The most effective strategy to win the war against terrorism is to kill as many terrorists as we can, before they kill us, not worry about their "rights" (that are bestowed upon them by leftists), or worry about "what kind of a nation" it makes us by killing terrorists before they can carry out another 9/11 or, this time, wipe out an entire city with a suitcase nuke.
Bottom line: if they're dead, they can't kill us and they can't commit terrorism. It's not nuanced, and it's not deep, but it works.
such as not sending enough troops to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora...
I have seen no conclusive proof, since December, 2001 when the attack on Tora Bora was carried out, that Osama bin Laden is still alive. And pieced-together videos, made with someone about whom the argument can be made very convincingly that he is a stand-in for bin Laden posing as bin Laden, don't count.
And I believe that it's not outside the realm of possibility that the feds know bin Laden is dead but won't say it out loud because all the idiots out there who had eight years worth of chances with their Caligula president to fight terrorism and did nothing, will be crowing that since bin Laden is dead, the war on terror is over and we can quit.
If he is dead, which I firmly believe that he is, there will be no official acknowledgment of that fact for years.
invading Iraq based on faulty intelligence
You'll have to do better than that. That is an long-discredited, leftist talking point that, when dissected, reveals that the "faulty intelligence" was believed to be true by many foreign governments, democrats in the congress as far back as 1998, the UN, and, gasp, choke, the Clinton administration!!!!
You libs are upset that President Bush acted on the intelligence and took the fight to the terrorists instead of assuming a fetal position in a corner like your boy did and letting al Queda continue to slaughter innocent Americans and I understand how you feel, but the reality is that a Republican acted to protect Americans and democrats did not. And they never, ever will.
You're PO'd that there is now a clear line of distinction between how democrats deal with terrorism, which gives birth to more and more killings, and how Republicans deal with terrorism, which results in dead terrorists and no attacks for six years. And what's worse for democrats, Americans who will be voting for the next president in 2008 have lived to see that distinction.
and not catching the folks responsible for anthrax.
And how do you know that? Do you have some "intelligence" that nobody else has, that very well could be "faulty", that the "folks responsible for anthrax" are alive and well?
We've killed thousands of terrorists. How do you know that the "folks responsible for anthrax" aren't dead? How do you know they haven't been caught? Where do you get your information? The DailyKos?
And the reason you should care about the most effective strategy in winning the war against terrorism is that lives are at stake.
We tried it your way: protecting terrorists' "rights" to be left alone to grow in number and commit more and more murder; refusing to take custody of bin Laden when we had three chances to because "there wasn't enough evidence"; treating terrorist acts of war like the first World Trade Center attack as mere acts of common criminals; of erecting a wall of separation between the FBI and intelligence agencies to prevent them from sharing information on terrorists in the country- the list of failures of your party goes on and on and on.
The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If your girl Hillary wins the White House, we'll go back to the failed, terrorist-rewarding "strategy" of leaving them strictly alone. In the meantime, we'll continue to hunt them down and kill them, and, much to your dismay, listen in on their phone conversations.
To want to kill Bin Laden and Zawahiri — for example — hardly does much good when the US has proved so bad at getting the job done.
Again, you can offer no proof that bin Laden is alive. And repeating a leftist talking point is not the same as stating a fact.
That leads me to my previous point: not only did your boy's failures to deal with terrorism in a serious, realistic way lead to 9/11, but he had three chances to take bin Laden and refused each time.
You people can never escape that fact. You can try to rewrite history until a new world is built, and it won't change a thing. I can pretty much guarantee you that if any Republican president had the opportunity to take custody of a terrorist, he would certainly not refuse that chance.
Your boy's criminal negligence that resulted in the deaths of 3000 innocent American citizens is the legacy of the Clinton administration. And there is no escape from that fact for you and everyone who thinks like you.
The reason to understand your enemy, for example, is that it is necessary for the correct profiling of the anthrax crimes which were always obviously US-based operatives supporting Al Qaeda.
I already understand al Queda and I want them dead. End of story.
Giovanna thinks Bin Laden is dead.
The more debatable question is whether Midhat Mursi is dead. He was their biochem fellow. Thought to have been killed at a dinner meeting Ayman was expected to attend. But recently the Washington Post reported matter-of-factly (and with no fanfare) that the reports of his death were greatly exaggerated.
So while I’m not going to debate the evidence that Bin Laden is alive, I do agree that war is deception. Usually, one of the greatest sources of deception is self-deception.