"If Clinton's action was justified...why wouldn't Saddam's be"?

[LynnTheDem]

Saddam Hussein’s lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, is quoted as saying: “Saddam Hussein was on a visit to this village "Dujail", and he was subject to an assassination attempt. Punishing those who carried it out is justifiable all over the world. Any president in the position of Saddam would do the same thing.”

Wiping a town out in retaliation for an assassination attempt is certainly not a legitimate defense, but attacking a town to root out terrorists and suppress an insurgency may be another matter.

To prove this line of defense, Dulaimi might call former US President Bill Clinton or other members of his administration to testify in Baghdad or through video link from the United States. After all, in 1993, Clinton ordered the launch of 23 cruise missiles to strike the Iraqi Intelligence Service Headquarters in downtown Baghdad when the U.S. learned that Iraq was behind an attempt to assassinate former President Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Cruise missiles are a blunt instrument when fired into a populous residential area, and numerous civilian casualties were reported. “If Clinton’s action was justified in response to an assassination attempt,” Dulaimi will ask, “why wouldn’t Saddam’s be?”

Or Dulaimi might call US General George Casey, who currently commands the U.S. forces in Iraq. Just last week, (October 4, 2005), General Casey ordered the US military to launch a major offensive against three small towns in the Euphrates River valley (Haqlaniyah, Parwana and Haditha), which were reportedly being used by insurgents and members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization as a base of operations in Iraq. The attack, code-named “River Gate,” involved air strikes from U.S. warplanes and helicopters, followed by an assault by 2,500 U.S. and Iraqi government soldiers. Most of the buildings in the towns were destroyed, and hundreds of Iraqi casualties were reported, including civilians who were “unavoidable collateral damage.”

http://www.law.case.edu/grotian-moment-blog/entry.asp?entry_id=18

Hmmm. Valid points. Will the bushCabal face the same charges as Hussein? Hell no, we're the US of A and hypocrisy is our middle name!

[LynnTheDem]

1. This bit is interesting...

This defense strategy would be similar to that successfully employed by counsel for German Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz before the WWII Nuremberg Tribunal. Doenitz was charged with conducting unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic. His lawyer proved (with an affidavit supplied by US Admiral Chester Nimitz) that the American navy did the exact same thing in the Pacific conflict.

[the_spectator]

2. When did Saddam get a BJ from a 20-year-old intern??? /nt

[LynnTheDem]

3. Oh crap. I forgot about the all-important consenting adult sex thing.

Duh me!

:D

[LostInAnomie]

4. That's the real reason for the invasion.

Gassing the Kurds is one thing, but a blow job is something this country will not tolerate.

[LynnTheDem]

5. But Iraqis under their new "constitution" can have up to 6 wives.

No wonder Utah gives bush 60% approval rating!

:rofl: