Asymmetrical Information

Listening to what Kerry says on Iraq would make anyone dizzy. The problem is nicely demonstrated here:

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

In my longer article on TCS, I say that "The backchannel buzz, which occasionally has leaked onto blogs and into the press, is that Kerry's economic advisers, and even Kerry himself, differ from his public pronouncements. The secret whisperers are telling us, in effect, that the economically literate can trust John Kerry because we know that he is lying."

So Sullivan says trust what Kerry says, and Kerry's economic advisers say trust that he's lying. Go figure.

Actually, Kerry is a total straddler on foreign policy. Was it good to remove Saddam, or would have been good to avoid war? Both. Do we need to win in Iraq or do we need to pull our troops out? Both. Were your Vietnam buddies your band of brothers, or were they war criminals? Both.

The man cannot take an unambiguous stand if his life depended on it.

Kerry has been nearly a complete non-starter for me since he announced his candidacy, because I cannot believe that a man, as a Senatorial candidate in his late 30s or early 40s, who sided with the nuclear freeze movement during the mid 80s, understands the world sufficiently to defend American interests well. It would be like supporting old Joe Kennedy for the Presidency in 1952. I wish the Democrats had nominated someone else, but since the remnants of the nuclear freeze movement have such remaining clout, it is doubtful that, given today's foreign policy debate, anyone of a non-Kerry flavor could have been nominated. Kerry's Vietnam service convinced many that he would be the best standard bearer, the belief being that 120 days in Vietnam could obscure the record as a politician. We shall see if that belief proves accurate.

Andrew Sullivan says we should trust what Kerry says he will do on the War on Terrorisim because "9/11 has changed things." But Kerry, in his recent interview for the NYT magazine, says he WAS NOT changed by 9/11. Thus, it's reasonable to believe that, unchanged by 9/11, Kerry's past behavior -- "[h]is long record of appeasing America's enemies" -- is a better predictor of his performance in office than are his many contridictory promises.

One of the many great miscalculations of the Bush Administration has been to declare a "War on Terror." Terror is not a strategic military target but a tactic. As countless military experts have stated, it is a losing undertaking to declare war on a tactic. For me, I am reminded of the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs," to name but a few hopeless causes. This is not a "war on terror" but a war on al Qaeda and its related sympathizers who would do harm on the United States. A mis-definition of the goal causes a misapplication of strategy and a failure of execution. Blame Bush's advisors for all of the above. If for nothing else, it is time to let someone else take charge.

Martin, I share your dislike of the term "War on Terror", but you are incorrect to state that this conflict simply entails "a war on al Qaeda and its related sympathizers who would do harm on the United States". Until the Persian Gulf modernizes politically, economically, and culturally, this conflict will rage on, and failure to grasp the breadth and depth of this conflict is a prescription for defeat, or (more likely) a far more catastrophically violent conflict.

That NYT Magazine story is worth reading. He says we'll never vanquish terrorism, only kludge it down to "nuisance" levels.

Call it the Dull Roar Paradigm.

And since it jives with his lifelong soft-on-baddies foreign policy record - he was a Dull-Roarian during the Cold War as well, of course - this is one case where I'll believe his rhetoric.

Martin - Bush's use of the term "War on Terror" does not mean he's waging war on the tactic of terror. From everything the administration has said and done, it's clear Bush envisions a war on those who use terror as a tactic. This group includes the followers of bin Laden, but it is not exclusive to bin Ladenites.

If not for the PC tendancies of our society, I feel sure Bush would have declared war on "radical Islam", because that's who has declared war on us.

If not for the PC tendancies of our society, I feel sure Bush would have declared war on "radical Islam", because that's who has declared war on us.

As they demonstrated with all those casualties in Oklahoma City.....

Bush might well have declared war on "radical Islam", but it would have been a myopic viewpoint. Will Allen is largely correct in this instance. The military effort is against Al Qaeda and allies; the overall conflict here is cultural, and won't be won through force of arms.

And terror as a tactic is not confined to any particular group, and failing to remember that will result in some other group taking advantage of our inattention.

Kerry had a chance to support a "multilateral" Iraq war that had the support of the world. He voted against it.

Kerry had a chance to oppose a "unilateral" Iraq war that much of the world was against even in October 2002. He voted for it.

This is a glaring inconsistancy I've never seen explained adequately.

That NYT Magazine story is worth reading. He says we'll never vanquish terrorism, only kludge it down to "nuisance" levels.

