Taking 'We Report, You Decide' to a New Level

The Fox with two faces.

Artstruck Again

My favorite detail in today's New York Times piece about the fear of ISIS conspiracies along the U.S.-Mexican border:

Fox News itself has covered the threats in different ways. After senior administration officials testified at a Senate hearing last week about ISIS, an article on FoxNews.com about the testimony ran under the headline "D.H.S. Confirms ISIS Planning Infiltration of U.S. Southern Border." An article on Fox News Latino about the same hearing had the headline: "ISIS Terrorists Not Sneaking Over U.S. Southern Border With Mexico, D.H.S. Officials Tell Congress."

For the record: The second headline is the more accurate one (though if you want to be a stickler, the DHS's statements were closer to We have no credible evidence of such sneaking than No such sneaking exists). The first piece (a reprint from the Washington Free Beacon) rests on a reference to "social media exchanges among ISIL adherents across the globe" in which such border crossings are discussed as "a possibility." Someone just defined planning infiltration down.

Comments

[Idle Hands]

Meh if you listened to the testimony on CSPAN like a good wonk, I believe that DHS entertained the idea that it would be possible for ISIS to cross our border. Of course Congress should be tarred and feathered for discussing this because it's dumb but whatever. Is it just me or is ISIS just carving out a stake of land like everyone else throughout history has forcibly taken land, what's the big deal?

[Idle Hands]

Fox gonna Fox I wouldn't have drawn the headline from the testimony but if you wanted to fear monger it's not like it completely false.

[Idle Hands]

#letsnotloseourheads.

[John]

Why should Congress be tared and feathered? Isn't Congress' job to provide oversight to the executive?

The fact is anyone who wants to can walk across the Southern Border anytime they like. It is not exactly far fetched that someone might do so meaning us harm. Asking DHS just what the hell they are doing about it and just what the threat actually is is what Congress should be doing.

[Idle Hands]

Isn't Congress' job to provide oversight to the executive?

Is that what they are doing? I was under the impression that they were ball-less "leaders" who are ceding unprecedented powers to the executive and providing soundbites to appease their base while they continue to fuck them.

[John]

Sure they are being that. But they are also making the executive stand up and go on record about this. I don't see how that is a bad thing. If you don't believe Congress' concerns, good for you. Only time will tell who is right. But the people responsible for the border ought to have to at least go on record about their opinion of the threat and what they think should and is being done about it.

[Idle Hands]

It's just tiresome. This has always gone on in literally every administration, it's an easy issue to score points on as it's impossible to completely secure the borders.

[John]

Just because it is not possible to completely secure the borders doesn't mean there are not degrees of doing so. It is impossible for me to completely secure my house. But I still lock the door.

It is a fallacy to claim that just because something can't be done completely, doing it partially is necessarily not worth doing.

The really tiresome thing is people who think border security and immigration are the same issue. They are not. We could open the borders to more immigrants and we would still want to secure those borders to make sure that criminal immigrants don't come.

[Idle Hands]

You can lock the door but what's the point if the windows will always be open?

[John]

Because its pretty hard to get my TV out the window. That is the point. And how do you know the windows are open? You are just begging the question here and assuming the risk can never be mitigated. Lets say we can only stop 40% of the people trying to cross. Well, yes the windows are still open. But we also have a 40% chance of stopping the guy meaning to do us harm. That is hardly a bad or meaningless thing.

[Idle Hands]

True, I'll be honest borders and the security of them are something I struggle with and could go either way on. Both sides make decent points.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The fact is anyone who wants to can walk across the Southern Border anytime they like.

And that fact can be applied to any nation on the face of the earth. And only an idiot would lie awake at night and worry about it, as there is no way to stop it.

This is the Republicans using fear to grow government. Living entails risk. Get over it. You don't have enough money to eliminate it. People need to grow a sack.

[John]

And that fact can be applied to any nation on the face of the earth.

No it can't. Go try and walk across the border from say Belorussia to Poland sometime. Not every border looks like ours.

This is the Republicans using fear to grow government. Living entails risk. Get over it.

Why do you allow this topic to make you so stupid? Sure living involves risk. That doesn't mean you should never take steps to limit or avoid risk. In fact, that is the entire question here and the one that you beg, what efforts should be taken to limit this risk.

