As former Vice President Dick Cheney renews his attacks on the Obama administration with a press release accusing Obama of "pretending" the U.S. is not at war with al Qaeda, similar rhetorical flourishes are showing up in Connecticut political contests.MASH notes to Politico, we get the chance to follow up with Simmons. Does the former congressman really think that Obama did not realize until the unsuccessful terrorist attack on Christmas Day that bin Laden had declared war on the U.S.?has told the press the change in terms is an attempt to move away from the "politics of fear," a fairly unsubtle dig at people like Cheney and his fellow Republicans, which has clearly irked some, like Simmons and Rep. Peter King, R-New York.

For instance, on Wednesday, after an interview on economic issues, former Rep. Rob Simmons, who's battling Linda McMahon for the Republican Senate nomination, issued his own critique of the Obama administration's effort to stop al Qaeda. Most of it wasn't new: Simmons has already publicly condemned the move to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court, a move also condemned by Republicans but supported by civil libertarians who object to the extrajudicial military commissions supported by both Obama and former President George W. Bush.

"First of all, I hope that the administration now has come to realize what many of us have been concerned about for a decade now: that Osama bin Laden is a man who has declared war with America, that al Qaeda is at war with America, that al Qaeda is trying to conduct terrorist attacks against America," Simmons said.

But unlike with Cheney, who seems to speak these days either on Sunday morning television or via

No, Simmons said, it was rather that he and others object to the administration's decision to scrap the Bush-era term "Global War on Terrorism," which Obama and his appointees have replaced primarily with explicit references to al Qaeda and the Taliban as individual groups. Instead, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has referred to preparing for and rebuffing a category of "man-made disasters," under which heading the department (and HHS) includes terrorism, bioterrorism, pandemics, and radiation events. Napolitano

insufficiently "emotional" in a televised briefing. So her goose is not necessarily cooked at DHS, but I guess community theater is out.has noted the disparity in reaction to Obama's handling of this case and the way Bush handled the case of Richard Reid, who tried a remarkably similar attack only months after 9/11, with explosives hidden in his shoes instead of his underwear.have noted, that prosecution occurred even as other would-be terrorists, like Jose Padilla, were sent to Guantanamo Bay and through the military commission process, so the argument that such a transfer wasn't yet available to the prosecutors trying Reid doesn't bear out.)That won't be a sufficient explanation for those in the Democratic Party and on the left who see this week's talking points and Cheney missives as just an attempt to politicize a very narrowly avoided catastrophic attack. But it will be very interesting to see if the sudden resurgence in popular attention to al Qaeda's reach within the U.S. (as opposed to anti-tax demonstrations and Hitler-mustache posters) changes the tenor of 2010 political races.

King's latest rejoinder, by the way, is that Napolitano was

Simmons also objected to a clumsy Napolitano TV appearance, when she appeared to say shortly after the foiled Dec. 25 attack that the nation's airline security system had "worked"; Napolitano has since said her remarks were taken out of context, and Obama has condemned specific failures that allowed 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab to board the Detroit-bound airliner he tried to bring down.

Where it gets even muddier is the issue on which some of Simmons' former House colleagues have been making noise in recent days, namely the suggestion that Obama has been slow to respond to the event, and that indicting Mutallab in federal court is reckless and irresponsible. Politico, to its credit,

Simmons said Wednesday he supports moving Mutallab out of the courts and into a military commission, which would operate without the procedural safeguards and transparency of U.S. courts (and which are routinely used to prosecute criminals, foreign or otherwise, for successful or attempted violent crimes). In this critique, Simmons is consistent with recent remarks he made about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- he calls for the creation of a separate national security court system to handle terrorists or those otherwise affiliated with al Qaeda, as recommended by Glenn Sulmasy of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

But that was not what he said as the Bush administration indicted, tried, convicted and jailed Richard Reid in the federal courts. (As some liberal-leaning news outlets like Talking Points Memo

On Wednesday, Simmons said that times have simply changed.

Asked the reason for his different responses to Reid and Mutallab, Simmons replied, "Probably time."

A request for elaboration yielded the following: "It takes time to examine what the patterns are. ...

"I'm just simply saying that there has been inconsistency in the way that we deal with these folks... This guy was recruited by al Qaeda, or self-recruited. That makes him a jihadist. He's an operative. He is a warrior."

That won't be a sufficient explanation for those in the Democratic Party and on the left who see this week's talking points and Cheney missives as just an attempt to politicize a very narrowly avoided catastrophic attack. But it will be very interesting to see if the sudden resurgence in popular attention to al Qaeda's reach within the U.S. (as opposed to anti-tax demonstrations and Hitler-mustache posters) changes the tenor of 2010 political races.Especially Simmons' own. As he noted Wednesday, Simmons chaired a subcommittee on information-sharing and counter-terrorism while a member of the House, and the former CIA and Army intelligence officer has passionate views about the structure -- and the strengths and weaknesses -- of our infrastructure for detecting and foiling plots to blow up innocent people. Wouldn't it be interesting if that's what turned out to be the critical point of debate in the 2010 Senate race: how to protect the nation without using fear as a partisan cudgel, as opposed to, say, the mortgage rates of politicians, or who most fervently denounces pro wrestling?

Especially Simmons' own. As he noted Wednesday, Simmons chaired a subcommittee on information-sharing and counter-terrorism while a member of the House, and the former CIA and Army intelligence officer has passionate views about the structure -- and the strengths and weaknesses -- of our infrastructure for detecting and foiling plots to blow up innocent people. Wouldn't it be interesting if that's what turned out to be the critical point of debate in the 2010 Senate race: how to protect the nation without using fear as a partisan cudgel, as opposed to, say, the mortgage rates of politicians, or who most fervently denounces pro wrestling?

Update:  @Dollar Bill: Whole lotta bluster behind your pseudonym there, big fella. Go to your local library and look up the stories we wrote about Dodd, AIG and bonuses. You can handle that, can't you?

@Dollar Bill: Whole lotta bluster behind your pseudonym there, big fella. Go to your local library and look up the stories we wrote about Dodd, AIG and bonuses. You can handle that, can't you? @jackl09: Who's arguing for milk and cookies? I'm certainly not. You seem to be confusing two different stories. Richard Reid wasn't "sent back to Saudi" or otherwise subject to rendition. He was prosecuted and he's currently stowed away in a federal prison, just like you or I would be if we tried to bomb a U.S. airliner. The question is why that way of dealing with a foiled terrorist was okay in the beginning of the decade, but the same procedure is not okay now. If there's a reason -- and there might be, as Simmons said -- I'm all ears and eager to hear it explained in full. But if it's just because a different party holds the presidency and their opponents want a line of attack

@jackl09: Who's arguing for milk and cookies? I'm certainly not. You seem to be confusing two different stories. Richard Reid wasn't "sent back to Saudi" or otherwise subject to rendition. He was prosecuted and he's currently stowed away in a federal prison, just like you or I would be if we tried to bomb a U.S. airliner. The question is why that way of dealing with a foiled terrorist was okay in the beginning of the decade, but the same procedure is not okay now. If there's a reason -- and there might be, as Simmons said -- I'm all ears and eager to hear it explained in full. But if it's just because a different party holds the presidency and their opponents want a line of attack for a fundraising appeal, well, that's not all that convincing a reason to scrap 200 years of criminal justice procedure.