Hasan Spin: Political Correctness or Something Much More … ; UPDATE: Wired Money to Pakistan?
BY: NCViking
It simply amazes me that outrage at the media and the administration for spinning the tragedy at Fort Hood as a PTSD, political correctness or some other non-terror reason misses one huge potential point:
Could it be that calling it what it was, a terrorist attack, admits that we have suffered the first one on our soil since 9/11 and it comes under Obama’s watch? Does anyone believe that the administration would admit this, after Bush perceivably kept us safe? Would the media ever implicate their chosen one in this way? Hell no.
From JournalTimes.com:
According to reports, Major Nidal Malik Hassan, the Army psychiatrist suspected in 13 shooting deaths at Fort Hood last week, openly criticized the government he was supposed to serve, and supported the enemy. Somehow, no action was taken against him, nothing that would have stopped him from ending more than a dozen promising lives.
Those were dedicated men and women – soldiers like Mount Pleasant resident Capt. Russell Seager, a deeply respected nurse practitioner who joined the service in his late 40s to work with veterans. He was in the middle of processing at Fort Hood, preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, when he was killed.
The FBI and military knew about contacts Hassan had with a known al-Qaida recruiter and checked them out. Those officials determined he was not a risk.
Granted, this is all hindsight from a lofty perch. Taken alone, the communications with Anwar al-Awlaki could have appeared innocent to investigators. Merged with Hassan’s now-famous rants supporting suicide bombings, they should have been glow-in-the-dark warning lights.
A man with those kinds of views repeatedly tries to contact an imam who encourages Muslims to attack the U.S., and it isn’t considered risky behavior? Pardon us, but what is, then?
I am in no way blaming this administration solely for the fowl ups between the FBI and the Pentagon regarding Hasan, the issue bridges both administrations, but perception is reality. The fact is Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a radical Muslim who was in contact with a top al Qaeda vessel, cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who was also implicated in the 9/11 Commission’s report. Red flags were tripped all over the place. He also openly criticized the United States, supported the enemy’s viewpoint and screamed ‘Allahu Akbar’ while murdering Americans. Looks like this guy either infiltrated the army or was home grown – either way, he is a terrorist that killed innocent people for radical, extreme and violent Islamic beliefs. One officials knew about and did nothing.
Exit question: Do you think the media or the government in the height of the Cold War would have said that a member of the military, in continuous contact with the KGB, openly speaking out against America and capitalism then gunning down Americans in the name of communism would have been spun as just a ‘troubled man‘?
UPDATE: Hasan wired money to Pakistan?
From HotAir:
Hmmm. So now we have the possibility of overseas money transfers to Pakistan at about the same time the FBI was made aware of repeated communication between Hasan and a 9/11 figure in Yemen. Meanwhile, Hasan — a well-paid medical professional — lived a lifestyle of near-poverty despite living by himself. And no one in the intelligence community thought this required further investigation?
Bungling.
- Economic Crisis of Confidence - February 8th, 2010
- Cato Analysis and Fact Check of SOTU Speech - January 28th, 2010
- State of the Union Déjà vu? - January 26th, 2010
- Purple Predestination - January 25th, 2010
- Prince Composes New Vikings Fight Song (Oh Yes He Did!) - January 22nd, 2010
I wonder what the media coverage would have been if the Major was a Christian – or anything else other than a Muslim? I doubt they would be trying so hard to dismiss the Muslim connection away.
There are at least three major serious security issues that this attack raises, none of which are being covered in the media or by conservative blogs. In many ways this is a failure of intelligence services both civilian and military. Those failures, as far as I can tell, go back into 2008 and may go back into 2007.
Instead of pointing fingers, I would hope that there is a thorough review and that these security failures are fixed – otherwise this is just a penetration test to a much more serious problem.
The last thing I care about is the media or the military spin. Your case, about spin, is being played out in the military as much as in the media.
As for media coverage, balloon boy got as much as Hasan (based on per day interest). I think there is nothing about this story that is special because he is a Muslim. The story goes wherever it leads us, into Pakistan and into our intelligent services. I don’t see it as special because he happens to be Muslim.
