I See London, France, Saddam's….

|

underpants.

Courtesy (?) of Drudge and The Sun.

One question: What's he looking for in his trousers?

One more: How will the Sun retract this if it starts anti-Brit riots?

Update: President Bush and other US officials have condemned publication of the photos and have supposedly already launched an investigation into how the skin shots got away from the military.

The Sun's source, according to Reuters? "The Sun quoted U.S. military sources as saying they had handed over the pictures 'in the hope of dealing a body blow to the resistance in Iraq.'"

NEXT: Murder Ballads

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Someone at the Sun has to have the Photoshop skills necessary to pull this off. I can’t believe that the picture is real.

  2. Looks pretty well-hung. Really puts the ‘dic’ in ‘dictator,’ don’cha think?

  3. LOL Jennifer.

    This is great stuff. WTF is wrong with these people?

    Just imagine how the photo would look if GWB had been captured by Iraqui forces instead.

  4. Just imagine how the photo would look if GWB had been captured by Iraqui forces instead.

    We’d finally discover the true origin of the bulge in the flight suit.

  5. Jennifer,

    I almost made a “well-hung” comment, but I thought it was inappropriate. Thanks for having more courage than me.

    Only a loser dictator would wear tighty whities. I bet they’re soiled on the inside, too.

  6. Well, no one ever accused Saddam of lacking balls.

    PS: I bless the female friend who advised me to ditch the tighty whities for boxers.

  7. Nick: Looks like instead of a retraction, they just pulled the picture from their website.

  8. Hmmm, I would have tagged Saddam with Dean-o-crat boxers.

  9. What’s he looking for in his trousers?

    Maybe he’s doing the old “can I get away with wearing these again without washing them” check.

    I would have thought him a boxer man myself too.

    Seriously though, can we stop taking pictures of naked and near naked arab guys already?

  10. It is amazing that there are those that claim that the release of this photo will fuel more anti-American sentiment, terrorist attacks, bombings, etc. (heard this on the news just now)

    What? They didn’t know we captured Sodom Who’sane?

    Perhaps these are the same folks who applauded the publication of the Abu Grab photos, which likely did precipitate violence and anti-American sentiment.

  11. The headline on Yahoo News was reading “US Will Probe Saddam Underwear Photos.”

  12. Seriously though, can we stop taking pictures of naked and near naked arab guys already?

    Amen. Fortunately, I have the antidote: Old photos of Caroline Munro in The Golden Voyage of Sinbad. (I wonder if this would cause riots also?)

  13. Dave-
    If it were Photoshopped he’d be a lot smaller, I’m sure.

    Smacky-
    It’s easy to be brave on the Internet.

  14. I’m sure the tighty whities were another devilish piece of the US plot to humiliate Saddam. It’s probably all they gave him.

  15. Just imagine how the photo would look if GWB had been captured by Iraqui forces instead.

    As I recall, they went for the decapitated head on an orange jumpsuit look.

  16. Why do they hate us?

  17. They hate our freedom, Ed.

  18. I bless the female friend who advised me to ditch the tighty whities for boxers.

    I’ve never grokked boxers. No placement of things, the dangers of loose contents, you know.

    Just sayin’.

  19. I don’t see how the release of this picture would demoralize the resistance in Iraq. If anything it’s going to piss everybody off including Iraqui Saddam haters. After all he may had been a ruthless, genocidal, dictator but he was their ruthless, genocidal, dictator. And front-paging him in his undies is embarrassing to all Iraquis(as well as the brittish press).
    The US would be better off handing him over to the new Iraqui government so they could quickly try him and publically kill him by firing squad.

  20. Eric the .5b:

    I understand your concerns. To a person used to briefs, the support provided is very comforting. The transition from briefs to boxers can be quite alarming at first. But you get used to it.

    And the motivation is powerful. Apparently all chicks hate briefs.

    As a compromise, some go with those “boxer-brief” things, but they look too much like some kind of girdle to me.

    Libertarian confession: The first time I wore boxers in combination with pleated khaki Dockers, I actually thought: “Whoa! Maybe there is such a thing as ‘too much freedom’!”

  21. And the motivation is powerful. Apparently all chicks hate briefs.

    (sigh) Ok, since we’re doing confessions here….

    I’ll confess (I am about to debunk a general myth about females here, so prepare yourself): I don’t really especially have a preference for boxers vs. briefs either way. I mean, I guess if I had a preference, it would be boxers, but I do not hate tighty whites per se. I only require that if a guy wear tighty whities, that they be said “white” color (i.e. washed daily), and that they are skid-mark free, which to my knowledge is a difficult — albeit impossible — task for your average, unkempt bachelor.

    (I just made that initial comment to be facetious, because tighty whities are usually an easy target to make fun of clothing-wise. I do think boxer briefs are pretty cool, though. They’re like the male version of boyshorts — which I like on females.)

  22. Ba’athist or briefs?
    Sorry.

  23. Thank you, Smacky, for adding some much-needed nuance to the boxer-vs.-briefs discussion and the female viewpoint thereof. 🙂

  24. Boxers, briefs; they a-djust a waist, of cloth.

  25. Doesn’t this particular incident just seem rather silly in light of Tim Golden’s article in today’s Times?

  26. Near as I can tell, 3 women have posted here today including me.

    smacky’s undecided on boxers v. briefs

    I vote for briefs. Boxers seems like trying to hide something.

    Jennifer, what say you?

  27. I vote for briefs. Boxers seems like trying to hide something.

    They’re just more free. Why do you hate our freedom?

  28. All I can say is “Put it back on!”

  29. I almost made a “well-hung” comment, but I thought it was inappropriate. Thanks for having more courage than me.

    I took the title, ‘The Tyrant’s in his pants’ to be a well-hung comment itself. No?

  30. But there is such a thing as a “petty tyrant.”

  31. Linguist-
    The wrapping concerns me far less than the contents of the package. Which is to say, if a guy has a hot enough body I don’t give a damn what kind of underwear he’s got, since I hope they’ll soon be off anyway.

    But definitely clean and skidmark-free. That’s non-negotiable.

  32. What, chicks don’t like it when your skivvies look like a drag strip?

    That explains a lot.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.