Steve Benen notes that the other day, the Wall Street Journal accused President Obama of having a "see-no-evil approach" to terrorism. It would probably be more accurate to say that conservatives have opted to ignore recent counterterrorism successes because they don't fit their preferred paradigm--that terrorists can only be defeated through belligerent rhetoric, manly bluster, and you know, waterboarding. After spending the Bush years trumpeting the slightest counter-terrorism success--no matter how realistic the danger or significant the event--as a major triumph, conservatives have opted to stay silent when the Obama administration makes headway. National Review barely acknowledged the death Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud (except to make an "Obamacare" joke) despite having paid a great deal of attention to him prior to his death. Likewise, the death of Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, an al Qaeda leader in Somalia, has gone unnoticed over at NR, just like the news that Obama is spending $75 billion on intelligence. If you're part of the conservative media, it makes sense that you wouldn't actually know what's going on.
Now, more money doesn't necessarily mean better results, but given the amount of cash the government is spending on intelligence, it's ludicrous to suggest the administration has adopted a "see-no-evil" approach. Rather, the conservative echosphere has decided it will simply ignore the administration's intelligence efforts, because they're unable to reconcile the administration's "draining the swamps" approach with success in fighting terrorism. But just because they're ignoring it, doesn't mean it's not happening.
-- A. Serwer