I am surprised that the focus on this blog is media saturation and not the major security issues and implications.
Fowl ups are being covered by the media and blogs quite a bit. I have two links to them, one from a conservative blog and an other from the New York Times. The post was not about media saturation but what the press is missing: that this was a terrorist attack and the Obama administration and the mainstream media carrying his water will not admit it for political reasons. There is no way they will call it this because it would implicate the administration, right or wrong, with the first terrorist act on American soil since 9/11. Something perceivably Bush prevented. Perception is reality.
The media, and you gents, are missing the important part: this is a failure of intelligence and security. We’ll call this the big story.
I can appreciate your point of view, and your political motivations. I disagree that there is administration conspiracy. The right wants to call this a terrorist attack immediately. Fine. We’ll call this the little story.
Sometime politics should take a back seat. By emphasizing the little story, you guys (conservatives) are helping the administration to take the focus away from the big story.
You guys want to play in the big story (where people can die) or the little story (where people pretend they have a story)? Which one is it going to be?
We like to blog about things that interest us. The hard reporting is done by the news media. I linked to a story from the NYT. It is likely that we will be posting more about this story covering other things as the onion layers are peeled away.
So then, it’s the little story for now. I expected much more from fellow Americans, but I guess politics trumps all else.
Mike,
You need to start your own blog so you are for sure covering the stories and angles that are important to you. I’m sure that would cut into your time on this blog so that is probably not a viable option.
Let us all know when you have your “Independent” blog up and running. We’ll be glad to add comments.
You gents missed the main point. I’ll remind you.
The conservative blogosphere is replete with stories about Hasan and his one man terrorist attack. Yours is almost a copy of what is being repeated everywhere else. That repetition is politically motivated and may be deeply interesting to you.
From my point of view, that focus gives the administration a free pass from the bigger story, the one about intelligence and lax security care at Ft Hood. The real story here has to be we can’t have this happen again.
Thankfully The Houston Chronicle is breaking ground with a story this AM on exactly the bigger story. That story is apparently not much “interest” to you.
I mean this a supportive way, but you guys would have been miles ahead of the rest of the blogosphere if you had picked up on the scent of the story earlier. Just a thought.
From the Houston Chronicle, they are blaming the war effort(s) for the reduction in security procedures and the lowering of standards(from my reading.) I’ll agree with the lowering of standards, but that has nothing to do with “missing” the problem with Hasan. I’ll stick with the fact that they have become much more politically correct and want to tread too lightly with radical muslims, or any muslims for that matter. That’s the real story here and the one that should be corrected first.
I contend that if the shooter was a christian with ties to Pat Robertson the story would have been reported much differently.
Again, Mike, you could have broken ground yourself with your own blog.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/military/6721104.html
Madman,
There are many examples of Christians that murder on religious grounds. For examples, Scott Roeder and Eric Rudolph. What part of their coverage was different than Hasan’s?
No one is out to minimize Hasan’s horrific act or overly demonize Roeder’s.
I don’t see much difference between how the two are covered in the media. One huge difference that I am confident you will not bring up is that many right wing groups and Fox media either openly justified of subtly noted that there was justification in Roeder’s actions.
You will find almost no Muslim of any stature (you’ll find nuts we can dismiss on all sides) that have supported, even in the slightest, Hasan’s actions.
I am sure that wasn’t the point on correctness you wanted to make.
The media at large is constantly falling all over itself to dismiss any problem caused by a Muslim. They are afraid to even mention the word and who can blame them? Hasan just happens to be the latest example. If there is some type of “Christian” angle involved the media at large is all over the situation. When’s the last time you saw calls for death over some cartoon depiction of Jesus?
Ahh, the Fox News hate machine again. Kind of getting old isn’t it Mike?
Those that would justify Roeder’s actions are kooks. You haven’t seen any of that justification on this blog and I doubt any of those sites on the blog roll would condone it either.
What I remember about the coverage on all arenas, including Fox News, is his beliefs. That was front and center, especially since it was an abortion doctor that he killed. Tiller was a piece of human waste and I lost no sleep that he was dead, but the manner that he met his demise only damaged the Pro-Life cause.
