We’re on a better track, that’s for sure. The Bush Administration ignored the warnings from Clinton’s people regarding al-Qaeda. 9/11 followed. It seems like everyone has learned that lesson.

LFC’s analysis seems pretty fair. Multi-pronged intelligence and police efforts, including collaboration with Moslem countries.

It’s the best we’ve got, and I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiment that occupying Moslem countries will make things worse and not better.

What is it?

Well it ain’t invasion of one country after another and it ain’t torture of innocent people to extract false confessions and bad intelligence. It IS the FBI and CIA. It’s the NSA. It’s local and state police. It is not a multi-decade occupation by our military in Muslim nations that view us as an enemy.

Bush never claimed he’d be able to meet that standard. Nor Cheney. Nor Petraues. Nor Obama. And there’s a reason for that. It’s because it’s not possible. You demand a silver bullet that will prevent any terrorist attack from ever occurring again. You want AQ, a now highly de-centralized organization across multiple nations, to be 100% “out of action”. That’s a child’s demand, but adults have to face the reality that this will never happen. Ask Israel what the magic bullet is to stop all terrorist attacks.

The WTC was taken down by a handful of fanatics with box cutters. Timothy McVeigh, pretty much alone, used fertilizer and auto fuel to killed 168, wound many more, and cause enormous damage. The U.S.S. Cole was struck by a small speedboat operated by suicidal maniacs. And you demand that we make it so this could never happen again? Dream on.

“You can’t handle the truth. Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah Building and isn’t it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of hell?” — Timothy McVeight

If you surf over to the FBI and CIA websites, they tell you that they are continuing to break up one al-Qaeda plot after another. But they can’t hope to have a perfect track record. Sooner or later, they’re going to miss one.

And so we’re going to be attacked again. Big-time. Until and unless the famous liberal plan for dealing with al-Qaeda is put into effect.

What is it?

http://bit.ly/BcOv

http://bit.ly/1XxFyw
http://bit.ly/8Iblq
http://bit.ly/1tLqPE
http://bit.ly/1FGmzv
http://bit.ly/vt0TP

The Administration has serious qualms about continuing this loser, as they well should. Train some more Afghan military and police, declare victory and get out.

I really think you guys are incapable of reading for comprehension sometimes. If you don’t understand what someone is talking about, how about you ask, like I did, rather than just jumping on the abuse wagon right away?

Kudos.

I think the commenter has already tried to enlighten you, BlankHead. What part of “… a comprehensive new strategy that included pakistan in the equation of a solution. (H)is words as president were consistent with his campaign promises made to gain the nomination and win the election” not clear to you.

And how can you, BlankHead, read that and surmise the writer excluded Pakistan? You’re that quick to replace AutomaticBS as the FrumForum Village Idiot??

1. That we can create a stable civil democracy in a nation that has no history or desire for one.
2. This is needed to prevent future terrorists from having a safe haven in which to plot there attacks.

Then, you have to define what “winning the war” actually means. If it means kicking Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, then we’ve already won. If it means preventing a return of Al Qaeda to Afghanistan, then this costs too much and it doesn’t increase our security since Al Qaeda can simply operate from Pakistan or any other ungoverned land.

After defining what “winning the war” actually means, then you have to decide whether the best way to do that is by adding more troops.

Frum and others who have criticized Obama’s delay in adding more trips have failed to address these more fundamental concerns. By not addressing these larger concerns, their criticisms seem like nothing more than partisan complaints.