That is a sorry ass answer if there ever was one. If you think any effort to control the border doesn't reduce the risk of crime and terrorism enough to justify it, then say that and explain why. But don't insult everyone's intelligence by saying 'living involves risk".

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Why do you allow this topic to make you so stupid?

Fuck you John. Why do you allow FOX News to turn you into a blathering pussy.

First, efforts should be taken to limit risk that actually limit risk. Not pissing money down the shittter cuz it makez Johnny feelz better!

Please, tell me what you would do to secure both our borders, that would actually be effective.

You do a cost benefit analysis based upon likely scenarios and you spend an appropriate amount of money based on the probability of an attacker infiltrating through the border AND based on the effectiveness of the measures you can afford. It does no good to spend money on shit that's easily defeated.

Serve it up, my friend. What would you do that would secure 6000 miles of border?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

It's like worrying about Yellowstone erupting.

Maybe we could spend a trillion dollars on a really big cork?

[MegaloMonocle]

Living entails risk.

Living a long and happy life entails managing risk.

[Homple]

John, you've got to remember that, to Reason, a wide open Southern border is a conjured-up sacred right and to say that an open Mexican border could bring associated problems is heresy.

Add in this case the impulse to take a swipe at Fox news, thereby aping the cool kids and hoping they'll notice, and the thing is explained.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

So, why won't the terrorists come across the Canadian border? Better seal that up too, right?

[MegaloMonocle]

Maybe its harder to get into Canada in the first place than Mexico?

Dunno, honestly. Just speculatin'.

[John]

They might. It is, however, harder to get into Canada these days than it is into Mexico.

The problem is that Venezuela is now basically a satellite state to Iran. It is thus very easy to get into Venezuela from the middle east. Once there, all it takes is a bit of money to the drug gangs and you are in Mexico. Once there, you just cross in the US.

All of these people who live on the border keep saying they are seeing middle eastern people crossing the border. Do you think they are lying? Just evil racists trying to scare America?

What the hell are middle easterners doing down there if not to cause trouble? Maybe nothing will ever happen. But I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would think it is an impossibility or not something at least worth trying to mitigate.

[PapayaSF]

Because it's much harder for terrorists to get into Canada, Canada being a single First World country with only one international border.

And because thousands of unknown persons are not arriving from Canada every week.

And because Canada is not a nest of corruption, like most places to our south.

And because Hezbollah has not done a major terror attack in Canada, as they did in Argentina.

[Calidissident]

Considering that there are more than 1,000,000 Muslims in Canada and a few thousand in Mexico, I think there's a greater threat of Islamic terror from Canada than Mexico.

[PapayaSF]

That may well be true, but it still doesn't make the Mexican border an insignificant problem, either terror-wise or otherwise (poverty, disease, regular crime).

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"Because it's much harder for terrorists to get into Canada"

http://cnsnews.com/news/articl.....trol-chief

[Homple]

They make a pretty good attempt at sealing it already.

[Brandon]

Wow, the neocons sure go to the fallacy well quick when anyone questions the "nukes are being brought in from Mexico AS WE SPEAK" narrative.

[Homple]

Good job fitting an ad hominem, name calling, and a strawman into so few words.

A logical fallacy trifecta.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Conjured right from the NAP, yeah, how silly.

[antisocial-ist]

Given the fact that taxpayers are forcibly looted to pay for the land, installations and maintenance along the border, I would say that makes them the rightful owners of that property, and that they have the right to decide who may use it.

[Homple]

If you allow "influx of large numbers of people who do violence to the locals" as "aggression", are not borders then allowed as defense under the NAP?

[Homple]

change "allow" to "define" in the above.

[John]

Yes ISIS is staking out a brand and inviting every nutcase loser in the world to build a bomb and blow something up and be famous.

[Idle Hands]

I honeslty think they are building a country. Hence the name the Islamic State. I would wager if we left them be they would continue to piss off and fight proxy wars with all the people who have ever wronged us Eg Iran, AlQueda, Hamas. They deserve each other.

[John]

That is possible. The problem is that their creating a country will result in the genocide of the Christians and the Kurds. I might be okay with your plan if we would arm the living hell out of the Kurds so they could defend themselves.

Our problem is that we never think outside of the box on these issues and we are often not ruthless enough. You are right, there are worse outcomes than the ISIS assholes fighting and endless and bloody civil war against the Iranians, Assad and the Iraqi Shia. It would give the various jihadist assholes in the world somewhere to go and fight and keep them occupied and not causing trouble here.

