attacking al qaeda. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in new york. leading off tonight, no country for old men. another victory in the war on terrorist, this time in yemen. the united states killed anwar al awlaki and a colleague who edited al qaeda's online magazine. awlaki has been linked to numerous incidents, including the underwear bomber and the murderous assault at ft. hood. along with the killing of osama bin laden, today's drone strike

in yemen makes it that much more difficult for republicans to credibly call the president weak on terrorism. also, a new poll shows that most people still blame president bush for the awful economy. but bush isn't on the ballot next november. president, it looks like it's time for a new strategy. plus, jersey sore. amid all the talk of chris christie getting in the race comes word today that the governor doesn't really get along with the big-name democrats in his state. senator frank lautenberg calls him the king of liars. we'll ask him what he means by that. and mr. president, you're on the air. president obama joined our colleague michael smerconish yesterday on his radio show today. to talk about the economy, and efforts to restrict voting rights. michael smerconish joins us later. finally, let me finish tonight with a night millions say they'll never forget. we start with another victory for president obama on the war on terrorism. edward collins is a terrorist analyst. and richard wolffe is an msnbc analyst.

how did we get him? >> we got him because of the fact after months of tracking this individual, after months of firing missiles at him fruitlessly, we got the right opportunity. there was a meeting that was taking place, it was not near a major populated zone, there wasn't the threat of civilian casualties, and it worked out. it was the right time and the right place. but there was a lot of work and there were a lot of failed efforts that led into this. >> how safer are we today, because we got him? >> well, here's the problem. anwar al awlaki didn't have a official title. he wasn't the leader, he wasn't the deputy leader. he was an adviser. so he assisted with recruiting westerners, okay, but he was not a military official. he's not a bomb maker. unfortunately, as far as al qaeda and yemen goes, they have pretty much the same military capabilities today as they did yesterday. it's more of a long-term thing. it may be more difficult for them -- >> wait a minute, let's get this thing straight. is he operations or is he propaganda? >> look, he's to a small disagree operations, to a large degree, propaganda. this is somebody who is known as the godfather of homegrown terrorism, of contemporary, homegrown terrorism.

he's far more valuable in terms of recruiting lone wolves and homegrown extremists than he is as a military official within or in support of aqap. >> so basically al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, this guy goes, gets on the air, gets on the internet, and stirs up people who may possibly be leaning against u.s. policy in the mideast, turns them into radicals. >> they see him as a rock star. the guy's out in ft. dix in new jersey, who were scoping out terrorist targets, they were listening to anwar al awlaki on their car stereo system while they were pointing out various targets and saying, this the guy, this guy knows how to do it. we need to follow exactly what this guy is telling us to do. >> looks like an enemy in the field to me. today, the president said that the death of anwar al awlaki was a significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al qaeda and its affiliates. let's watch the president. >> the death of awlaki is a major blow to al qaeda's most active operational affiliate. but make no mistake. this is further proof that al

qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world. working with yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be determined, we will be deliberate, we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill americans. >> let me go to richard wolffe. richard, you know, it reminds me, back in the bush era, which seems like a long time ago, thank god, that bush was always saying things in his strange way, i'm not going think a lot about getting bin laden, it never occurs to me, here's the guy he swore he was going to get the friday after 9/11. he tried to pretend that they weren't really worth going after. that we had more important you war to fight in iraq. talk about a long way car effort there.

this president seems to be targeted towards getting the destruction of al qaeda accomplished. >> right. and look, i think george bush was sincere about wanting to get bin laden. obviously they diverted themselves into iraq. but results count, and there's a narrative that this administration can build up, not just about al qaeda but iraq and afghanistan, which is results-based. there are key markers here that really demolish the republican line about this president that he doesn't have a policy or he's weak or he's incompetent or he apologizes for america around the world. these kind of moments bring home how focused he has been on what he said he would do, which is to go after the leadership of al qaeda and these splinter groups, which have proved so effective. >> not exactly, to use the wondrously ingenious phrase of sarah palin, palling around with terrorists, is it? >> not exactly. >> he's killing them. >> i'm sure you'll have people say these things, but for reasonable voters in the middle, swing independent voters, moderate voters, they've got to pull back into the fold in this election. they're going to hear that stuff.

newt gingrich is not going to stop saying this stuff, or sarah palin, and they're going to see that disconnect between what the president has actually done and this caricature that republicans have where this president doesn't know what he's doing, isn't up to the job, has no idea -- i mean, look at the arab spring. they're going after the arab spring saying he doesn't know what he's doing, mubarak is gone, gadhafi is gone, al qaeda's leadership is gone. america can actually rest a little bit easier. still got a long way to go, but it's still a much safer position and this president can claim a big chunk of the credit for it. >> how big a mission accomplished banner would bush have for this baby? anyway, here's what former state department official had to say about president obama's foreign policy record. aaron david miller advised six different secretaries of state on middle east policy, most recently colin powell. well, he told politico today, "the president has essentially morphed into a much less reckless and ideological version of bush 43. his policies on iraq, afghanistan, gitmo, iran, even patriot act issues resemble much more the pragmatic george w.

