[RawAlex]

I'm sorry, I can't resist this one.

Asking questions that have no bearing, attempting to distract people from the facts of the Bush Presidency by comparing him to a madman is amusing at best, stupid at worst.

The answers are:

1. None. However, how many times did Saddam Hussein attempt in the last 4 years to effect "regime change" in a country on the other side of the world (no, Saddam's name isn't BinLadin, so no link there...)

2. Arlington national Cemetary.

3. Hasn't happened, mostly because the family has helped to get him elected.

4. A couple of scud missles versus alledged stockpiles of WMD ain't quite the same thing. Many countries have scuds, and they ain't getting invaded.

5. See above. Who cares? No bio, no nuclear, no nothing... again, many countries have much more serious weapons and aren't getting invaded (see North Korea)

6. She sells sea shells by the sea shore, the sea sells that she sells are sea shells I'm sure.

7. Why now? Why not 10 years ago? Why not next week? It was a political decision, not a decision about protecting anyone.

8. If someone else owned an apartment building in another city, and someone living there was a trouble maker, how long before you should go and shoot his ass? When you did, how long before you go to jail?

9. The UN operated on unproven reports and Iraqi bragging. They attempted to send inspectors to prove or disprove. They did not go in and shoot Saddam first, then start looking around. Convinced is a strong term, considering that so many were against action in Iraq because there was a lack of evidence.

10. Planting evidence would just turn out worse in the end. WMD was an excuse, and one that so far appears to have been overstated. WMD is a term no longer used by the Bush administration (UN speech used "weapons of mass murder"), which suggests the administration is trying very hard to get away from the term, probably because they can't prove anything, and nobody would buy anything found this far out.

11. A single man, hidden amoungst people who look like him, with his features altered to disguise him is much easier to hide than 8500 liters of a nerve agent (8500 liters is about 2000 gallons US... try hiding that in your backyard). His well hidden sons got vapourized, no? Also, doesn't the FBI have a top 10 most wanted, people that can't even be found IN THE US, where there are hundreds of thousand of police, FBI, CIA, and other agents working every day?

12. 9/11 isn't a justification for war in Iraq. It is an attempt to pull heartstring, to rile people up in rage. 9/11 was about BinLadin, not Saddam... it was about terrorism, not weapons of mass destruction. Mixing two seperate things together like this just adds to the confusion that many americans feel about the actions of their government. Polls suggest that many americans beleive that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, which certainly has not been proven in the slightest. But the administration plays on this to allow them to take actions that would be otherwise harder to justify. Good politics.

13. Hijackings have been used by terror groups for many years. Nothing new here. They also had pipes, ropes, and buildings. They must have been planning to kill skateboarders and extreme sports enthusiasts too.

14. What little I know about spy satellites tells me that if they can tell how tall a building is, or which truck left which facility and drive to which one, that they would also know where tunnels were being dug. More than likely, those tunnels have all been checked and nothing found. personally, I suspect it was used for those tunnels connecting palaces and the airport that was much talked about during the attack.

15. Since it would appear that Iraq was attempting to mislead the UN at every turn, why not have him in charge? The information minister was busy giving press conferences.

16. In fact, those tacts were used to create uncertainty in the world's mind. I suspect that there were little or no WMD in Iraq, but rather an elaborate ruse to keep the world from acting against them. Again, if there was anything there, something would have been found by now (and would have been used by those groups taking potshots at us soldiers now).

17. The Iraqi information minister said that there were no US troops near the capital, as bombs were going off and troops were taking a tour of the city. They are liars and bullshitters to the max. SO WHAT?

18. Probably shortly after the first gulf war, when they got beaten to a pulp. However, the CONCEPT of having them has kept the world from attacking for over 10 years... which is the most likely conclusion at this point, based on all the evidence out there.

19. No active bio labs have been found, no bio materials, no end products, no nothing.

20. What's the point? Defence must be prepared for this, and if that defence drops, then someone will eat shit for it... if anyone survives to bitch about it.

21. N/A - Hillary ain't in charge.

22. Seeing that she works in and lives in two places most likely to be attacked, I suspect she wouldn't get on the air any time soon.

23. She sells sea shells...

It's a funny little list of questions, because it depends on half truths, non-connected actions and events, and personal prejudices to encourage people to come up with answers that they think are the truth. In reality, it is a grand case of fear mongering and political spinning to keep you looking at the magician's flash paper, and not the sleight of hand occuring in front of you.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Using misleading terms (item #9, the "UN was convinced", as an example) and half truths is sad. Sort of like that famous Clinton hit list. It look impressive on the surface, and is BULLSHIT to the core in the end.

Alex.

Oh yeah, pre-emptive little tag line: JR, bite me you wimp.