Democrats and Anti-terrorism

I am confused about a situation which seems to be becoming more and more common. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Honestly, I'd love to know the real, actual answer.

How is it that stating that a particular candidate's or political party's plans to fight terrorism are more likely to result in death for Americans is somehow "scaremongering?" Perhaps it's just me, and, obviously, Keith Olbermann has a different perspective, but shouldn't the most important, most pressing concern about a particular series of anti-terrorism plans be what policy is more likely to result in fewer terrorist attacks? Shouldn't the core of the discussion involve which plans are more likely to prevent another catastrophic attack?

In short: why is it that when the charge is made that Democratic anti-terrorism plans would make the country more dangerous, the Democrats respond with ad homonym attacks and call the charger a terrorist and a fear-monger or say that it's just a politicization of the issue? If they feel that their plans are not more likely to cause civilian deaths, why don't they say so? If they feel that the charges levied against them are invalid, why don't they respond in kind? If they feel that the descriptions of their policies mischaracterize what's really going on, why not explain their policies?

This brings me to three possible conclusions:

1) The Democrats are playing politics with the issue, preferring the opportunity to score political points over engaging in a valid, legitimate debate about the most pressing issue facing our country.

2) The Democrats are incapable of presenting their policies in such a way as to engage in a valid, legitimate debate.

3) The Democrats believe that the essence of the charges is correct, that their policies will make Americans less safe. Presumably, this is because there are other factors which are more important than, strictly, safety.

Is the answer one of these or am I misunderstanding the Democratic response?

Finally - why is it okay to say that invading Iraq makes the country less safe but it is inappropriate to say that a precipitous withdraw from Iraq, elimination of vast numbers of anti-terrorism tools, or cutting back on offensive actions against terrorist would make the country less safe?