[Guest post by DRJ]
It’s more than 194.
According to Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, 16 Iraqis have been caught crossing illegally at the Southwestern US border since January 1, 2007, and 178 more have sought asylum. Some have known links to terrorists. As they say, read the whole thing.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Powered by WordPress.
Uh, more than 194?
That’s what I hate about the tree falling in the woods and did it make a sound?
… and Schrodinger’s cat, too.
Stupid cat.
USCitizen (86ae6f) — 8/22/2007 @ 5:48 pm“a relatively small number of people with known links to terrorist organizations have been caught crossing the Southwest border.”
Uh, even one person linked to terrorists is far too enormous a number to ignore and not be very concerned about.
Dana (4dfe06) — 8/22/2007 @ 6:45 pmWhile it is disturbing to hear this it is encouraging that our government is apparently able to identify them to some degree.
voiceofreason (cd0c94) — 8/22/2007 @ 7:00 pm… and Schrodinger’s cat, too.
Stupid cat.
nah. . .
Stupid box that held the cat!
compared to Schroedinger’s Box, our borders are a large gaged colander.
JP (7d78aa) — 8/23/2007 @ 12:50 amActually. . . more like shrimping with a gill net.
Reading the news about how the Clinton CIA actually never had a plan to deal with bin Laden I have to wonder if someday Bush’s legacy might be how his administration refused to secure our borders from terrorists all for low wage illegal workers from Mexico.
Buzzy (9d4680) — 8/23/2007 @ 1:48 amWhile al-Qaida certainly is a violent organization with interests and aims adverse to the U.S., I’m about done thinking of them as “terrorists,” in relation to the U.S. (they are terrorists in the middle east, but that’s a different story.
They don’t need to be terrorists in the U.S. anymore — we’ve got plenty of people here in the U.S. who’s primary aim is to spread terror among Americans. Those terror-spreaders are the ones who spend their days talking about how afraid we should be.
Actual violent terrorism against the U.S. is no longer necessary — Americans are perfectly happy to whip up endless terror without any real acts of terrorism at all. The smallest whiff of a possibility of a threat of an attack is enough to get the terror-mongers in the U.S. talking again about how scared we should be.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 8/23/2007 @ 5:14 amIf it even held a cat at all…
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/23/2007 @ 5:27 amPhil, I don’t suppose you’d put any stock in the idea we might talk about terror attacks in an effort to thwart them, do you?
I regard another domestic terror attack as fait accompli and I don’t have a lot of faith in the government protecting us. But if citizens are alert and aware we might be able to throw a wrench in the works on our own, and that would be priceless.
I know it’s fashionable to be all que sera among the Left in this regard, and that you guys have made up your minds terror is simply a Rovian calculation (and I don’t dismiss that out of hand,) but just what if we caught some of these dirtbags red-handed? Wouldn’t you trade your oh-so-cool cynicism for that victory?
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 8/23/2007 @ 6:18 amWeb Reconnaissance for 08/23/2007…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….
The Thunder Run (59ce3a) — 8/23/2007 @ 6:55 am“Phil, I don’t suppose you’d put any stock in the idea we might talk about terror attacks in an effort to thwart them, do you?”
Not really, no. Terror is being used as a way to get people to buy into various other policies, in the name of “thwarting” terrorist attacks.
These days, terrorism is often (as with the above story) a “booga booga” noise made by people who want to close our borders because they are afraid of labor competition from Mexicans and/or just afraid of poor Mexicans generally. If you don’t care enough about the threat from Mexico, maybe you’ll care about TERROR and that will get you to support further closing the borders.
Terror is also a way to get people to fork over large amounts of tax dollars to law enforcement and the military (and more importantly, by association, everyone that profits from this massive distribution of cash).
Finally, terror is a great way to get politicians elected who have nothing to legitimately offer their constituents (“elect me and I’ll save you from the terrorists!”).
The folks who spread terror for the above purposes are also “terrorists,” by defintion — they use fear to manipulate. They don’t directly kill or injure innocent people, but their impact on the national psyche is, at this point, even greater than the terrorists who do kill and injure innocents.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 8/23/2007 @ 9:20 amSo it’s like Global Warming, eh?
