The Bushies have been wringing their hands and mocking their critics following the announced arrest of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but soon they will realize that the questions about GWB's policies in Iraq remain unanswered.

Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where is the evidence of Al Qaeda links? Why did the administration work so hard before the invasion to create the impression that the Iraqi government had something to do with 9/11, only to state unequivocally afterwards that there was no connection? Why were no-bid contracts handed out to well-connected companies such as Haliburton, only to have those same companies rip off both Iraqis and the American government? Why does Bush feel he has the right to violate US and international law by invading a sovereign nation that posed no apparent threat to the US? If Bush supports our troops, why has he cut their pay and benifits?

Another recently raised question: If the administration has only the welfare of the Iraqi people in mind, why has Bush excluded France, Germany, and Russia from bidding on reconstruction efforts? These countries have corporations that in many cases may be able to provide services at lower cost to the Iraqi people. Bush claims that he wants to reward those countries who risked the lives of their soldiers, but he is allowing "friendly" countries to bid that sent no troops.

In addition to the above questions -- many of which have rather obvious answers -- the arrest raises one big new question: Will Hussein be tried in a fair and open court where he has the ability to talk about how the US government (including King Bush I, Donald Rumsfeld, and others close to the current administration) supported him for so long and even supplied him with chemical and biological agents? This will definitely be one to watch out for.

It is good that Hussein has been captured alive and will (presumably) stand trial. As one observer noted, "Good can come from bad." However, attempts to use the apprehension of Hussein as a vindication of the war fails. "The ends justify the means" arguments generally do.