Or, it would empower them and enable them to cause us a lot more trouble down the line than they would if we just murdered them now. I am not sure which is true and I don't think anyone really is.

[Idle Hands]

The problem is that their creating a country will result in the genocide of the Christians and the Kurds.

Not to defend criminal actions but what country has ever formed without the forcible extermination of the people's land you are taking? I'm sorry but unfortunately my tribe begins and ends with US citizens. I won't pretend to give a shit about people I've never meant and don't share a shred of cultural history with, to much bad shit happens to Americans on a daily basis(albeit on completely different level) for me to get worked up over it.

[MegaloMonocle]

what country has ever formed without the forcible extermination of the people's land you are taking

Most of them? Seriously, most nation-states were founded by a set of elites making it so, and perhaps putting down a few counter-coups or insurgencies along the way, without going to the trouble or expense of genocide.

[Idle Hands]

your right my hyperbole get's the best of me sometimes.

[John]

I'm sorry but unfortunately my tribe begins and ends with US citizens.

So your solution is to let building build a country with the specific purpose of killing said citizens?

[Idle Hands]

Meh.. They are assholes but Iran has declared war with the western war and their allies I don't see you advocating warfare against them. Also they would be our allies in extinguishing ISIS.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I might be okay with your plan if we would arm the living hell out of the Kurds so they could defend themselves.

The Turks would like to have a word with you.

[John]

Too bad for the Turks. They shouldn't have let an Iranian aligned paper hanging fascist take over their country.

[PapayaSF]

Screw the Turks. They stopped being our allies years ago.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

And we should "choose" the Kurds, over the Turks, why?

[PapayaSF]

Because they tend to be more pro-Western, and aren't led by a semi-fascist Islamist like Erdogan..

[sarcasmic]

I honeslty think they are building a country.

That's exactly what they are doing. Wherever they go, they immediately set up a police force and courts, and a system of taxation to pay for it. Granted the law they are enforcing is barbaric, but they're setting up a government in their wake. Unlike AQ which simply killed people and moved on.

[Hugh Akston]

From the full FAUX article:

"There have been Twitter, social media exchanges among ISIL adherents across the globe speaking about that as a possibility," Taylor told Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) in response to a question about "recent reports on Twitter and Facebook of messages that would urge infiltration into the U.S. across our southwestern border."

I think he was just humoring Grandpa.

[Idle Hands]

McCain is like a Republican cutout taken straight from a Sorkin script.

[Pro Libertate]

You know, I agree that the ISIS guys suck ass and are pretty crazy, but would they really risk the wrath of the U.S. by attacking us here? Seriously, we may think al Qaeda won in some way (we're changed forever, etc.), but from where they're sitting, we toppled two governments without breaking a sweat and have killed and killed again the people involved with the attack. And we clearly haven't lost our appetite for meddling in the Middle East, so it didn't work there, either.

Not saying I like what we're doing or have done, but from their perspective, the very worst thing they could do is attack the U.S. directly.

[John]

Since we are already bombing them and building a coalition that we claim will destroy them, what would they have to lose?

Moreover, I don't think these guys are deep thinkers. They are not playing the long game. They are looking to live the life and do as much damage for the cause as possible. Hitting the US is the quickest way there is to become the big kid on the block in the terror nutcase world. It would be a huge boon for their recruiting and prestige.

Whether they can do that or not or even if they can they can do something beyond some pathetic attack like the Boston bombing remains to be seen.

[Idle Hands]

I think they are in it for a longer term than you think: Isis

Unlike al-Qaeda's vague vision of a borderless world run by extremist jihadis, the Islamic State has a plan to build a viable state right now," wrote Thanassis Cambanis, a fellow at the Century Foundation. "In less than a year, it has secured a de facto country and acquired an arsenal of American weapons as war booty. It has formed alliances with non-jihadi Sunni leaders, including Baathist allies of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. And crucially, it has laid out a blueprint for a viable self-funding Islamic state, drawing a steady income from a commercial tax base and the crucial energy industry it has captured."

[John]

That just means they say the right things and are a bit brighter. That doesn't mean they can actually do any of those things or will refrain from attacking America until they are stronger.

Even if they are, that makes them even more dangerous. Their "long game" such as it is is to take over the entire Middle East and then move on to the rest of the world. That is nuts I know. But that is their plan. If they really do have a long game, then it is better to kill them now before they actually do have a country and the ability to really hurt us.

