Liberal Dems Send money to Saddam's Lawyer

[Nickdfresh]

By the way. Doesn't this guy have ties to Saddam?

[lucky wilbury]

IF YOU READ THE MOTHER FUCKING ARTICLES YOU WOULD SEE:

This was no accident, for the demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba, and it hails North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country’s “socialist system,” which, according to the party’s newspaper, has kept North Korea “from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world.” The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, “Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials — including spokesperson Brian Becker — are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.

The IAC, another WWP offshoot, was a key partner with ANSWER in promoting the protest. It was founded by Ramsey Clark, attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. For years, Clark has been on a bizarre political odyssey, much of the time in sync with the Workers World Party. As an attorney, he has represented Lyndon LaRouche, the leader of a political cult. He has defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was accused of participating in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Clark is also a member of the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic. The international war-crimes tribunal, he explains, “is war by other means” — that is, a tool of the West to crush those who stand in the way of U.S. imperialism, like Milosevic. A critic of the ongoing sanctions against Iraq, Clark has appeared on talking-head shows and refused to concede any wrongdoing on Saddam’s part. There is no reason to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “After 12 years of brutalization with sanctions and bombing they’d like to be a country again. They’d like to have sovereignty again. They’d like to be left alone.”

[Nickdfresh]

Oh! Let me raise my right hand and support the war now! By the way, did you notice we lost a dozen or more guys today in Iraq? Still thinks it's like fucking Germany circa 1945? Funny how you never post those articles.

"See these Bradley Fighting Vehicles behind me? Can't have 'em!"

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
By the way. Doesn't this guy have ties to Saddam?

and was he working for saddam? no. did he take money from saddam? no it was more like this:




Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin attend the Yalta Conference


enemy of my enemy is my friend. clark was working FOR saddam and he still is.rumsfeld never was. since you like pictures how about these from the white house? all taken after the fact years later :

President Bill Clinton holds a White House meeting with People's Liberation Army General Zhang Wannian, whose 15th Airborne paratroopers mowed down Chinese civilians during the June 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. This photo ran in Chinese newspapers, helping rehabilitate the image of the "butchers of Beijing."



People's Liberation Army General Chi Haotian (left) and U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen (right) celebrate a toast; Chinese General Xiong Guangkai (behind Cohen, partially obscured) looks on. The hard-line Chi and Xiong both played pivotal roles in the brutal Tiananmen Square massacre.

[Nickdfresh]

Yes, because our middle-east policies have failed for the last thirty years.


"Get your fucking hands off my oil!"

[lucky wilbury]

yep its all about oil and where are the top 5 oil impters to the us? canada,mexico,nigeria,saudi arabia,and venuzeula. its all about oil and the middle east. yep thats it again read the articles.

[Nickdfresh]

But I guess according to your logic, it's okay for the U.S. Government to be in bed with Saddam when it's CONVENIENT for US! But when Kofi's son, the French, or Russians, or Saddam's lawyer allegedly are!...Well, holy hell...Aren't they a bunch of corrupt bastards with an agenda!? It's just another blatant double-standard that attempts to justify our rogue actions with a phoney moral dimension.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
yep its all about oil and where are the top 5 oil impters to the us? canada,mexico,nigeria,saudi arabia,and venuzeula. its all about oil and the middle east. yep thats it again read the articles.

Oh yes it is. Since the world will be out of oil (effectively) in the next 17 to 25 years. Yes it is! Did you notice that China is now using more and more oil? It's all about geopolitical control of energy resources! I know it sure as hell wasn't about "liberation" of anybody.

[lucky wilbury]

that is one of the weakests arguments to hit the board in a long while. and how many un resoluntions were in place againest saddam in the 80's? none.who else was backing saddam in the 1980s? thats right germany france britian russia etc etc etc. again they knew the enemy of my enemy is my friend. now in the 1990's after the gulf war when there were resolutions in place BARRING busness dealings with iraq? were we involved with iraq? no. were france russia and germany involved in pay offs and kick backs that were ILLEGAL under all those un resolutions? well lookie here they were

[lucky wilbury]

and once more since you still havent read the articles on mr anti war movemnet ramesy clark:

Other clients include Radovan Karadzic, the indicted Bosnian Serbian war criminal whom he defended in a New York civil suit brought by Bosnian rape victims, and the Rwandan pastor who is accused of telling Tutsis to hide in his church and then summoning Hutus to massacre them, and then leading killing squads.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
and once more since you still havent read the articles on mr anti war movemnet ramesy clark:

Other clients include Radovan Karadzic, the indicted Bosnian Serbian war criminal whom he defended in a New York civil suit brought by Bosnian rape victims, and the Rwandan pastor who is accused of telling Tutsis to hide in his church and then summoning Hutus to massacre them, and then leading killing squads.

Even the Nazis deserved a fair trial before we deservedly killed them. Besides, this guy usually loses. So what's your point? We should just kill everybody like Stalin said after WWII? Yes he's an opportunist douchebag (he' a lawyer), but that's not the point!

What is your point?

The war is a good thing because a few anti-War protesters are Socialists/Communists? Do I even trust this guys information?

Have you read the articles on the troops killed today? The articles on how the Neocons see fit to attack Syria and imply the insurgency is all the Syrians fault now even though the Military knows they have few actual "foriegn fighters."

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Even the Nazis deserved a fair trial before we deservedly killed them. Besides, this guy usually loses. So what's your point? We should just kill everybody like Stalin said after WWII? Yes he's an opportunist douchebag (he' a lawyer), but that's not the point!

his goups are the ones pushing the anti war movement! hes the one behind it. where do you think he got the money for it!

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

What is your point?

see above

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The war is a good thing because a few anti-War protesters are Socialists/Communists? Do I even trust this guys information?

a few?!?!? their the orginizers of it! their little "anti war" group praises kim jong il! says what happend at tianamen square was good thing. and these are the people behind the move ment

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Have you read the articles on the troops killed today? The articles on how the Neocons see fit to attack Syria and imply the insurgency is all the Syrians fault now even though the Military knows they have few actual "foriegn fighters."

yep we're going to attack syria now lets see we've had people claim that the "neocons" were going to attack syria,saudi arabia, iran,north korea,china,venezula,cuba and russia. theres more then a"few" we've captured HUNDREDS. maybe you can go look up and see where zarquawi is from. heres a hint hes not an iraqi

[lucky wilbury]

one last thing on the anti war movement here go here:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j102802.html

just like the site says its an anti war site. if you don't belive me who's in on the anti war movement you can just click the link

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
one last thing on the anti war movement here go here:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j102802.html

just like the site says its an anti war site. if you don't belive me who's in on the anti war movement you can just click the link

I'm not saying I disbelieve you. I'm just saying a few rambling assholes in the anti-war movement is no worse than some of the rambling assholes in PNAC that say whatever we do is justified because Saddam was a dictator or whatever. Or what about the Christian Fundimentalists Dominists? What about Ann Coulter's comments regarding siezing every Muslim country and forcing them to convert to Christianity? Did anyone post that one after Sept. 11?

By the way, this war has made it difficult to do much about the little cunt North Korean President-for-Life.

And despite radical or nonsensical opinions, the Anti-War Movement has one far less harm to our interests than the 'Pro-War' movement has done.

[lucky wilbury]

so the other articles by leftist and bush crictic david corn are wrong? what about the other articles from of all places salon.com that were already posted?read the three articles on the first page. al three are from different ources. ones from 1999 as well