1) I gave you a quote back to one of your more over-the-top analogies- how is that not specific? Can you be more specific about how its not specific? :-)

2) As I have stated here before- Argument by analogy is the weakest form of argument because everything is like everything else in some sense. and because

3) Its a 'case by proxy', in which you don't actually talk about the merits of your own case, instead you end up talking about the merits of some metaphorical construct that is supposed to be like this case.

4) Lastly, argument by analogy is this quasi-red-herring you often run to when you have no facts to counter the data given you. I say its like a red herring because you always costruct these really hyperbolic and emotionally charged analogical scenarios: The neighbor next door raping boys and killing them, and burying them in his yard in plain view of yourself... I have a gun to my head etc. I say you do it when you have no real argument bucause as per above, with the quotes from the administration you are maintaining that, somehow, in some faery magic land, they don't constitute falsehoods or at least incompetence rising to deriliction and malpractice. You are maintianing this without bringing any evidence to the table of the imminent threat (quoth the Rumsfeld) that Iraq posed to the us or the region.

So yes, you should NOT be lecturing others on their use of analogy in argument. You abuse it like Bush abuses the english language.

If you want any more specificity, I'd have to enroll you at a Jr. College. Might do you some good ;-)

Davin L.