I could recount Saddam's history of deception and concealment over the past decade, but it would probably be like talking to a wall.

The truth is, like the paranoid parent who believes without proof his son is smoking dope, so too did we believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction without proof.

A different level of evidence of innocence would be required if my son had smoked dope extensively in the past, grown it in the backyard, had a history of hiding it around the house, and had been regularly selling it at the high school.

I recommend against your trying to work with analogies. I'm beginning to suspect based on past examples that you and some others have difficulty dealing with the level of abstraction involved.