One of the things people who write a lot about national-security issues related to terrorism do is suggest that Muslims are not fulfilling their responsibility to reject religious justifications for violence. Consider for a second, though, that in this country someone who suggests bombing a Muslim country for the purpose of reversing a president's political and economic fortunes can still be considered a "moderate."
How absolutely maddening must that seem to reformers in Muslim countries? That in America, one can call for a course of action, under the pettiest of pretenses, that could lead to large-scale death and destruction but be considered moderate if one is a non-Muslim American, while the standard for moderate American Muslims, or even Muslims abroad, is someone who refuses to criticize American military intervention in foreign countries? It's really hard to imagine how anyone agreeing to adhere to that double standard retains credibility among the foreign audiences America wants to persuade of its good intentions.
