If BHO were really focused on terrorism, he would have launched an attack on Iran or another country that harbors Al Qaeda in response to the Christmas attack.

Or another state. There are a lot of people rooting for American failure in, say, Alabama. Obama should invade that failed state right away.

You take a look at Jack Reed's colleagues -- like "light-skinned" Harry Reid, for example -- and you will find oodles of reasons why the Dims' discourse forever lets one down in the face of the insane nihilism of the Repugnants, or even in response to the real crises that surround us on nearly every institutional level.

We are ruled by the corrupt, the incompetent, the nihilistic -- and just a whole lot of dumb fucks...

I think it's an overstatement to characterize al Qaeda as an "existential threat" to the United States, but the larger point -- Obama has been more focused on counter-terrorism than any of his predecessors -- is both sound and reasonable. Why Reed's Democratic colleagues don't echo the sentiment more frequently and forcefully is unclear.

Obama did say that the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity, not a war of choice. Is there room in between "a war of necessity" and a war against an "existential threat"?

Why don't the Democrats echo the sentiment more frequently and forcefully? That might be a topic for a whole thread. My sense is that a majority of them disagree with Reed's sentiment, think the "war" (a word that Obama uses) on terrorists is a mirage or a distraction, and think the money could be better spent on something else, such as American universal health care and helping third-world countries prepare for or prevent global warming.

Bush and Cheney were credible and tough because, well, we're just supposed to think so.

Actually it's because they are big, big assholes, they have been big, big assholes for their entire lives and they come from families of big, big assholes.

Stink is a kind of cred where the point is clearing the room.

Good for Jack Reed. Now let's get more Dems out there, saying the same thing.

As a matter of fact, Matthew, it would be nice if a majority of them did think the word "war" is a mirage or a distraction, and instead, thought that a better word would be "police action". Yes, the money could be better spent on things like American universal health care and helping third-world countries prevent global warming.

"Why Reed's Democratic colleagues don't echo the sentiment more frequently and forcefully is unclear."

No, it is NOT unclear. As I posted earlier, there is a serious Testosterone Gap in the Democratic Caucus.

Sen. Reed and the Dems should insist that he (Reed) is introduced every single time he appears on a panel, news show, etc. as a West Point Grad and former military elite. He certainly has more credentials than AWOL Bush, 5-deferment Cheney, or the idiotic Chris Wallace.

Interesting that right winger Bush water carrier Fox show host Chris Wallace interrupted
Jack Reed's statement that Obama is better on security than GW Bush was.
Interesting, these show hosts proclivities...

On "Meet the Press" this morning, I also heard none other than show host David Gregory give plenty of time for Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele to offer his self-serving remarks, yet,
David Gregory absolutely very quickly over-talked and interrupted Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine when Mr. Kaine started to say how Michael Steele said on national television that Republicans were not ready to take over in 2010, nor were they ready to lead.

Wonder if Mr. Gregory isn't just like Fox News' Chris Wallace in terms of unwittingly spilling out his hostile personal views of the democratic party. Neither are neutral.
Very telling.

"A West Point grad, Reed was an Army Ranger and a paratrooper, and served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry Platoon Leader, a Company Commander, and a Battalion Staff Officer. He's now a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee."

Yeah right, what a poseur. John Wayne killed a lot more guys than him.

It's futile to complain about who rules us.

We are ruled by the same group of people - essentially a bunch of rich people, most of them white males. The only difference between the two subdivisions of this group is that one of them consists of slightly more enlightened persons who have the desire to serve the interests of the cultural and economic groups other than the one to which they themselves belong.

Of course, such overlooking of the interests of their own group can only go this far, and that is the reason that their are so many forces that tend to alienate the base of the Democratic Party from its leaders.

John McCain is an incompetent frat-boy who destroyed four aircraft, 'American' aircraft, before he even got off the deck of the aircraft carrier. Before getting shot down while dropping bombs on innocent civilians from ten thousand feet, he in fact served less time 'in-country' than I and my compatriots spent on a single patrol, and then sold out his fellow POWs in receiving preferential treatment for his celebrity status as the son and grand-son of famous 'American' navel officers.

Credible my almost black ass.

Wallace's brain must be in a vegetative state.

1. The Bush admin began their first term by ignoring terrorism entirely. To the point that Clarke was running around with his "hair on fire" trying to get them to pay attention.

2. The PDF of August 6, 2001. The paper everyone wants to forget. "You've done your job. Now go home. Hey! Watch this swing."

3. Then 9/11. A terrorist act which was responded to as if FDR had decided to bomb Tahiti in revenge for Pearl Harbor.
Terrorists of Saudi origin? Check.
Funded by Saudis? Check.
Located in Afghanistan? Check.
On September 12, they began efforts to turn it into an excuse for an attack on Iraq.

