I Disagree With This Argument

I think that the argument that is trying to be made by some of my fellow bloggers is pretty petty.

(The Grit)The notion that "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" has been nullified by the news that "a federal indictment against seven men revealed Friday details of what the government said was a plan to "kill all the devils we can" by blowing up Chicago's Sears Tower."

Apparently, they are here. Whether or not we're fighting them there.

Reporters are busy pushing the "cut and run" meme, but you'd think one of them would take a minute to point out the obvious...

Instead, the issue should be that those who opposed the war in Iraq because it would NOT make us safer from terror are proven to be correct. Or that no matter what the outcome of Iraq is, Al Qaida was not there until we invaded and that focusing on Iraq took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. Thus groups like this were able to set up shop, as inadequate as it is appears to be, and try to plan an attack on Chicago.

Why couldn't we fight the terrorists in Afghanistan? Why did Iraq have to be the battleground? Saddam didn't give Al Qaida a country to operate in. Why did we cut and run in Afghanistan?