Terror plot: Dems' response

This will be a very quick one. I'm at work. Wish I could write more.

Simply put, folks, here is what the Democrats must do to counter how the Republicans will use the constant drumbeat of today's terror plot news against the Dems (below the fold)...

1. There must be NO "dog-in-the-manger" sentiments. Remember what the MSM did to Howard Dean when he expressed perfectly understandable reservations upon the capture of Saddam Hussein. End of story.
   No, the Brits apparently did a great job and we must (and do) congratulate them.
   
   OTOH...


2. Remind Americans that catching terrorists IS NOT Bush's priority. If it were, we would have stayed in Afghanistan, put up a continuing effort to catch Osama bin Laden, and left Iraq to its own devices. Instead, Bush's desire to get Saddam ended up creating an Iraq now disintegrating into civil war and attracting (and creating) new terrorists at an astounding and scary pace.

One final note: It was refreshing to see how the early British press conferences went to some effort to note how, regardless of scuzzy the captured SOBs may end up proving to be, they have rights and are entitled to due process. Can't quite imagine, say, Alberto Gonzales saying that, now, can ya?

•  Not so much a tip jar as a...

  ...note that I won't be able to stick around for whatever replies might occur in the five or six minutes before this disappears. :-) Will try to check in later.

  by bwintx on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:15:40 AM PDT

•  The importance of the

  successful intervention is this:  IT WAS DONE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, not the military.  That is how terrorist actions are thwarted.

  by wozzle on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:16:48 AM PDT

•  Glad you are pointing to this issue

  because I suspect there will be more "developments" as the election nears.

  Each of these "developments" must be quickly seized upon by Democrats to point out that the Republicans have created and are presiding over a failed policy.

  by Dustbowl Observer on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:26:18 AM PDT

  •  And your diary on this

    is quite good. (Had I seen it first, I wouldn't have bothered.) For those who haven't seen it, click here.

    by bwintx on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:38:15 AM PDT

•  It's Another Bogus Alert

  It will likely prove to be the case (though we won't find out until after the election, ntach) that they knew about these guys for months, if not years, that the extent of the "plot" has been vastly overblown, that there are memos among government officials discussing the political uses of this event, etc., etc., etc.

  This is nothing more than another election stunt fromthe laboratories of Big Brother Karl.

  by Perry Oikos on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:29:17 AM PDT

  •  Next Breaking story

    Tony Snow will announce that Joe Lieberman conducted all the investigation into this terror plot on his own and Joementum alone is all that stands between us and the terrorists.

    by aggressiveprogressive on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:33:56 AM PDT

  •  A couple of problems with your premise:

    Bush has gone to great lengths to track and arrest terrorists. To wit: wiretaps and filetering of bank transactions. I don't think that one will hold water. I suggest you go with the dilution of the effort with the Iraq distraction.

    Secondly, Britain's civil liberties position sounds alot like their "civility" towards the Nazis during the Blitzkrieg that came back to bite them.

    by jhc on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:35:54 AM PDT

    •  Bush has gone to great lengths

      to round up Afganis willy-nilly and pile them into "detention" camps for the indefinate future. If he really thought he had terrorists, we'd see some show trials.

      He has also gone to great lengths to wiretap American ciitizens and monitor civil rights groups.

      I think the electioneering theory holds some water.

      by aggressiveprogressive on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:39:30 AM PDT

    •  As If

      You really think Bush has done ANYTHING to combat actual terrorists?

      Yes, he has sought to curtail our civil rights, get information about what books we read, what we spend our money on, and so on.  Yes, he has undermined the rule of law in the U.S. in order to give his spies and secret police freedom to act with impunity against his enemies.  Yes, he as accused anyone who opposes him in anything of being a terrorist.  None of this adds up to any actual effort to stop terrorism.

      by Perry Oikos on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:59:08 AM PDT

      •  I know that we haven't had another 9/11 on our

        soil. I know that there have been a number of US terrorist cells eliminated. I know that we're still in harms way: read today's headlines.

        I don't know what you mean by "ANYTHING" or "actual terrorists."

        I haven't seen any attacks on his political enemies using what I would consider to be information garnered from his "spies." Actually, he looks pretty stupid most of the time and not very poltically saavy. If he's got the goods on his political enemies, he sure doesn't use it well, if at all.

        by jhc on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:35:40 AM PDT

        •  cells eliminated?

