***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

I could throw together a link round-up of all the updates on the UK terror bust, but folks like Michelle Malkin have done that here, and HotAir's AllahPundit here, here, here, and here. All of those are definite must reads, that I couldn't even begin to catch up with. Instead, this post will focus more on the reactions to the terror bust, of Democrats and liberal bloggers.

Let's start with my favorite Piñata, and DNC chairman, Howard Dean. The venomous and hateful (by his own admission) Dr. who recently had the balls to call for end to divisiveness, set the tone for what became the standard reaction from the left, with this press release. Here's a taste:

"Today's events are a troubling reminder that we are living in dangerous and trying times. These are times that call for real leadership. Not posturing, or name calling."

For Howard Dean, of all people to ask that there be no name calling is about the most hypocritical thing I can imagine. Idiot! Whoops, that's a name isn't it. Seriously though, he obviously is referring to political opponents, and I can't say that I recall hearing any name calling from any Republican pols over this. Unless he's upset over Bush saying "Islamic Fascists" (video at HotAir), when (for once) properly labeling the terrorists, I don't know what name calling he could be referring to. While I don't think he was referring to Bush's comment, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Most of the rest of the press release was just the same old talking points we've heard for the past few years, including the one broken record line that I will repeatedly translate as "we have no plan other than to get elected":

We need a new direction in our national defense policies that's tough and smart.

New direction! Time for change! Smart and tough on terror! Don't know how, but elect us and we'll show you!

Now the next part I'd like to excerpt, that followed more talking points, is priceless:

"It also means we have to be honest about the failures of our current foreign policies, which have let Iraq slip into civil war, enabled Iran to increase its nuclear capabilities, failed to address the growing threat posed by North Korea, and Afghanistan has seen a resurgence of the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda's mastermind, is still on the loose, and the Middle East is deep in crisis.

I think we can ALL agree that those are nothing but politically charged rhetoric. No big deal right? Especially because it's Dean. Well, it wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't immediately followed by this:

"We must put America's security ahead of politicking and come together as Americans. I urge President Bush, the Commander in Chief, to return to Washington to address the problems we face today."

So let me get this straight, you pile on a bunch of politically charged DNC talking points that you've been repeating for years, and then insist that we put security ahead of politicking? My initial reaction (as is my reaction everytime he opens his mouth) is that Dean must be crazy, playing politics with security, and then condeming such behavior. But then I remembered he's a liberal, and that he's playing to liberals who are either not bright enough to get what he just did, or are dishonest enough to pretend they didn't.

One more quick comment on Dean's comments. I put what he said about OBL in bold above. Notice what he said, which admittedly isn't anything that out of the ordinary to hear from anyone, about Bin Laden being the "mastermind". I just don't see how he's a mastermind. A figurehead/mascot? Yeah. But mastermind? I don't think so. Again, this is for anyone not just Dean, and it's just my personal opinion, but I think calling Bin Laden a mastermind puts him on a level where he doesn't belong.

Think Dean is the only one that can turn a successful terror bust in to a way to attack Bush and the GOP? Here's our favorite Democratic Senators from Massachusetts weighing in, Teddy first:

"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 (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts said.

Hmm... So intelligence sharing between the Brits, the United States, and Pakistan leading to the bust of a terror plot that would have rivalled or eclipsed 9/11 translates (for a Kennedy) in to we're more hated and the war on terror is harder to win? He's obviously referring to Iraq, but what the hell does that have to do with this?

Let me get the obligatory Iraq paragraph out of the way before I move on. Kennedy himself, along with all other leading Dems spent over a decade making a stronger WMDs in Iraq case than Bush ever did. Clinton made regime change in Iraq policy, before making eerily similar arguments to President Bush and then launching his own strikes on Iraq. We thought WMDs were there (and I still say they were), and if they had gotten in to the hands of Al Qaeda and made it to our shores, Bush would have been tossed out on his ass for not having attacked Iraq. By the way, we have countless people claiming they were moved to Syria (possibly with Russian help), we have satellite images of trucks moving across the border in the days before the war, we have Russian and Turkish scientists hiding from UN inspectors in the months before the war, etc. etc. We have even found hundreds of chemical weapons. Of course the Dems say it doesn't count because they're old... but doesn't it? Why weren't they disclosed to the UN if they are so unusable? And if they weren't disclosed, why are we so sure that the recent stuff wasn't there too, but more tightly guarded and then moved?

I guess what I'm trying to say is Kennedy's an ass. Let's see if Kerry does any better:

But Bush's foe in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, said America was "not as safe as we can and must be" and in part blamed the president's focus on Iraq.

"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.

