Tell who exactly? How do you maintain deniability if you tell them? And what do you tell the American people? Do you think that we could keep that secret considering the number of people involved?
George W. Bush certainly has credibility in this regard: the rational elements of the Islamic world have already noted that the destruction of two buildings in NYC led to the removal of two governments perceived as too supportive of the terrorists. Bush's payback had a huge, huge multiplier.
Yeah, right. Since we have taken down those two state sponsors of terrorism, all attacks have stopped--not. Iran and Syria are providing training and sending arms and advisors to help the insurgents in Iraq, including AQ. When/if we have another major attack here, will you still be saying the same thing?
Tell who exactly? How do you maintain deniability if you tell them? And what do you tell the American people? Do you think that we could keep that secret considering the number of people involved?
Our govt has already done this. Damascus, Tehran, etc. have all been put on notice.
I can’t elaborate, but we HAVE put them on notice.
Those that need to know. It can be a fairly small set of people. Diplomats deal in secrets all the time. Those who are ordered to carefully monitor Islamic extremists don't have to know the why behind the diligent monitoring. Why does the government have to tell the American people anything about the policy? Who really expects our government to detail its strategic plans?
Since we have taken down those two state sponsors of terrorism, all attacks have stopped--not.
You missed my point. George W. Bush has credibility threatening disproportionate responses because he has already responded in a disproportionate fashion. Is any policy going to end all terrorist acts? No but the policy here is to limit catastrophic terrorist acts.