Read Lileks today, where he says: "Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war."

And Jane, you're still reading Andrew Sullivan? I gave up on him when he decided the security of our country was less important than his dick. (Guess what, Andy? Kerry's against gay marriage, too? Now what...?!)

How could Kerry be worse on terror than Bush? Since 911, despite the billions spent on dept of Homeland Defense there is still no consolidated no fly lists, let alone consolidated national intell. The DOH has been completely mismanaged, Congress says we still need a Centralized head of Intell, over 95% of cargo entering the US is unexpected, targets of high terrorist interest like chemical plants remain unsecured, the border remains porous, and I cant think of a single positive from the DOH despite the billions spent. Handouts to first responders who clean up the after terror mess, duct tape and color coded terror levels seems to be all we have gained from billions in spending. The only reason we havent been hit again is they havent tried.

The war in Iraq has by nearly all credible sources vastly increased the number of terrorists. Al Qaeda is more operational than ever, the post 911 bombings in Turkey, Riyaddah, Yeman, Bali, Spain, Egypt, and Iraq proove that Al Qaeda has been strengthened by our post 911 actions. Before, we were fighting radical Islam, our occupation of Iraq has turned middle of the road muslims into radicals by offending any muslim that takes the 5 pillars of Islam and the call to repel non muslim invaders seriously.

I dont know how Kerry or any other President will do on the war on terror, because we are an open society with porous borders and soft targets. But I do know Bush has been terrible.

In my first paragraph previous post, it should read "uninspected" not "unexpected".

To win the "War on Terror" you have to change the status quo of the Middle East. One dynamic way of doing this is to plop 2 democracies in the middle of it and watch and help the domino effect take place. It is what the Soviets did for 40 years during the Cold War and it would have worked quite nicely if it were not for the US. Democracies do not create terrorists and they don’t generally attack their neighbors. The difficult work is complete in Iraq. If John Kerry comes in and does exactly what the President is doing now, you will see great improvement in that country in a short time, because there is great improvement there already. The media will not see it because it helps Bush. It is disgusting. The doom and gloom about Iraq is a joke. Many more people are killed in the US on any given week.

Begbee

All these enormous gains by Al Qaeda must explain the dramatic increase of attacks in the US. Who are your “credible sources”. I think I can match you with my own.

"The only reason we havent been hit again is they havent tried."

I have to admit this is a new concept for me -- we haven't suffered another terrorist attack in the US because terrorist organizations couldn't be bothered to put another one together after 9/11. Just couldn't be bothered -- attacks on the US mainland are *so* tired, *so* 2001.

Then I realized it was posted by Begbee. 'Nuff said.

Jay Al Qaeda went 8 years between attacks in the US. Dont forget this is a GLOBAL war on terror, and Al Qaedas number of attacks worldwide has gone up post 911. If you need sources, Powell has stated this in front of the UN, and both Alleli and Bush state theres thousands of new foreign fighters in Iraq alone.

DRB there hasnt been a single attempt by Al Qaeda to strike in the US post 911. You shouldnt post when your so tired, or you might forget that Al Qaeda took 8 years betwwen terrorist acts in the US.

This democracy in Iraq is complete garbage. This war was about enforcing the UN resolution on WMD, Bush plainly stated "NO NATION BUILDING IN IRAQ", but when no wmd were found the ridiculous idea of Iraqi freedom was the new rationalization for war. Isnt Israel a democracy right in the middle of Islam? The Israeli democracy sure didnt spread. Democracy cannot exist in Islam, before you even say it, Turkey is no democracy. The elections in Afganistan were a disaster, every candidate but Karzai withdrew due to voter fraud. The Iraqis are so thrilled with democracy Bahgdad explodes on a daily basis. Beyond this, democracy is not a cure all for terrorism, consider Northern Ireland, Peru, or Columbia.

"I dont know how Kerry or any other President will do on the war on terror...."

Kerry will surrender, and hope for the best. Just as he did with Vietnam. He'll think the choice is between war and dishonor, and he'll choose dishonor again. But he'll get more war.

"But it behooves fair-minded people also to listen to what Kerry has actually said in this campaign: that he won't relent against terrorism"

Well, what's he supposed to say, that he *will* relent against terrorism?

Nobody deserves any credit for saying something unless it is imaginable for him to say something different.

Tell that to Andrew.

