The Los Angeles Times reports on Democratic reaction to President Bush's speech this week, in which he described how the government foiled an al Qaeda plot to fly hijacked planes into L.A.'s Library Tower:

    The details did little to counter skepticism from Democrats and some law enforcement officials who have questioned whether the reported scheme had ever been put into operation before it was thwarted.


So we're supposed to wait until after terror plots have been put into operation before thwarting them?



Then there's this:

    Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) described Bush's speech as a political stunt meant to draw attention from the mounting criticisms of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program and other questions about administration tactics.

    "I can't think of a governmental reason to disclose these details at this time to the general public. Clearly, the goal was to create headlines," said Sherman.

    Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he "didn't find [Bush's comments] very helpful . . . from a professional point of view."


But it's "helpful" to disclose crucial details about the terrorist surveillance program?



Let's look at what, basically, these democrats are saying:

The same Democratic leadership that constantly whine that the President should have somehow "prevented" 9/11 are downplaying the fact he did, in fact, prevent a similar event.

The same Democratic leadership that constantly demands public hearings about our intelligence programs and defends leaking top secret information about them, when it makes the President look bad, takes umbrage when the President, after the fact, reveals those intelligence programs are working, on the premise that information about the programs "isn't helpful."

This is just one more example of how the Democratic leadership isn't fighting the war on terror. They're fighting a war on the President.