The Times is acting bipolar....first they complain that we didn't give the Iraqis authority quickly enough. Then we allow them to try, and convict this monster in their own court, which is as it should be. And the Times complains that we allowed them to operate by their own rules. Is it any wonder that his lawyers appealed to the American court system for a stay? I wonder if the Times would have been in favor of an American judge delaying the execution.

Not to come in defense of the MSM, but on various media in the 1990s the President was sometimes referred to as "Mr. Clinton".  Now, as to the frequency of usage or either "Mr. Bush" or "Mr. Clinton"...well, that's another story.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

How's about "The Duchy of Grand Fenwick"! Consider - nyt in la la land, Grand Fenwick is right up their alley.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad

Hey, Tumbler - WTF?? Over.

"But in fact he had the same grace in the last moments we all will be given."

Don't you ever get tired, AKA Dennis Miller, of saying 'But'?  Count the number of times during the day you say that word or write it.

Why is it Liberals always have to say, "But"?

Your post was just fine until you said, "But".

You do understand that the word, "But" means that everything you have just said/written before that word is a throw away.  Everything you have typed is useless BS if you then use the word, "But".

You might as well say,

"Having said that...", which is what the MSM idiots always say.

For example, a media anchor might have said (and some did).

"President Reagan was obviously loved by (a hell of a lot more than I would have thought - is the thought) many people who are demonstrating an (unbelievable, large, humongous, big number) outpouring of grief at his funeral.

"Having said that...  ((("BUT" ALERT)))

"Reagan was villIfied during his Presidency as an idiot actor who followed a script, never had an original idea of his own, destroyed government by lowering taxes, hated Gay people because he never talked about them, loved the idea of AIDS because he never talked about it, scared the bejesus out of the world with his brinkmanship with the USSR and in general was the worst President we have ever had because he wasn't a Democrat (psst.  Do not look at the man behind the Curtain - Jimmy Carter when thinking worst President)."

Then you just balther on and say real nice things should happen as you hope to Mr. Hussein.

...

Acaiguana says:  "Which city is next?"

Noel:

I will provide a short answer, which unfortunately is all I have time for tonight. 

Trudy Rubin, an incredibly prescient, intelligent and cogent analyst for The Philadelphia Inquirer has written recently that the decay of international coverage on the part of major city newspapers has lessened our public’s knowledge of overseas affairs.  If only the Associated Press has journalists in Iraq, then we are reading only one voice.  Her point in this one column was, I think, that the more journalists we have covering the international story, the more we all know.  She advocated to her readership to let the Inquirer know that international and national coverage is important to the hometown reader.  I agree.  I for one love reading in-depth analysis in newspapers, particularly from different viewpoints.  I t gives me PERSPECTIVE. 

I am taking this side angle approach to your argument because I think the New York Times’ article in question added a new perspective to the Iraq situation that I have not read before.  It was also written by two NYT correspondents, who, unfortunately, you failed to acknowledge in your analysis.  I suggest that you celebrate these writers who add perspective to the news, whether you perceive a bias in their writing, or not.  Consider this; without many perspectives, what would you have to write about?

Many times on your site, I have read comments from people wishing the demise of the free press.  Why?  It is expensive to cover Afganistan and Iraq.  Should we turn the coverage over to bloggers and opinion writers?

Regards, Dave High

The more I read and listen about this so called "rush" to hang the Butcher of Baghdad I have a few observations:

1) Islamic law and punishment is not like our "brand" of capital punishment.  Saddam had his 1 appeal and was afforded a fair trial under Islamic traditions and the Iraqi constitution.  So just because his appeal didn't work for Saddam, why wait for the inevidable.  I applaud the actions to carry out the justice waiting for the Iraqi's. 

2) The "Old Gray Lady" understands that Saddams execution means more to Iraqi's and the war.  They just don't want to say it because it helps..pssst..the President.  As with all dictators their deaths can only mean good things.

3) I wonder if the NYT interviewed any families that Saddam ordered executions for their brothers, fathers, grandfathers and uncles?  Something tells me no. 

4) With NBC joining this sob story for Saddam, I feel the main stream media is just trying to fashion pubic opinion into what the NYT and NBC want pubic opinion to be. 

Just simple observations. 

Here's Master Sgt. Robert Ellis - pic and a STLt article - different than ABC's take.

Yes, ABC loaded it on, kissing Saddam's behind.

STLt is not far behind, and may have done a better job of slamming all but Saddam.

I didn't read the whole thing, but it seems they've managed to keep the race card out of it.

Expect funeral attendance comparisons. Matthews or one of them will at the very least make a snide joke that more people attended and mourned Saddam than did President Ford. Guaranteed.