News outlets continue to try to create the impression that the Times Square bomber was "acting alone." For some reason, this is an important, perhaps comforting, notion to some reporters.
"The Pakistani-American accused of the failed Times Square car bombing is believed to have been working alone," the Associated Press insisted as recently as Wednesday.
Never mind that authorities were even then investigating whether Muslim Taliban radicals in Pakistan were involved, perhaps in training the chief suspect.
But let's just say for argument's sake that Faisal Shahzad technically worked alone. Does that mean he harbored unique resentments -- maybe, oh, because his Connecticut house was foreclosed on? CNN personality Jim Acosta, in a bizarre bit of empathy for an accused attempted bomber of innocent civilians, noted recently that, "One would have to imagine that (foreclosure) brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family."
Over at CBS, reporter Bob Orr, oddly proposing that Shahzad's motive is "unclear," nonetheless speculated that it might be because, even after a year of citizenship, Shahzad "has not realized any American dream."
Think about what that man just said. That CBS reporter said, in essence, that America may have let Shahzad down .
So he just snapped. And obviously, as any one of us would have done, he tried to bomb Times Square.
What planet have these people been reporting on?
The truth is, if Faisal Shahzad is the Times Square bomber, he's not a depressed former homeowner. How many foreclosure victims leave a smoldering, bomb-filled SUV to explode in a busy tourist spot on a Saturday night?
It's most likely he had technical support along the way. But if nothing else, he had the moral support of fellow radicals who have gone before him and will most surely follow him. They may not be co-conspirators, per se, but they're ideological accomplices. They share a kindred spirit, a belief system that says Americans and other Westerners are evil and either need to be converted or exterminated.
Reporters delusional enough to try to sell us fairy-tale nonsense that this bomber, or any other Muslim radical, honed their craft in a lonely vacuum are not only world-class naive, but are hazardous to this nation's security because they're peddling a fiction designed to lower our guard and try to make us feel better. The underlying message of their chronic "lone wolf" fable is that the danger has passed; it wasn't connected to anyone else, after all. Of course, that's just demonstrably untrue.
Meanwhile, you have to wonder if the Obama administration has its guard up sufficiently. Of course, they are loath to use the word "terrorism" to begin with -- and neither Mr. Obama nor press secretary Robert Gibbs could bring themselves to call the Times Square incident "terrorism" at first. Mr. Obama also had implored us not to "jump to conclusions" after Nidal Hasan shouted "God is great!" and killed his comrades at Fort Hood. In the Times Square and Detroit "underwear bomber" cases, the suspects were foiled only through the vigilance of citizens around them. "Luck," to the layman.
And while searching for Shahzad, the government decided not to call airlines and alert them about his addition to the no-fly list. They barely stopped his plane from leaving for Dubai.
Most troubling, after four Muslim attacks on U.S. soil in his first year-plus in office, you've got to wonder if President Obama's entreaties to the Muslim world are making us any safer -- or if we're just less girded for attack.