Another TERROR plot foiled the John Kerry Way. Meanwhile, 4 more troops killed in Iraq

[mudesi]

The mainstream media doing its predictable never ending "comprehensive coverage" of a foiled terror plot.

Terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Mr. Kerry was right. Of course, I had to do a news search with the words "troops killed" just to even know that 4 more troops were killed last week. Not a peep about that from CNN.

[terisan]

1. They can't be hatching terror plots here, because we are fighting them over there.

[Bucky]

2. ahem

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/05/28/28iraqterror.html

Terrorists spreading out from Iraq, officials say
Insurgents learning from battles there

By Michael Moss, Souad Mekhennet
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Monday, May 28, 2007

When Muhammad al-Darsi got out of prison in Libya last year after serving time for militant activities, he had one goal: killing Americans in Iraq.

A recruiter he found on the Internet arranged to meet him on a bridge in Damascus, Syria. But when he got there, said Darsi, 24, the recruiter told him he was not needed in Iraq. Instead, he was drafted into the war that is seeping out of Iraq.

A team of militants from Iraq had traveled to Jordan, where they were preparing attacks on Americans and Jews, Darsi said the recruiter told him. He asked Darsi to join them and blow himself up in a crowd of tourists at Queen Alia International Airport in Amman.

"I agreed," Darsi said in a nine-page confession to Jordanian authorities after the plot was broken up.

The Iraq war, which for years has drawn militants from around the world, is beginning to export fighters — and the tactics they have honed in the insurgency — to neighboring countries and beyond, according to U.S., European and Middle Eastern government officials and militant leaders in Lebanon, Jordan and London.

Some of the fighters appear to be leaving as part of the waves of Iraqi refugees crossing borders that government officials acknowledge they struggle to control. But others are dispatched from Iraq for specific missions.

[blm]

8. If BCCI had been FULLY EXPOSED we wouldn't be fighting terrorists ANYWHERE

because the terror networks themselves would be exposed to their own countries as working for international financiers who manipulate public opinion in EVERY COUNTRY and in every religion.

[wisteria]

3. Good observations. Senator Kerry was right on how to deal with terrorism. n/t

[politicasista]

4. K&R

:kick:

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. Exactly.

We should point that out to CNN every time.

[karynnj]

6. I think the Democrats may have really blew the PR on National Security

What is strange is that even as more and more people across the political spectrum buy into Kerry's way of looking at non-state terrorism as a form of global crime that is more dangerous because of the fanaticism and non-rationality of the terrorist, polls still show people favor the Republicans on National Security.

This happened because after Kerry lost, Democrats made a mistake in not consisting repeating the Kerry position on fighting terrorism as stateless global crime where a targeted military reaction would sometimes be needed, but improving intelligence and working with other countries on law enforcement was needed.

This should have been continued and emphasized as the Democratic position - which it officially was in 2004. People could have said echoed this position. They could have kept this as a core position, even if they made it clear that Kerry was not the messenger needed. We would then be in the position of being able to say has been the Democratic position for over 3 years.

Bill Clinton instead argued that John Kerry lost because he wasn't seen to be strong enough on national security. He should instead have said that he agreed with the policy Kerry had and argued that in his years this was the way he handled it. This is true - look at how Clinton dealt with the first WTC bombing. Kerry was more concerned with getting tools to fight globalized crime and terrorism than Clinton, but Clinton did more than W. It is too bad that Clinton did not push the Kerry legislation that deal with international money laundering that was needed to follow the money, but the Senate was heavily Republican then so even a President assist might not have worked. Tying Kerry's position to Clinton's administration's would have solidified that as the Democratic position and identified Kerry's position as a logical extension of his given 911.

All Democrats could have then used this position and referred to it as the mature, rational calm way to deal with terrorists or terrorist group. They could have said that they understood how anger makes people want to strike out and hit those who hurt you. The Bush administration could be equated to the child or teen who strikes out in anger at whomever is near, rather than calmly first identifying who hit you.

[blm]

9. You NAILED IT! Democrats refuse to say Gore is still right. They refuse to say Kerry is right.

Kerry HAS ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT about tracking terrorism since he first started investigating and exposing how the global terror networks are financed and abetted by international financiers for the last TWENTY YEARS. The best anti-terror lawmaker in this country and the DC powerstructure and the corporate media REFUSES to talk about it.

But, will the DEMOCRATIC PARTY powerstucture talk about it? NOOOOOOOOO.......because some of its biggest players also put obstacles up for Kerry's work and made life a whole lot easier for Poppy Bush and his power network that tapped into the Marc Riches and Bin Ladens and AQ Khans of this world.

[BlueIris]

7. K&R.