Go check out my post #207. There you will see four books listed -- two making the case that "Roosevelt knew," the other two making the case that "FDR didn't know." As I said there: the case for "Roosevelt knew" seems to me the stronger one.
One reason the "FDR knew" case seems stronger is because those guys actually make a case. Like good prosecutors, they present their evidence and then "connect the dots" in a consistent, credible narrative.
On the other hand, those who argue "Roosevelt didn't know" actually make no case at all. Instead, they do just what you did -- they cherry pick a few minor points here and there that they think can be reinterpreted, and then declare the entire argument invalid.
Of course, neither argument is a "slam dunk" -- if it were, there would have been no debate these past 68 years. And the fact remains, whatever other evidence has been uncovered through Congressional investigations and Freedom of Information actions, no document has been uncovered proving that Franklin Roosevelt was personally informed of an attack on Hawaii before December 7, 1941.
So people can still legitimately chose what they wish to believe.
However, there are still huge volumes of data, according to Stinnett and Victor, which have not been released. So you have to ask yourself: if ANY of this data supported the "FDR didn't know" case, would it still be kept secret after all these years?
Actually, his MA thesis (History, University of Ottawa, the basis of the book) has fuller information.