Embraces Nazi Defender

Posted: Oct 05, 2005 12:00 AM

In its e-mail endorsing the antiwar rally held in Washington, D.C. over the weekend, took the unusual step of notifying its 3.5 million members that though it wanted people to attend the event, it had “disagreements on a range of issues” with the organizers.

What the e-mail left curiously unanswered was what exactly constitutes the “range of issues” with which they disagree. 

Could it be spearheading the cause of Nazi war criminals?  Or playing defense for the likes of other war criminals, including Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein?    Or serving as defense attorney for one of bin Laden’s top deputies?

Or was it something trivial, like the color of the background for the 9/11 conspiracy theory signs?

Perhaps decided to endorse the rally organized by International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and Racism) based on having the same view of the group as the New York Times: as an outfit “which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives.”

But if had done its homework—and who are we kidding; of course it did—the George Soros-backed organization would have known that it was embracing a most repugnant “progressive” group.

The founder and seemingly still the head of International ANSWER is Ramsey Clark, who, in the words of the paper of record, is a “former attorney general... who has endorsed impeaching Mr. Bush.”

Of all the ways the New York Times could have described him, the paper chose the most inanely benign one, skipping past a description that also would have been far more on-point: Clark was the defense lawyer (until getting canned) for Saddam Hussein.

Rushing to Saddam’s side after the war was par for Clark’s course.  He’s defended a star-studded roster of mass-murderers: Serbian tyrant Milosevic, former Milosevic henchman Radovan Karadzic, a Rwandan pastor accused of orchestrating the slaughter of thousands of Tutsis, al Qaeda terrorist Mohamed Al-Owhali, as well as Nazi war criminals Karl Linnas and Jack Riemer.

If only Clark had been just an attorney.  He was, in each case—to put it generously—an advocate.

All of this is known.  And much of it has been written by leftists.  Yet all the leftists at can say is that they “disagree” with Clark’s organization on a “range of issues.”

Much as wants to have it both ways by loving the action, but “disagreeing” in part with the actor, its endorsement of the rally is an endorsement of Ramsey Clark and his organization.  Kristinn Taylor, an organizer with, was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle asking an appropriate question: “If the Klu Klux Klan led an anti-war demonstration, would you march in it?”

But maybe the more appropriate question would be: If Saddam Hussein organized a human rights conference, would partake?  Ramsey Clark did.  In 1998.  As the keynote speaker.  In his speech, he identified the real human rights abusers as the United States, not the man who, by almost anyone’s account, had already slaughtered at least hundreds of thousands of his own citizens.

As the 1998 conference indicates, Clark has done so much more than just serve as defense counsel for war criminals.  He supports them.  He sympathizes with them.  He cheers them on.  He probably even loves them.

Long before defending Milosevic before the war crimes tribunal, he was the despot’s chief cheerleader.  As NATO was attempting to bomb Milosevic into submission, Clark flew to Belgrade, picked up an honorary degree, and delivered the following message: “It will be a great struggle, but a glorious victory. You can be victorious.”

Milosevic wasn’t Clark’s only ethnic cleanser client, either.  He has defended several Nazi war criminals, but once again went much beyond providing legal counsel.  Clark argued, for example, that when it comes to Nazi war criminals, bygones should be bygones: “I oppose the idea of regenerating hatreds and pursuits 40 years after the fact.”

But Clark went even further than arguing against justice for Nazis.  After Linnas was deported to the Soviet Union in April 1987, he fell ill.  At his deathbed was Ramsey Clark, who flew to Leningrad just to be with him.

While at least pretended to kinda, sorta hold its nose in endorsing the rally, its stated reason for doing so—“Peace Mom” Cindy Sheehan—almost certainly did not.  Despite being enthusiastically championed by elected Democrats and leading, mainstream leftists, Sheehan’s views seem to be right in line with Clark’s.

The “peace mom” has insisted the so-called “neocons” (Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc.) are “murderous thugs....gangsters who lust after fortunes and power.”  And in a world that still contains Kim Jong Il, the Iranian mullahs, and Osama bin Laden, Sheehan claims, “The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”

That last line—which she did not deliver at the rally (she has handlers now who pooh-pooh such pronouncements)—likely would have been met with thunderous applause.  No doubt that some in attendance believe that 9/11 was perpetrated not by Muslims, but by the United States, or possibly Israel.  Or maybe both.

Clearly visible in the photo of the event run by the Times’ print edition was a sign that reads, “STOP the 9-11 COVER-UP.”  It is a popular placard, and it is distributed by the 9/11 Truth Commission.  It’s the slogan of those who believe that 9/11 was a Jewish/Israeli/United States conspiracy.

The 9/11 Truth Commission, to be fair, doesn’t explicitly come out and blame 9/11 on Israel or the Jews.  It does, however, point the finger squarely at the White House.  Its second-most popular sign reads, “THE BUSH REGIME ENGINEERED 9-11.”  Some who carry that sign, though, surely believe that Bush carried out 9/11 in cahoots with the Jews.

Could it be, in fact, that that is the “range of issues” with which “disagrees”: whether 9/11 was masterminded only by Bush, or with the help of the Jews?