Another Democrat who really knows how to celebrate a victory in the war on terror, eh? Again, wtf does Iraq have to do with this? This is a VICTORY dude. We haven't been attacked, and this shows that the intelligence network is currently working, though it would be better without all the NSA leaks, etc. and all you Dems playing politics with our intel gathering policies.

Yes this was primarily a British operation (because that's where the terrorists lived), but it actually was set in motion by arrests in Pakistan 8-10 days ago. But the investigation had been ongoing for months and Bush and Blair had discussed it numerous times. If liberals had their way, all intelligence gathering would be above the radar, tipping our hand to terrorists allowing them to go further underground to plan their attacks. Not many details yet, but apparently WE intercepted some calls that played a major part in this bust. I can't help but wonder if we would have intercepted these calls if liberals had had their way.

Before I get to the liberal blogs, Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid wanting to add his two cents:

"I commend British authorities for defusing this terror plot and apprehending the suspects. Their actions protected the lives of innocent civilians, including many American citizens. Today's events are an important reminder that we need to renew our focus on the war on terror and to continue to work with our allies to protect Americans from terrorism.

Renew our focus? When was our focus off of the war on terror? Oh you must be speaking just to your own party. Hit me with some talking points Senator, and round it out with some insanity!

"Terrorism remains the greatest threat to our security. As the five year anniversary of the September 11th attacks approaches, we should take this opportunity not just to remember, but to take stock of what progress has been made to protect Americans and what steps remain unfulfilled. As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be and we still have not implemented the bipartisan 9-11 Commission's recommendations to secure our ports, airports, and chemical plants. 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. This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."

Wow, your Iraq card playing is even lamer than the weak hands put up by your pals. How does this (foiled) plot, show that we need to "change course" (never heard that one before) in Iraq? At least Mr. Ed and the Kool-Aid guy were a little smoother when invoking the Iraq war in to a place it didn't belong, but they didn't go as far as to directly tie this event to it.

The odd thing about these comments from leading Democrats is the fact that they aren't that much more idiotic than the blogs this round. It seems the Dems keep going further left to the point where the insane lefty blogs are now becoming mainstream in the party.

Let's quickly get Michael Moore, the only man who defies all odds by being both full of crap, and full of cheetos at the same time, out of the way. He's the easiest to disect, because he simply didn't say anything. His news section is all about Sheehan and friends. I know, I know Mikey, if you've told us once, you've told us a thousand times:

"There is no terrorist threat," Moore insists. "Yes, there have been horrific acts of terrorism and, yes, there will be acts of terrorism again. But that doesn't mean that there's some kind of massive terrorist threat."

Moving along... How many DailyKos readers does it take to unscrew their brains and call this a Bush conspiracy? Well, out of 1414, it takes 689 or 48%. So almost half of Kosers don't believe this was real. I also (without proof) suspect some poll manipulation when the Kosers realized how insane they were looking, they tried to even it out a bit, because when LGF looked at it earlier 75% were calling it a conspiracy.

Perhaps the lefties are right this time though. I mean, everytime anything terror related happens they always say it's just Rove trying to bring up Bush's poll numbers. If it's an attack, many will say Bush Co. was behind it. But check this out, Dan Riehl has intercepted a call between Rove and Bin Laden that seems to prove that 689 Kos Kids can't be wrong.

While the Kos Kids were late to the game yesterday, they did eventually comment. A comment at 2:18 pm by "Hunter" is such a steaming pile I don't even really want to excerpt any of it. Basically he goes on to rant about how America sucks and talk about how great it is that the Brits could wrap up this terror plot while staying withing the "rule of law" while completely ignoring the differences in their laws and society. He offers this one paragraph that I have to quote because it's so stupidly hilarious:

That seems to be one big difference between U.S. and U.K. efforts in the War on Terror. Despite the obvious political and strategic bungles of the Blair government, the U.K. is beginning to show a history of wrapping up terror plots and arresting those involved, and seems even to have managed to have done so within the context of law.

Can you please name a successful terror plot in the United States since 9/11? I don't use that argument the way a lot of conservatives do to say "look, we haven't been attacked in 5 years", I use it to ask you what your point is. If there hasn't been a plot to bust, how do we bust it? I think the more likely scenario is that we've busted plenty in the early planning stages, with the few dozen arrests around the country spread out over a number of years, plus whatever has been kept quiet by the government. By the way, you must not have read the part about us intercepting calls and playing a role in this. I suggest you do so now, and then slowly explain to me again, why we shouldn't be intercepting calls.

