True, but we're talking about proximity and not numbers.

Wilkerson implied that terrorists will always pick the closest target when he stated that we don't have to fight them in Iowa because "Iraq is closer than Iowa."

But if that were the case, why did they choose to attack New York over the hundreds if not thousands of US troops in Saudi Arabia in 2001? They wouldn't even have needed passports! Instead, they chose to travel overseas, from which we can logically conclude that proximity is not a prime factor in their targeting decisions.

Wilkerson's rebuttal is that "[Saudi] bases are better protected." The clear implication is that terrorists avoid attacking embedded military positions, even if they are "closer."

If proximity is not a prime factor in their targeting decisions, and they avoid attacking embedded military positions, how can increasing the number of embedded military positions in the region possibly be preventing an attack on the homeland? The obvious answer is that it can't, because the only way this makes sense is if embedded military positions in Iraq and Afghanistan are LESS protected than Iowa.

The theory of terrorists voluntarily choosing to exclusively attack combat-deployed soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan because its "closer" literally makes no sense if you follow the argument to its logical conclusion.
If you aren't willing to follow your argument to its logical conclusion (Wilkerson "i actually didn't make an argument") then whats the point of posting it at all?

everyone here seems to be picking a fight with what they imagine wilkerson believes rather than what wilkerson actually says.

Actually, I have only been directly responding to the content of Wilkerson's replies to my posts. How other people deal with him is their business.

And, moving on to your argument (feel free to deny its actually an argument, if you want):

there is significant evidence that our troops have indeed succeeded in disrupting al'qaida's operational capacity

Really? Evidence such as what? Haven't there allegedly been attemps on our homeland, generally foiled by the CIA, occurring regularly throughout the peak troop presence? What about 7/7 and Madrid?

You're correct that there can be no resolution to this debate, as long as one side is allowed to perpetually move the goalposts. If you assess this discussion with any kind of intellectual honesty, I think you'll realize the "debate" already ended.

The waters have been sufficiently muddied at this point, but just to have the last word let me remind you that our military bases throughout the Middle East have always been "closer" than the Towers.

Is the author actually suggesting that the US troop presence in the Middle East is physically preventing any of the thousands of jihadists in countries around the world, specifically, I don't know, SAUDI ARABIA, from getting on a flight to the US? Really?
This is the same "fight them over there so we don't have fight them over here" nonsense that we've come to expect from Bush admin. dead-enders.

An interesting bit of supporting evidence which I haven't seen cited anywhere is available on Freedomworks own site. It's titled "FreedomWorks Launches Nationwide Tea Party Tour," and reveals that Freedomworks themselves claim to have "co-ordinated" the Tea Party movement.

America is a society of winners and losers, that's just a fact. Is it so surprising that some of the losers won't just bend over and take it?
If you're interested in the cause-and-effect of these increasingly common events, read Mark Ames' reporting on the subject.

The AP Journalist writes:

[Stewart] alleged CNBC was ultimately in bed with the businesses it covered — that regular people's stocks and 401Ks were "capitalizing on your adventure."

What Stewart actually said was that 401ks were "capitalizing your adventure." The AP's addition completely and unambiguously reverses the meaning of the statement, attributing to Stewart the exact opposite of what he actually said, and a fairly important statement at that.

I shudder to think how many news outlets will carry this misquote tomorrow, which really robs all substance from the message Stewart was conveying.

President Obama's directive on renditions which Axolotl refers to, specifically states that not only will renditions be carried out in compliance with Geneva, an independent commission will be created to ensure compliance with American and international law. You may not like the concept, but you can't deny that this is in fact a change in policy.

"In our review, the evidence in this case was
insufficient to conclude that those outreach activities violated statutory prohibitions on publicity or propaganda.
However, we acknowledge that the National Defense
Authorization Act requires the Comptroller General of render a definitive legal opinion to the Congress on the matter."