Reply #16: My answers to the same questions on another forum

[ET Awful]

1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.

Question is irrelevant, as no one has ever made such a statement. We have stated that Bush lied to the nation and the world about reasons to go to war, this question has no basis in any argument we have made here or elsewhere.

2. Could you list any sites of mass graves of American citizens ordered to be killed by the Bush administration?

See answer to question 1 (but also note that the largest mass graves exist in southern Iraq where Bush's father encouraged the Shiite muslims to rebel, then abandoned them after promising support).

3. Further, could you please list the instances you are aware of when George W. Bush has ordered the murder of members of his own family.

Once again, see answer to number 1. Since this war was promoted as a war to disarm Saddam, this question is irrelevant.

4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?

No Scud missiles were fired. This is a falsehood. If you have evidence of such, please provide it. The missiles that were fired were found to NOT be scud missiles and were fired from near the Kuwait border. This is an invalid question.

5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?

See answer to number 4

6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?

The are inspectors, considering that their inspections found NOTHING (much like the insepections now being concluded have found nothing).

7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?

This question is not up to your nor I to decide, nor is it up to the US, the resolutions are UN resolutions, it is up to the UN to decide how best to enforce them. If you are going to use the UN as justification, you must base every action related to that justification on UN backing. Otherwise you cannot use it as justification.

8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you to kick him out for not paying the rent he owes?

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration?

Obviously they were not thoroughly convinced, as the UN simpley requested further inspections. You are skewing facts.

10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?

Well, we haven't found ANY WEAPONS. The point behind this question is both ridiculously illogical and meaningless.

11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam?

Yet another question that has no basis in anything that has ever been stated or argued here. If you are going to present a question, present one that makes sense. Firstly, the two have no connection, secondly, no one has insinuated that planting is taking place. In fact, we have stated all along that no weapons exist, if you have found some we don't know about, please let us know.

12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"?

Yet another question that has no basis in anything remotely resembling reality. Firstly, we are discussing Iraq, who had no link to 9/11, secondly, boxcutters is only a theory, recall that the reports actually listed everything from guns to bombs to pocket knives to box cutters. Thirdly, I would say the primary weapon on 9/11 was a jetliner. This question has no relavence to Iraq whatsoever though, so it is not worthy of further discussion.

13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?

Hmmm, considering we have fuselages for training ourselves in various locations, why don't you tell me. Once again, there is no link between Saddam and 9/11 (Bush himself has stated this, so it must be true, at least according to republicans).

14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago?

LOl . . . if you are going to ask questions like this, you best provide some backup for your outrageous claims. This sounds like tinfoil hat material to me.

15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?

Please once again provide proof for your statements. Secondly, if you had outside inspectors investigating sites in the US you bet your sweet ass you'd have people monitoring the monitors. This is simple common sense.

16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying?

Bush has lied on numerous occasions. He said we'd already found weapons of mass destruction, this was a lie. He said that trailers found in Iraq were mobile weapons labs, this is a lie. He said that the aluminum tubes could only be used in a centrifuge, this was a lie. He said Iraq was attempting to by nuclear materials from Niger, this was a lie. If Bush's case is so strong, why did he tell so many documented lies?

17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?

Why were pages removed from the most recent declaration from Iraq by the US before the report was presented to the uN? Please provide the report you refer to. Also, while you are answering this, please provide information as to where Iraq obtained this anthrax in the first place.

18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens?

Most sources indicate that the programs ended in 1991. This would include people that spent much more time in Iraq than you (which would mean anyone that's ever been there). People such as Hans Blix, Muhammed Al Baride (sp?), Scott Ritter, all have many days on the ground in Iraq, if not longer, and are much more qualified than you to discuss what is found there. They all believe that the programs were ended some time ago.

19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks?

As has been discussed ad nauseum before, these trucks were not labs, if the author of this list had any valid information at all he would know that UK experts determined long ago that these were trailers sold to Iraq by the UK in the 80's which are designed to fill weather balloons.

20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough?

Well, considering that as anyone who has any knoweldge of biological warfare can tell you, this would not be an effective means of dissipating anthrax this question is highly suspect. I would most likely first blame his father for authorizing the sale of anthrax to known hostile nations in the first place. Then I would blame the perpetrators of the crime. I, unlike you, would not blame Bush, unless (as on 9/11) he had received intelligence reports at least a month prior telling him who was going to attack and what methods they would use.

21. Would Hillary?

Who gives a fuck about Hillary?

22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN?

Who knows, but you can bet your ass she wouldn't be sitting for a photo-op reading a book about goats to little kids while the nation was under attack.

23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out?

If a tree falls in the forest and it falls on a republican who has their reality blinders on does anyone care?

Bonus Question: Do you think O.J. killed Ron and Nicole, or was he the victim of a massive conspiracy to plant evidence by many separate divisions of the LAPD?

Yes, I think he did it. But, as has been proven time and time again, the wealthy and influencial in this country can and do get away with murder.