« Sink Or Swim? | Main | Trent Lott to quit Senate »

Can we close the border now?

A disturbing story today, from Powerline:

Fort Huachuca, the nation's largest intelligence-training center, changed security measures in May after being warned that Islamist terrorists, with the aid of Mexican drug cartels, were planning an attack on the facility.

Fort officials changed security measures after sources warned that possibly 60 Afghan and Iraqi terrorists were to be smuggled into the U.S. through underground tunnels with high-powered weapons to attack the Arizona Army base, according to multiple confidential law enforcement documents obtained by The Washington Times.

According to the FBI advisory, each Middle Easterner paid Mexican drug lords $20,000 "or the equivalent in weapons" for the cartel's assistance in smuggling them and their weapons through tunnels along the border into the U.S. The weapons would be sent through tunnels that supposedly ended in Arizona and New Mexico, but the Islamist terrorists would be smuggled through Laredo, Texas, and reclaim the weapons later.

A number of the Afghans and Iraqis are already in a safe house in Texas, the FBI advisory said.

Can we close them now? This is just an example of what anyone with half a brain has been worried about. This is what can happen if we have a border with more holes in it than Swiss cheese. See, us conservatives are not just bigots and xenophobes. We actually like our country and want immigrants to come (provided they follow our laws). We do not want Al Qaeda to be able to pay off Mexican drug cartels and smuggle themselves in without a problem.

See, liberals? It's not just an immigration issue (although it is a factor). This is also a let's make it as tough as possible for Al Qaeda to enter the United States and wreak havoc and terror issue. So let's just stop all this politicizing B.S. over closing the border now and just do it, simply because it's the right thing to do -- it's what needs to be done.

However, I won't hold my breath.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (36)

Don't you remember? The wa... (Below threshold)
La Mano:

Don't you remember? The war on terror is a "bumper sticker". Just ask the Silk Pony.

Yes, but how would closing ... (Below threshold)

Yes, but how would closing the borders garner more votes for the democrats?

Can't do it. No sir!

They're just smuggling the ... (Below threshold)

They're just smuggling the terrorists that Americans won't. Don't be a hater.

Ok, close the border. How ... (Below threshold)

Ok, close the border. How do you propose we do that, and how do we pay for it (taxes!)?

And please don't say "build a fence," as that is idiotic - notice the "tunnels" detail in that story. I know "just do it" is a robust proposal, but more details are necessary, especially how you plan to pay for the "closing" of a 2000 mile border that has more people cross it than any other in the world (legally and illegally), and is mostly uninhabited desert.

Throwing ones hands up in t... (Below threshold)

Throwing ones hands up in the air isn't the
answer, or saying it can't be done. The type
of fencing being installed on private properties
along our border with Mexico are working, designed
like the Israeli fence. Of course it's not 100%,
nothing is. It is working though, and the family
on whose ranch it is being put is very grateful
for the return of privacy and safety it's given

This must be a super-Rovian... (Below threshold)

This must be a super-Rovian plot. Would the cartel jeopardize their border access for this? They're not loco. It has to be a way to push immigration from the front burner right into the flames for the '08 election.

This must be a super-Rov... (Below threshold)

This must be a super-Rovian plot.
Yeah, except that, unless Rove disagrees with Bush on this (Or rather, Bush disagrees with his brain), that's not likely a Rovian plot. Bush and his people have been calling anybody against illegal immigration, "Racists" for a while now.

Throwing ones hands up i... (Below threshold)

Throwing ones hands up in the air isn't the
answer, or saying it can't be done.

I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying we need to be realistic about what can be done and how much it will cost.

The type of fencing being installed on private properties along our border with Mexico are working, designed like the Israeli fence.

First of all, such fences on private property are working because they are not continuous along the whole border. The traffic simply moves to where there is least resistance, i.e. no fence. If you do build a continuous fence, the traffic will simply move over or under it. It's just a fence.

You mention Israeli border security. Do you realize why their security works? It's because a) they only have about 400 miles of border to secure, while we share 2000 miles just with Mexico, and b) they have compulsory military service, enabling them to monitor their much smaller border with many more guards. If we are to really adopt the Israeli border security strategy, the manpower costs alone would be enormous. How do we pay for it?

You say that "throwing ones hands up in the air isn't the answer." Well, neither is "just do it." You have to define how, and you have to pay for it.

For the record, is anyone o... (Below threshold)

For the record, is anyone other than the Washington Times reporting on this story yet?
Fox has something, but they are reporting that The Times is reporting, so they aren't saying it happened, just that The Times said it happened.

Is there more to this than one article by one reporter for the Moonies?

Considering the USA is much... (Below threshold)
civildisobedience Author Profile Page:

Considering the USA is much more than 5 times the size and GDP of Israel, physically securing our border is rather easy for us. Our government just chooses not to. Here's a suggestion, if the liberals really want a draft, how about a draft for a home border militia that is part of the DOD. An easy two year stint on our borders and ports would be a good service that is purely defensive in nature, with no overseas deployments (unless you want to count Alaska, Hawaii and the territories). That would seem to be a great idea for a dem to push that turns a weakness into a strength.

