On the September 9 edition of NBC's Meet The Press, host Tim Russert stated that in "[e]very debate ... the Republicans have, they make their point, 'We understand Islamic fascism; we understand the terrorist threat; the Democrats don't.' That is going to be their issue in 2008, just as it was in '04 and in 2000." In response, Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) senior national correspondent David Brody asserted: “At the end of the day ... this issue [terrorism] helps the Republicans more than the Democrats because they're going to be able to enforce this idea that the Democrats want to go at this with law enforcement and the Republicans don't, and I think that will be the key difference as we move ahead.” Neither Russert nor his other guest, CNBC chief Washington correspondent and Wall Street Journal senior contributing writer John Harwood, challenged Brody's assertion that the issue of terrorism “helps the Republicans more than the Democrats.” Nor did either address Brody's specific claim that Democrats take a “law enforcement” approach to dealing with national security issues.

In fact, Democrats have offered strategies for fighting Al Qaeda. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), as well as former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), have advocated focusing on the regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where Al Qaeda has been allowed to “regenerate[],” according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). In a July 10 speech, Clinton asserted: “Our efforts must also involve a regional recommitment to success in Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurging; they and their al Qaeda allies must not succeed. As President, I will not allow us to fail in Afghanistan. We simply cannot allow al Qaeda to reclaim the country as its safe haven or the Taliban to re-establish its repressive regime.” In an August 1 speech, Obama asserted: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will.” Most recently, in a September 7 speech, Edwards asserted: “In Pakistan, the recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has established a safe haven in the northwest tribal areas. We have given the Musharraf government billions of dollars of aid in the last several years, yet they have done far too little to get control over these areas. As president, I will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan, including strengthening the reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. But I want to be clear about one thing: if we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will.”

Congressional Democrats have also offered strategies for dealing specifically with Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Senate recently debated an amendment to the defense authorization bill -- offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) -- that calls for a “reduction” of U.S forces in Iraq but also stipulates that the United States maintain a “limited presence” of troops in the region to protect “United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure”; to"[t]rain[], equip[], and provid[e] logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces [ISF]"; and to engage in “targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.”

From the September 9 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:

RUSSERT: Every debate, David Brody, the Republicans have, they make their point, “We understand Islamic fascism; we understand the terrorist threat; the Democrats don't.” That is going to be their issue in 2008, as it was in '04 and in 2000.

BRODY: There's no doubt about it. I mean, I think it's somewhat of a, on the Republican side, a testosterone convention, in essence, is what it is. Because you have John McCain following him [bin Laden] “to the gates of hell.” And you have Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney now saying Osama bin Laden is “crazy” and a little “kooky.”

They are going to push this all the time. What's interesting though, I think, the bigger issue is on national security. We notice that the Democrats, in all of these poll numbers we see, that they trump the Republicans in many areas. When it comes to national security, it's roughly about even now. Well, of course before it was more with the Republicans. Now it's more even. But still, At the end of the day, the Republicans, this issue helps the Republicans more than the Democrats because they're going to be able to enforce this idea that the Democrats want to go at this with law enforcement and the Republicans don't, and I think that will be the key difference as we move ahead.

RUSSERT: Can the Democrats say, “Excuse me, Republicans, you had your chance. You decided the Iraq war was the way to go after the war on terror, and that was wrong. We have a different way, a better way”?

[...]

BRODY: And I think what you're going to see is that the Democrats are going to say, "OK, well, wait a minute, Osama bin Laden and that tape, well, he's still out there. Why aren't we in Afghanistan, and we're in Iraq?' And I think you're going to see that argument framed that way.

RUSSERT: Rudy Giuliani, pro-abortion rights, pro-gay rights, pro-handgun control, pro-stem cell research, and yet he's leading the national polls amongst Republicans because of security?

BRODY: Because of security, also because of his straight-shooter perception or reality or whatever you want to call it. I mean, the bottom line is, is that you at least get a sense of where Giuliani stands on an issue. And with Mitt Romney -- and he's -- and with Mitt Romney, you're not quite sure, at least, you know, back in the past. So, I mean, Giuliani's been able to capitalize on that, and I think that's helped him a lot.

RUSSERT: Larry Craig, the senator from Idaho, had a news conference a week ago Saturday. It seems like an eternity now. And he used these carefully chosen words. Let's listen.