Reckon it's so the NYT can tip off the terrorists to some more of our secrets?
WHO IS the real enemy? The Islamic fanatics who plotted to blow up airplanes carrying thousands of innocent men, women and children, or President Bush?
My answer is the terrorists. They want to kill me, my family and my neighbors. According to officials, they wanted to blow up at least one jumbo jet en route from London to San Francisco.
Some folks have responded to the news of the British arrests by saying that, of course, they are against the terrorists. But they follow that compulsory disclaimer with a long anti-Bush rant -- which is a handy way of removing the heat from where it belongs. U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., intoned, "This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq." In so speaking, Reid mistakes the terrorists' bloodlust for a political philosophy.
(I hate to repeat this but: The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks happened before Iraq. The embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania happened before Iraq.)
The New York Times editorialized for a whole two paragraphs about how bad the terrorists are -- then dedicated the rest of its lead Friday editorial lambasting the Bushies and their war-on-terrorism ally Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., for being partisan.
The Chronicle sniped that Bush' "claims of cooperation might have been more credible if he hadn't been getting briefed about the British arrests during a ranch vacation in Crawford, Texas." One little problem: British Prime Minister Tony Blair was vacationing at the time in Barbados.
Both papers rightly lauded British officials for a successful roundup of plot suspects. The Times suggested that it is now proper "to find out what worked in the British investigation and discuss how to push these efforts farther."