On September 19, 2016, there was another Islamic terrorist attack in New York , and the official response is bewildering. At first, it could not be admitted that there was a bomb, and Mayor de Blasio of New York could not admit it was a terrorist act. Perhaps he thought it was work-place violence or a chemistry experiment gone wrong. Who knows? When there was absolute proof that it was an Islamic terrorist, then the claim was made that he was a lone wolf acting on his own. And then of course, it was determined that he may not have been a lone wolf, so it was claimed that he was not ISIS-inspired. And then it was admitted that he might have been ISIS-inspired, but he certainly was not funded or directed by ISIS. That, of course, is a great relief to me because if anyone points a gun to my head, my first concern is who is paying him. And, of course, the executive branch (think president) remains silent on the terrorist bombing, while the intelligence community is claiming that we are defeating ISIS, and as a result, they are calling on cells in Europe and the United States to commit terrorist acts. Can it be both ways? Does it matter?
I think it is safest to conclude what most Americans concluded when they saw the aftermath of the bombing. It was an Islamic terrorist attack. Whether he was inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki or ISIS is academic. By now, most Americans have seen enough terrorism in the United States to recognize it on its face. It is only the news media and seemingly all branches of government that cannot recognize terrorism when they see it. But, it does raise a serious question, who is going to vet the 550,000 Muslim refugees that Hillary Clinton plans to bring to the United States if elected president?
It certainly cannot be the FBI (our nation’s top police force) because they now have a long history of investigating terrorists and then releasing them on an unsuspecting citizenry (Boston bombers and others). In this case, they had interviewed the bomber, Ahmad Kan Rahami, twice. Both interviews followed his extended trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan where he was known to have visited areas of Taliban presence. Further acting on a tip that Ahmad’s father was referring to Ahmad as a terrorist, they interviewed Ahmad’s father. The father apparently changed his story in the FBI’s presence and convinced the FBI that his son was merely involved in domestic violence. After all, Ahmad was in jail for stabbing a relative.
One would guess that Ahmad’s father knew more than he would let on to the FBI since Ahmad lived at home, in an apartment above the family business, First American Fried Chicken. It would make sense that the father was protecting the son, but you would think the FBI might suspect as much. Protecting a child is normal parental behavior, so it is hard to overlook the FBI’s lack of diligence in the investigation. At the time, they did not interview Ahmad and certainly did not put him on a terrorist screening database. Apparently, the FBI also overlooked Ahmad’s Pakistani wife who has since relocated to the United Arab Emirates. She left the country just days before the bombings. It tends to make one believe that she knew something. As an interesting coincidence, where did the San Bernardino terrorist’s bride, Tashfeen Malik, come from? If you guessed Pakistan, you would be correct.
Maybe it is just me, but it seems odd that the FBI can track all of my emails and phone messages and harass the citizens of this country, but they cannot detect a terrorist when they are told who the terrorist is. Perhaps being led by James Comey, they believe violating the law without intent is not a crime. That is what he said about Hillary Clinton isn’t it?
Maybe we just expect too much of the FBI. Maybe they are just Washington bureaucrats like many others. Remember it was Senator Orrin Hatch who said, “We cannot let our respect for the FBI blind us from the fact the FBI has sometimes come up short of our expectations.”
Until next time…