Edited: More added below, as promised.
In examining the data coming out on the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, some quick thoughts and an invitation for discussion (by other than the regular trolls).
First, as to the claim that the wife 'radicalized' her husband. Bullshit. I strongly suspect he was radicalized before, and that the marriage was an effort to strengthen that. I hope that competent people are looking into who helped facilitate that, and how. If memory serves, this would not be the first time a wife was chosen to help facilitate terrorist acts.
Second, it would appear that they did have a plan, and had primary, secondary, and possibly even tertiary targets planned. They were loaded for bear, and headed somewhere else to do more mayhem when intercepted.
Third, as Moe Lane points out (hat tip Instapundit), it seems clear to me that the holiday party was not the primary target, but rather a target of opportunity. No, I am not convinced he left angry and that caused this (too many people there, including one who was sitting with him, said he wasn't angry when he left). Why they went to snap count, however, is not that important, but rather that they moved before plan, off plan -- and I think we dodged a huge bullet by them doing so. Think about it: the number killed by weapons was not nearly as high as it could have been, and the IEDs, which could have put this on par with the Paris attacks didn't work. Did they move ahead of testing/rehearsing stage? It also would appear to suggest that any control working with them was not local. And, yes, right now I do think they had a control.
Fourth, who financed this? He made $50k a year in one of the most expensive places to live in the US. On that salary, there is no way he/they could have afforded all the weapons and gear they had. It would seem that they had to have help, on finances if nothing else.
Fifth, people did see things before, but were scared to say anything. My own thought is that a lot of effort has been given to vilifying/intimidating people who see something and say something. Gee, think there might be a reason for that? Thank goodness someone did say something after, which led to police intercepting them on the way to a secondary target.
There is more, but that's all the time I have right now. Please do sound off in the comments. BTW, Uncle Jimbo has been on a roll on this one, hope to have time to post some links (or that he does so) later this weekend.
Edit 2: The President will address the nation tonight. Anyone want to start a pool that 1 percent will be about the terrorist incident, and that he will not be able to bring himself to call it Islamist/Islamic/other-term-of-your-choice; and, that 99 percent will be about disarming Citizens via executive order?
Edit 3: Uncle Jimbo has been on a roll, appearing on O'Reilly three days in a row! Working to add good links for all three days. Some good food for thought in the following: