cleaning up after you.

Give me a quote from an active-duty military leader within the last 6 months that says they think the situation is hopeless

Did you read James Fallows' piece in The Atlantic?

Consider too that there are increasing reports that the Iraqi foces are infiltrated by insurgents or sympathizers. The numbers you find encouraging... may not be.

If bribery is denying Iraqis food and medicine, it is a crime worthy of invasion.

Uh... did you read the paper a week or so ago? Corruption with US contractors? NOW who do we invade? Ourselves?

The WP story has been pretty thoroughly debunked - calling it a chemical weapon is symptomatic of a complete lack of understanding of the military. Which makes you consistent, I guess.

Oops. Your own fucking MILITARY called it a chemical weapon NOT to be used on personnel, which it admits happened, but you believe the WP when convenient? Which makes you consistent, I guess.

If Iraq were to succeed in becoming a democracy, the benefits for the U.S and the world would be tremendous.

Totally agreed.

Which is why I opposed the invasion.

I didn't believe this administration. I knew they were lying, and they are still lying.

Time after time they made ideological rather than pragmatic choices -- with plenty of corruption to go around. You don't buld a stable democracy on lies, corruption, betrayal., secrecy, gaming the system.

geoff,

No idea what you are talking about with WP debunking. Mil personnel admitted using it against people, and the mil docs show it is called a chem weapon when used as such -- by our enemies.

Civilian casualties in Iraq are likely much higher than your estimates. Was there a follow-up to the Lancet study?

It is amusing to read how half assed statements and basic misunderstandings turn into creation myths for the reality based community.

The linked to document is a recap of an attack on Kurds by Hussein wherein the dispatch calls the WP chemical weapons, as a description, hardly a policy statement on behalf of the Pentagon. I suppose in the bizarro world of democrat strategy making policy statements out of misstatements is more honest than simply Dowdifying a quote.

Being a crazy ass cosplay democrat requires one to lose all sense of the meaning of words. Remember one lefty called the "looting" of Iraqi museums a "genocide?" "Chemical weapons" are obviously those who deadly/incapacitory effects occurs as a result of interupting body functions or nervous activity. Chemicals that go boom or burn bright are not and cannot fit into that category.

But who cares, troll doesn't care about the truth anymore than he cares about CIA operatives. Its all political and its every touchstone to reality is subject to shift based on political expediency.

Joe, it's not a PR release. It's a formerly classified Pentagon document.

The effect on the lungs from breathing it in the air is chemical.

Troll is so fucking weak.

At places, it calls them White Phosphorus Chemical weapons, other place "WP." In another "WP Chemical." If you want to conflate someone in some report identifying WP as WP chemical or WP chemical weapons (as in "a weapon of WP chemicals") with nerve agents (a distinction the report also makes) then fine go do that.

Its blazingly transparent to anyone who bothers what your motives are.

geoff's race against success.

The security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, probably due doubly to Iraq: US resources pulled out too early to support Iraq mission, and now Iraq is exporting expertise..

An onslaught of grisly and sophisticated attacks since parliamentary elections in September has left Afghan and international officials concerned that Taliban guerrillas are obtaining support from abroad to carry out strikes that increasingly mimic insurgent tactics in Iraq.

joeindc44,

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think the US should burn the skin off kids, no matter what you call it.

I'm just funny that way. Or liberal.

If you want to defend it, please do so openly.

In defense of WP. It burns hot. even underwater. Its useful, therefore, to kill people, especially people who are hiding.

Resolved: the "US should burn the skin off kids?"

Maybe not, it depends, are these the kind of kids who are aged 16-44 and point guns at Americans or blow up IEDs? If so, it depends on what the preferred weapon of choice is for such an encounter.

What makes you liberal is your sanctimonious reduction to absurdity any issue into a simple "hurt bush" scenario. Let's not forget your willingness to suspend disbelief if the topic involves "abuse by american soldiers" and the source is "the bad guys." Or your blind pursuit of CIA security (until it matters).

This is ridiculous. White phosphorous is not a "chemical weapon".The "chemical weapons" you are thinking of are the WMD type weapons such as VX, phosgene, ricin- a tiny amount used would kill many. A tiny amount of WP would kill no one, it would take a whole lot in high concentrations in an enclosed area to kill someone, not exactly a WMD type weapon, more effective to use an HE or ICM round. Also this was probably used in Iraq when the enemy was entrenched so they would have minimal direct exposure to the skin. Tubino you are simply a fucking liar.

http://www.wargamesdirectory.com/html/forum/topic.asp?ID=1219&Page=1&txtSearch=

WP is a smoke round. It produces its smoke by scattering particals of Phospherous that burn on exposure to air and give of clouds of smoke. The particles themselves can, if they land on people, burn through clothing or skin, and will not stop until the particle is either gone or immersed in water, but it's an easy matter to remove the particles from clothing or skin.

