here. is there any truth to the argument we would be fighting afghanistan people in the united states if we weren t there fighting them there? no. afghanistan people would have come to america to fight us? the argument to fight them there so we don t have to fight them there has no meaning? it holds no water. it wasn t afghans that attacked us. it was osama bin laden. it was the al qaeda. we had channels up until 9/11. they have no transport. our security is maintained here inside the country and not there. if we were to leave, would colorado there be an attack launched out of afghanistan? maybe. but certainly not fluff to keep a hundred thousand troops in that uncan i indefinitely. let me go to brian, that same question. what have we achieved in all of this death in iraq and
same conflict, this time next year with 10,000 less troops or 20,000 less troops. 2014, getting troops out is our combat troops, we still keep 25,000 trainers over there. which is amazing to me. so getting to that point is predicated on our militarily defeating the insurgency. we haven t seen it. for all this talk here is a dangerous point. could the president go into the most dangerous area, where is somewhere in the middle where nothing gets done. yes. the job will keep getting bigger with fewer troops. that sounds like a recipe for disaster. instead after hundred thousand troops fighting the same war they are down to 25,000 fighting the same kind of war. what you get is i think the president is similar under 2009, trying to please everybody. getting a difference again which you know we will find out as the program goes on. i want to find out why the president believes this were. you don t. senator boxer believes we got to come home. the president doesn t quite
we can all agree on that, a lot of us. yes. he s a qualified guy, i think he ran a terrible campaign, but he did inconvenient truth a hell of a documentary, and now he s back. what do you make of his going after the president in this fashion? well, you know, eric made a good point. i did real the whole 7,000 words. it s inspiring, a bit depressing, but most is spent on us not the three of us, but on the media, and on this fog that has been caused by spending, by powerful interests who are against any action on climit change. that s really what it s about. then he comes to obama. when he gets to obama, giving him credit for some things he s done, and it s kind of bigger than that. what he s saying is what other liberal advocates say. he hasn t told a story of, a, what we re up against, but also, b, what we can do about it.
there s a lot of places in coal country you dare not spend a nickel for climate change issues. isn t that the problem? we ve gone from a place where we knew the crisis we were phasing. now you can t even talk reasonably about the solutions. i think that s gore s main point, the attack on climate science is on the attack on the rule of reason, an attack on our ability as a society to hold a rational debate on what the facts say and what we need to do. back to joan, and eric jump in, too, have we ever had a time where one side is willing to say something you can argue about wars and measuring facts, but here s a fact. rush limbaugh says stuff that is just not true. i never use the word lie, but it s appropriate here. it is, it is. glenn beck, i hear him years ago on the radio before he was on tv saying there s no climate change pandering to business times.
it voted for clinton. it s gone. you can t talk cap and trade in west virginia. there s a lot of places in coal country you dare not spend a nickel for climate change issues. isn t that the problem? we ve gone from a place where we knew the crisis we were phasing. now you can t even talk reasonably about the solutions. i think that s gore s main point, the attack on climate science is on the attack on the rule of reason, an attack on our ability as a society to hold a rational debate on what the facts say and what we need to do. back to joan, and eric jump in, too, have we ever had a time where one side is willing to say something you can argue about wars and measuring facts, but here s fa fact. rush limbaugh says stuff that is just not true. i never use the word lie, but it s appropriate here. it is, it is. glenn beck, i hear him years ago on the radio before he was on tv saying there s no climate