“Well, look, we — we have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of violence that are inexplicable. Even within the extraordinary military that we have — and I think everybody understands how outstanding the young men and women in uniform are under the most severe stress — there are going to be instances in which an individual cracks. I think the questions that we’re asking now and we don’t have yet complete answers to is, is this an individual who’s acting in this way or is it some larger set of actors? You know, what are the motivations? Those are all questions that I think we have to ask ourselves. Until we have these answers buttoned down, I’d rather not comment on it.” (President Obama during his recent interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper)
The Liberty Bell “cracks”. Nidal Malik Hasan did not crack.
Bottom line, the boy was very clear and direct on how he felt about fighting other Muslims. He put the warning out there, but apparently political correctness, not the Taliban already was holding members of our military hostage.
(foxnews.com) Investigators would have been “crucified” over First Amendment rights if they had launched a full-scale probe into e-mails Fort Hood massacre suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly sent to a radical imam, a government investigator told Fox News.
The claim comes as the squabble grows among officials in different branches of law enforcement and the military over who knew what, and when, about Hasan’s leanings toward faith-inspired violence, and amid charges that “political correctness” prevented officials from taking pre-emptive action.
Multiple investigators familiar with the FBI’s review of the Fort Hood case told Fox News that they simply did not have enough evidence to launch an investigation. Though officials discovered Hasan’s e-mails to the imam, one government counterterrorism investigator said the messages suggested he was seeking “spiritual and religious guidance.”
“(Hasan) appeared to be at a moral impasse, a moral dilemma who was reaching out for advice,” the investigator said. “Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we’d have been crucified.” (more...)
Obama’s “bow” to the Saudi King may have been interpreted as just an early misstep of a brand new, first time President, but not offending Muslims has become almost a unwritten law in both the media and the halls of our government. The title of Asaf Romirowsky post at his blog last year asks the very question I have been wondering about for quite sometime now.
In his post, he talks about how Saudi money has been flowing throughout our educational system for years as students are being taught how to be more open-minded when it comes to Islam. If Saudi money is flowing in our nation’s college and university system, what makes you believe that government isn’t also being lulled to sleep with Saudi generosity?
The history of political correctness goes back a lot further than Fort Hood. The truth of the matter is that Ft. Hood is just another sign post letting us know that our country is willingly shackling itself while calling it “tolerance”.
If this were isolated, I’d agree. However, there have been instances which have been documented where people who clearly shouldn’t be sent into the field of battle because of mental issues, were sent anyway. The MSM has done enough stories about those instances that, I think, it is an established pattern.
What’s being reported, today, is the communication with the Imman was “not threatening” even though, to me, it seems like he should have been pulled in. But if there is an investigation, and nothing is solid, then investigations have to run their course.
Investigators would have been “crucified” over First Amendment rights if they had launched a full-scale probe into e-mails Fort Hood massacre suspect Army Maj.
Given that didn’t happen, that’s just speculation to be ignored like the comment I made about Jesse Jackson, Sr or Al Sharpton attempting to buy a football team and the reaction that would have occurred or not.
Now, if you want to get into Saudi influence, please remember that there are conservative detractors who question the Saudi ties to the Bush family. (No, this isn’t a “Bush did it too” comment).
http://www.blackinformant.com Duane
Launching someone into the field of battle despite their mental state vs. someone who was a psychiatrist and used that post as a bully pulpit to preach radical islam are two different things. Yes there are plenty of instances where unfit soldiers have been sent into battle, but you have someone who was supposedly fit enough to be a psychiatrist, fit enough to give presentations warning the military of “adverse events” and nobody says anything about that, that is more than just slight oversight in the system. That was intentional. And this latest report makes that point.
Given that didn’t happen, that’s just speculation
When the Commander in Chief stops short of calling it outright terrorism, I think that is more than just speculation.
please remember that there are conservative detractors who question the Saudi ties to the Bush family. (No, this isn’t a “Bush did it too” comment).
So why mention it? The article I linked to talks about how Saudi money has been in the US college and university system for year beyond Obama. Just as Obama was blasted for bowing to the Saudi King, Bush was blasted for holding his hand. Another point, I do remember people like Michelle Malkin pointing out the fact that the 9/11 hijackers had been partially financed by the Saudis.
http://www.blackinformant.com Duane
Another point.
When it was determined that the soldiers that you are talking about suffered from mental illness, nobody had a problem calling it that from jump–mental illness. On the other hand, Hasan has a long track record of talking about his personal conflict with going to war against fellow Muslims, yells “Allahu Akba” before opening fire and the best that we can get is that he “cracked” and his religious beliefs had nothing to do with it.
http://darkstarspoutsoff.typepad.com DarkStar
*SIGH*
I forgot the sum …. Let’s see if I can generate my points again….
