Ok, this is my mantra, you've heard all before, but, "Once more, with feeling!" (with apologies to Joss Whedon.)
Matt Yglesias writes an article in The Prospect "Rational Security: The problem isn't that George W. Bush hasn't done enough in the war on terrorism -- it's that he's hardly fought it at all."
No kidding. One problem I had with the article is this: ". . . Meanwhile, when Democrats do talk about national security, the tendency has been to focus on domestic topics like homeland security and energy independence -- areas where the national security agenda conveniently overlaps with that of left-leaning constituencies like public sector unions and environmentalists.
There are good points to be made on these topics, and they should be made. Nevertheless, the central debate here is not one Democrats should be running away from. The contention that the continued reality of the terrorist threat somehow vindicates the Bush approach is absurd -- if anything, it does the reverse -- and liberals need to start saying so. . . "
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/yglesias-m-03-16.html
Ahem, well there is one Dem who has been going after Bush on this for months . . . you guessed it, Gen. Wesley Clark.