The original story was that the smoke itself was a chemical wepason and killed people, which is a nonsense. I've been in a cloud of it. It was hot and made my eyes water, but the effects stopped once I got clear. Nowhere near as debilitating as Mace or CS, and the only difference between WP smoke and other chemical smoke is that the WP smoke is slightly hotter, and tends to rise vertically as opposed to spread out.

US resources pulled out too early to support Iraq mission, and now Iraq is exporting expertise..

Two more lies relayed by tubby; talking points he cares to regurgitate instead of seeking factual information. So tell me. What were coalition troop troop levels in Afganistan before Iraq and what are they now? While you're at it, tell me how many Iraqi's they've caught in Afganistan?

In fact the use of wp to get an entrenched enemy out into the open (where they could be killed more effectively and more discriminately) probably saved innocent Iraqi lives. WP is used in hand grenades, M203 (shoulder fired grenade launcher attached to m-16) rounds and artillery rounds. Anyone buying into this chemical weapons bs is either a complete idiot or a fucking liar.

If we start withdrawing troops and the results are that the insurgency ie car bombings increases, the left will criticize Bush for withdrawal. No win political situation for the Bush admin because the dems care more about making political points than national security.

It does not matter because the Iraqis given there options will embrace any elected Iraqi regime over the factions that are employing terrorism. These terrorist bastards can not win. If the Sunnis do not play ball they will be slaughtered.

Anyone buying into this chemical weapons bs is either a complete idiot or a fucking liar.

I'm open to discussion, but based on past comments from the troll, I'm going with the latter.

Did you read James Fallows' piece in The Atlantic?

Yup - but I don't recall any quotes from military leaders who were ready to throw in the towel. Most of the article is Fallows kvetching about the past. The critical statement comes at the end of the article:

America's hopes today for an orderly exit from Iraq depend completely on the emergence of a viable Iraqi security force. There is no indication that such a force is about to emerge.

Which, aside from being completely unsupported, is contradicted by his characterization of Gen. Petraeus' efforts a few paragraphs above.

As far as infiltration - that's a problem. But the whole country is full of problems. And we patiently work through the problems, even when we screw up and set ourselves back.

Geoff's race for success

Nice selective quote from the article. Later in the same article we hear:

Col. Jim Yonts, spokesman for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, said the Taliban is resorting to suicide attacks and remote-controlled bombings in urban areas "out of desperation" as it continues to lose ground -- and men -- to international forces in the mountains and other rural areas.

Was there a follow-up to the Lancet study?

Well, after the complete shredding of the Lancet results, nobody competent uses them anymore. Most estimates range from 20,000 to 30,000, although these are usually directly-related deaths, rather than 'excess deaths.' The UN Development Program released their report in April:

The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey data, children aged below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths due to warfare.

speaking of follow ups to the civ death study, a follow up link-lost to me at this laptop shows how these "civilian deaths" are almost 80% men of a certain age group. hmmmmmm...

the real numbers are much lower than 24000.

Which makes sense, as a suicide bomber can drive his car into a crowd of children around a stryker vehicle (just like our founding fathers) and only kill about 30. Since we were smart bombing government buildings and military installations, its hard to find real errant bombs.

Your own fucking MILITARY

I wish I'd seen that before I responded above. That was wholly unjustified and indefensibly crude. I will no longer respond to any of your comments - this time not out of frustration over the poverty of your arguments and sources, but because you have blithely insulted our active duty personnel, as well as me, my wife, and my father. We deserved better, particularly from a poorly informed audio nut from Toledo.

Really, geoff?
This time for realsies?

Do you any of believe that asshole has good intentions for posting here?
Tubino hate all of us and gets off by posting like Lord Haw Haw.

Most definitely a Canadian, too.

Most definitely a Canadian, too.

I don't know where he was born, but he's living in Toledo, OH now.

Wp is an incindiary weapon not a chemical weapon. Although to my knowledge there is no international law against its use in combat (It is a common weapon found in the inventory of most modern armies) Under US doctrine it is my understanding that WP is not supposed to be used on troops in the open, but it can be used on troops in vehicles, or under cover, entrenched etc. . If a civilian had been inadvertantly harmed by WP that is of course regretable, however they probably would have been far worse off if they had been struck by an HE round which kills by the force of impact and fthe dispersal of steel shrapnel. There are far worse weapons than WP allowed under international law.

The infanous RAMSEY CLARK who gave us the inamous MIRANDA RULING this low life peice of pond scum deserves to be banished to outer siberia for the rest of his life