While that may be true, where is the self-policing of these supposed “peaceful Muslims?” They have sat back and let these kooks take over their religion. It seems very interesting to me, and many others, that the majority of the terrorist attacks around the world are perpetrated by those radicals of the Muslim faith. Why is that?
Re: Muslim and Christian crimes, you are highly dismissive of the treatment Scott Roeder received. Hasan has received a lot of MSM press, much more than Roeder. In part it is a worse crime and it is an an Army base. But it clearly is not minimizing the crime or being dismissive of it in any way.
You want us to believe that somehow respect for a religion is a crime. To Muslim’s there is prohibition against images of the Prophet. To respect a religion means to observe its customs. You seem to feel that doing so is cowardly. You would prefer we trample their belief. Feeling superior or grossly inferior, because if you cannot provide respect the you must feel really inferior to them.
I have no idea what you mean by the phrase “While that may be true, where is the self-policing of these supposed “peaceful Muslims?” ”
There are over 1 billion Muslims around the world. You are taking the action of a thousand or so hard core militants and using their actions to ask where are the “supposed peaceful Muslims?” They are every where. They are in the towns you live in. They are all across America.
By asking us this question you are no different than the racists who imprisoned the Japanese in WWII. Damning all for the actions of a few.
I’m jumping in here in the middle. If the US can have “Piss Christ” hailed as art, then the tame by comparison Mohammed Cartoons can certainly fit into our mainstream. They have the right to be offended, but they need to be offended in a less destructive way. If a Catholic went nuts every time there was an offensive piece of art towards them, carnage would line the streets. It is not we who need to adapt to them, but vice versa. American women that go into the “Islamic World” cover their heads… they too need to adapt here. This freedom of speech can be so inconvienent.
Again, if there were terrorists who ran around yelling “HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE”, just before blowing themselves up in a bus full of children, then I would see your point here. The fact is that most Muslims are NOT terrorists. Most are good people living their lives like an other citizen. On the other hand, must terrorists are Muslims. It is up to the moderates of the community to denounce them and take a stand. I have no doubt if the HAIL MARY’S came into existance, the biggest critics of their tactics would be the Church and their leadership (include the lay people).
Stupid, racist FDR. They don’t get much worse than that guy.
We are getting way side tracked between respect for religion and somehow creating a justification for “Piss Christ” and how Muslim’s must react. Let’s not condemn all Muslim’s for the vocal reaction of a tiny majority, and yes, that tiny majority should be in jail if they can’t find a peaceful way to communicate their displeasure.
The main point is respect for religion. If we want them to defend and prosecute those who persecute Christians in the name of respect for your religion, then we should respect theirs in turn.
America is far an above more respectful, more thoughtful, and more caring. We save women who are abused by their fathers and husbands. We should not lose our advantage and our values because they can’t or won’t.
We are in complete agreement that most Muslims are NOT terrorists. I would go further and state that none are terrorists except for a very small minority.
But to ask their leaders to take a stand is a bit much. Did your leaders all apologize for Scott Roeder, a Christian? No, instead in this thread alone you damned his victim. Suddenly you have placed yourself in the same shoes as a moderate Muslim. Should he explain the actions of a Muslim he doesn’t know and may not even understand? Suddenly, all Muslim’s must denounce a person because he may be demented or crazy?
Are we so split that all Muslim’s must do a homage to Christians? Because in many ways this is the definition of racism, the notion that one group lives only because the other allows them to live here.
And yet many Muslim’s did denounce Hasan’s actions. They describe that only a radical sect believes in the 77 virgins and the kill infidel. The Muslim faith has come a long way from it 8th century roots.
And yes, FDR’s actions were as racist towards the Japanese interment as they were in keeping a segregated armed forces. There was a lot of racism in the years before the Civil Rights movement, both in the North and South, and certainly in the military.
Punishing all for the sins of the few falls into this category of xenophobia.
I’ll try to answer the part that was directed at me before Windbag chimed in (very nicely I might add.)
