Look the link was to Olberman.
Why isn't it about Olberman if that is the topic.

Now, what so upsetting with comparing Saddam with Hilter?

They obviously are different. Hitler was someone who actually knew something about conducting a war- he was successful at numerous military operation and he had talented people working for him. He had people who were loyal to him, not because they feared him, so much as they agreed with him and thought highly of him. Hitler trusted people. Saddam didn't trust anyone. He wanted everyone to fear him. He wanted his children to be cruel and to terrorize other people. Saddam would have thought it would admirable if one of his children killed him- though of course he would do things to try to stop this from happening including murdering them.
Generally, it hard to compare Saddam to any other leader, because it's rare that such twisted person could get to position of running a nation. Stalin is somewhat similar- in that Stalin used terror as main way to control people. Saddam was a not very bright thug and therfore badly governed [I don't even know if he made any real effort to govern] that he ran the country into a series of disasters.

Saddam is the answer to the eternal question, "How could it possibly get worse?"

Saddam took over a country which was dysfunctional and highly corrupt, he transformed the country basically into a prison- a prison that "worked" because of it's income from oil. Fortunately for the Iraqis in the general population, the prison wasn't run very well and as long as they kept their heads down, and paid the necessary bribes they could more or less go about their business. Meanwhile the thug chief warden of the prison had dreams of expanding his prison with military power. And here we have the similarity to Stalin/Hilter- and in general the Soviets were having some influence on Iraq [though Saddam did murder a bunch of "Soviet spies" because saw them as possible direct threat to his power].
And then along comes the Iran-Iraq war. A war by two nations that really had no idea of how to conduct a war. Saddam had no experience at war and didn't trust anyone who did have any understanding and Iranians got rid of the military officers which were American trained because they were seen as threat to the regime.

Anyhow. Other than perhaps insulting Hilter. And the lack of Jews in Iraq for Saddam to mass murder [you could if you like substitute the Kurds and some degree the Shia] . What is so troubling about comparing Hilter and Saddam?