"The secret whisperers are telling us, in effect, that the economically literate can trust John Kerry because we know that he is lying."
~~~~~

This is in the ancient tradition of the Dems, just look at their patron saint in action and how they relate to it today...

"For three long years I have been going up and down this country preaching that government costs too much. I shall not stop that preaching."

-- FDR, campaigning in 1932 on his 'balance the budget by cutting waste from government' platform.

"And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

-- FDR, campaigning for a third term 1940, while he was rearming, having US destroyers secretly attack German submarines and maneauvering to get into a position with Japan where conflict was inevitable.

Now, have you ever heard any Democrat -- Moveon, Krugman, DeLong, anyone -- call FDR a "liar"?

No, never, of course not, because he lied to the voters merely to get elected to be able to *do the right thing* -- expediency in the name of virtue. So what's to criticize?

Heck, DeLong outright praises him for it!

"Roosevelt's greatest contribution came in his using all his devious sneakiness as a ruthless political intriguer to put the United States in harm's way in World War II."
-- Brad DeLong

Could it be that DeLong damns Dubya as a "liar" for misrepresting economic policy and getting us into a war -- while he outright praises FDR for doing both on a **vastly larger scale** -- simply because Dubya is a small time operator deceit-wise? So he gets no respect?

J Glass do you really believe the war in Iraq is in anyway comparable to WW2? We actually were threatened by the real Axis, Iraq was a threat to no nation on earth, and hasnt been a threat since Desert Storm. 911 was a Saudi Arabian act of war. 911 was financed by Saudi royality, planned by Saudi terrorists, and 15 out of 18 911 terrorists were SA.

P Sullivan Kerry didnt surrender to Vietnam. And what Kerrys going to do is clean up the mess jr left him in Iraq.

"Iraq was a threat to no nation on earth"

That's not what the Iraq Survey Group and Duelfer say. That's not what Saddam's nuclear scientist, Obeidi, said.

"Kerry didnt surrender to Vietnam. And what Kerrys going to do is clean up the mess jr left him in Iraq."

First, Kerry recommended we surrender, and Congress took his advice. AFTER we'd won.

Second, Kerry isn't going to get the chance.

Third, there is no mess. Iraq has less violence than it did before we took out Saddam and his vicious sons. We just didn't have CNN in there filming it every day back then.

We're winning, the terrorist-Baathist axis of evil knows it. It's only a matter of time. Unless Kerry wins and gives up.

J Glass do you really believe the war in Iraq is in anyway comparable to WW2?

begbee
Hitler could not go out and purchase a nuclear weapon from Libya, Russia or Pakistanis Khan with his oil for bratwurst money.

Jay
Let's see, I'm Iran. And my mortal enenmy, the Great Satan, has just installed a client government that is allowing military basing on either side of me. What do I do? I've got it. Hold elections and declare a democracy. Domino theory rules once again.

If Bush wins and we "stay the course," we will have to take Iran down before they strike at us in self-defense. And, assuming we win without inciting some sort of regional conflagration - not by any means unlikely, then we have 3 long-term occupied countries in the Arab middle east. And that might only be the beginning as we "take the sword to the infidel."

But I am sure that steroid-enhanced tack will quickly win over yet more Persian Gulf oil producers to our ideals of liberty and self-determination. Did I hear anyone say "empire?"

A very valid point, especially for the likes of such hyper partisans as me. I detest Kerry with a white hot heat, but free trade is a major issue for me. And he has delivered on that, while Bush has not just been a disapointment, he has been an apostate. Kerry Partisans who want to make me squirm don't go Iraq Iraq Iraq. The light at the end of the tunnel is either a fright train or a brighter future, but it is there, I think given the information available at the time the decision was the right one. But if you say "Steel Tarriffs" to me as a way showing Bush to be less than perfect, then... there is no defense... I am silent.

Jane, that is where you have to look at their basic philosophies, and that is where Kerry scares me. True, he will say anything, but he will do what he has done. I had an old boss that was always saying that about people, don't listen to what they say, look at what they have done because they will do it again because what they do comes out of their basic beliefs about themselves and their world, whether they even know it or not themselves. She was not just almost always right, she was ALWAYS right. Our sales depended on being right about that, and she retired early as a wealthy woman.

