NYT John Burns On Saddam's Victims: Ramsey Clark Unavailable For Comment

Probably the best reporter for the New York Times will never get a Pulitzer, for John Burns has foresaken the "Informed Comment" type second-guessing of US military and political policies in Iraq to pursue a much more relevant story, the banality of evil and how fecklessness in Washington back in 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush led to a hecatomb of Shi'ite massacres by Saddam Hussein.

Only Bush-bashing of #43 gets you a Pulitzer, as Dana Priest and her NYT counterpart Risen discovered to their subversive glee.

If memory serves me well, after the resounding and rapid reconquest of Kuwait, GHWB faced the decision on whether to destroy Saddam's fleeing armies. The Ayatollah Khomeini piped up with some nonsensical gibberish and the Saudis panicked. The Saudis were afraid that a UN victory would establish a Shi'ite state on its northern border. So GHWB did not listen to Schwartzkopf on the military side, but ceased after Saudi imprecations to chase the Republican Guard.

Then GHWB, always two-minded and willing to waffle, did call on the Shi'ites to revolt and the Shi'ites, never dreaming that GHWB would call for revolt without sending backup, rushed to the barricades, only to be slaughtered by Saddam's airpower. Only later were no-fly zones established to protect the northern and southern border regions of Iraq.

So in one narrow sense, the US is partly to blame for the slaughter of the Shi'ites. But Saddam Hussein slaughtered his way to the top of the Ba'ath Party and the eight-year slaughter of the Iran-Iraq War was Saddam's legacy to the entire region.

Burns give us some perspective on a horrific episode during a long history of atrocities by Saddam Hussein. The sooner that monster hangs, hopefully in public, the better.

No matter what simple-minded dolts like Ramsey Clark have to say about it.