[ManM]

Originally Posted by Clutch

But what you might do to get "a more detailed version" is to look at what specific Democrats say on specific occasions about specific issues. Some, no doubt, always stick to cautious rhetoric. Others have been advancing specific plans on everything from troops withdrawals to alternatives for dealing with Saddam -- generalizable to how they plan to act in the future on matters of international rogue states. Some even said specific things about how to deal with North Korea. Like, in a big televised debate or something.

Then perhaps the problem is one of PR, because the details of specific plans are not getting out. Hell, what better place to compile those plans than a website declaring that the plan is available for download? If you have been paying attention, I’m not the only one here who has noticed this, and Adam proposed cowardice as an explanation for the phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Clutch

Apparently not. Looks like the "missing link" fallacy to me. (As in, every time a fossil is found to fill some creationist-alleged missing link, the creationist looks and now sees two more gaps.)

I said, because there was a whiff of it in the air, that it would be unfortunate if this was all just an exercise in floating standards: Dems held to different ones than Republicans, as far as whether they have a real plan. But that's very much what it looks like now.

My standard for a plan includes goals, actions, and story to explain why the actions will achieve the goals. The Republicans are being hammered for their actions, and so they have been forced into publicly providing that story. However, this has the side effect of demonstrating that the story actually exists. That’s the part that is incomplete from the Democrats, and when I ask for the story to be completed, I get shit about some fabricated “missing link” fallacy. Ironically enough, if you google “missing link fallacy”, you will find that it is attributed to making a statement that is missing a link in the chain of causation. An example of such a statement would be “Increasing the size of the military will protect us from terrorism”.

So, are you done zealously defending the Democrats from constructive criticism?

Originally Posted by Dave

Is it really preferable to you to stick with a bad plan, implemented by people who have a track record of ignoring expert advice, than to switch to another plan that isn't detailed enough for you?

Yes, I find it preferable to go with the known quantity. There is no reason why the other plan needs to be vague.

Originally Posted by Dave

As to how they plan to use human intelligence and special forces, I imagine the quote in the OP didn't bother to spell it out because they consider it self-explanatory. Human intelligence is used to gather intelligence about the whereabouts, activities, and plans of enemies. Special forces are used to hunt and destroy targets that are unreachable by air, armor, or artillery. They are also used to operate undetected in countries we don't have permission to be operating in. I'm sorry you need this spelled out because it's pretty well known that those are the activities human intelligence and special forces are used for.

Then why won’t the Democrats come out and state: “We are going to put spies in foreign countries, and based on the information gathered by them, we will violate the sovereignty of those nations with Special Forces operations.”? HUMINT can be used in many different ways. They could use the intelligence and wait until the terrorists enter countries that our friendly to us, and we could pick them up there. They could limit the activities of the Special Forces to nations that have agreed to let us operate in them. So, what is it going to be? The Republicans have played their cards on the table. I want an equivalent level of information about what the Democrats are proposing. If they were to provide that, we could make a real comparison.

Originally Posted by Dave

Furthermore, there is a reason to focus on the errors of the Republicans here.

I would prefer that people focus on fixing problems rather than assigning blame.