First, maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt Clark would ever defend an American or Israeli official brought to trial for war crimes.

Secondly, the statements he has made in Saddam's defense are egregrious. He's not just trying to dispute the process or cast doubt on the connection between Saddam and the massacre in question. Rather, he has tried to justify it by saying that the action was understandable in light of the assassination attempt on him. He used a similar tack with Milosevic.

The guy is an apologist for mass murderers, and only anti-American mass murderers. I'm not mad at him for being on Saddam's defense team, or Milosevic's. Everyone brought to trial deserves a defense. But Clark's support for genocidal tyrants has never been limited to trial situations.