Not a logical fallacy, but an FR technique: "scurrying".
I am not arguing that Iraq has nothing (much less that they never had anything) in terms of WMDs. What I am arguing is that the preponderance of the evidence now strongly suggests that anything they may have was absurdly trivial compared to what they were alleged to have.
Wow. Let's see . . . False Dilemma, From Ignorance, Straw Man
I believe I've accurately described the prewar public characterization of Iraq's WMD capability.
Untestability.
Others may decide for themselves whether what's eventually shown to be present remotely approaches what had been alleged prior to the war.
First: Your memory might be faulty. What you "recall" is mostly the Anti-Bush forces' representation of the prewar characterization. Second: the quantity of Saddam's WMD's is the biggest Straw Man in the logical fallacy cornfield. It only takes one. Saddam was supposed to have zero. None. Zilch. Nada. UN resolutions said so. The game was over when the mobile bio weapons lab was found.
It would be like searching a meth lab, finding tons of drug processing equipment but no meth. (I'm sure that's a false analogy, too, but it's the best option I have to making my point. I'm unable to speak . . . slowly . . . and . . . carefully . . . with single syllable words so you can understand.) The search wasn't a failure. The reason we're so concerned we haven't found the germs and chemicals is that they might have gone across the western border.
No, it's recognition of an effort in futility. I find rhetorical word games & debate over semantics tiresome. Moreover, I don't really care whether I persuade you or not. Since my statements are clear & unequivocal, your persuasion is really all we would be arguing about at this point and I'm simply not interested. Sorry.
If you wish to advance an unambiguous argument, then I will resume the debate on its merits. If you want to play at rhetorical jousting, I decline to participate. Have a nice day.
am not arguing that Iraq has nothing (much less that they never had anything) in terms of WMDs. What I am arguing is that the preponderance of the evidence now strongly suggests that anything they may have was absurdly trivial compared to what they were alleged to have.
Wow. Let's see . . . False Dilemma, From Ignorance, Straw Man
It is none of these things. If you wish to level the accusation, then demonstrate its veracity (as I did with your False Analogy earlier). Explain how that statement is a False Dilemma, Argument from Ignorance, or Straw Man.
I believe I've accurately described the prewar public characterization of Iraq's WMD capability.
Untestability.
That statement is by no stretch of the imagination untestable. One need merely review statements by administration figures and subsequent media accounts. I would initiate the 'test' here:
Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs CIA Report
2003 State Of The Union Address
Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council
Others may decide for themselves whether what's eventually shown to be present remotely approaches what had been alleged prior to the war.
First: Your memory might be faulty.
My memory is not faulty - I remember quite distinctly the allegations and the perceptions which were advanced prior the war. Whatever the case may be, others should feel free to decide the above on the basis of their own memory. My memory is of no consequence. In their own minds, they know of what I speak..
What you "recall" is mostly the Anti-Bush forces' representation of the prewar characterization.
What I recall - as demonstrated - is based in great part on those sources linked above. I would not characterize any of those as "mostly Anti-Bush forces" by any stretch..
Second: the quantity of Saddam's WMD's is the biggest Straw Man in the logical fallacy cornfield. It only takes one. Saddam was supposed to have zero. None. Zilch.UN resolutions said so.
I never stated otherwise. Whatever assumption to the contrary exists nowhere but in your own fevered imagination.
The game was over when the mobile bio weapons lab was found.
I commented on these in another thread. This was my remark:
In my personal assessment (with severely limited information), the two truck-mounted processing units were used for a clandestine biological program at some point or another. In my observation and extrapolation (seeing them on TV and reading publicly disclosed analysis) they were abandoned quite some while ago. I have little doubt that they will be used to bolster the WMD reports, in any event, which Blair stated will be released at some future time.
It would be like searching a meth lab, finding tons of drug processing equipment but no meth...
Indeed, it would. None of my statements were meant to indicate otherwise, as that post from a tangential thread should demonstrate. Any assumption to the contrary exists nowhere except in your own fevered imagination.
The search wasn't a failure. The reason we're so concerned we haven't found the germs and chemicals is that they might have gone across the western border.
Nah. That's BS. The reason the administration is so concerned is because they wish to establish the veracity of the intelligence and the credibility of the war effort. This above may be the reason you're concerned, but that's all it is..