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/23/2007 @ 9:25 am“So it’s like Global Warming, eh?”
Actually, I agree with you there, assuming you’re serious.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 8/23/2007 @ 9:51 amScott Jacobs – Nothing at all like global warming, except for the tactic. You see, AGW is at best unproven, and we have no clue even if it could effect us. Terrorism, on the other hand, is real, present, and its effects are obvious, to everyone except the likes of Phil.
JD (815fda) — 8/23/2007 @ 9:58 amSure JD, the global warming threat is nothing like terrorism threat. Except for the fact that the scope of the threat depends almost entirely on the politics of who you’re talking to.
Oh, and as a nation we’re spending way more money fighting terrorism than we are spending fighting global warming. I guess that’s different, too.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 8/23/2007 @ 10:08 amJD… I was mocking him.
Play along…
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/23/2007 @ 10:17 amGod help me, Phil is not entirely off the mark. Which one of our glorious Vaterlandsicherheitleiters have we heard say “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” or any approximation thereof? But as far as border security goes, they cannot honestly say it. Because they are falling down on the job and they know it.
nk (b038b2) — 8/23/2007 @ 10:28 amYou can’t say it’s not real, some building almost fell on my head. I have some friends who would be glad not to be dead if terrorism isn’t real after all.
I guess what you’re saying, Phil, is that the Bushies have done such a great job of keeping AQ on their heels that we don’t need to worry about another domestic terror attack. Because I can tell you that until we went on the offensive, the threat was very real.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 8/23/2007 @ 11:14 amSure, Spongeworthy, a building almost fell on your head. And my neices and nephews haven’t had a white Christmas in several years, when I remember having them all the time as a kid.
But you’ll probably argue to your grave that the lack of a white Christmas for my neices and nephews doesn’t justify adopting the policies Al Gore would have you adopt regarding global warming.
And I’m certainly not interested in adopting a closed-border policy toward Mexico because some crazy muslims almost dropped a building on your head.
The fact that 911 happened doesn’t suddenly justify everything the neocons and anti-immigrationists have always wanted to do anyway. Any more than the fact that there is climate change doesn’t suddenly justify the all pollution regulations Al Gore has been dreaming about.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 8/23/2007 @ 11:42 amnah. . .
Stupid box that held the cat!
If it even held a cat at all…
is the box real?
JP (7d78aa) — 8/23/2007 @ 2:36 pmHey Phil
Gore’s numbers are wrong.
Use the same methods in anything else and you would be laughed out of science or failed in school. Use the same formulas back wards (to be correct, they should all come out the same) and they then also don’t work. It is called Faulty Science. Just like the Global Cooling scare from the 70’s.
Warmer weather is a natural occurrence. We are still coming out of a “mini-ice age”, let alone the last full ice age, and have yet to reach even the temps of the Viking hey day.
Also..What about the temps of the Earth before the last “full” ice age? A quick check will show that earth then was quite a bit warmer than now. Was that due to SUVs and Too Much industry? What is the “Real Ideal Temperature” according to you Anthropocentric Global Warming Religion fruitcakes?
You do realize we are also getting a bit of lessening in the Sun’s activity? This will soon lead to cooling as well. Maybe your nieces and nephews (if like Sponge’s building, they exist)will be having White Junes and July’s like “The Year With No Summer”.or maybe just White Halloweens and Spring Solstices.
On Terror
JP (7d78aa) — 8/23/2007 @ 3:06 pmShould we go back to the methods of fighting terror that allowed 9/11 to happen? Who gets the blame when the next attack happens? What, exactly do you think will prevent the next attack? How does preventing criminals from coming and going across the border as they please make this less likely? And just why is monitoring the border better a bad thing?
Mexico loves to cry about us, but it’s own immigration laws and souther border are a far cry from what they want us to have. Why is it preferable to have a class of people who are “doing jobs Americans won’t do” live in lower class abject poverty? One of the reasons they get work here, is they willingly work for less than minimum wage. Shouldn’t those jobs be made to be at least a minimum wage job? Then would the job be more appealing to an American, causing the American to be able to get the job? Wouldn’t getting the illegals out and making those jobs taxable, create a better tax base for liberal minded programs?