bush of 2007/2008 than the earlier lone ranger version." this doesn't bother me a bit, as an analyst/observer. what you're saying is as bush w. became more aware of reality as he got toward the end of his term, as he fell less under the influence of cheney, he began to become much better as a president and a leader. obama's more like him. >> yeah. look, obama really has gone aggressively after al qaeda. no one can argue with that. if anything, you could say that this is overly aggressive. we're going after people with missile strikes. but i think what ron paul and i think some others have gotten wrong here is the idea that just because he's an american citizen, we shouldn't be firing missiles at him. this is someone who declared war against the united states of america, who openly broadcast -- >> wait a minute, ron paul, talk about being out to lunch. you mean if you go join the nazi army and you're fighting in the army against us with the ss and you get killed in action, that's somehow wrong? you need to be given a bill of particulars or whatever? miranda rights? >> yeah, there's no mystery here. >> miranda rights. what are you talking about?

>> there's no mystery here. this is someone who went on video and said, i want to kill americans. i want other people to kill americans. as many as possible. that is declaring war against the united states. if you do something like that, if you make yourself into a clear and present threat to u.s. national security, i'm not sure what your argument is, that that's an assassination. >> let's go to this question, if someone is in the field doing operations, you have a good case to bring them down. >> look, the individual killed beside him, they published an article in "inspire" magazine, why i turned trader to america. other articles included "how to build a bomb in the kitchen of your mom." when you start encouraging that and building underwear bombs and bring down u.s. airliners, i don't see where the argument is

that you have lack due process. you are an enemy combatant. >> we should have a weird third country trial. what is he talking about? >> there eegs no mystery here. this is someone who acknowledged the role. there's no question about the guilt. >> it looks to me like -- i'll go to richard first. it seems like the cia is doing its job under petraeus followed by the work of leon panetta. >> it is in the cia, but you have to have leadership there. what the president has got in john brennan is someone with the authority and focus to follow there. there's been an effort in the white house to demolish these leaders as they emerge to use unprecedented drone attacks and it's been successful. you can see that in the

intelligence they picked up around bin laden. they were trying to keep low cover. not coming out into the open. it hampered them operationally and led them to their demise, not just around the al qaeda leadership its, but the splinter groups. look at what the president said he would do to get elected. it fits that. people can say whether they like his policy on israel or not. at least he said what he was going to do with al qaeda. >> thank you as always for excellent commentary on a big, good day for america. it's always better to win when you are against bad guys. most americans blame the bad economy on bush. it's good for president obama. bush is probably not going to run next time. just kidding. this is "hardball" on msnbc. i don't want healthy skin for a day. i want healthy skin for life. [ female announcer ] don't just moisturize,

improve the health of your skin with aveeno daily moisturizing lotion. the natural oatmeal formula goes beyond 24-hour moisture. it's clinically proven to improve your skin's health in one day, with significant improvement in 2 weeks. for healthy, beautiful skin that lasts. i found a moisturizer for life. [ female announcer ] aveeno daily moisturizing lotion. and for healthy, beautiful hair, try nourish plus haircare. only from aveeno. maybe not. v8 v-fusion juice gives them a full serving of vegetables plus a full serving of fruit. but it just tastes like fruit. [ male announcer ] get five dollars in money-saving coupons at v8juice.com.

ooh, the price sure doesn't. i'm tired of shopping around. [ sigh ] too bad you're not buying car insurance. like that's easy. oh, it is. progressive direct showed me their rates and the rates of their competitors. i saved hundreds when switching. we could use hundreds. yeah. wake up and smell the savings. out there with a better way. now, that's progressive.

welcome back. here is the hot potato question. who is responsible for the struggling economy? president obama or george w. bush. here is a surprising take on that question. let's listen. >> even though 50% of the american people think the economy tanked because of the last administration isn't relevant. we are in charge. i don't blame them for being upset, we are in charge. >> the poll is the new one from cnn. when asked who is responsible for the economy, 52% of the

americans say president bush and the republicans. hear that? 52% say bush and the republicans. 32% said obama and the democrats. bush isn't on the ballot i would argue next fall. it might be a time to change the argument. alex wagner and mia henderson. thank you for coming on tonight. it's a most to the point question about american politics. we know the economy is terrible. people are angry about it. everyone is. the question is, what is the smart, intelligent thing for this president to say as he attempts to fix it? is he smart to say it's bush's fault or look, we are in charge. we hope it gets better. we are not going to blame it on the past. >> i think biden is taking the argument, we opened up the church doors, the baby was on the steps. it's not our baby, but we are

going to take care of it. it's their job to shepherd it to a better place. how long is america going to give them? it took a long time to get into it. it's going to take a long time to get out of it. america's patience is growing thin. >> what do you think of that mia? i was thinking of arguing the president saying when you are doing a skiing event, hold up a sign that says ten for difficulty. is he smart to say it was hard or look, i'm turning things around. don't blame the other guys, blame me? >> you can see them getting away from that argument. americans have been feeling that pain for years and years and years. they immediately say it's the president's policies. if you dig deeper, they say the downturn has been going on for quite some time.

they are getting away from the blame game. they are trying to have a narrative to say they are turning things around. he's out on the campaign trail. i talked to folks thinking that's going to give him momentum and something to argument at the same time, he can point to the republicans and say they aren't doing anything. not only did they get us into this mess, but they are obstructionists. they feel now they are in a good place. again, we don't know what's going to happen with the americans jobs act. we don't know if he'll be able to run. >> if they had a smart political organization, they would have other people saying it was bush's fault, not the president. it's a message better delivered by third party. get your cabinet and members of congress to say it. look what he inherited, don't blame him. they don't have an organized

political structure like political parties normally do. here is biden on the economy. let's listen. >> right now, understandably, totally legitimate, this is a referendum on obama and biden for the nature and state of the economy. it's soon going to be a choice. it's soon going to be a choice. >> you report with the post. here is the question. the president had a sharp day in terms of execution. they caught a bad guy. al awe la ka. the question of palling around with terrorists, that was sarah palin. let me talk about something bachmann said today. she said the president is responsible. the democrats approved the politically correct loans. let's listen to her. this is going way back to the democrats in congress.

my shel bachmann laid it down. let's listen. >> we all know it was the government that caused this meltdown. the government through freddie and fannie, through keeping artificially low interest rates, through pushing the federal government, pushing the toxic subprime mortgages through the community reinvestment act forcing banks to make loans. it led to the disastrous meltdown that led ultimately in september of 2008 to the terrible consequences we are still dealing with today in our economy. >> you know, that's old time religion there. ice not fact. everybody knows wall street is guilty. they overleveraged. they gave credibility to the securities. they did it with default swaps. >> the cra, community

reinvestment act. it's class warfare. some economists are going to argue the cra played a role in bringing down the subprime mortgage scandal. the issue with bachmann is she completely ignores the loose regulatory environment. it's a gross mischaracterization. >> why is she exempting? explain the politics and somebody like bachmann. it's obvious. why does she hold harmless to wall street? not the rich. not the corporations. not new york. nobody did anything wrong here. it's the poor people. they were too ambitious to join the american dream. >> yeah. she fails to mention she got a loan from fannie and freddie from her own very lavish home. this is an old narrative from

the republicans. this whole idea that liberals are pandering to the poor and it's the poor people's fault that the economy is in such dire strai straits. they always have their hands out. >> thank you very much. up next, suspicions confirm what do tea partiers think is the most important. think about the one they really love. that's in the side show. you're watching "hardball" on msnbc. i

back to "hardball." now for the sideshow. first up, when you think of the bill of rights, what's the one amendment that you think's most central to what the country stands for? well, for illinois republican joe walsh, no surprise, it's not freedom of speech. which one tops the list for him?

that would be amendment number two, the right to keep and bear arms. advocating for his state to pass a concealed/carry law, walsh explained to his audience of tea partiers earlier this week -- "there's no issue when it comes to freedom that matters more than this. like the second amendment, the most important amendment in the bill of rights is the second amendment. it protects every other amendment. it is the last line of defense between us and our government." does mr. walsh really believe that his owning a gun has any positive influence on the success of our democracy? this is delusional. next up, operation bargain hunt. that was a feed taken on by the first lady yesterday afternoon, as she went out to pick up a few things at a nearby target. with a baseball cap and a pair of sunglasses, looks like she and her plains-clothed security detail were able to pull it off. spotted only by the cashier at target and an a.p. photographer. what about the president, here's what he had to say during his interview with michael smerconish earlier today.

>> i don't even want to shop, all i want to do is take a walk, but as she reminds me, nothing i do is under cover. she gets embarrassed when she goes out with me, because there's an ambulance and a caboose and a dogsled. you know, it trails for about a mile behind me. >> the president is talking in code about the motorcade of security vehicles that goes wherever he goes as president. and next up, prepare for an awkward handshake this night. gop front-runner mitt romney's booked to speak at next month's values voters summit down in washington. the program is all set. and as it stands now, there could be more than a little friction between romney and the speaker who will follow him. that would be the director of issues analysis for the american family association, brian fisher. turns out he has a long history of bashing the candidate's mormon faith. let's listen to his comments from earlier this week. >> mormonism is not an orthodox christian faith. it's just not. it was very clear that the founding fathers did not intend to preserve automatically religious liberty for nonchristian faiths.

so when mormonism came along, they practiced polygamy. they believed in polygamy, just like muslims do today. >> well, the only person who ought to be embarrassed by that statement or any of this awkwardness is the man who made that statement. religious liberty in this country is religious liberty. simple. that's all for "hardball." up next, "your business." e. man: yes it was. so to save some money, we taught our 5 year old how to dunk. woman: scholarship! woman: honey go get him. anncr: there's an easier way to save. get online. go to geico.com. get a quote. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. prego?! but i've been buying ragu for years. [ thinking ] i wonder what other questionable choices i've made?

[ '80s dance music plays ] [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] choose taste. choose prego.