[Idle Hands]

I don't really care what their long term plans are, they have all the right enemies. If want to align yourself with Iran, Hamas and Al Qaeda on this issue go right ahead.

[Idle Hands]

If you think they will expand their power beyond the small plot they have your probably wrong.

[John]

By that logic, the Nazis were okay because they were enemies with the Soviets. So what if they have the right enemies? Again, so did the Nazis. That didn't make them less of a threat.

[Idle Hands]

No. I don't know how you can't recognize the difference between a band of goat fucking camel jockies and an advanced mechanized fighting force that literally wrote the book on modern warfare, I'm pretty sure I can. Call me when they have taken the Mideast.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm not discounting the possibility of a dumb move, but there will be no ISIS caliphate if we blow their shit up. And, to be honest, even with President Not Me, I suspect a counterattack this time would be much more ruthless than after 9/11.

[PapayaSF]

would they really risk the wrath of the U.S. by attacking us here?

You expect fanatic totalitarians to be rational? The Taliban weren't rational to host bin Laden. Hitler wasn't rational to attack Russia. Pol Pot wasn't rational to murder everyone who wore glasses.

[Anon E. Mouse]

Yea, think college frat boys and Animal House, but with bombs and guns, instead of beer and pussy.

[Pro Libertate]

Carnage is good?

[waffles]

Dear Jesse Walker,

Please don't lower yourself to writing about 'Fox and Friends' and forget this image ever existed.

Sincerely,

A concerned waffles.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I like how every unnamed commenter on any obscure blog can be the fodder for dozens of posts here, but when Fox (or Palin, etc.) does something silly and gets called for it we get people saying 'Reason should really ignore them!'

[Idle Hands]

I think plenty of people criticize Fox on this blog.

[waffles]

I criticize all cable news. I'm just feel like paying attention to their morning drivel is debasing.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

They're cuming ta get us, cuz they h8 us 4 are freedumz!

[Fist of Etiquette]

I, for one, welcome our new ISIS overlords...

[John]

It would be horrible but there would be little pockets of karmic justice in it. Just imagine the Imam who gets the Jezzebel crew as his infidel concubines. Talk about people deserving each other.

[Idle Hands]

Now I definitely concur with that.

[MegaloMonocle]

Dude, the Imam will be shopping for concubines on SEC campuses. He can do much, much better than Jezebelters.

[John]

There are only so many SEC coeds to go around. Someone will be down the list far enough to get Marcotte. And God have mercy on his soul.

[Idle Hands]

Their is more than enough SEC coeds to go around. If they run out of them I've heard Arizona has some good scenery.

[creech]

"I've heard Arizona has some good scenery."

Nah, those are actually photos taken of the female delegates at the recent LP convention in Columbus.

[tarran]

You and I both know no imam would touch them.

They'd be arrested, charged with apostasy or prostitution and stoned to death as an example for the others.

They might be offered as rape-recipients for some foot soldiers' night of fun, but my guess is that would be the extent of their sexual servitude.

BTW, speaking of imams, I encourage anyone who wants to know exactly how heavenly eggplant can be made to try the eggplant dish known as imam bayildi. I will warn you though, once you try it, you will never be able to touch the products of American recipes for eggplant again; it will be like going back to sleeping with sullen Jezzies after a heavenly night in the arms of one of the triple-breasted whores of Eroticon 6.

[sarcasmic]

Looks good, but the next time I cook eggplant it will be some version of moussaka.

[PapayaSF]

I want Code Pink to go to IS as human shields.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

You hold some curiously long grudges against peaceniks.

Code Pink Crashes Senate Hearing On ISIL
http://townhall.com/news/aroun.....l-n1892492

[PapayaSF]

Oooh, they disrupted a Senate committee. That'll ensure peace.

[PapayaSF]

Wow, so a headline wasn't entirely accurate? I'm sure that's never happened before!

This post is a stretch, but I know Reason has to get their licks in on Fox News, too, especially when they point out that open borders might not be a good idea.

[Calidissident]

Yes, cause reason never criticizes msnbc, cnn, the New York Times, etc.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I think the poke is centered on the two contradictory headlines from the same source.

[Dr Fallout]

I'm on the fence about border security.

[Steve G]

What you did there, I saw it

[GILMORE]

DOBBS WAS RIGHT