<HTML><HTML>Well, perhaps the right could exploit it, but only because it's been a staple strategy of the right since 9-11 to vilify attorneys who are willing to defend villains.  Agreeing that IAC/ANSWER sucks, I guess my questions are: Is Saddam entitled to representation, and is that an argument worth making regardless of political orientation?  Or is it an argument the left is, in this context, uniquely equipped (and required) to make? In a message dated 1/3/2004 12:48:19 PM Mountain Standard Time, marc36@graffiti.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">"Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark said last week that he would be willing to provide legal counsel to the ousted Iraqi leader if he requested assistance. Mr. Clark was attorney general under President Johnson and is a staunch anti-war advocate who has met with Saddam on several occasions in the past decade." http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1231/dailyUpdate.html?s=entt in the middle of trying to co-opt and take over both March 20th and the anti-RNC organizing that's been going on, they have time for this too. another reason for anti-war people to distance themselves from the WWP/IAC/ANSWER borg.  once the right gets a hold of this, it will be a field day (and for good reason (?)). </BLOCKQUOTE> Believe every half-whispered, half-remembered lie Where truth is a luxury they can't afford to buy -chumbawamba, "scapegoat" </HTML>