I've seen Ramsay Clark fending questions at hostile meetings, and I'm with Cern. In my view Clark was impressive, and his critics seemed to have little in the way of facts to hit him with.
Or don't bother. In much the same way a scientist's doesn't bother to argue with the guy who created the perpetual motion machine.
Which is unfair because some of his facts are real and quite legitimate, as are some of his charges (which are often ignored) and should be investigated. I just distrust his motives and find that he has a habit of adding 2 plus 2 and getting a kitchen sink. That tends to prejudice his case, allows his valid charges and facts to be dismissed with his less documented and less well reasoned accusations. This further's the cause of peace how?
On to PART DEUX
This thread is getting too long to load. Please continue this discussion in PART DEUX. Thanks.