A year ago, in the wake of the London attacks, we wrote this:

Terror. It is a chilling word. It is the method by which fear seeps into the hearts and minds of humanity. And it is a weapon of evil.

Terrorists, those who subscribe to this evil, who have seen the power it holds and given in to their passions, have embarked upon a mission of utter domination. It is not an ideology, it is not the last resort of starving peasants, it is not outrage of wronged citizens of oil rich nations, but a pestilence in the minds of men. Men. Not Muslims, or Jews, or Christians or atheists, but men. Men who have chosen a path that forsakes all law and God for the furtherance of their own vain glory and an all consuming pride. And the longer the truth is denied, obfuscated, inveigled, twisted, and not spoken by those who mask their fear as nuance and enlightenment, the farther, faster, and more readily this evil will grow.

Of course, jumping forward a year, and what has changed?  So much of the summer hysteria over Plame and Guantanamo amounted to nothing.  How many trees died to bring us the tales of Rove's nefarious leaking?  The man has not been indicted, nor has anyone been charged with the crime of leaking Valerie Plame's name.  And why?  Because there was no crime.  John Bolton has turned out to be the best ambassador to the U.N. we've ever had.  There were probably more copies of Newsweek flushed down toilets than Korans.  And the terrorists of Guantanamo are still getting their gourmet meals.

But yet what has happened in the past year is an unending flood of government leaks.  Our entire method and operation for fighting terror and preventing attacks was thrown away by disgruntled employees and Pulitzer-junkies.  And that brought us to yesterday's other news, the government sting on the al Qaeda plot to bomb the PATH system into lower Manhattan - foiled by a leak.

In opening the press conference, Mershon blasted the leaking of the ongoing investigation, and the publishing of a report on Friday by the New York Daily News. Officials later downplayed the Daily News report.

FBI and New York City officials would not go into details of the plot, but did confirm that the PATH system was the likely target, not the Holland Tunnel, as the Daily News reported.

"We have had a number of threats over the months and years, frankly, that would target all of the conveyances across the river," Mershon added.

The person who leaked the investigation is "clearly someone who doesn't understand the fragility of international relations," Mershon said.

"The release makes the investigation more difficult for us; it has greatly complicated what otherwise would be a very smooth relationship, a very smooth partnership, with a number of overseas allied agencies," Mershon added.

Republican Congressman Peter King of New York, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, added, "It would have been better if this had not been disclosed."

So we've missed out on lord knows how much intelligence, and we may possibly still get hit, because somebody had to blab.  It's difficult to explain how angry this makes us feel.  Because this is what the New York Times, et al has wrought.  With government employees eager for payback or just plain careless scoops, it's turned into an open season on secrets.

Notice how the government decried the new difficulties this would create with foreign governments.  It is the same problem former CIA director Portor Goss complained about, that foreign governments just don't trust us to keep secrets anymore.  And even more dangerous, when governments cannot count on the U.S., they begin to look elsewhere for alliances.

Of course, to hear the New York Times talk, such leaks are harmless, don't help al Qaeda (though apparently foreign partnerships is beyond the Times' ability to fathom), and anyone who says otherwise is obviously just lashing out in a desperate attempt to raise the President's poll numbers.

“I mean, it’s an election year. Beating up on The New York Times is red meat for the conservative base,” Keller said. “But I don’t think this is all politics. I think the administration is a little embarrassed. This is the most secretive White House we’ve had since the Nixon White House.”

Yes, because as we all know, the terror plot foiled yesterday had Vietnam, Watergate and Nixon written all over it.

It is small-mindedness like this that perpetuates this fight, that gives terrorists hope, that enables madmen like Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to utilize the moral equivilance they so desperately require, and makes this country less safe, and our alliances less secure.

In the nearly five years since 9-11, and the one year since 7-7, we had higher hopes that stuff like this would be more widely known, instead of our operational plans for fighting terrorism.

A year ago, confronted by journalists who blamed the Western powers for the London attacks, Prime Minister John Howard, of Australia, had this to say (quoted at length):

PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)

Luckily, the elected leaders of the West understand this fight, and as evidenced by the plot foiled yesterday, the one in Miami, the recent plot in Canada, and the recent arrests in Great Britain, they continue to wage it even in spite of all efforts by our media and the handwringing elites to lose it.