I actually don't recommend reading the rest of the crap in that post, but it's funny to see Hunter get all upset about Bush saying "Islamic Fascists". He claims that this is a phrase used by "every significant racist and hate group in America"(without an example by the way), while ignoring that IT'S A PROPER LABEL of these people!

Hours after all of Hunters politicization, the Kos himself comes out to attack an unnamed GOPer for playing politics with this. Where would the left be without their unnamed sources? Even if it is true, I don't see what the big deal is about this:

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

It seems pretty clear that it was in response to a question, but either way, what is the problem with pointing out the obvious? Dems have been trying to downplay the threat, and this doesn't work for them.

When I bookmarked a lot of stuff I wanted to include in this blog last night, the only mention of the terror plot from Tbogg was this. Boring.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points memo, like all the other lefties, questions the timing (yup, Rove did it). Also like all the rest he invokes Iraq to say it's wrong and we should be doing what the Brits did. (See response to Hunter and Senate Dems above). We had to go to Iraq, and this is a multi-front war on terror. Later Josh threw up a pointless BDS one line post:

Bush: Failed terror plot a reminder that everybody should stop complaining about how bad I screwed up Iraq.

More of the same at Crooks & Liars.

HotAir has video of Tom Delay and Ann Coulter giving it to the left on Cavuto yesterday. Delay's best line:

You have to go get these terrorists and either put 'em in a cell, or a cemetary. That's all they know.

Mike Gallagher piles on the left as well.

Ian at HotAir busts NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams comparing Army Rangers, Navy Seals, Special Forces, and 9/11 first responders to terrorists. You probably think that's an exaggeration, or the way I'm spinning it. No, that's what Williams did on Hardball with Chrissy Matthews, and I hope some of the big dogs at Fox pick up on this one, but I doubt it. WATCH THE VIDEO! I've got to steal this part of the transcript from Ian to make reel you in, and force you to watch it:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: But, here we have maybe 24 people who have lived in London and England and the free world for all these years that become citizens, subjects of the Crown, and yet, after having gotten to know us, they want to kill themselves to hurt us. Isn’t that an even deeper conundrum here than the chemicals being used in these attacks.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And that, Chris, that last aspect, the willingness to take one’s own life. I always tell people there are guys on our team like that, too. They’re called Army Rangers and Navy Seals and the Special Forces folks and the first responders on 9/11 who went into those buildings knowing, by the way, they weren’t going to come out. So we have players like that on our team.

Screw you Williams. Sadly word won't get out about this causing deserved boycotts that cost you your job. I think my comment at HotAir about says it all:

What an ass.

First of all, the obvious… He just compared Army Rangers, Navy Seals, Special Forces, and 9/11 First responders to terrorists. No spinning on this one, that’s what he did.

Not that anyone here is stupid enough to need this explanation, but here it is anyway… The members of “our” team that he lists don’t commit suicide in an effort to kill innocent people. Even if you were to give moral equivelency to terrorist and say that none of us are innocent civilians, our guys don’t pyschotically go out to kill themselves to accomplish their mission. Are they willing to die doing what they believe is right? Yes, but they aren’t hoping too.

As for the 9/11 first responders specifically… What an idiot you are Williams. Do you actually believe they went in knowing they wouldn’t come out? For what purpose? They were going in to get people out… if they didn’t come out, neither did the civilians. Are you saying that these first responders didn’t feel like they had a right to live while others died so they just joined the death party?

If any of you reading this, and you're one of those who Williams just compared to terrorist, let him know how you feel here:

Nightly@NBC.com or visit this NBC page for all other contact options.

***UPDATE*** - Williams responds, and I'm not buying it. Misunderstood? No, you were very clear. Bryan at HotAir didn't hear an apology.

Malkin's is all over the reluctance of people to call these terrorists Muslims, instead opting to call them "British-born Asians".

I actually just noticed Allah's post on Dem reactions which he uses a Lamont image for on the home page. I totally ignored the link because I'm so bored with Lamont talk that I didn't realize until now what the post was about.

***UPDATE***
Beyond abusing their children by parading their dead bodies around repeatedly for cameras in orchestrated propaganda movies, they brainwash them to hate jews from when they're babies. You probably already knew that right? Well so did I, but I just found this video on YouTube that's personally saddening because I have a niece the same age as this girl, and I can't imagine that they make "True Muslims" (you'll see) out of their babies. This girl has learned that in the Koran, "their God" told them that Jews are "apes and pigs".

***UPDATE***
After all the politic playing from the Dems they dare to come out and attack Republicans?

***UPDATE***
Bryan at HotAir catches Richard Clarke repeating the same matra of the Senate Dems. Bryan sums up well what I've been trying to say in translating the Democrats' comments: Success is failure.