A few days ago I wrote a post about how a much more defensible position regarding religion can be disadvantaged in debate against a much less defensible one because the defensible position is a complicated and partial truth while the indefensible one is a simple and snappy falsehood. David Brin has a similar idea on a different topic.
Oh, there is something you are now hearing over and over. The BIG ROVEAN TACTIC is this. Demand that their opponents choose a simple, one sentence strategy for Iraq.
"Well? What would YOU do?"
It is horrendous and a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Because No one-sentence answer will sound mature or sage, given the horrific political, social, military, and moral quagmire that we are inheriting. Moreover, any attempt to avoid giving a one sentence answer sounds equivocating and mealy-mouthed.