[JesseJane]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Topple *DAD*.. I thought I read *dead*.

[Dog Gone]

I don't believe a word of it coming from Peter Arnett, but I think we ought to give a copy of that Playboy article to Saddam just for fun.

[bikepacker67]

They were such good boys ;-)

[ThreePuttinDude]

I have a feeling we are going to be reading
a lot of these type of stories from now on.

[68skylark]

The controversial reporter, who was fired by the US Cable News Network in 2003 after suggesting the US war plan in Iraq had failed...

I thought he was fired by NBC, not CNN.

[Boundless]

> "Though it has not been reported until now, Uday
> Hussein was the biggest proponent of regime change
> inside Iraq," Arnett wrote.

Even if true (and coming from Arnett, it causes my
RatherMeter to swing negative), it hardly matters,
as Uday would have been at least as nasty as dad,
and equally interested in preserving, then expanding,
his power.

It will nonetheless be interesting to watch the legacy
media spin this bit of Arnett fantasizing.

[ops33]

And even if he did what difference would it have made?

[ErnBatavia]

Peter Arnett claimed in Playboy magazine.

I guess Hef offered him the services of a 'playmate' for the revelation...promised to get him his beeber stuned, or something like that.

(Combover guys need that....)

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Dear Pet-ah:

What the hell's the difference? One psycho for another.

[LauraleeBraswell]

I don't believe this at all. It sounds like Leftist crap, so now basically the new argument from the leftists cac be "Democracy was going to happen anyway, the USA is wrong, the Iraq War was for nothing."

As for Uday, I could be wrong but I think he was a serial rapist. Hardly pious.

Lets not forget why we went to Iraq, it was because Iraq posed a serious threat to us. And the rest of the Free World, that's why other nations went in with us. Except for France and Germany, And that's because Saddam and Chirac were in bed together with Germany, so of course they had a problem with it. Toppling Saddam blew their spot.

[Tallguy]

C'mon Mr. Arnet! Everything that has ever been written about Uday indicates that he would have been far worse than Saddam. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the late Uday? Am I suppose to think that the invasion wasn't necessary to get rid of Saddam? Only liberals have memories that short.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Peter Arnett has a lot of credibility! Not!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

["Though it has not been reported until now, Uday Hussein was the biggest proponent of regime change inside Iraq," Arnett wrote.]

ROFL!

What bovine stupidity.

[popdonnelly]

Since Peter Arnett is the only person telling us this news, I really don't believe it.

[wai-ming]

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.)

[Publius6961]

I wonder if Petah still believes the war plan in Iraq has failed? Anybody at Playboy ask him?

[MWS]

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.

[Nick Danger]

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.

[Marine_Uncle]

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.

[Republican Wildcat]

Who cares?