Was the underwear bomber's father a CIA asset?

Once again--why, after Umar Abdulmutullab had been denied a visa for entry into the U.S., was the denial reversed?


Good reasons to overturn a visa denial for entry into the United States, when the applicant has been previously refused: Few, limited mainly to error in the previous application reversal. Even applicants who need compassionate succor, according to former foreign service personnel, are supposed to apply for asylum rather than for a visa.

Bad reason--make that the usual reason--for overturning an earlier visa denial: Being leaned on, if you are a consular officer, from above. That is, if your foreign service job in a U.S. consulate abroad is to make judgments about who should be allowed entry into the U.S., according to protocols--rules--clearly laid out, your decision can be reversed only by higher-ups in your organization.

Usual reason for such reversal: The higher-ups are answering to unofficial higher authority at the policy-making level. In a U.S. consulate, that would be--and was--the CIA. (See previous on this topic.)

Why was the identity of Abdulmutallab's father, the fact that his father was a Nigerian bank bigwig, even a factor?

Speaking of spook-related questions--why did Abdulmutullab attempt to set off an explosive device, located in his underwear, where he did, in full view of passengers and crew around him? Why didn't he go inside one of the plane's restrooms, if he really wanted to pull off the job? It is indeed wonderful that no other persons were harmed in the event, but the plan is still puzzling.

Richard Reid made the same inept mistake, attempting to detonate explosives in his shoe after returning from the aft restroom according to the federal filing against him. Reid's remarkably eccentric and rather conspicuous actions, like those of Abdulmutallab, were witnessed by crew members and passengers.

Following his immediate capture, Abdulmutallab talked copiously to law enforcement and other personnel. The synthetic outrage about his being mirandized, hours after the incident, is even more transparently bogus than most rightwing huffs.

Another question regarding the quality of the plan, if you call it that: Has the younger Abdulmutallab ever explained why he did not blow up the plane in the air? Why did Abdulmutallab wait until the plane was about to land, to try to set off his explosive? Why not simply detonate his explosives, whatever they were, when the plane was aloft, where destruction would have been magnified the utmost by gravity--a crash--and where presumably a large debris field and logistical difficulties would have impeded or at least slowed down investigation?

Presumably all the features of Abdulmutallab's projected attack are simply aspects of his ineptitude. They are indeed startlingly inept. Otherwise, why the maximum openness on the flight, himself drawing attention to what he was doing? Why the lengthy Chatty Cathy routine after he got off the plane, before he was mirandized?