Let's look at a couple of quotes from "mainstream Democrats" on yesterday's actions to prevent a "mega-9/11" attack.

"Five years after 9-11, it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win," Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Bush and Congress needed to change course in Iraq and ensure Americans are protected around the world.

"The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists," Reid said.

* * *

"This event exposes the misleading myth that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. In fact, the war in Iraq has become a dangerous distraction and a profound drain on our financial and military resources," Kerry said.

The first response? Attack Bush and seek to make political capital by denigrating the successful effort to stop the plot.

And let's not even get into quotes from the "netroots" Democrats who are claiming ascendancy.

You get the KOSsacks.

Today, we can see again what Britain gets for being a staunch ally of Bush. They get home-grown terrorists, bombings, and more terrorist plots.

You have to wonder what exactly are the benefits of hitching yourself to George W. It's like when you consider making an investment or major purchase. You look at the pros and the cons. We all know what the cons are: your people become a target for terrorists, and you breed your own terrorist cells.

So, what are the benefits? Ummmmm, well, uhhhh, okay not many. Blair has sold out his people so he can cozy up on Bush's lap. Tony is like any other man in power, he wants to more power himself, and be closer to those who have even more power.

And the DUmmies.

“Exactly—why now? Why is this major disruption being discussed NOW. What else is going on? This sounds lke another Bush diversion tactic...Get the media to discuss terror, because there is something else that they don't want us discussing. Bait & Switch technique.�

Heck, I even got a commenter here implicitly espousing a conspiracy theory for political purposes, arguing that the Bush Administration was manipulating national security for political purposes.

Curious that we're privvy to so much information. I wonder what's
REALLY goinbg on: what piece of news or bit of information is out there
that "they" want to divert us away from?

But the New York Times lives in a diffrent world -- which is the only way we can explain today's editorial.

Here is what we want to do in the wake of the arrests in Britain. We want to understand as much as possible about what terrorists were planning. To talk about airport security and how to make it better. To celebrate what worked in the British investigation and discuss how to push these efforts farther. It would be a blessed moment in modern American history if we could do that without turning this into a political game plan.

Fair enough -- except that the editorial was an attack on comments made by Dick Cheney on Wednesday and and others made by Joe Lieberman regarding ned lamon'ts weakness on terrorism issues.

I guess that only those who the editors oppose can be guilty of making tawdry political use of the terrorism issue -- it is fair comments when they agree with the comments.

But one Republican dared to pierce the Times' veil of hypocrisy.

A senior White House official on Air Force One, speaking on the condition of anonymity, dismissed the notion that there was anything wrong with these kinds of issues being mixed up in a political campaign.

“The issue is going to be discussed in the fall,� this official said. “Are you saying if the Democrats talk about the war, we shouldn’t? We will talk about the war, and we will talk about the consequences of the policies advocated by the Democrats.�

After all, the GOP has kept America safe since 9/11 -- despite the political calculations and games of the Democrats, who wouldn't mind a couple of successful terrorist attacks on American soil if it would help them take back Congress.