[Dutch Boy]

Great analogy.

[facedown]

Lokisfur says: if a man with a gun is pointing it at a cop and he refuses to drop the gun after oh say 14 UN resolutions...and the cop shoots him...and then the cop finds out that the gun was not loaded...does that mean the cop was a liar about the threat. Of course not. As John McCain said...the choice in Iraq wasn't between war and peace it was a choice between war and a much graver threat.

The US , Bill Clinton, John Kerry, the entire congress Dem and Republican, Great Britain, Israel and Russia ALL believed that Saddaam were devloping WMD's and had stores of WMD's. That was the information that Bush had and he had no reason at the time to believe it was not true....his main job is to protect this nation...and in a post 9/11 world when Saddaam broke the final resolution, Bush did not have the luxury of allowing him to continue to defy and ignore the orders of the world anymore. Had

Bush allowed Saddam to thumb his nose at yet another resolution, it would have just made the US and the rest of the world look weak and empower the terrorist groups even more.

[doodad]

And the other part of the analogy is that shell casings and loading equipment, along with a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook are found in the den.

[gooleyman]

This would be a good analogy for Dubya to use in the upcoming debates. They'll have to come up with all the possible comebacks so it won't backfire and give sKerry a "you're no Jack Kennedy" type line which the Media used to beat Quail over the head for the rest of the campaign.

Someone already mentioned the "he wasn't pointing the gun" BS, but sKerry himself said he was pointing the gun back then. That might be a good segue into the flip-flop charge.

I know it wouldn't be Presedential, but can you imagine with everything that sKerry says on the stage, if Dubya was on the stage waving his hands back and forth like the Delegates at the Convention and saying "FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP..."

[supercat]

If a man who is convicted of producing methamphetimines gets paroled on condition that he take police to his labs and prove that he's shutting them down, and the fails to do so, should he keep his parole? Suppose this person doesn't take the police to the labs but do let them search most of his property, provided he had at least one of his friends accompanying every police officer who is searching. Should that be considered acceptable? Suppose further that some of the cops who are documentably on the take think it's okay. Should the chief go along with that?

When the U.S. offered Saddam a cease-fire, we were offering him parole subject to certain conditions. Is it not reasonable for us to demand taht such conditions actually be met?