|
Posted on 03/02/2005 6:24:25 PM PST by NCjim
Oh, yes, Mr. Arnett. Everything in Iraq would have been blissful under "Good King Uday." If only those terrible Americans hadn't interfered...(Saddam would have gracefully stepped aside as his faithful son seized power and commenced a thousand year reign of peace and happiness. Yeah, right.)
Good boys, indeed. Just merely misunderstood...
I wonder if Petah still believes the war plan in Iraq has failed? Anybody at Playboy ask him?
Uday was a monster of cruelty and brutality that was not even rivaled by his father. Thank goodness he is dead.
Uday overthrowing Saddam would have been much like Kim Jong-il overthrowing his father - it would have been trading one dictator for another far worse.
I am personally glad that the situation was handled in the manner which it was.
|
Well seem like the general sentiment is that this is bullshit. But I will pose a question and provide the answer.
Q. What do you get when you put a kid in a man's pants?
A. Baggy pants.
What's even better is that he had turned people who were supposed to be loyal to Saddam. I hope someone gives a copy of this article, along with an Arabic translation, to Saddam in his cell. We're likely to get all kinds of information.
Who cares?
"I hope someone gives a copy of this article, along with an Arabic translation, to Saddam in his cell."
I read somewhere that Saddam speaks English - at least for now. He will probably lose that ability shortly.
Gee, if we'd just waited we could have had that awful Saddam thrown out and a new, benevolent government led by the guy who had a woman coated with honey and fed to starving dogs. Quite an improvement.
Saddam groomed them from the time they were boys in the fine arts of torture and sadism and worse. Thank God we never had to see the exponential increase in terror that the rise of power of one of them would have brought to the area. Good thing Pres Bush had the ba!!s to step up.
Arnett? I thought he was fired by MSNBC for INSISTING the coalition effort had failed, even as the bombs were falling on Baghdad. Did CNN pick him up after that?
He was...unless CNN hired him afterward and fired him for the same reason (unlikely, given that Jordan was in bed with Saddam)
Me too. I actually went back to the first paragraph to see if I missed where it said WHICH "US cable news network". The significance of the caps only filtered in after about 30 seconds.
Now there is a creditable source. Did he tell him that over a glass of baby milk?
I would believe it until Baghdad Bob confirms it.
That doesn't mean we wanted an Uday regime. He can stay dead as far as I'm concerned.
The guy ordering dissidents sent feet first into the plastic shredders and ordering the Kurds bombed with chemical weapons would have had a different name....and probably even MORE WMD.
They were of the highest caliber.
"Though it has not been reported until now, Uday Hussein was the biggest proponent of regime change inside Iraq," Arnett wrote
Right Peter. Replacing Hussein with the Beast would have been just peachy. Oh, if only we'd done that instead...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
This is great! Saddam's own son was gonna stab him in the back. It's hard to know which of these three creeps was the lowest form of life.