Andrew Sullivan is over thinking this issue. He is hoping to believe Kerry, but not only will Kerry return to form as an anti-war pacifist, he will be under tremendous pressure to do so by his party, to bail on Iraq and reduce the war on terror to some kind of criminal police action. His statement about getting back to where terror is a nuisance is something that he really believes, as do most Democrats. They don't want to believe that there is true, monstrous evil in the world because their basic beliefs are that all humans are at bottom loving and given enough love they will come around. Having had a long career as a psychotherapist, I can tell you that that is not true, not all people are like that. But that is their belief, what they want to believe and they will always come back around to it. What did Alice Walker say, her way of dealing with Osama Bin Laden would be to throw her arms around him and just love him? I bet she is a big Kerry fan. That is what you are going to get if you vote for Kerry.

Al Qaeda went 8 years between attacks in the US.

...in between which, they made multiple international attacks against US interests, some quite costly in terms of lives lost, and received no response more damaging than a "bad llama" slap on the wrist.

Which hardly compares to the present scenario, where a major training ground has been wiped and significant numbers of high-level coordinators have been killed or detained, and a potential future silent ally/weapons supplier has been dealt with. I really don't care if there are "more terrorists" right now if the majority of those terrorists can't seem to act much beyond a 500 mile radius of their home states, with small arms and munitions, and frequently in the presence of armed soldiers willing to shoot back.

P Sullivan, Duelfer said that there are no wmd, Saddam had no capacity to produce wmd, there were no active wmd programs, and that Iraqs military was 90% destroyed by Desert Storm and had been in decline since then. So how was Iraq a "GRAVE AND GATHERING THREAT"?

Kerry never recommended we surrender. His antiwar activities began after we said we were leaving Vietnam.

Iraq is less violent now than prior to the invasion? HAHAHAHAHAHAHASHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Jay, Libya doesnt have a nuke. And UBL could still buy a nuke from Russia or several other countries.

Anonymouse Clinton bombed terror camps to respond to the African Embassy bombings. His DOJ jailed the people that planned WTC 1. Culpability for the USS Cole bombing wasnt determined until Bush took office and he did nothing. Reagan did nothing to respond to Beirut. Throw in the prevention of the millenial terrorists and the dems are clearly better on terror than the reps. I find the whole emboldened the terrorist argument incredibly stupid. Why would someone willing to die for their cause need to be emboldened?

There is no reason to believe the terrorists are unable to operate outside of a 500 mile radius. Spain is a long way from Pakistan. And again, it took Al Qaeda 8 years between US attacks, its ridiculous to think Iraq is whats prevented post 911 terror.

Jane-

I'm amazed that no one has picked up on the irony of Sen. Kerry's "plan" for the War in Iraq. To those of us of his generation, it echoes Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the War in Vietnam that he said he had when he ran for President in 1968. We all know how that turned out . . .

I agree with your basic premise that, the more extravagant the politician's promise, the less value there is in paying any attention to it. The politician's record is a better indicator and predictor of future actions and responses.

Another indicator, in my opinion, is the politician's supporters. So, I view Andrew Sullivan's thesis about how a President Kerry would treat the war on terrorism and how it would put the Deaniacs and Moores in their place as wishful thinking in the extreme. It is the Dean wing of the Democratic Party that gave Kerry the nomination against more "centrist" candidates like Gephardt and Lieberman. One would expect them to be very vocal in any Kerry administration, and Kerry's record suggests that he is nothing if not a political weathervane.

I would make the opposite case to Mr. Sullivan -- that the best way to drum the "non-serious" elements out of the Democratic Party (or at least to the margins) would be for Kerry to get a McGovern-style thumping at the polls. Maybe that will finally convince Democrats that American voters will never trust them with the presidency when there is any perceived external peril until they abandon the passive foreign policy attitude first adopted in 1972 (McGovern's campaign slogan: "Come Hoome America.") It is worth remembering that the only post-1972 Democrats elected as President ran as centrists on foreign policy and, arguably, the perception of foreign peril in 1992 was at a low point in post-WWII history.

Steven wrote:

A very valid point, especially for the likes of such hyper partisans as me. I detest Kerry with a white hot heat, but free trade is a major issue for me. And he has delivered on that, while Bush has not just been a disapointment, he has been an apostate.