Launching someone into the field of battle despite their mental state vs. someone who was a psychiatrist and used that post as a bully pulpit to preach radical islam are two different things.
True. I think dude was a terrorist.
That was intentional. And this latest report makes that point.
That’s what my point is geared towards. YES, it is intentional but given it happens in other cases, with mental illness just being one that comes to mind right away. Because of this, I don’t see where “political correctness” comes into play.
Bush was blasted for holding his hand.
He was joked about, mostly, for holding his hand. Obama was slammed for the bow.
When it was determined that the soldiers that you are talking about suffered from mental illness, nobody had a problem calling it that from jump–mental illness.
That’s where I may not be clear. Reports in the MSM made it clear that the military HAD and STILL HAVE a problem calling PTSD a mental illness. Now, mental illness is just one point that came to mind. The military, according to alleged rape victims, cover up rape cases, blame the women, put the men back in the field as well as the women, but both get transferred. And it’s reported situations like that which cause me to question the “political correctness” charge.
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com Muslims Against Sharia
MASH message for Islamic terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan:
Mr. Hasan,
May you be swiftly executed, may you rot in Hell for eternity, and may your family be ashamed of you for as long as they shall live.
http://www.getxbox360repairguide.net Xbox 360 Repai
This was not a mental breakdown, this was terrorism. I do not understand why some people try to cover it up, call it what it is and then lets find a way to stop the senseless killings.
soundranger
You need to disinclude your documentary on PC. Just because a white boy with a pipe goes all Alistar Cooke on you, doesn’t mean you need to lap it up like a milk-starved kitten. Horowitz? are you kidding me?
..and yes, Major(!) Hasan didn’t attract any attention because he was always “by the book” in word and in deed. He very calmly suggested to them (the military) what they should do to in the face of real conflicts that muslim-american fighters encounter. He even used Powerpoint (today’s lingua franca) to tell them.
But, in shipping him out, they worked his last good nerve.
He tried to warn them (within protocol) they weren’t listening. They never do. (See Malcolm X)
Marie
In response to aprvious post about why the military personel was not ready for confrontation/battle. See that in March 1993 under Bill Clinton a law was passed that military personel are not allowed to carry guns in bases located in American soil unless there is a “specific threat to the military in a specific region”. Maybe if there were allowed to carry guns the 13 people will not be dead. Also, including the 2 soldiers at a recruting office killed by another Muslim man. Any “specific” thread is to be resolved by military police (MP’s) which are the only ones allowed to carry arms in American military bases stationed in ASmerican soil.
You Are Gravely Wrong, Mr. President!
by Duane on November 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pmThe Liberty Bell “cracks”. Nidal Malik Hasan did not crack.
This was part of a slide presentation that Hasan gave back in ’07. You can read the entire presentation here.
Bottom line, the boy was very clear and direct on how he felt about fighting other Muslims. He put the warning out there, but apparently political correctness, not the Taliban already was holding members of our military hostage.
(foxnews.com) Investigators would have been “crucified” over First Amendment rights if they had launched a full-scale probe into e-mails Fort Hood massacre suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly sent to a radical imam, a government investigator told Fox News.
The claim comes as the squabble grows among officials in different branches of law enforcement and the military over who knew what, and when, about Hasan’s leanings toward faith-inspired violence, and amid charges that “political correctness” prevented officials from taking pre-emptive action.
Multiple investigators familiar with the FBI’s review of the Fort Hood case told Fox News that they simply did not have enough evidence to launch an investigation. Though officials discovered Hasan’s e-mails to the imam, one government counterterrorism investigator said the messages suggested he was seeking “spiritual and religious guidance.”
“(Hasan) appeared to be at a moral impasse, a moral dilemma who was reaching out for advice,” the investigator said. “Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we’d have been crucified.” (more...)
Obama’s “bow” to the Saudi King may have been interpreted as just an early misstep of a brand new, first time President, but not offending Muslims has become almost a unwritten law in both the media and the halls of our government. The title of Asaf Romirowsky post at his blog last year asks the very question I have been wondering about for quite sometime now.
What Influence Does Saudi Money Buy?
In his post, he talks about how Saudi money has been flowing throughout our educational system for years as students are being taught how to be more open-minded when it comes to Islam. If Saudi money is flowing in our nation’s college and university system, what makes you believe that government isn’t also being lulled to sleep with Saudi generosity?
The history of political correctness goes back a lot further than Fort Hood. The truth of the matter is that Ft. Hood is just another sign post letting us know that our country is willingly shackling itself while calling it “tolerance”.
Part II
Sphere: Related Content