Keith Devens .com

Um, you're aware that the "Drinking Game" was written by someone who went to the DC rally. I'm still of two minds on the war, and think belitting either side is a non-starter. I was just as annoyed when people disrupted Wolfowitz's speech to the Commonwealth Club last month because I wanted to hear his case for war.

I think I figured it was by someone who went to the rally. I just thought it was funny, the "blood for oil" part especially. It seems like an accurate description of what these people say enough that you can base a drinking game off of it.

The best cases I've heard for war, by the way, were given in in Dick Cheney's and Tom DeLay's speeches from the fall.

The argument goes something like this:

• He's an evil dictator who murders his own people
• He's shown that he wants to obtain WoMD, and that he has flouted all attempts to get him to disarm (and the inspections have always been and continue to be a sham).
• The threat that he would aid terrorists in attacking our country is too great
• The threat of him developing nuclear weapons is too great
• Usual "attack only in retaliation" arguments don't apply in a case such as this because (I like how Bush put it) that the smoking gun may result in a mushroom cloud.

Basically, the only argument that I can see making against the war is against it's "justness" - that we should only attack in retaliation. But I'm not convinced by it. All the "blood for oil" rhetoric (I think I've blocked out what Jesse Jackson said at the rallies the other day, or I'd cite that too), doesn't make me sympathetic to the anti-war croud either: they should have better arguments.

By the way, Clinton/Bush's speech from 1998/2002 I think is also worth a read.