--------------------------------------- the reason why i even made the original post was because i saw it as a huge *tactical* mistake on the part of one of the figureheads/celebrity spokespersons for (sadly) one of the largest "anti-war" groups out there to basically fall into the hands of critics of "the movement" by volunteering to defend saddam.
--I'd disagree with your analysis. In a nutshell the *only* significant factor in the potential for progress on the part of the antiwar movement in the future has to do with whether or not the resistance in Iraq continues to kill American soldiers on the average of 1-3 a day for the coming year. If it does that there will continue to be a potential for the antiwar movement organizing around the issue of the illegal occupation of Iraq by the United States, otherwise all bets are off as regards organizing potential around the Iraq issue. All the stuff about IAC's Kim Sungilism etc. is missing this crucial point I'm afraid. BTW, Saddam could get a 'fair' trial at the Hague, spill the beans on Reagan, Rumsfeld, etc. and that would change nothing as concerns the fate of Iraq and the antiwar movement in the United States *if* the Iraqi resistance doesn't continue to kill American soldiers at the rate of 1-3 a day. I wish other factors like anti-imperialism or outrage at the scale of death wrought on Iraqis by this war of agression were a factor in moving the antiwar movement forward, but alas they ain't...
steve