Steve Benen, who can always be depended upon to leap to the defense of anything Barack Obama does,(So long as it bows to the whackjob left) … does it yet again: 
OUR STUNTED DISCOURSE…. For over a week now, the right has been working aggressively to go after President Obama over national security policy. But since the failed Christmas-day plot, conservatives haven’t quite come up with a coherent line of attack. Indeed, nine days later, I’m still not quite sure what it is the right is complaining about. I’ve spent the last week feeling a bit like Brick Tamland saying, “I don’t know what we’re yelling about .”
Right-wing pundit Charles Krauthammer seems to think  the problem has little to do with substantive disputes, and more to do with semantic differences.
[J]ust to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.
Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.”
It’s hard to overstate who strikingly dumb this is. President Obama has stressed repeatedly  over the last year, using plain and unambiguous language that even Charles Krauthammer can understand, that he believes the nation is at “war” with al Qaeda and other terrorist networks who seek to commit acts of violence against the United States and its allies. The president never “declared” any war “over.” Krauthammer either hasn’t been paying attention, or he’s blatantly lying, hoping his readers aren’t quite sharp enough to know the difference.
Before I address the trust of your comment, here’s a clue, Steve. When you cite an example suppsoedly proving Obama said or didn’t say something, “Think Progress” isn’t exactly the source to turn to for such proof. That you chose them for your cite confirms to me me you couldn’t do any better… that you’ve got noting at all to back your point with.
There seems little doubt among the electorate, even among most Democrats, that Obama is seeking to minimize the idea that we are a nation at war. It seems equally clear why he would do so… he’s trying to mollify the far lefties such as yourself and “Think Progress”. It’s a political choice, not a practical, security driven one… and certainly not one based on facts.
If our discourse could rise above a junior-high level, “even the dimmest” would understand that the key to national security is the efficacy of the policy, not the semantics. And when it comes to counter-terrorism, Obama and his team have proven themselves quite effective at capturing, detaining, and occasionally even killing terrorists.
Yeah, right, Steve. Which of course is why all the headlines all seem to be about an underwear bomber out of Detroit, these days. Yep. That’s as good an example as any of the efficacy of Obama terrorism policy . And of course Obama’s not trying to minimize the political fallout. That’s why he took three flipping days to even comment on that bombing attempt (During which time he refused to refer to the crotch bomber as a Muslim terrorist) and why it took less than three hours for that self-same President to issue a statement about Dick Cheney.
Do you think everyone missed what Obama considers the priority, here?
Once again, reality runs over your rhetoric.
Ummmm… Steve? I’d get some iodine for that. You’re welcome.