Tony, The specifics of the site local issue should be debated on the IPv6 WG list, not on the global IETF list. Let me however respond to your point regarding the quality of the debate, as I was the note taker during that session.
My notes record that 22 separate speakers took part to this debate, some coming to the microphone several time. It is also pretty clear from my notes that the consensus of the room is evolving as the discussion progresses, and as arguments are being exchange. Yes, there was mention of "site local as a license to NAT", but there where many other arguments: leakage through IP, DNS or application; the lack of practicality of several restrictive models for site locals; the possibility or not to use other solutions for isolated sites; and the complexity of handling scoped addresses in applications. At the end, the tally shows 20 hands rising in support of site locals, 102 hands rising for their elimination. In short, it was not a hasty discussion, there was an informed debate, opinions evolved during the discussion, and a consensus was reached. I believe that if you had been in the room you would feel closer to that consensus. -- Christian Huitema