Do you recognise emotive arguments versus plain facts ?

When someone says a person had a 'Relentless Drive to acquire Nukes' how do you read that ? - emotive ?, manipulative ?, does it tell us anything substantive ? - is it at best a biased opinion ?

When a writer states that someone who has done a terrorist act 'might' have been associated with Iraq - how do you read that ? as a smoking gun ? - as a fact ? - as reason to attack Iraq ?

If this same writer argues a justification for war based on that a WTC terrorist 'might now be living in Iraq' - how do you read that - as fact ?

Doug M
(If Iraq is up to no good, let us be quite certain about it before we do anything like declare war & invade - I have no compunction whatsoever about a pre-emptive strike if Saddam is proven to be planning major terrorist attacks on US or major Terrorist attacks against US interests).