After their home border militia time, aspiring candidates could then transfer over to one of the other services if they choose to and are qualified.

Ya know, if we were to put ... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Ya know, if we were to put tower mounted Tactical High Energy Lasers that the Israelis have developed up along the border, that'd solve the problem nicely. Combine those with Rick Perry's webcam idea, and you've solved the deficit problem.

The Borders..."Can... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

The Borders...

"Can we close them now?"

Not when we have politicians on both sides pandering to the illegal vote.

Listen, we sent sent a man to the moon in 1969, with no more technology than you find in a new Yugo.
We brought the Soviet Union to its knees with a wee bit more technology than you now find in a desktop game.
We take out third-world dictators with a few trained patriots and and superior intelligence.

And someone tells me we can't stop a few wetbacks escorting terrorists across the border.
I don't believe it.

smuggled into the U.S. t... (Below threshold)

smuggled into the U.S. through underground tunnels

See, neocons? Your entire culture is based on your ability to ignore simple facts -- and, BTW, anyone getting their "facts" from Powerline is screwed up to begin with, and their judgement should not be trusted.

BTW, this is why no one els... (Below threshold)

BTW, this is why no one else is picking up the story:

The report's assessment is that the DEA's Mexican contacts have proven reliable in the past but the "sub-source" is of uncertain reliability.


"The identity of the sub-source has been established; however, none of the information provided by the sub-source in the past has been corroborated."

The entire story comes from a sub-source supposedly within the drug cartels and notes "many times the initial reports are based on 'raw, uncorroborated information that has not been completely vetted,'" according to the FBI. So a drug smuggler of uncertain reliability says it's happening, the FBI puts out an advisory in May, and the Moonie Times picks it up six months later?

And realistically, why would the drug cartels want to be involved in terrorism against the US? Their aim is to sell us drugs and make money, and the last thing they want to do is draw a bunch of terror-related attention to themselves.

So, you can believe that the drug cartels are helping Al Qaeda into the US, or you can have some healthy skepticism about the crap published in the Moonie Times (fat chance of that happening). Of course, border security is a serious issue regardless of the silliness printed by the Moonies. But pointed to them as evidence of anything makes you look pretty foolish.

Of course, FOX picked it up and ran with it without mentioning any of the details about the reliability of the source and that the advisory was many months old. So I guess we know the real purpose of printing such a story.

When the reporting order is... (Below threshold)

When the reporting order is the Washington Times, Powerline and then Fox...you really have to question it.

This story is apparently ba... (Below threshold)

This story is apparently based on a tip from a single unnamed source who no one is saying is reliable. Chicken Little had more evidence of the sky falling.

In fact, DEA warned the FBI it could just be one cartel trying to bring heat on another. But by all means, let's panic over it . . . [/rolleyes]


mantis ~ Of course it's easy to "close the border." There's a switch they can flip - turns out the lights, locks the doors, puts the neon "NO VACANCY" sign on . . . ;-)

We could end the drug carte... (Below threshold)

We could end the drug cartels in one swoop by legalizing drugs and ending the drug war. We wouldn't need a fence if the government would crack down on every employer who hires an undocumented worker. The program exists to check Social Security numbers but business leaders are putting up a huge fight to have it implemented.

k... (Below threshold)


You know an attack was immi... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

You know an attack was imminent because the terrorist's internet records indicated that they had ordered rocket-powered roller skates from Acme.

Want to close the borders? ... (Below threshold)

Want to close the borders? Simple. Just convince democrats that most illegals will vote republican. The borders would be closed the same day!

I see the usual juvenile at... (Below threshold)

I see the usual juvenile attacks on the Washington Times and Fox News above, but keep in mind that at least this wasn't originally reported in the most unreliable news sources - the New York Times, Los Angeles Times or Associated Press - or worse yet CBS.

Whether or not this story i... (Below threshold)

Whether or not this story is reliable, I think it's still a good reminder of yet another reason the border needs to be closed. It is a national security matter, whether specifically pertaining to this story or not. But that's just my opinion. ;)

Where was the closed border... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

Where was the closed border during the years when there was a Republican President, Senate and House?
Sorry, but the failure to close the Mexico Border did not start in January of this year.
I bet this kid was glad at least one illegal made it across

Whether or not this stor... (Below threshold)

Whether or not this story is reliable, I think it's still a good reminder of yet another reason the border needs to be closed. It is a national security matter, whether specifically pertaining to this story or not. But that's just my opinion. ;)

Ok, what's your opinion on how to do it and how to pay for it?

So, nogo, because it hasn't... (Below threshold)

So, nogo, because it hasn't been done yet, or wasn't done by the "right" people, it shouldn't be done?

I don't advocate closing the border (which I take to mean "ending all cross-border traffic"), but I've been consistent about increasing border security and doing all we can to stop illegal border crossings. And I don't give a rat's ass who is in charge of what in DC -- I just want it done. I wanted it done long before 9/11, and I want it now.

