Well, think about it. Had Iraq not been invaded then by now I think it would have been apparent that Iraq was not a threat, did not have WMD or in cohoots with Al Quada.

That would have left Bush only one Boogieman. I agree that one of his sons would have taken over and I'm not arguing that much of anything would have changed immediately inside Iraq. But it would perhaps have perhaps satisfied Bush's thirst for blood.

Again, both assasination or invasion was wrong, wrong, wrong...

The question I have posed is not out of order...

Since after all the huff and puff about mushroom clouds, WMD, AlQuada (which have all been disproved) the Bush administration has rewrittne its reason for the invasion; "Well, we got rid of Saddam!" My question is addressed to those apologists and revisionists.

So, I ask them; "Yaeh, if Saddam was yer problem, why not kill just him, rather than tens upon thousands of folks that ain't him?" I'm not advocatin' assasination. Just lookin' at current excuse da' jour....

Bobert