Just got to the Rich article, but all I can say is that it’s difficult for me to respond to what he says because he makes his argument based off an assumption about conservatives (that they think Hasan is part of a major, overarching jihadist plot) that isn’t true of what I’ve said in my argument here.

When Hasan contacted al Qaeda (six months ago), that was the first sign that he presented a clear, present, and real danger to the country and his fellow soldiers. That, IN CONJUNCTION WITH his previous actions, should have made him a target for investigation, and that was on Obama’s watch.

“Obama is in charge of who directs the CIA and FBI (he picked them after all), and this seemed to me yet another in a series of things which leads me to believe that national security isn’t a top priority for this administration generally.”

In an article I read yesterday in Time magazine (here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1937574,00.html), it was revealed that the FBI’s knowledge of Hasan’s interesting connections was discovered in DECEMBER 2008, at which time Bush was commander-in-chief, and those working for the FBI worked for him:

“Hasan came to the attention of the FBI in December 2008 as part of an unrelated investigation being conducted by one of our joint terrorism task forces.”

AND

“Says Juan Carlos Zarate, who was President George W. Bush’s Deputy National Security Adviser for combating terrorism: “Given the cover [Hasan] used, as someone researching the effects on Muslim soldiers of operating in Muslim countries [his approaching al-Awlaki] was not wholly illegitimate. It doesn’t raise the specter of dangerous or criminal activity.”

I really want to wrap it up here, but I can’t get out of the conversation if silly statements continue to be made.

We have witnessed now for nine years, literally a cascade of blame heaped upon George Bush for things he was responsible for, and things he wasn’t(how does a president start a hurricane?). We watched George Bush, a man of character in my opinion, during those years assiduously give credit do people to whom it was due. I heard one time, in another context entirely, that it was a measure of a man’s character(and his leadership) the he “gave credit” and “took blame.” This is what military and political leaders at least in the last two centuries did–the ones who really deserve to be admired.

And in one of those quirky reversals that all too often work in life, the reverse seems also to be true. Leaders or politicians of poor character(Clinton comes to mind)like to take credit and give blame(American calls it “shirk” blame). In Clinton’s case it was whatever Republican was nearby, or some Democrat(other than his wife) with whom he had differences, to whom he ascribed blame.

So the lesson is: good men take blame and give credit; bad men take credit and give blame.

Now, the issue at hand: Is Barack responsible for Hasan’s terrorism? Is Hitler responsible for the death camps?

Whither modesty?!

Presidents don’t always do things that they’re responsible for personally. Take, for instance, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that conservatives should be considered domestic terrorists. Was this Obama’s statement? No. Is it reflective of how his administration feels? Probably. To say that because it was people working under Obama who weren’t doing their jobs efficiently and so it shouldn’t be a reflection on Obama is silly. Presidents choose people to work for them because they can’t make every decision themselves, and they expect the people they choose to make the same decisions they would make on their behalf.

I agree that “Allah Akbar” is not necessarily a war cry, and that it is said peacefully millions of times a day. However: starting in the late 1980s in the Soviet-Afghani war, Saudi and Egyptian Muslims (read: al-Qaeda) have used it as a war cry. Furthermore, Hasan shouted this not at a time of prayer but with a weapon in his hands with the intent to kill people. That’s a war cry. For heaven’s sake, he could have been screaming about his love of cupcakes and that would have qualified as a war cry because he is engaging in violence. Hasan also clearly expressed anti-American sentiments, and attempted to contact terrorist leaders. The morning of the shooting, he was wearing shalwar-kameez – the traditional garb of Pashtuns, which was worn by Arab mujahadeen during the Soviet-Afghan war. He clearly idolized terrorists and sought to emulate them.

Alec, I’m going to have to disagree with you that this can be pinned on Obama. We cannot reasonably expect that the President will personally be an intelligence analyst. Yes, there certainly were intelligence failures, but I think if you’re going to blame anyone, it would be the CIA and FBI. Even then, the CIA and the FBI are forbidden from sharing information with each other (CIA isn’t supposed to have information on American citizens, and vice versa, etc). With that said – we have absolutely no idea how many acts of terrorism they have prevented. For every act that slips through the cracks I am willing to bet my life that there are much more serious threats that they squash. I don’t excuse them for missing this, however, but the CIA/FBI/Counterterrorism unit have limited funding with a whole world to analyze – not an easy task. But back to the point, I honestly don’t think this has anything to do with Obama as a cause, and that’s just wishful right-wing extremist thinking on your part.

Enjoy the Rich article, I hope it can help you see the issue from another perspective.

The reason that I didn’t rush to call those mall shootings acts of terrorism is because they weren’t acts of terrorism. They were cases in which people just snapped. They weren’t motivated by political (in Hasan’s case, anti-American, anti-American military) beliefs, which is what a terrorist attack would be motivated by. I don’t call him a terrorist because he was a Muslim, I call him a terrorist because he was a terrorist. He just also happens to be a Muslim, and his radical Islamic beliefs are the reasons he committed this act of terror.

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that he committed this act BECAUSE he was linked to known terrorists/terrorist organizations. From your comment, it seems that you think that I implied that Hasan was acting in cahoots with terrorists. That isn’t what the evidence shows, as we both know, and I don’t think we’re in disagreement here. I mentioned those things only to say that there was evidence long before this attack that he had attempted to contact terrorists, and that this was hardly an instance of somebody snapping and going on a crazy rampage. This was a calculated move and, though he was acting alone, he did have links in the past to terrorists.

I’ll discuss the Rich article later tonight or tomorrow.

“Sean Hannity lambasted the Obama Administration for not catching Hasan before he went berserk — despite the fact that the joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI which failed to find Hasan’s communications with a radical cleric suspicious, gathered the information in 2008, under the Bush Administration. Rush Limbaugh also cast blame on the Obama Administration claiming that because Obama hadn’t got out of us out of Irag and Afghanistan, ‘that’s one of the reasons the guy cracked.’”

Alec: “But his administration is responsible for not acting to prevent this from happening.” I disagree with this, but couldn’t word it right. Frank Rich does it nicely in Sunday’s times, explaining that there is a set flaw in the system that has nothing to do with the Obama administration. I watch Glenn Beck every now and then to get a feel for the opposition, check out Rich’s article…he actually concedes that conservatives are potentially right here on many points.

Your comment in response to mine cleared up a lot of points. My question is, why are you so anxious to call Hasan a terrorist? Why didn’t we rush to call recent mall shootings or school shootings acts of terror? Because those people weren’t Muslim, and there was no need to push a conservative agenda at those times.

Yes, Hasan is a Muslim, and yes, he committed an act of terror. But your initial article, if I read it correctly, hinted if not flat-out stated that Hasan was without a doubt linked to others, not operating just on his own. And in that comment, you seem to back away from that initial belief…

“They knew about his questionable connections.” Did they really? Or are we just all knowing this now because of the fatal flaw in the system that Rich describes here?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/opinion/15rich.html