4. Having completely underestimated the challenge of Iraq; and having let bin Laden escape, in order not to defuse their rationale for attacking Iraq - they then got bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq, while Afghanistan II got ready for a rerun.

Even that tool Blair was unwilling to go along with the assault on Iraq - and demanded action in Afghanistan before going for the oil.

And Wallace even dares to pretend otherwise ...

Tool.

Do you honestly think the typical fox viewer has any clue about what an "existential threat" is? That's too many syllables for them to comprehend. Thems elite liberal words!!!

SteinL

You are waving your liberal flag here. Things that you listed above only exist in "liberal world". They are not acknowledged as real in the world of Chris Wallace but are dismissed as simply the "liberal press" trying to dilute the brilliance of Bush's magnificent tenure.

What were you thinking? Don't you know that Bush saved us form the evil Clinton and his hordes of evil appeasers? You can bet that Wallace does!

You are correct, Jill. The biggest word known by Fox viewers is delicatessen.

I live in tiny RI, a failed state in its own right (we have more in common with Mississippi than with either of our neighbours, MA or CT - except the accent and the weather).

And yet, we are the proud home of two of the very best, most thoughtful, smartest and most articulate Senators, in the aforementioned Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, who should share rookie-of-the-term honor with Al Franken.

Would that our local and state government attracted and produced folks like this.

Oh, and Al - careful, your parody troll slip is showing. Maybe you should go back to Yglesias and annoy them.

If you read Greenwald's commentary at salon.com on the White House press conference where Helen Thomas tried in vain to get a straight answer to a simple question - what motivates terrorists? - you will see that this whole thing is an obscene kabuki dance.

The basic fact is that the U.S. struts about the world stage trying to give the impression that it is doing the generous, warm-hearted thing while all the time the establishment is really trying to promote military hegemony.

So it is not possible to have any kind of meaningful debate about this fundamental issue.

In the meantime because Republicans are (still) supposedly much stronger on national security than Democrats it is OK to persist with the notion that George Bush was more focused on terrorism than Barack Obama.

In the meantime the other least-as-important issues - the economy, health care reform, . . . - are left aside and the Amurrican public is left to think that the only issue for the government to deal with is terrorism (conveniently not defined too clearly so that the maximum amount of mileage can be gained by those who are in a position to capitalize on the situation).

One sees more and more frequent references to "the abysmal level of public discourse". Actually, the level of obfuscation in public discourse is to be admired: the energy and skill expended in sustaining these smokescreens is truly something to wonder at.

i've always wondered what is so "heroic" about being shot down and captured. crash McCain was the best naval aviator the nva ever had, in my opinion.

"Existential threat" --- hey, hey, getting too French in there, Chris.

When Gary Powers' U2 was shot down, people got mad at him because he didn't commit suicide rather than be captured. Luckily, McCain has the media on his side.

I'm starting to think that with his regular appearance at the top of threads that Al might be a free service provided by Steve Benen.

Of course Obama is more focused on the threat of terror than Bush and his team were. The Bush administration was never interested in fighting real terrorism, not really. They were only interested in using the threat of terrorism to advance other agendas -- whether domestically so they could run against Democrats they painted as "weak" or in foreign affairs so that they could use terrorism to project American power into stragegic regions like the middle east and against adversaries like Saddam that had been in their crosshairs for years.

That is why Cheney and the neocons are so rabid about getting Obama to call the conflict with terrorism a "war" because it isn't and never was. But the real neocon agenda was a war, it just wasn't focused on terrorists primarily. Obama understands that and is the only one of the two who is fighting al Qaeda as the primary enemy and not as some proxy for other agendas. And that is why Cheney et al are attacking him so vigorously.

I forgot that GWB said he didnt really care where OBL was.

Oh, and Al - careful, your parody troll slip is showing. Maybe you should go back to Yglesias and annoy them. - efgoldman @ 16:40

My spin is that during these tough times, Al has had to give up his paid writer and wing it for her/him self. Certainly we all benefit from his pain(ed writing), no?

What a fucking joke. The Republicans have done more damage to this country that Osama Bin Laden or some pathetic underwear bomber ever have and ever will. Hell, they've applied Reaganomics to banking and almost took down the whole fucking world.

Our response to terrorism is more dangerous than terrorism itself. The more the Dems try to out-macho the Republicans, the less safe we will become.

The people who really matter here, Al Qaeda, probably are impressed with Obama on national security. He has increased drone attacks on them, killed many leaders, to the point where they are dispersing from Pakistan. But what do they matter? What does reality matter in DC?