Leftist tactics

Commenter chemjeff writes at Ace of Spades,

The Iraq War had 3 justifications

- Enforcing UN resolutions
- Destroying a safe haven for terrorists
- Getting rid of WMD

Only the last one got any significant media play, because the war achieved Objective #1 and #2, but it wasn't so clear that it achieved #3 and so Democrats seized on that one to destroy public trust in the war.

To which commenter zombie replies,

Bingo. That's exactly what I was trying to say, but said more clearly.

It's a classic debating technique -- to only attack the one weak argument, and ignore the strong arguments. In fact, it was famously used in the OJ trial to get him off.

Here is how to lose an argument which you should be winning:

"We have irrefutable evidence #1 proving our point. We have irrefutable evidence #2 proving our point. We have irrefutable evidence #3 proving our point. Oh, and also, we have evidence #4 leading support to our position, but it's not rock solid."

Opponent: "Ah HA! Evidence #4 is not proven, therefore your entire case falls apart!"

If you have proof that can't be refuted, don't even mention the more loosey-goosey side issues. It just weakens your case.