” Should we go back to the methods of fighting terror that allowed 9/11 to happen?”
-JP
You mean like ignoring memorandums labled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”?
That would be pretty fucking stupid, wouldn’t it?
“…just why is monitoring the border better a bad thing”
-JP
Because the costs of undertaking such a monumental task outweigh the benefits, and the money could be better spent elsewhere.
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 8/23/2007 @ 3:24 pmI think the idea that jihadis would attempt to use the Mexican migrant smuggling routes is obvious, and has been obvious for some time. So the lack of serious effort on the part of the current administration to crack down on those smuggling routes is a sign of what’s wrong with the way the “War On Terror” is being handled: to wit, the Bush administration is not really serious about protecting us at home, but has opted for the “best defense is a good offense” route. Problem is, the Middle East is not a football game, and the quality of the offense is not good. So all the talk about protecting us from terrorists is really turning out to be politically based fearmongering, a handy tool to cover any and all desires.
kishnevi (d50358) — 8/23/2007 @ 4:17 pm” Should we go back to the methods of fighting terror that allowed 9/11 to happen?”
-JP
You mean like ignoring memorandums labled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”?
That would be pretty fucking stupid, wouldn’t it?
Ah, I hadn’t realized the memo was so in depth that it gave such details as “An Al Qeda backed group, led by Mohhammed Atta, will, on the morning of 11, Sept, 2001, highjack 4 long range flights by United and American Airlines, outbound from Boston, and fly them into buildings in the Capitol, and NY City”. The “memo” were one of many memos that state quite ambiguously attacks being planned. But Hey, if Bush had been clairvoyant, he could have passed the Patriot Act on steroids before hand and prevented it.
Maybe if he had Pulled a Clinton, and fired all the Executive Appointees on day one, instead of keeping so many of the folks around, he may have had someone notice the clearly worded memo! I bet if you go back and look, really hard, there is a memo by some one stating that internal agents may try to attach federal buildings somewhere in the United States at some time. Clinton Could Have Prevented Oklahoma City! /sarc
“…just why is monitoring the border better a bad thing”
-JP
Because the costs of undertaking such a monumental task outweigh the benefits, and the money could be better spent elsewhere.
Err. So we let the terrorists and illegals come in and then what?
How is this better spending? Wouldn’t stopping them at the border make it easier to prevent acts of terrorists?
Where are you planning on spending this money then? Why is it more secure than border controls?
If you got locks on your doors, take them off and make sure you let the local fence know..I’m sure he’ll make his buddies stay clear of your place. Your money saved on the locks and keys will be well spent in other places, I’m sure.
Or is it that you are fine with losing some 3000 folks at a pop from time to time? Some are fine if it is the cost of true “liberty”.
{The}Bush administration is not really serious about protecting us at home, but has opted for the “best defense is a good offense” route. Problem is, the Middle East is not a football game, and the quality of the offense is not good. So all the talk about protecting us from terrorists is really turning out to be politically based fearmongering, a handy tool to cover any and all desires.
Comment by kishnevi — 8/23/2007 @ 4:17 pm I think your off a bit on that. But not too far.
JP (7d78aa) — 8/23/2007 @ 6:55 pmOffense is a good defense for this. It has kept them trying for a blood bath in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the expense of it being a blood bath only for them, and a goodly number of civilians. His weakness is more a Mexican/Migrant/”cheap labor” thing which has come at the cost of security. It Boggles me how one can be like he is on the border. But then, he never really was a true conservative.
Attach?
damn sprlin!
Attack!!!
egad
JP (7d78aa) — 8/23/2007 @ 6:57 pmCould somebody do something about the border?…
Yeah, it’s kinda silly, but we just might keep out people who want to, oh, I don’t know, kill us. From Patterico:
“The number of Iraqis seeking asylum as they enter the United States over the nations Southwest border has nearly tripled this ye…
Four Pointer (59ce3a) — 8/25/2007 @ 9:05 am