Vengence is mine, sayeth Saddam

"It seems clear that a guilty verdict will set off catastrophic violence" and that a death sentence would be even worse.."

So said international dictator-activist Ramsey Clark in regards to the upcoming verdicts in the Saddam Hussein trial. The first verdict was scheduled for October 16th but has been postponed.

Clark is a long time FOS (friend of Saddam). When world leaders such as Arafat, Quadafy and Khatami were sending condolences to Bush after 9/11 the Butcher was publicly lecturing and hectoring America while sending private notes to a few leftist groups and--you guessed it--Ramsey Clark, who visited Baghdad...

"to console us for the calamities afflicted by America on us".

Clark wants the whole circus moved to The Hague, which admittedly looks more attractive now than before. Trying him in an International Court would remove the spectre of a death sentence along with any notion of a speedy trial, another perk. Although the reaction in Iraq might be the same if the Hague found him guilty, it might be somewhat more muted if that verdict comes in say, 2012.

Oddly, some Iraqis are already looking towards their possible future. By itself this should be seen as a positive sign, since self-depricating humor is normally not allowed under dictatorships.

But back to the Butcher. Every decision surrounding him seems to have a terrible downside. Moving the trial after its commencement (and after witnesses have testified) would seriously enflame the Kurds and Shiites, not to mention the political fallout here in America.

For a guy who was 'no threat to the US' he certainly seems to be a source of perpetual threat.

So we're left with the current state of affairs. Saddam's former number two (and now number one henchman) Izzat al-Duri remains on the loose and is likely funding and organizing attacks. Our leaders have no choice but to convince us about who's really destablizing things--i.e.- the Iranians, al-Qaeda, etc, yet the agenda on Secretary Rice's recent unannounced visit to Baghdad was to meet with Sunnis.

It's obviously a harder chore to make the case we should stay in the battle if the battle is a civil war, ergo the focus on influences from Iran and bin Laden, both of whom certainly have much to gain by seeing things unravel. But the main war continues to be Saddam versus the United States, as it has been since 1991. The administration hasn't done a good enough job of telling us why it's important to once and for all eradicate this man regardless of Iran or AQ or anyone else.