This is an excerpt from Scott Rosenberg's blog over at Salon. Finally, a breath of fresh air in regards to the positions of virtually everybody, but Democratic candidates in particular, regarding the 'war on terror.'

No one is saying "outlaw regimes are no threat." What a lot of us are saying is, the Bush regime is doing a poor job of handling the real threats. While we finally pack in the inspectors and admit (despite Bush's desperate parsing of the word "program") that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, we face a regime in North Korea that clearly does have such weapons. Does Kim Jong Il look at Iraq and think, "Oh no, look at how quickly Bush toppled Saddam, I'm in trouble"? Or does he think, "I'm glad the U.S. is so busy trying to protect its helicopters in Baghdad -- that gives me a chance to stockpile more nukes"?

To review an accurate scorecard of the nation's wins and losses in the war on terror so far would be too damning of the president's performance. So instead his State of the Union lunged for the crudest advantage: "If you don't support me and my policies, you must think there's no threat at all."

For a more thorough, critical breakdown of W's State of the Union address, check out this article in USA Today. I know, I know, USA Today, what? But seriously, it cuts through the spin and lays the facts out pretty plain and simple. How anyone can support Bush for re-election after reading this is beyond me...