Now you are reachng for the obsurd. Certainly you can identify a difference between Iraq and France. Can you? I'm certain everyone else here on this thread can. Please, in honest debate, tell us if you can identify a difference between pre war Iraq and France that would tell you why we would not attack France.
You know, there are credible arguments that can be made why we should not have gone into Iraq. It seem, however, that those arguments do not lend themselves to an attack on Bush, thus you have no use for them. Please, tell me, is there some other explanation for the obsurdity of the statement you made above.
Did I misunderstand your comment?
My comparison to France was sarcasm, of course. I find that extending an argument to its absurd limits helps to show the absurdity of the original argument.
This is why, when discussing Patriot 1 and 2 and Homeland Security, I remind people that these government powers will not always be used by Bush and company whom you trust. They will be in place for all future presidents which just might include Hillary. That scary and absurd, but possible, future, is intended to make you'all think about how evil these laws are. Hillary could use those laws and powers to round up members of the VRWC. Libertarians and conservatives will share the re-education camps in that future.