....Re the FBI and their contact with Mateen: The same thing happened with the older Tsarnaev brother (Boston Marathon bombing). In both cases, checked out and cleared by the Bureau. I've had people say "But if they're suspicious, shouldn't they continue to watch them?" At which point I ask them just how large they would like the FBI to become. Interesting that supposed supporters of smaller govt and less govt interference would adopt a view of "once on the FBI's radar screen, always on it". Of course they say that AFTER the individual in question commits a crime. "How come the FBI missed them?" Well . . . what if there was nothing to miss? Tsarnaev was interviewed and cleared something like 2 years before the marathon bombing; Mateen also some time ago. How long does it take for someone to watch ISIS videos or listen to a radical imam and decide to join the jihad? If you look at cases of terrorist attacks, not all that long. But if you want the FBI to look like the old Soviet KGB, then I agree: Let's keep watching them even after they're cleared. If "watching" involves physical surveillance, the number of people involved gets pretty large pretty darned quickly.
I wouldn't disagree with any of these thoughts, but whose 'job' is it if the tone here is don't blame me.
If what you mention is true, shouldn't the tone of leadership be how to concentrate assets, or profile. Shouldn't leadership signal to citizens that there's a difference between vague vigilance, and criminals that flourish under pc. The pres from a foreign country and the cb caucus only profiled law abiding gun owners as the cause of the sensational headlines.
How come the fbi just concluded a privilege blind investigation with a non prosecution recommendation, while at the same two press conferences, stated for the record that their own agents would not be afforded the same privilege. Do they answer to the people or logic, or do they answer to leadership in their branch of gov.
