WaPo is spewing disinformation even as they seem to be critical of the admin. There were no “dots” which needed to be connected in this case -— a clear notice was given to US officials by the father that the son was a radicalized Islamist who had disappeared and may be in Yemen (known Al Qaeda hangout and training grounds)..... they guy is not a US citizen or in any way someone we need to welcome to our shores...... at a minimum his visa should have been revoked and he never should have been on a flight to the USA......
the “connect the dots” theme is meant to make this event seem on a par with pre-911 failures..... but the liberal/bureaucratic failures in this case are even more egregious even if the catastrophic results were averted -— b/c in this case there were no “dots” of connection needed, and we already have the horrendous example of 911 to know what the real risks are -— we should not be allowing radical Islamists with Al Qaeda connections to have visas or to get on commercial flights to our country, period!!
No ways should our officials be playing ostrich as in the Clintonized pre-911 days......
This matter should have been a “no brainer” as the saying goes -— and still the Obamanation managed to screw it up.
It’s as if terrorists are merely drawing images on an Etch-a-Sketch. A few shakes by the Obama administration, and there’s nothing more to see, connect, or erase. The One is busy - he has a wave to catch.
Exactly:
1) The terrorist's dad must have connections with US officials monitoring terrorism.
2) The terrorist's dad knows what he's talking about.
3) The terrorist's dad knows his own son - it's not like a bank flagging a random cash transfer of more than $10,000 (in the USA, this must be reported to authorities).
#1: His father, former CEO of a bank in Nigeria (where more then a few terrorists reside), would have had to deal with Homeland Security directly in cooperation with President Bush's global war on terror.
#2: Banks are on the front line of the "war on man made disasters". They are the eyes and ears of security officials, legally mandated to continuously look for suspicious activities or patterns and report them immediately. Due to the sensitive nature of the information, only the top-level executives and front line staff who are directly involved in the issue have authorization to discuss evidence with the US security agency in charge.
#3: A father is not going to report his son unless he is absolutely certain that his son has the desire, ability, and opportunity to kill himself and others. I believe his father reported his son to US authorities because he knew there was an operation in progress that would most likely result in the death of his son - not because his son was planning to kill innocent US citizens (just a hunch on the 2nd part).