No, I am not. Hasan received a lot of MSM press, but it took these guys a while to get to the whole Muslim thing. The initial news reports showed the reporters very tepid in actually bringing up his religious affiliation. My point is that when Tiller was shot the lead of every story, and endless analysis, was about his Christianity (or lack thereof in my opinion.) This stuff happens all the time in regards to Christians.
Not at all. Showing respect is one thing. Killing people that you “think” are showing some type of disrespect is yet another. As Windbag pointed out, if it’s a crucifix in a jar full of piss, that’s art. If it’s a simple cartoon of Mohammad then it’s an international incident. No one is willing to stand up and say, relax guys, it’s just a cartoon. Indicate your objections and let’s move on.
I don’t hold them personally responsible, but these radicals have taken over Islam. I see very little condemnation of their actions across the board. Maybe the media is holding this stuff back, but I doubt it.
I always know your irritated when to start in with the racist stuff.
Your comments on this thread are, in part, a wholesale condemnation of “them” as if “them” have to police or condemn “their” radicals. I would say you may have gone as far as saying “supposed peaceful Muslims,” from my read a wholesale accuse the many for the actions of the few. That is xenophobic and racist.
How about accuse just the radicals and find a way to protect society?
You are way wrong with your assertion without proof that MSM has not portrayed Hasan as a Muslim. I just checked CBS coverage. It is difficult to report “Nidal Malik Hasan” as the shooter, but not also call that he is Muslim, and from where (born in the US).
Several news outlets were actively asking whether this was a terrorist attack, particularly when there were two other suspects arrested.
I notice how you want to deflect away from your own respect for religion obligations and want to equate the peaceful almost accepting Western style piss on Christ art with the drawings of the Prophet. Not so fast, let’s stick to your own responsibilities.
Your responsibilities are not to ask all Muslim leaders to condemn the attack at Ft Hood if you are unwilling to ask the same of all Christian leaders in the wake of the Scott Roeder crime. In fact you called it a welcomed thing.
As I see it, you are unwilling or unable to condemn a murder by a Christian, asking Muslims to do the exact opposite, and calling them radical extremists in so many words.
Readers will decide. The racist element who think Islam is a radical religion bent on war and killing will agree with you; those who have a more moderate view of people, cultures, respect, and understanding will agree with my point: we should make equal demands of all sides, demonstrate respect, and hold each individual responsible for their crimes against humanity.
To my read your statement above sound like more of the same blame-them-all for the actions of a few. Do we punish or suspect all Muslims? Do we hold out Muslims for special attention? Do they have to mind their own better and denounce their radicals? What if they want to denounce your radicals?
It seems like you are going to great lengths not to just punish the guilty and stop pushing your Muslim/radical notion.
Your provide zero proof. I just told you that I checked CBS News for the day and the day after and Muslim is all over the story, as is radical, as is his name.
You can day dream about your assertion, but how about some concrete proof. Maybe your Fox affiliate failed to mentioned it, or more likely your Fox affiliate said they were the only ones calling him Muslim, and foolishly you bought into it. Proof, bro, proof.
Remember Northern Ireland and the Troubles? If Christianity was such a peaceful religion…
Remember the Shoah (Holocaust)? If Christianity was such a peaceful religion…
Again, more hard proof of you blaming the entire religion, all Muslims, all believers over the outrage of a few, a very few. There are 1 Billion Muslims. A few thousand at most marched, less than a hundred acted violently, but to you the entire religion is violent, all of it.
The Bible says “kill all the people in the next land and take their virgins,” or kill those who work on the Sabbath, or just disobedient children. All violent.
My point is: just cause it’s in a “holy” book, quotes intended, doesn’t make the religion violent. A few radicals may follow some weird sect, but why are you so hell bent on blaming all?
It has everything to do with your post. It basically disproves your point. Unless you can’t follow the logic.
The point is that in a tolerant society, we should be able to say and do what we want. No one forbids “Piss Christ” from being displayed, and if they do, they are mocked by the elite media and first amendement supporters. No one is condemning all Muslims either.
