you have already dismissed the better alternative
Was that your "just randomize it" call? I never understood in what way it was "better".
Nope, unless I'm in the mood, I'll stick with doing the play by play. The outcome is your problem
You privilege yourself with flair and panache, sir.
It is regurgitated mass media gruel.
Oh, that my gruel were half as grueling as yours, sir!
The outcome will always be the same.
Indeed, every heart beats its last. Therefore, the path taken between conception and demise is the interesting part.
I was asking for you to actually define a situation where President Lawnchair could share enough information with the American public without that getting to be "too much" for ISIS.
And I replied by showing you the previous procedure by which strategy moves from public to private, which seemed to stagger along semi-coherently until this Administration.
You can't define such a situation because none exists.
OK, ya got me. Nothing 'exists'. It's all so much illusion. Closer to the truth (without touching it) I am a leprechaun seated on the back of a unicorn that is currently grazing about in the pleasant fields of Atlantis, strummin' me magic harp, which produces this post via the WAIWMTCWTBW (Why Am I Wasting My Time Conversing With This Brick Wall) protocol.
You seen to believe in the same fairytale of the market that Smith does.
I've tried to talk you out of an authoritarian hell, but, hey: Progress!
Your doctrine of my mindlessness has exposed so much Zombie Smitty activity, I must confess I'm astounded. When not snarfing brains.
"ISIL have no idea what to do about this $#!+."
-- @BarackObama to WH Press Corps, 9/10/14
All i want is for you to stop moving the goal posts and describe clearly a situation where President Lawnchair could describe the strategy to the American public enough to satisfy you without you claiming that he is giving it all away to The Enemy.
And all I want is for you to have your first encounter with a godforsaken clue.
Go read some Kagan or Mead, please, sir.