Well, it was silly of me to suspect that the stepped-up terror-arrest timetable that was urged on the British by the U.S. was about the Lamont victory -- or I should say it was silly of me to suspect that it was just about the Lamont victory.

More likely, it was about using the Lamont victory to segue into this:

Following the foiled United Kingdom bomb plot, the Bush administration is expected to use the terrorist threat to regain the upper hand in congressional debates and push for government action before the November elections.

Republicans appear to be circling around a new strategy to advocate stronger counterterrorism laws and expand domestic surveillance, while pushing back against civil libertarians.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is emerging as a point man in the drive for tougher laws, yesterday noting Britain's ability to hold suspects without publicizing the charges. Appearing on ABC News's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Mr. Chertoff said he would like to see a renewed look at U.S. laws that could give authorities here the flexibility to detain suspects for longer periods of time, noting that the British have such latitude....

Which, of course, will dovetail nicely with this:

The UN Security Council would consider sanctions against Iran if it does not halt uranium enrichment by August 31, under a resolution drawn up by the six major powers, diplomats said.

...If Iran continues to pursue uranium enrichment, "the next step will be the consideration of sanctions in the Security Council, and it would be our intention to move forcefully to get those sanctions adopted," Bolton said.

The first stage would be political and economic sanctions, diplomats stressed, pointing to a vote within a few days....

All of which will, of course, coincide with the fifth anniversary of you-know-what.

Control of the three branches of the U.S. government is the real central front in the Bush-Rove "war on terrorism."