# Ramsey Clark--Supporter of Saddam?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2005, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026 "2005-11-28T06:19:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/41 "2005-11-30T06:01:49Z")
I guess no one has read Senator Joe Lieberman’s (D-CT) [editorial](http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611) in today’s Wall Street Journal… > [@](#): > > Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. That was so nice, I thought I’d share some additional quotes from the editorial… > [@](#): > > I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood–unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn. > > Progress is visible and practical… continuing security and growing prosperity… Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism… experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle… here, too, there is progress. > > … more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs… millions more cell phones… economy is growing… Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly… working toward a functioning society and economy… > > It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. > > …Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. > > In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. > > I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead. > > Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years… Mistakes, some of them big, were made… we have learned from those mistakes… We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit… The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being “held” secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle. > > … about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to “lead the fight” themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. > > I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: “I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates.” > Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation’s history. Semper Fi. Y’know… I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… I’d vote for this guy. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/42 "2005-11-30T06:08:52Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not convinced that Ramsey Clark is interested in due process, as some here are basically aruging. John Burns of the New York Times was on the News Hour on Monday and said the following: I fail to see why this statement from a defence counsel would be considered as controversial. Why do you expect him to say? “My client is guilty as hell and has no excuses”? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/43 "2005-11-30T06:53:44Z")
Oh, Jeebus. “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman. One can certainly see why you are so enamored, **Dish**. Joe has been to Iraq! Wow! Actually been there, and found all this good stuff! All that really great “freedom is on the march” stuff that tends to be obscured by all the bombs and corpses and other such niggling details. Whaddaya think? Did he bravely surge beyond the “Green Zone” where so many wimpy liberal-media whores cringe? From whence this astonishing compendium of information? He flings numbers about with such casual abandon! There are “10,000” insurgents? Really? And he knows this…how? Did he count them? Take an impromptu census? And all these battle ready Iraqi troops! Why, it seems only yesterday I was hearing about a mere brigade ready to hold their own. Oh, wait, it was yesterday. Well, then, they must be lying! Because “Fightin’ Joe” has ferreted out the truth from…where again did he say he found these facts? > [@](#): > > …And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years… The plan is flexible! That’s great! Previously, I didn’t know a plan existed. Now, I know that it is flexible! Which is undoubtedly a good thing, when your plan has little or no direct impact on reality, its good that it can at least _respond_ to reality! > [@](#): > > …We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit… Which means more, not less. Yes? As they stand up, we stand down, but they only stand up when we prop them up? Whoop-de-fucka-do! > [@](#): > > …The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own… I’m gonna take a wild stab here, and guess that the part of Baghdad they are patrolling so sucessfully is that part of Baghdad occupied primarily by Shia? That part of Baghdad that has the least insurgency to begin with? Barney Fife can probably contain the crime problem in Mayberry, so long as he has his bullet. > [@](#): > > …Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah… Again. And the sorry-ass methods by which it was achieved, the less said, the better. > [@](#): > > …about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to “lead the fight” themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year… Why, thats much better than we had been told! Thank heaven “Fightin’ Joe” got the real facts from…where did he say he got his facts, again? That part seems a bit…fuzzy. And he had Thanksgiving lunch with a Marine colonel. Who, to his happy surprise, told him exactly what he most wanted to hear. Which anecdote he eagerly relays to us as meaning…what, exactly? That now Joe has the inside scoop? The Dems should wrap him up in gift paper, stick a bow on him, and leave him at the doorstep of the Republican National Committee. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/44 "2005-11-30T07:39:42Z")
Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning: > [@](#): > > I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he’s completely lost the plot or he knows he’s spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he’s not talking about any country I’ve ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/45 "2005-11-30T08:44:43Z")
I don’t know about Stalinist, but I agree Clark is anti-American. It’s one thing to take a case where you’re defending somebody who is overwhelmingly regarded as guilty; but for the last thirty years, Clark’s been taken cases on the principle that the United States government is on the other side. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/46 "2005-11-30T13:56:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I fail to see why this statement from a defence counsel would be considered as controversial. Why do you expect him to say? “My client is guilty as hell and has no excuses”? There are plenty of good defenses against mass murder: my client’s orders were misinterpreted; my client never issued any orders; hell, even a nutball might want to argue that those killed actually had some due process. I don’t think Clark’s represenation (if he was summarized accurately) that any leader would do the same thing under the circumstances pretty much acknowledges that Saddam ordered an extermination of a city. And here’s the kicker: Clark seems to think that _any leader would do the same._ If this truly reflects his argument, someday I’ve love to hear Clark’s explaination of why Iraqi, Rwandan, and Serbian dictators are allowed to murder civilians because “that’s what any leader would do”, but why NATO’s intervention in Kosovo to protect those same kind of civilians is a war crime of some sort. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/47 "2005-11-30T14:18:25Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > Looks like **Sam Stone** is right, and **Elvis’s** positing otherwise seems disingenous, at best. Um, which of us posted an assertion of faith, and which of us actually looked for cites? :rolleyes: Gawdamighty. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/48 "2005-11-30T14:44:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > There are plenty of good defenses against mass murder: my client’s orders were misinterpreted; my client never issued any orders; hell, even a nutball might want to argue that those killed actually had some due process. > > I don’t think Clark’s represenation (if he was summarized accurately) that any leader would do the same thing under the circumstances pretty much acknowledges that Saddam ordered an extermination of a city. I think it makes sense if he can’t plausibly deny that Saddam issued such orders. For instance, just look at the USA. People are detained without due process of law, charges, etc… What do people who defend this policy, even on this board, say? That the USA is engaged in a “war on terror” and that in these extreme circumstances, detaining people without due process of law is necessary. Actually this argument is even used to support the use of torture. Basically Saddam’s counsel is saying the same thing : yes, these people were executed, but we were in the middle of a full-blown war, the country was threatened by Iranian conspiracies, etc… And killing them without trial, in these extreme circumstances was necessary to insure the survival of the country. As for the “every other leader would have done the same”, actually I wouldn’t be surprised if many other leaders, even democratically elected ones, would indeed order to execute people if they deemed it to be a vital necessity when the country is engaged in a war. Heck! Look at Israel and its extra-judiciary executions of palestinian leaders. That’s exactly what they’re doing, albeit on a smaller scale. Maybe it won’t fly in a court, but what else could be said if the crime itself can’t be denied? What argument could Bush or Sharon’s counsels use if they were somehow tried? It makes perfect sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/49 "2005-11-30T15:44:03Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Basically Saddam’s counsel is saying the same thing : yes, these people were executed, but we were in the middle of a full-blown war, the country was threatened by Iranian conspiracies, etc… And killing them without trial, in these extreme circumstances was necessary to insure the survival of the country. > > As for the “every other leader would have done the same”, actually I wouldn’t be surprised if many other leaders, even democratically elected ones, would indeed order to execute people if they deemed it to be a vital necessity when the country is engaged in a war. Heck! Look at Israel and its extra-judiciary executions of palestinian leaders. That’s exactly what they’re doing, albeit on a smaller scale. I’m confused. Whose violations of human rights is this line of argument defending: Saddam’s murder of 140 men and boys and the torture of 1,500 others; Israel’s assasinations of dozens of terrorist leaders; or the US’s secret imprisonment of hundreds of alleged enemy combatants? Personally, I’m against all of the above, and think that a “legal” argument that would excuse all of these examples is outright odious. Surely a team of lawyers can come up with a better defense than: “Hey! Everyone murders a little bit! We’re just keeping up with the Idi Amins of the world!” For crying out loud, even OJ Simpson’s defense team managed to come up with something a little better than “Who hasn’t gotten mad at their spouse from time to time?” ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/50 "2005-11-30T16:14:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, Jeebus. “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman. One can certainly see why you are so enamored, **Dish** … Well, good, then. That means I don’t have to tell one what one certainly sees. Whew! I also hope you can just as certainly see that I don’t mean to defend Lieberman’s statements line-by-line… they’re his, not mine. I don’t know what happened in the REPLY process, but this post was actually in response to **Wake up call’s** [cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6839350&postcount=4) of al Jazeera’s take on some recent internal Iraqi polling. Somehow in my delirium, the quote header got wiped. Anyway, I just found it interesting that a US Senator returning from Iraq had glaringly different views of what’s actually going on there than do many of us here stateside. Go figure. I’m certain there are plenty of explanations for this divergence of opinion, and I’m sure one of them is that the Senator is an unwitting tool of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Personally, I subscribe to one a bit less whacky… like maybe he just might know what he’s talking about. But, that’s just me. God, I hate dial-up! Gotta get some work done today. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/51 "2005-11-30T16:21:19Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > That’s exactly what they’re doing, albeit on a smaller scale. Isn’t “scale” part of the issue here? It’s one thing to direct a retaliatory strike against specific terrorist leaders, and another entirely to conduct a blanket round up of all living persons in the area and execute them all. At least there used to be a difference before George Bush took office, which of course, changed everything. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/52 "2005-11-30T16:36:30Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > > [@Lemur866](#): > > > > No, it’s not unethical to represent a client that you know is guilty, it’s only unethical if you allow your client to say things that you know are untrue, or if you as a defense attorney say things that are untrue. > > This kind of technicalities might not apply under Iraki law, though… That seems unlikely to me. The obligations **Lemur** is talking about have their roots in two things: - the law of perjury, an essential element of any modern legal system; - unwritten ethical principles. So the obligations rest on one piece of law that almost certainly applies in Iraq, and broad ethical principles which are not written at any rate. Thus the situation **Lemur** discusses would almost certainly prevail at Saddam’s trial - these are the obligations Clark would be under. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/53 "2005-11-30T17:50:10Z")
> [@Dishfunctional](#): > > Like **John Mace** , I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something stinks about Clark being on the defense team. It’s not an ethics problem, I agree, and I’ll avoid the cheap shot about defense lawyers and ethics. It’s more of motivation issue, I think. I sense a game being played here… a _long_ game. > > Clark’s against this war. He supports the impeachment of the president. It’s highly unlikely any impeachment effort would ever get beyond square one if our policies succeed in Iraq. Success in Iraq depends greatly upon incorporating the Sunni into Iraq’s new government. > > One good way to undermine any chance for mollifying Sunni strife in Iraq would be to demonstrate for them, once and for all, that America is untrustworthy, corrupt and ultimately anti-Sunni. What better time and place to show American corruption than during the trial of the Fearless Leader? > > Saddam will be convicted. Clark knows that. If the trial were all Iraqi, all the time, from judge to counsel to court reporter, the street would accept the conviction, would deal with it and eventually get over it. With an American on the _defense team_, I don’t know. > > Something stinks. > > And, no, I don’t have a cite. Where do you get “something stinks” from all that? If your theory is correct, then Clark is making the most moral and honorable political choices a person in his position could make. If anything stinks, it would be the potential conflict-of-interest between his political agenda and his fiduciary duty to give Hussein the best defense possible – but I don’t see how the two would actually conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/54 "2005-11-30T21:39:33Z")
Just had a thought – do any of the Clark supporters here believe that he would sign up to defend Dick Cheney if he were to be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for his involvement in various torture policies? Why wouldn’t he? If Saddam and Milosevic are entitled to competent defense team (note that Clark was not the lead attorney in either case) , shouldn’t Clark feel the same moral obligation to bring his extensive experience in international tribunals involving human rights violations to bear in Cheney’s case? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/55 "2005-11-30T21:57:20Z")