Both parties, quite frankly, suck at this issue. And if you take the to-you heretical action of actually READING Cassy's piece, you won't see a hint of partisanship -- she wants the issue fixed, without a hint of blame of one party or another.

You've taken the old "rose-colored glasses" concept a bit further, nogo. You've put on red-tinted lenses, and see everything in the context of "how can I use this to run down the Republicans?"

Sorry, doesn't work like that. But I do find it worth noting that the only party that seems to have members who take border security seriously are Republicans. In other words, not all Republicans are in favor of tightening up the borders, but nearly all those in favor of tightening up the border are Republicans.

If you'd care to disagree, nogo, find me some Blue politicians who agree with Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.


"But I do find it worth not... (Below threshold)

"But I do find it worth noting that the only party that seems to have members who take border security seriously are Republicans."

Yes, so serious they have done absolutely nothing.

As far as "border security..." doesn't that include enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations? Like better airport and port screenings, advanced intelligence sharing and increased surveillance of foreign suspects? (You know, the bill that 128 Republicans voted against)

A sham JT. And a shame you bought it wholesale, once again.

"Advanced intelligence shar... (Below threshold)

"Advanced intelligence sharing?" Like sharing intelligence with the New York Times to plaster all over its pages? (See their expose' on renditions, complete with identifying aircraft by registry numbers, for example.) "Increased surveillance of foreign suspects?" Unless, of course, they happen to contact American citizens, because that would offend the sensibilities of the ACLU.

Learn to read, jp2. I said that the only ones taking border security seriously were Republicans, not that Republicans as a whole were taking it seriously.

And I extend my challenge to nogo to you: find a Democrat who is as staunch on the issue as Tancredo or Hunter. The GOP ought to listen to them.


"And I extend my challenge ... (Below threshold)

"And I extend my challenge to nogo to you. And I extend my challenge to nogo to you: find a Democrat who is as staunch on the issue as Tancredo or Hunter."

JT - cut the crap. Everyone here knows that there aren't any Democrats as insane as "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo and "Preborn Human" Hunter. A silly, pointless question.

And as you proved above, you have not read HR1. For your education:


I know you like to mention the NYT and your vast conspiracy theories with every post, but really just an advanced non-sequitur here. If you read the above bill you'll find what I mentioned, but also plenty of other border security issues that the Republicans tried to nix.

JT - cut the crap. Everyone... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

JT - cut the crap. Everyone here knows that there aren't any Democrats as insane as "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo and "Preborn Human" Hunter. A silly, pointless question.
No wonder the dems can support the likes of Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha. jp2's post is a big non-sequitur here since he tacitly admits that the liberals are for open borders and civil rights for terrorists. In other words, the liberals are more concerned about the security of terrorists than the security of America.

No insane Democrats? Guess... (Below threshold)

No insane Democrats? Guess jp2 has not been paying attention to Dennis "Chemtrails" Kucinich.

oops, forgot to mention Spi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

oops, forgot to mention Spitzer-Hillary driver licences for illegals. That is insanity, but it is the norm of thinking of the dem politicians.

Kucinich is getting close t... (Below threshold)

Kucinich is getting close to crazy, for sure with the UFO stuff. But he bagged that sweet wifey, so he gets points for that.

And I'm actually a hawk on immigration and am pissed at the Dems for their sellout - as well as the Republicans. But on the real side - the idea that Republicans are for "security" is laughable.

OK, jp2, I'll drop the Time... (Below threshold)

OK, jp2, I'll drop the Times example. How about 9/11 commissioner Jamie Gorelick, who -- in her days as a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration -- drafted the "wall of separation" policy that kept the FBI and the CIA from comparing notes? Funny how that little tidbit never came up during the 9/11 Commission hearings, especially when they were discussing the intelligence failures leading up to the attacks...

And I repeat my challenge for a THIRD time: cite a single Democrat who is actually anything resembling a hawk on border security. That there are so few Republicans in Congress that are is certainly a disgrace, but that there are no Democrats at all is utterly appalling -- but not surprising in the least.


Ooo "appalling." Spare me t... (Below threshold)

Ooo "appalling." Spare me the fake outrage. If you really believed half the stuff you wrote you would have died years ago of brain aneurysms.

I'm just amazed you haven't touched on Ted Kennedy yet. After your cliche "but Clinton!" and NYTimes shots I figured you would go 3/3...

My aneurysm would still lik... (Below threshold)

My aneurysm would still like a shred of evidence that 1) you give a rat's ass about border security beyond using it as an opportunity to bash Republicans, and 2) a single elected Democrat who also has demonstrated that he/she/it give's a rat's ass about border security, jp2...

But I am touched that your concern for my health has so overwhelmed you that you can't focus on anything else, even the actual topic of the discussion...


But on the real side - the ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But on the real side - the idea that Republicans are for "security" is laughable.
Compared to the dems, the Republicans are far more concerned about national security. Again, thanks for the confirmation that the dems are in the dump wrt security and no informed Americans should support them.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy