A few weeks ago, Neo-neocon asked, “Who is killing Saddam’s defense lawyers?” She says:
Things that pique my interest are things that don’t make sense at first, that cause me to wonder what’s going on because something doesn’t quite jibe. One of those things is that two of Saddam’s defense lawyers have now been murdered.
Why doesn’t that make sense? After all, aren’t there enough people in Iraq who are angry at Saddam, angry enough to kill anyone who might want to defend him? Naturally, of course, no question–and it may indeed be just as simple as that.
But I doubt it. It somehow doesn’t have the right modus operandi–the fingerprints, as it were, of the opposition to Saddam: Shi’ite clerics calling for forbearance when their own people are bombed, anti-Saddamites supporting the ascendance of the rule of law. Instead, it bears more resemblance to what we’ve seen in the past from Saddam supporters.
I didn’t comment at the time because I couldn’t make a reasonable guess: too many suspects with the same MO. Since innocent civilians, women, children and old people weren’t deliberately targeted, it wasn’t al Qaeda; Ba’athists and al Sadr’s milita specialized in this kind of assasination, but what kind of creep would be motivated by some cheap mixture of supremacism, honor and shame, who would care about the fate of Saddam’s regime?
Iraq has plenty of mooks like that. So does the American anti-war Left. So, we have to ask, cui bono?
The best guess is former US attorney General Ramsey Clark, who has just arrived in Baghdad to assist in Saddam’s defense. This defender of Slobodan Milosevic and the Rwandan genocidaires would go to great lengths to support the totalitarianism that is so dear to his “heart.”
According to Clark, he’s defending Saddam “out of principle.” Note that the previous assasinations don’t worry him. Wonder why.