In a November 27 post on his blog, “A Line of Sight,” former Republican congressman and occasional media figure Bob Beauprez referred to a purported terrorist plot to attack Fort Huachuca, a U.S. Army intelligence-training center near the U.S.-Mexico border, as “Something for the Open-Borders Crowd to Explain,” according to the post's headline. However, Beauprez did not mention November 26 and November 27 articles by the Arizona Daily Star of Tucson reporting that FBI spokesmen labeled the terrorism threat against the facility “unfounded” and “fiction,” respectively, as Colorado Media Matters has noted.

Beauprez, who lost the 2006 gubernatorial race to Gov. Bill Ritter (D), stated that “The Washington Times reports that Afghani and Iraqi Islamic jihadists have targeted the largest military intelligence training facility in the U.S.” He also claimed, “Mexican drug traffickers cooperated with the terrorists to smuggle weapons and operatives across the border,” and further noted:

Referring to the plot to attack Fort Huachuca in Arizona, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said it “demonstrates the cross-pollination that frequently exists between criminal and terrorist groups.”

Meanwhile, environmental groups and the pro-illegal immigration crowd continue to fight construction of a border fence and improved security efforts. Hopefully, it won't take a successful attack inside U.S. borders before the Administration and Congress realize that the security threat from our leaky borders is real.

However, Beauprez failed to point out that according to the Arizona Daily Star articles, FBI spokesmen said the threat to Fort Huachuca “proved unfounded” and “turned out to be nothing more than fiction.”

According to the November 26 article, “A plot by dozens of foreign terrorists who purportedly planned to attack Fort Huachuca with rocket propelled grenades and mines has proved unfounded, an FBI spokesman said Monday.” The article continued:

The threat, detailed by a local television station and The Washington Times after information was recently leaked to them, involved Iraqi and Afghan terrorists working with a Mexican drug cartel to smuggle themselves and weapons across the U.S. border.

[...]

The intelligence advisory compiled by several federal agencies said the attack was scheduled to occur in May. The information was passed on to Fort Huachuca commanders, who changed security practices in an effort to avoid an attack.

But the attack never occurred and was the result of bad information, said Manuel Johnson, an FBI spokesman based in Phoenix.

“A thorough investigation was conducted and there is no evidence showing that the threat was credible,” he said.

The newspaper reported on November 27 that “the plot, widely reported by local stations and national TV networks and The Washington Times, turned out to be nothing more than fiction, an FBI spokesman said Monday.” The article later continued:

Retired Maj. Gen. James “Spider” Marks, who served as a senior intelligence officer during the invasion of Iraq and commanded Fort Huachuca's intelligence program from 2001 to 2004, said military installations routinely receive intelligence saying they're potential targets.

While he hadn't seen the reports cited by the Times, Marks said that, in general, it's crucial to always question the validity of the sources involved.

The intelligence about the Fort Huachuca plot came secondhand from Drug Enforcement Administration sources in Mexico who were “of uncertain reliability,” the Times reported.

“It's unfortunate that you have to assess credibility of intelligence after the fact,” said Marks, who now runs a private intelligence-contracting business in Virginia.

Moreover, Beauprez failed to mention that the Times article he referred to also reported, “The FBI report [about the purported terrorist threat] is based on Drug Enforcement Administration sources, including Mexican nationals with access to 'sub-sources' in the drug cartels. 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.”