The Press Conference

-Yes, the gentleman in the back..
-cronopio from, Mr Secretary. I have a number of questions.

  1. Why is Iraq's threat of weapons of mass destruction greater or more urgent than, say, two years ago?
  2. How would attacking a nation prevent terrorism by individuals or political groups?
  3. Why attack Iraq if most Al Qaeda members are from Saudi Arabia?
  4. During the cold war, both sides having WMDs supposedly prevented either side from using them (the so-called deterrence argument). Why isn't this true here? That is, if Hussein has WMDs, wouldn't he be insane to use them unless under attack?
  5. Speaking of which, wouldn't an unwinnable war be the one thing that would make him use them?
  6. Why attack an enemy country you suspect of having WMDs, while leaving alone another that admits to having them (North Korea)?
  7. What is the main argument against continuing weapons inspections?
  8. Why doesn't a team of specially trained assassins take Hussein out? Wouldn't that be cheaper, less bloody and equally effective as all-out war?
  9. Mr Secretary, you compared Hussein to "a man running down the street holding a gun, who's already shot people". Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "a man who shot people ten years ago, went to jail for it, is now sitting at home and we think owns a gun"?
  10. You spoke of eighteen mobile medical labs in trucks driving around Iraq, claiming they are extremely hard to find. But if that's true, how did you find them in the first place, and why didn't you tell the weapons inspectors at the time?

Posted by cronopio at 01:32 AM, February 06, 2003