Or, besides asking Bush and Cheney to see the other side, how about just having Bush and/or Cheney explain their strategy truthfully to the American people and let Congress vote to support or not to support the war for oil? The primary problem here is the Constitution has explicit rules for how to conduct our nation's business and this administration is circumventing them and squashing our Constitutional rights in the process. The "plan," whatever it is, is debatable, if it is out in the open and it is presented and justified and countered with facts. But that has not happened. One has to ask, why not? And then one can jump to many conclusions, none likely too accurate, but most likely convey the gist of the Administration's rationale. Which is, the rationale is shitty and selfish, serves the oil companies and not the American people, so it would likely be turned down in an open debate.
If those who gave this evil birth won't explain themselves honestly and openly, telling us they are somehow doing something that we can all understand is in our best interests as a nation, then the assumption is, it isn't. Making up arguments to justify a situation the Administration has not had the balls or honesty to admit to is, well, being an apologist for the Administration. How does that polyester plaid leisure suit feel, anyway? Jim
Sir, if the wolf takes too great a toll on the sheep, then, is not the breed or character of dog procured in their defense called in to question... more so even than the wolf's intent, which finds use in thinning wild herds to the purpose of greener pastures, and is unrelated to the welfare of sheep?
One can kill wolf after wolf, while the sheep continue to be preyed upon, and the dogs, uninterested in tangeling with wolves, eat more than their share.
It's an imperfect analogy and perhaps unclear.