Wow. Clark actually takes Rush's advice on Hussein trial!

[theim]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120705/content/see_i_told_you_so.guest.html

RUSH: "The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven of his former Ba'ath Party regime colleagues has resumed without Saddam in the courtroom. He is complaining about the conditions in which he's being held and how the trial is being conducted. Yesterday, he told the judges to 'go to hell,' vowing that he would not return to an 'unjust court.'" Now, when your basic argument is that Bush lied about the war, which is the Democrats' mantra today, the first thing you do is create a political stunt to distract the public and embarrass your enemies. Senator Harry Reid was the first to do that. Saddam Hussein, who has looked to American Democras for guidance on how to avoid responsibility for his own misdeeds, has now followed suit. "Senator Reid temporarily shut down the Senate from regular business, all for a few headlines and to embarrass the Republicans, and of course it was all necessary to bring attention to the fact that Bush lied his way into an unjust war. Now Saddam is pulling a Harry Reid stunt and boycotting his trial, shutting down his trial, basically calling it an unjust trial. As I mentioned yesterday: there was no way that the word "unjust" exists in Saddam Hussein's normal, everyday lexicon or vocabulary. There's no such word. He doesn't use it. This is a Ramsey Clark word. This is a liberal word.

The war is unjust! This is unjust! That's unjust. It's right out of their playbook. It's what they believe, and Saddam, I told you this is going to be happening. I predicted to you that if Saddam really wanted to get off on this trial, that he would emulate the Democrat strategy against Bush. That what he would say is that Bush has ruined his representation. He never poisoned anybody, and he never murdered anybody, but now the whole world thinks he did because Bush lied. We all know that Bush lied because that's the position of the Democrats in the Senate and House in the United States of America. If I were Saddam, I would continue to cite those people. I would say, "The Democrats in the United States are leading the way. They know that the leadership of their own country lied to the American people. I deserve my country back. I deserve to be reinstalled. I deserve to be made president of Iraq again, and the Americans need to get out. This country was in far better shape when I was running it and the Democrats are saying that in America, and they're right." Lo and behold, this little prediction of mine is beginning to show that there are elements of it that Ramsey Clark is beginning to incorporate. Let's go back to November 7th, 2005, just so you can hear me saying this on my program.

RUSH ARCHIVE: If I were Saddam Hussein, I would say, "I have no hope for a fair trial. Bush is a liar. He lied about the reasons for and the need to invade my country, and I want it back. He hires liars. It is George Bush who should be impeached and convicted in his own country and then tried at the Hague in my place, not me."
RUSH: Let's now go to Ramsey Clark, interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room yesterday on CNN. Wolf: "Do you believe Saddam should be on trial at all?"


CLARK: He should not be on trial in an illegal court. He should not be on trial in a -- a court that's not absolutely independent, where the judges are impartial, and where the procedure is fair and due process is accorded. Under those circumstances, I think the trial would be appropriate. Could be appropriate for a lot of other national leaders. But I personally believe the attack on Iraq was a war of aggression. A war of aggression is found by the Nuremberg judgment to be the supreme international crime. It's clearly a violation of Article 2.4 of the UN Charter. Trying to keep peace. You can't threaten or assault the territorial integrity of another country or invade it.

RUSH: You see where this is going? My advice is being taken. Ramsey Clark is listening to this. Ramsey Clark is taking his cues, actually, from the Democrats. He's simply saying in legalese what the Democrats have been saying: The war is unjust. The war was illegal. This is not a fair trial. It's not a fair court. Saddam can't get a fair trial. He ought not be on trial. This shouldn't be happening. Ramsey Clark then continued, because Wolf said, "Do you believe President Bush should be charged with war crimes?" What a question! What a question! Can you believe the question? "Do you think that Bush should be charged with war crimes and should be put on trial?" and that's exactly what I also said that they would do in the Saddam defense because Bush is the real criminal. Bush lied. Here's Ramsey Clark's answer.

CLARK: There's absolutely no doubt that a war of aggression is a "high crime and misdemeanor," and I don't see how any informed person could ever believe Iraq was a threat. After ten years of sanctions that killed a million and a half their people, after the Gulf War, after we claimed to have annihilated 80% of their military material and the inspection, the UN inspection claimed to get 90% of the rest, 2% of what they had in the beginning, the country was brought to its knees. It was a helpless country when we struck it with Shock and Awe -- and Shock and Awe is a synonym for terrorism.

RUSH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. I kid you not. Folks, do I know these people? Do I know what they're going to do? Ramsey Clark is picking up the exact line of rhetoric that the Democrats in this country, the American left is saying! Bush is the war criminal. Bush violated the law. Iraq didn't have a chance; Saddam wasn't that bad! He had been totally disarmed. We can't have any legal war conducted here. As such, Bush ought to be on trial because this is a high crime and misdemeanor, what Bush has done. This is an impeachable offense, the war on Iraq. Saddam Hussein is conducting his defense according to the rhetoric and the line used by the American Democrats. Saddam and Democrats: partners together in world peace.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think saddam reasons for boycotting are many, but I think the MAIN reason he is doing it, is because he is getting hammered by people he used to have total control over. I dont think he can handle that. I dont think he can handle an enviorment where others actually have the power and others get to say the truth, or their opinon if its opposed to him. He isnt used to hearing the truth, or people say disparaging things about him, so he just cant handle it emotionally and doesnt want to anymore. I bet he starts showing when the defense steps in their witnesses. You heard it here first.

 

[BATMAN]

He may think if he's not there it can't really go on. Kind of the "world stops when I go home" mentality.

 

[Hobbit]

He may think if he's not there it can't really go on. Kind of the "world stops when I go home" mentality.

Also known as Michael Jackson's unified theory of sick days.

 

[Annie]

Also known as Michael Jackson's unified theory of sick days.

Yaw, the breadstick is 'gone' if I thow it off of my highchair tray.' Sounds about right. (12 months old)

 

[manu1959]

if i put my hands over my eyes you can't see me

 

[insein]

I think saddam reasons for boycotting are many, but I think the MAIN reason he is doing it, is because he is getting hammered by people he used to have total control over. I dont think he can handle that. I dont think he can handle an enviorment where others actually have the power and others get to say the truth, or their opinon if its opposed to him. He isnt used to hearing the truth, or people say disparaging things about him, so he just cant handle it emotionally and doesnt want to anymore. I bet he starts showing when the defense steps in their witnesses. You heard it here first.

So he's the next democrat candidate for President? He's got all the liberal tendencies and talking points down. I bet he'd get at least 25-30% of the vote in this country because of all the idiot Dems out there that would vote for anyone with a D.

 

[Annie]

if i put my hands over my eyes you can't see me

Exactly.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So he's the next democrat candidate for President? He's got all the liberal tendencies and talking points down. I bet he'd get at least 25-30% of the vote in this country because of all the idiot Dems out there that would vote for anyone with a D.

Thanks all for the morning laughs!

Yea, especially if he was running against President Bush, he would garner that much vote, their hatred of Bush knows no bounds.(that coming from the peace loving, tolerant, ever encompassing, big tent, we love you all, sing Kumbaya, compassionate party! )