NY Times mourns their favorite Dictator

The NY Times is falling all over itself in this love letter to Saddam.

This article is replete with the absurd.

Number one: Who cares that Saddam grew up "lonely and impoverished"? It is irrelevant. Does that excuse the hundreds of thousands he killed? Does it make him less culpable for the deaths of men, women, and children?

Many people grow up miserable and poor and never harm anyone.

The Times was apparently appalled by the executions "unruly, mocking atmosphere ." Why does this matter at all? The seem to think that Saddam deserved to die with more dignity. Saddam received more dignity and due process than all the people in the mass graves he filled.


Here is my favorite part of the entire article:

"The leader of Mr. Hussein's Albu-Nasir tribe, Sheik Ali al-Nida, said that before flying to Baghdad on an American helicopter, he had been so fearful for his safety that he had written a will. Bizarrely, Sheik Nida and others were shown on Iraqi television collecting the coffin from the courtyard in front of Mr. Maliki's office, where it sat unceremoniously in a police pickup."

Good. It is fitting that the Butcher of Baghdad went out in this manner. He died with a whimper and not a bang, hung as the criminal he was.

His death should be unmourned. I am upset that he is even being buried. They should have loaded the body into a Blackhawk, flown it into the deep desert, and dumped it, to be covered by the sands of time.

The world is a better place for his passing. His legacy will be shame, defeat, and eternal damnation.

The NY Times should be ashamed of itself.