Listen, I think it is clear that Clark will go after any administration, so long as that administration is American. [Here is his draft indictment of Bill Clinton and his cabinet](http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/indictmt.htm) for war crimes and crimes and crimes against humanity. I personally witnessed him state in a speech (Pittsburgh, 1991) that George H.W. Bush was a war criminal and that impeachment proceedings should proceed against him. His efforts against the government in 1980 (Carter administration) have been mentioned earlier. Now, one could certainly oppose successive administrations for the last several decades. However, this puts one quite close to being against American society and its system of government in general. Clark is odd man out here, far to the left of both parties and alienated from the American system in general. He supports reflexively our country’s enemies, including those who have hurt and killed Americans. If he cannot be described as anti-American, then very few people can. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/56 "2005-12-01T01:51:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Where do you get “something stinks” from all that? If your theory is correct, then Clark is making the most moral and honorable political choices a person in his position could make. I really don’t know, **BG**. I admit I’m taking a flyer here, but I’m trying to find something other than the knee-jerk “anti-American” reason for Clark doing _anything_. He’s older now, has been kicked around a little more by the system, undoubtedly more cynical with less to lose. Did you see that [photo](http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/11/27/saddam.hussein.trial/story.gen.ramsey.clark.ap.jpg) they ran of him on the CNN website? Ferchrissakes, he looks like some homeless guy they dragged in off the street! Maybe he’s just getting an early start on a new, bearded look to fit in with the rest of Saddam’s Dream Team, but something just strikes me as “off”. He can’t possibly believe that Saddam has any chance of acquittal, so he must have some motive that fits his long-standing world view. As for whether that would be “moral” or “honorable”, I don’t think I’m ready to judge that yet. If he does indeed have something up his sleeve, then we shall see. If not, and he’s just there to put an American face on Saddam’s futile defense, then I’m afraid I would have a very hard time calling that moral or honorable. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If anything stinks, it would be the potential conflict-of-interest between his political agenda and his fiduciary duty to give Hussein the best defense possible – but I don’t see how the two would actually conflict. Me either. Attorneys vigorously defend people they wouldn’t be caught dead with in public all the time. It’s the downside of the profession, you might say. And I’m not yet ready to assume that his personal political agenda, whatever that may be, doesn’t coincide _precisely_ with Saddam’s – shaming the US out of Iraq and returning the country to the _status quo ante_. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/57 "2005-12-01T03:01:02Z")
> [@Dishfunctional](#): > > I really don’t know, **BG**. I admit I’m taking a flyer here, but I’m trying to find something other than the knee-jerk “anti-American” reason for Clark doing _anything_. :dubious: :mad: And what exactly makes you think that “knee-jerk anti-Americanism” **isn’t** the most moral and honorable choice a person in Clark’s position (or, for that matter, your position or mine) could make in this particular situation? Getting Bush impeached is a moral and honorable goal to say the very least. Undermining the perceived legitimacy of the U.S.-installed puppet government in Iraq is a much more challenging and morally ambiguous case – but you could make a much stronger case for that than for anything on the contrary side. See [http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2286/](http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2286/). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/58 "2005-12-01T03:36:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: :mad: And what exactly makes you think that “knee-jerk anti-Americanism” **isn’t** the most moral and honorable choice a person in Clark’s position (or, for that matter, your position or mine) could make in this particular situation? You are ignoring some situations, I think. Was it moral for Clark to call for Clinton’s inpeachment and trial for Clinton’s actions in Yugoslavia? Was it moral for him to attack the United States government in Iran while our hostages were being held there, and being threatened with death by the government hosting him? I’d like your judgements here, please. ---
**Author:** ![Updike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@Updike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Updike)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/59 "2005-12-01T04:17:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Um, which of us posted an assertion of faith, and which of us actually looked for cites? :rolleyes: Gawdamighty. Never mind that your cites don’t exactly back up own argument, right? To the rest of the posters, sorry for the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026/60 "2005-12-01T16:16:27Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > You are ignoring some situations, I think. > > Was it moral for Clark to call for Clinton’s inpeachment and trial for Clinton’s actions in Yugoslavia? Was it moral for him to attack the United States government in Iran while our hostages were being held there, and being threatened with death by the government hosting him? > > I’d like your judgements here, please. That’s why I said “in this particular situation.” I won’t defend every choice Clark has made in his post-AG career (what would have happened in Kosovo, without U.S. intervention?), but this time he seems to be on solid ground – even (in fact, especially) if his inserting himself into Iraqi justice/politics is actually intended to further political goals in the U.S., as **Dishfunctional** speculates. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-supporter-of-saddam/333026.md?page=4)