Beardedbruce

if you don't see how I have even weakened your statement then you need to go back and read again.

Your statement:

No, we only know that by the time we did invade, MONTHS later, after trying to get a UN consensus, they were not there. You do not know whether they were where Rumsfeld knew at the time he said he knew.

(Note you did NOT say "at the time the intelligence was gathered," but "at the time he said he knew.")

So your statement was that he said he knew where the weapons were, then, months later, we invaded.   The implication was that Saddam had had time to move them all.

The fact is, he said it AFTER we had invaded, (on March 30, to be precise) and NINE DAYS before the region was conquered. It is impossible that the weapons were where Rumsfeld said, when Rumsfeld said, and even he has admitted that. He never even tried to claim that the materiel had been moved out of the area during the nine days after he made the statement because that would have been preposterous. he simply said, "I should NOT have said I knew where the weapons were, because I didn't know."

One of the things that puzzles me is the way you will support every halfassed statement made by the administration, even after the people who made the statement have given up, performed damage control, and moved on. You have to give up SOME of your fantasies of their infallibility.

As to your claiming I make "blank assertion[s] that you would like to see evidence of (sic)," how about your post claiming to have found a host of logical fallacies in the arguments of "those protesting the US attack?" Not only do you yourself give no evidence for this blank assertion (who used these fallacies, and when?), this in itself is a logical fallacy, suggesting among other things that

(1) just because SOME people who disagree with you have made mistakes, EVERYONE who disagrees with you is wrong

and

(2) just because some people who disagree with you have made mistakes, your own logical fallacies do not render YOUR arguments invalid.

After all, I could say "Oh, I used a fallacious argument? So what? SOME people on the right are stupid and have lied repeatedly."

This, as you can see, is a fallacy. Obviously SOME people on the right are stupid, and obviously SOME have lied (the same would be true of the left, BTW). But this statement has no bearing on the argument. It is a Red Herring, and a Non-Sequitur, just as your attack on "people who protested the US attack" is.

(Just to remind folks, the discussion of logic was brought up because beardedbruce made the following fallacious statement:

It has not been proven, to some of you at least, that there are WMD in Iraq- fine, but how does that PROVE that there are not???

When it was pointed out that this was fallacious, beardedbruce made the following fallacious argument in its defense:

"Have you looked at...the "logic" of those protesting the US attack? I have found all of the following: Fallacies of Relevance, etc..."

Delicious!