John Fund Vs. Paul Wolfowitz

From Media Matters: Talking about Al Qaida on Hardball John Fund said:

So they presumed that maybe, if we had a cataclysmic terrorist attack, we might just pull our horns out of the Middle East. And that was ultimately -- or Saudi Arabia, at least. Getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia would have been a signal victory for them. I don't think they anticipated the extent of the attack because our previous responses were so weak.

Of course he was wrong on the facts. Now here's Paul Wolfowitz from his famous Vanity Fair interview on the same subject:

There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

We have done the exact thing and for the very purpose that John Fund calls capitulation, that John Fund says Osama Bin Laden wanted us to do. Maybe someone will point this out to John Fund?