It’s actually a bit more nuanced than that. Kerry’s record, much like Clinton’s and Bush 43’s on trade has been mixed at best. Kerry has previously voted for most trade agreements it’s true, but he’s also supported amendments to water them down such as his vote in favor of the Dayton-Craig Amendment before he voted to reauthorize Trade Promotion Authority (which would have gutted it but for the tie-breaking vote by VP Cheney), his support of tariff/anti-dumping language in the Andean trade agreement, and his support of the Byrd Amendment (signed into law by Clinton which Bush is attempting to repeal BTW). Moreover, Kerry has been a consistent advocate for agricultural subsidies (voted against Freedom to Farm in 1996 and voted to reauthorize them in 2002) and opposed the free trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, and CAFTA which were either supported or signed into law by Bush.

Bottom line, which you can certainly criticize Bush for doing what most modern Presidents have done (including Clinton whose also implemented steel tariffs when he first took office that were about 68%) in supporting expanding markets in general while at the same time agreeing to protectionism for a few items in order to get the votes necessary for a broader trade agreement, Kerry’s record shows that he’s more protectionism than Bush (supporting each of Bush’s protectionist measures while also supporting the Byrd Amendment, Dayton-Craig, and restrictions in the Andean trade agreement) and not as likely to supporting expanding markets (Chile, Singapore, and CAFTA).

Begbee, when you're done moving the goalposts, let me know where they are, and I'll see if I'm still interested in kicking anything at them.

Begbee, when you're done moving the goalposts, let me know where they are, and I'll see if I'm still interested in kicking anything at them.

It's Begbee that needs the kicking, actually, but never mind...

Regardless of whether or not you despise Kerry and believe or disbelieve anything about his plans for Iraq, there's no evidence that he will demonstrate the kind of foreign policy incompetance that we've seen for the past four years. Any policy executed incompetantly is bad policy.

I challenge anyone to defend the competance of Bush's foreign policy.

I challenge anyone to defend the competance of Bush's foreign policy.

I challenge you to use spellcheck before you post.

Anonymouse I never moved any goal posts, I simply corrected the record. Surely you could find something I said to attack, rather than just muttering goal post cliches. RMC if you believe I need "kicking" and think you have the foot to do it, as jr would say, "Bring it on." And do something about your spelling fetish, or are you the lone rep English major?

Jane:

Jeebus. Let's see. Iraq is going crappily, and it is becoming clear to even the meanest intelligence that we would have been better off if we hadn't gone in. Our executive believed it was OK to jail an American citizen indefinitely without access to counsel. Our executive wrote crappy memos arguing that torture was not in fact torture. (If someone knows of competent lawyers defending the legal reasoning, please let me know). Our executive threatened to fire the head actuary if it gave Congress accurate cost numbers. (NB: I'm ignoring the economic plan arguments, b/c your response has always been (a) it doesn't matter, the govt. has no effect on the economy, (b) things are going GREAT, or (c) John Kerry is communist; whatever). Yet you can't figure out who would be better for the country - Bush or Kerry. Instead (after arguing for Bush for months and years) you're going to wash your hands of the whole thing and not vote for either.

Just vote for Bush, Jane. Being "undecided" at this point doesn't particularly protect the reputation of your judgment, and there will always be a hardcore cadre of Pubs who will consider the GWB the second coming.

Anonymouse I never moved any goal posts, I simply corrected the record. Surely you could find something I said to attack, rather than just muttering goal post cliches.

Clever, and foolish. First, I didn't mutter any goalpost cliches; I accused you of the process outright.

Second, in reviewing the thread progress I discover that it was a question of terror attacks in the US, but when challenged on that by Jay and DRB, you changed the topic to "GLOBAL War on Terror" without ever acknowledging the validity of your opponents' arguments in the prior context. Having changed the context, you then resorted to a tired argument about terror attacks in terms of absolute numbers, but padded it mightily by including "thousands" of foreign fighters in Iraq in the tally. When I addressed the issue that Al Qaeda attacked US interests multiple times in between its octannual WTC attacks without suffering a crippling infrastructure elimination in response, thereby making a comparison of the previous to the present difficult, you resorted to a "look over there! Reagan!" diversion and then changed the topic again, to "dems better than pubs on terror" or some such.

Somewhere in that you at least you made a partially valid effort to address my response, but dealing with you is the debater's equivalent of Heisenberg Uncertainty: Efforts to pin down a rationally consistent position in your thought train make the rate of change in that thought train impossible to discover, and vice versa.

Anonymouse if your not talking football, any use of the phrase "moving the goalposts" is a cliche, and a tired one at that.