We are a Judeo-Christian nation. We support freedom of religion. Respect for one’s religion and culture can only go so far. We don’t allow for, nor should be condone or “respect” some practices of some religions. We do not allow for female genetal mutilation, we do not allow for polygamy, and we do not allow for slavery.
Also, I don’t want to prosecute anyone for what they believe, but I believe that we should keep an eye on those who profess infidels should be killed and boiling oil dumped down their necks. I take a threat like that serious, even if it is only from a small minority.
As the story goes, when the British were in charge of India, the then governor-general of India ordered the practice of Suti be suppressed. Indian leaders criticized him for this, claiming he thereby violated Britain’s promise not to interfere with local custom. Sir Charles replied: ‘You say Suttee is the custom. Well, we too have a custom which is to hang men who burn women alive. You build your funeral pyre and I will build a gallows beside it, and let each of us act according to custom.’
We don’t keep our values if we are unable to keep them. You believe that all will be well if there is no “man on the wall” to protect us from those outside. The person who is willing to do a little more than the common citizen to keep us safe. I think we will disagree that water boarding is torture, but it is also clear to say that the US does not use any enhanced methods for fun. Unlike Saddam, Stalin, Mao, and other leftist totlitarians, we don’t torture for power. Three… count them… three people received waterboarding, and they all produced intelligence that helped the US stay safe.
Not a huge leap. I agree with that too. But even if 1% are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers who dance in the street when civilians die, then that would be over 10 million terrorists in waiting world wide. That is a whole lot.
Sounds like you have been reading the talking points of Keith Olbermann on this one. Every non-fringe righty from Rush to Ann Coulter, to Bill O’Reilly, to pro-life groups, to every Republican condemned the attack. Churches condemned the attack. Churches teach to hate the sin, but love the sinner. That was the case here. Yes, O’Reilly called him “Tiller the Baby Killer” when he was alive and practicing, but did not blame him for his own death. That is just place false to assert that Tiller was blamed by the Right. Your following questions have lost the credibility to be asked. I think it is safe to say that your moderate Muslims need to speak up.
Huh? What homage are you talking about? What are Christians demanding? Americans are demanding that moderate Muslims stand up and call out those in their midst. If there was a guy in my church who was nutty and talked about murdering people, I would certainly turn him in. On the other hand, we can go back to my original reply when I said, not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. There is something about Jihad that is still practiced in the “holy war” ideal, while the “crusade” has lost steam and Christians don’t seem to want to blow themselves up for Mary, Luther, or Queen Elizabeth.
But apparently it has a bit further to go. I will cling to my argument I restated above. If you can find me that HAIL MARY terrorist sect (both Islam and Catholicism have about one billion followers world wide, if not more), that is even 1/10 the size of the terrorist networks of radical Islam, then I am all ears.
Of course, but we can not condemn historical figures using modern culture and norms. To do so ignores the context of history.
Then we agree… reparations are a terrible idea that should die on the vine. I should not be held to the sins of those who came before me.
Brent Bozell of the Media Resource Center covered some of this in a column on November 10. Worth reading the whole thing. Here is part of it:
The column then goes on to show how the media downplayed the religion angle. That is fine, but there is plenty of proof out there.
I heard both the CBS and ABC broadcasts at 6p on the East coast and neither knew the name of the shooter, so I don’t know how MRC has different proof. It may be that I am East Coast and they are West Coast, a three hour difference.
I think the difference is probably whatever came off the wire, and what came off the wire came straight from the US Army – the only source providing information.
I checked the US Army broadcast and they at first did not reveal cause or names. I applaud, and you should too, the focus on the individual and not his religion. I would bet Fox broadcast off the same news feed. I don’t see a conspiracy.
The conclusion I draw is not slow to identify him as Muslim. I draw that the facts of the case were presented as it unfolded. Once the facts were unfolded, there was no attempt to conceal the or minimize the religion.
It’s a darn good thing too, because of guys like you who want to extract a contrition out of all Muslims because, according to your world view “it’s a violent religion.”
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 32 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours, 53 minutes, 45 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags