The threat’s not serious. Seriously.

I have long asserted that Democrats are rational in their opposition to war, because spending money at home instead better supports their constituencies. Only rarely, however, are Democrats willing to argue against even having a “war on terror.”

Yet during his recent appearance on the #1 cable news show “The O’Reilly Factor," Jon Stewart in fact made the most plain-spoken case I’ve seen for easing up on the war on terror. Stewart confirmed my suspicion that Democrats may not share the fear of terrorists the rest of us have.

Stewart’s views are important. Young people, especially, hang on his words.

For your consideration, the exchange that brought out Stewart’s relaxed views about terrorists:

O'REILLY: Now Iran's building, you know, nuclear weapons over there. And if they get them, they might give them to some guy named Ahmed, who might take then to them Cleveland and blow everything up. So what are we going to do with that?

STEWART: Well, doesn't Pakistan have a nuclear weapon?

O'REILLY: Yes, they do.

STEWART: Well, couldn't they give it to somebody?

O'REILLY: I don't know. I don't think…

STEWART: Doesn't Russia have nuclear weapons?

O'REILLY: Russia does.

STEWART: Couldn't they give it to somebody?

O'REILLY: They could.

STEWART: The problem isn't the country that gets them. The problem seems to be the weapon. I think the strategy of what we've done and, again, thank you guys for ratcheting up the fear on this. . .

O'REILLY: I believe the — Ahmadinejad, you know, he wants to drive you and all the other Jewish people into the sea.

STEWART: So what — so I cannot control that. I cannot control what those things are.

O'REILLY: So what we can control is we can stop them from having a nuclear weapon.

STEWART: No. Here's the thing. You might be able to stop them from having a nuclear weapon.

O'REILLY: Right.

STEWART: But as technology grows and becomes more accessible to people, this is going to become an increasingly difficult problem. And here's what we can't do. Here's what we can't do.

O'REILLY: All right, what can't we do?

STEWART: Our strategy for battling terrorism can't be that you overthrow governments and then make the United States military commit 150,000 troops to those lands until they can somehow stabilize the governments…

O'REILLY: I agree with that.

STEWART: …long enough so that you can prevent 10 people from plotting destruction in a basement. Terrorism…

O'REILLY: It's bankrupting the country. . . But you don't seem too concerned about Iran. You just don't seem to be that concerned about it?

STEWART: Because Iran, like most of these other countries, has a self-preservationist streak. And I am a firm believer that that self-preservationist streak keeps them — they're not — they understand, look, there is no theory of mutual destruction with Iran. Let's say they get one off. It would be tragic.

O'REILLY: Well, how would we trace it? . . . They can't get a guy with underwear, and they can't get the answers.

STEWART: Let's look at the geniuses we're up against.

O'REILLY: All right, I got…

STEWART: Richard Reid was the airplane bomber.

O'REILLY: Yeah.

STEWART: He tried to take that explosive and put it in his shoes.

O'REILLY: Right.

STEWART: It took them eight years, and the plan they came up with in eight years is why don't we try sticking it under that guy's genitals? That's what they did in eight years. They moved from the guy's shoes up to his underwear. . . That's who we're up against.