I first stated several times that it took Al Qaeda 8 years previously between attacks in the US. To point at the war in Iraq as preventing terrorism in the US is completely unsubstantiated by any fact, because only 2.5 years have passed since 911. To further enforce that fact, I pointed out that Al Qaedas operational ability has increased since the invasion of Iraq, by demonstrating that they are attacking more often and in larger scale(excluding 911 itself) since the mistake in Iraq.

I brought Reagan into the discussion because hes a rep president that did nothing to respond to Beirut. I brought jr into the discussion because hes a rep president that did nothing about the USS Cole. Clinton, on the other hand, responded to every terrorist act, jailing the WTC 1 bombers, putting Mcveigh to death, bombing chem weapons facilities and terror camps in Afganistan. Yet the blame Clinton for "emboldening the terrorists" garbage continues. If your willing to die for your cause, you dont need to be "emboldened".

Heisenberg only deals with subatomic particles. And my location and weight have nothing to do with my argument.

"Electing Kerry would force the Democrats to take responsibility for a war that is theirs'(sic) as well."

This strategy brings to mind the ploy of DELIBERATELY bringing Adolf Hitler into the German government in the 1930s. "Let's co-opt the bastard."

What a fine hie-dee-doo.

Anonymouse if your not talking football, any use of the phrase "moving the goalposts" is a cliche, and a tired one at that.

Meaning, you've heard it a lot. That is indeed my fault: I should have realized that you, of all people, would have heard it a lot. Note that if you would cease resisting its moral, you might hear it a lot less.

I brought Reagan into the discussion because hes a rep president that did nothing to respond to Beirut. I brought jr into the discussion because hes a rep president that did nothing about the USS Cole.

And failed to include any context for bringing them in, until it was pointed out that your train of thought was a runaway. Are you familiar with the concept of a messageboard? Your posts don't automatically download 'backgrounder' pamphlets to the readership. If you can't maintain a coherent line of reasoning, it will look a lot like you are either evading, introducing red herrings, or, uh, "adjusting the target poles."

Clinton, on the other hand, responded to every terrorist act, jailing the WTC 1 bombers, putting Mcveigh to death, bombing chem weapons facilities and terror camps in Afganistan. Yet the blame Clinton for "emboldening the terrorists" garbage continues. If your willing to die for your cause, you dont need to be "emboldened".

Don't forget declining Sudan's offer to extradite or monitor Osama bin Laden, bombing a Sudanese medicine factory, or firing missiles on empty tents. If you want to credit the pros of a particular approach (in this case, dealing with terrorism and terrorists), it helps to acknowledge the cons before your opponent does.

Heisenberg only deals with subatomic particles. And my location and weight have nothing to do with my argument.

Clear and continuing evidence of reading comprehension problems. Note the qualifier "debater's equivalent of...," as well as references to the "position" and "weight" of NOT you, but your arguments as it were. (Also note that your response was wide open for a crack about the relevancy of Heisenberg in its original form to your mental capacity. In the future, you might want to just let side-commentary of that nature pass.)

Anonymouse you are tremendous at using alot of words and somehow saying almost nothing.

First, I rarely heard the phrase "moving the goalposts" until I came here. Now I see you use that phrase ALOT, and also interject various scientific laws, along with semi obscure parables in an attempt to appear intelligent, despite the fact they often have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Have you ever heard of the Ass's dilema? Its the story of a an Ass thats placed right in the middle of two equal bales of hay, being unable to decide which bale of hay to eat first, the Ass starves to death in indecision. That parable is much more appropriate than your Hiesenberg gobbly gook, because you are an ass, and Im not a subatomic particle. Heisenberg states its impossible to know the location and charge of a subatomic particle at the same time, there is no "debaters equivalent" to Hiesenberg, and in any case, the location and charge of my points are all located in this thread.

The context I brought Reagan and jr up in should have been clear to you the first time, because I directed my comments to your previous post by starting with "Anonymouse...". Im not responsible for your lack of knowledge of what you previously wrote. Why dont you stick to the factual debate, I clarified my point for you, and all you do is continue to whine about my lack of restating previous points.

To the facts on Clinton. Sudan wouldn't release UBL to a nonmuslim state. Clinton pleaded with the Saudis to take UBL, and transfer UBL to the US, but they refused. Get the rep talking points straight, the aspirin factory is back to being a chem weapons facility as Clinton stated, because jr claims there are Iraqi records that indicate its a nexus where Saddams know how came together with UBL financing of chem weapons. Ofcourse these records havent been authenticated or released to the media.

Comments are Closed.