The main point I am making is there are shades of grey that often are the best way to deal logically with an issue. other times the black/white good/evil excluded middle ground works best. The problem is under the rules of logic once you start using excluded middle logic like this in politics you flush down the toilet all pretensions of calling the process reasoning or logic. Whatever else you want to call it Aristotle would be rolling in his grave at any suggestion it was a kind of logical reasoning.
The reason for that is that these shades of grey that are tossed out of the equation may hold useful information, and there is no proof at that point that these shades of grey are irrelevant. In effect it's like reading a book and deciding to only read every second page. You might make it easier to get information from the book but you remove the continuity and if there was important information on the even pages then you lose that forever.
The Iraq War was about the good/evil excluded middle "logic" of Bush versus the UN and others who favoured a shades of grey kind of monitoring. It's hard for there to be a dialogue because Bush throughout this based his ideas on that this middle ground of strategy didn't exist. In the effort to paint everything as black and white with no greys France and Germany ended up with black hats. All this shows is when an administration abandons the rules of logic it comes up with absurd policy.
It's like asking the CIA about evidence on WMD in Iraq. You ask then to say yes or no and no answers in between. So analysts that would be fence sitting and dubious have to try and give answers of false certainty and end up saying they think there is a threat to be safe. Failing to avoid logical fallacies in politicis ends up with wrong answers over and over. That's why they call them fallacies, why logic has evolved by looking at what mistakes people make in reasoning and how to correct them. Bush thinks and reasons like a lunatic, which is why so many people think he's crazy.
Bush does this all the time. When people complain about him being stupid then he paints it as the stupid people versus the smartypants elitists and how would you prefer. Since the middle ground is excluded you have to decide whether you are of his intelligence level or some snot nose in an ivory tower. The true answer of course is in the greys where smarter people than Bush who aren't elitists are what are needed.
There was an old song like this "acdentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, watch out for Mister In Between."
There was a good song by the Monkees on this:

"When the world and I were young,
Just yesterday.
Live was such a simple game,
A child could play.
It was easy then to tell right from wrong.
Easy then to tell weak from strong.
When a man should stand and fight,
Or just go along.

But today there is no day or night
Today there is no dark or light.
Today there is no black or white,
Only shades of gray.

I remember when the answers seemed so clear
We had never lived with doubt or tasted fear.
It was easy then to tell truth from lies
Selling out from compromise
Who to love and who to hate,
The foolish from the wise.

But today there is no day or night
Today there is no dark or light.
Today there is no black or white,
Only shades of gray.

[Instumental interlude]

It was easy then to know what was fair
When to keep and when to share.
How much to protect your heart
And how much to care.

But today there is no day or night
Today there is no dark or light.
Today there is no black or white,
Only shades of gray.
Only shades of gray."