          You know this as a fact?

          I've read that there were no known cells operating in the US.

          What were you reading? Do you have any links?

          by borkitekt on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:25:36 AM PDT

          •  Links:

            http://www.11alive.com/...

            http://64.233.161.104/...

            http://tampa.fbi.gov/...

            http://www.govexec.com/...

            by jhc on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:38:15 PM PDT

•  Liquid Explosives

  I wonder if it was Mentos and Diet Coke?

  by AWhitneyBrown on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:32:41 AM PDT

  •  Pop Rocks

    and Dr. Browns Cream Soda perhaps?

    by aggressiveprogressive on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:35:06 AM PDT

    •  Lik M' Aid in RC Cola

      = Mount friggin Vesuvius.  Drink one and you're a walking gutbomb, ready to meet 72 very belchy virgins.

      by Eddie Haskell on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:45:27 AM PDT

•  Bush has failed in the war on Terror

  Osama Bin Laden is still out there. Iraq had nothing to do with 911.  Bush has made us less safe with the war in Iraq. It has inflamed world opinion against us and caused us to have to endure terror plots.
  Bush is a disaster for the United States of America.

  by linnie on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:44:28 AM PDT

•  We are not fighting terrorists,

  we are creating them.  

  Can this be the talking point?

  Because the Bush Administration will again try to link the Iraq war with terrorism and national security, even though they are polar opposites.

  by diana04 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:55:26 AM PDT

•  Who do we invade now?

  Commander Flight Suit is no doubt getting fed dog biscuits by Cheney and Rove about the need to invade some oil-rich state.  That's the only appropriate response to the London airplane plot, of course.

  Cheney could be more helpful in killing Osama bin Laden if he would go eff himself.

  by deben on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:58:05 AM PDT

•  'Catching Terrorists'

  It's not that I'm saying that "I'm a Terrorist" ought to be a get of jail free card for muggers and graffittii artists ...

  But as long as Democrats suggest that 'Catching Terrorists' OUGHT to be a top priority ... that John Kerrey: 'hunt and kill terrorists' BETTER than Bush Randi Rhodes on a regular basis: "Bush hasn't caught Bin Laden, has he?"  

  In short: that Democrats would fight the Sacred and All Consuming War on Terror BETTER SMARTER CHEAPER also KINDER and GENTLER than Republicans -- we've lost!

  The truth is: the GWOT is leash  by which to lead the American people.  "Terrorists" are the whip used to keep us in line.

  If the citizens like being led and lashed ... promising to do it 'better' isn't going to win them over.

  But if 51% of us DON'T care for the canine/servile role: maybe offering something DIFFERENT might be the way to go.

  by AdamSelene on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:11:09 AM PDT

•  Hmmm

  Does anyone actually believe there WAS a terror plot? Do we have any credible proof?

  I no longer believe a word that comes out of these assholes. And of course the timing is suspect. Dems, don't roll over this, even if it's true!

  by Dagoril on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:46:36 AM PDT

•  Interesting to see where this goes

  Morning news programs entirely preempted by this news. Jerry Springer's callers (all 3 that I heard) leaning heavily toward "Bush admin once again cries wolf."

  And seeing that there's no top diaries or recommendeds at all talking about it, it feels like at least my part of the country (the folks I listen to most) are feeling like it doesn't matter.

  A possible major disaster and setback thwarted by British intelligence, and Bush's numbers probably won't see much of a bounce, if any.

  Maybe I should write a diary.

  by reklemrov on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:53:29 AM PDT

•  Keep in Mind

  The Democrat party is serious about security and terrorism.

  Anyone suggesting to downplay events that occur in the fight against terrorism works against the above.

  Terrorism existed before Bush, and will exist after Bush. The attempts to create conspiracies out of evolving real world events fail to recognize that safety of the citizens is a priority of the Democrat party, and are working to distract from that very important message.

  Keep the eye on the ball, Bush has made the world more dangerous for Americans, and has created no shortage of nutjobs in the world who hate us. Don't be one of them by undermining the Democrat Party's ability to address and deal with the issue.

  by Raymond P on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:04:39 AM PDT