John Burns is the New York Times bureau chief in Baghdad. He was the most enthusiastic cheerleader of the war, and went to the George H.W. Bush library in Texas to praise Bush's war, and got teary eyed even. Here, he provides an after-the-fact, hedge-your-bet defense or pretext for US behavior. Now, after the execution--like every other element of US policy--when the US realized that it did yet another foolish thing, it wants to distance itself from what happened, only after seeing the reactions in the region. Look at Burns: "Iraqi and American officials who have discussed the intrigue and confusion that preceded the decision late on Friday to rush Mr. Hussein to the gallows have said that it was the Americans who questioned the political wisdom — and justice — of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts that might have assured Mr. Hussein a more dignified passage to his end." So the American officials told Burns that American officials questioned the wisdom? So according to Burns the US did not have the power to stop the execution because they have utmost respect for the "sovereignty" and "independence" of Iraq. OK, Mr. Burns. That makes total sense. I am not at liberty--not yet anyway--to discuss how the New York Times fortress in Baghdad is run and managed.