The Furthest Thing From Their Minds?

The arrest of the alleged JFK Airport plotters was obviously good news, regardless of the plan's feasibility or the state of their operational competence. Predictably, some cite it as proof that the Bush administration's strategy for national security has succeeded in the six years since 9/11. In the Democrats' debate over the weekend, the first question asked of the candidates was the following:

Just yesterday, the FBI arrested three men for a terror plot at JFK Airport. Could it be that the Bush administration's effort to thwart terror at home has been a success?

We know that the current rationale for the occupation of Iraq is that we're "safer" because of it. If that's indeed true, then it's reasonable to ask how, if at all, the various plots prevented during the past few years comport with that rationale. I've read the news reports and criminal complaints for each case including the JFK Airport, Ft. Dix, and Miami warehouse busts. The government has miles of informant reports, monitored emails, and surveillance audiotapes in these cases.

Unless I missed something, there's not one mention of Iraq anywhere.

How plausible is that? Are these alleged plots happening in a vacuum? Was Iraq the furthest thing from the minds of those arrested? No mention of Iraq ever, in any email, in any conversation, on any audiotape? (Cue talking point: yes, they hate us for our way of life as we learned on 9/11.) In the Ft. Dix case, the word "Iraq" is conspicuous for its absence -- especially considering the extremely detailed allegations of conversations between the suspects. From page nine (PDF file here):

On or about July 29, 2006, CW-2 consensually recorded a meeting with MOHAMAD SHNEWER, DRITAN DUKA, ELJVIR DUKA, and SHAIN DUKA. During the meeting, SHNEWER showed CW-2 a number of videos on SHNEWER's laptop which depicted armed attacks on and the killing of United States military personnel.

And this, from page 20:

CW-1 captured SHNEWER playing videos on his laptop computer which members of the group referred to as Mujahideen and terrorist training videos. Members of the group pointed out that United States military vehicles were shown being destroyed in various attacks.

Where did these attacks on U.S. troops take place? If in Afghanistan, is it safe to assume the complaint would have noted that?

And from page 22:

When CW-2 asked about TATAR again, DRITAN DUKA remarked, "He had only one mind, how to kill American soldiers." Later during the consensually recorded conversation, DRITAN DUKA and SHAIN DUKA said that rather than waging jihad overseas, they could do so in the United States.

Waging jihad "overseas"? Does that sound like something the suspects would have said? Again, it's almost as if someone took great care to make sure "Iraq" didn't appear anywhere.

The criminal complaint in the JFK plot is also interesting. From page eight (PDF file here):

On or about August 1, 2006, the Source met DEFREITAS at a store in Brooklyn and drove DEFREITAS to his residence. During a discussion of the war then taking place in Lebanon, DEFREITAS and the Source agreed that Muslims always incur the wrath of the world while Jews get a 'pass'....Later in the conversation, DEFREITAS said that while it appeared that only Arab Muslims were fighting the war for Islam, many other nationalities of Muslims were involved in the fight as well.

Lebanon? On August 1, 2006, the date of that alleged conversation, the fighting in Lebanon had been underway for only two weeks. Defreitas was motivated not by Iraq but by a short conflict in which the U.S. wasn't directly involved?

Remember who runs these cases and decides what information to include in the criminal complaints: the Department of Justice, headed by Alberto Gonzales. These complaints do not pretend to be complete; the one that details the Ft. Dix case states that it "is submitted for the sole purpose of establishing probable cause" and does "not necessarily include each and every fact known by the government concerning this investigation." And only five words appear on page three: "Contents Approved/United States Attorney."

You can probably guess the next question. If any of those arrested in the various plots had discussed Iraq as motivation, would the public hear about it? What would it mean for the flypaper/fighting them over there/"if we leave they'll follow us here" rationale? And what would it betray about the real effect of Iraq on our security?

The whole facade would come crashing down, wouldn't it?