Here's a good example of asserting one's conclusion and then basing the conclusion on the assertion (i.e. begging the question):
The U.S. does not approve of torture, claims President Bush. Does anyone have any doubt that Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, the Iraqi customs inspector who turned on Zaqarwi after being arrested and held for months by the Jordanian police, talked as a result of being subjected to torture?
"Officials say Karbouly confessed to his role in the terror cell and provided crucial information on the names of Zarqawi commanders and locations of their safe houses."
So now we use information gained from torture to murder our target. What makes us different from them?
Let's walk through this: No one on the paranoid left doubts that we use torture, therefore Karbouly was tortured. Pretty convincing, wouldn't you say?
For good measure we're treated to an example of undistributed middle as well: The killing of Zarqawi is "murder". Terrorists also murder. Therefore we're no different than terrorists.
This is the sort of thinking that fills the left-wing blog sites and upon which people will be basing their votes in November. Lord, give us patience.
