Alec Jacobs, Staff Writer
Ideology: Very Conservative | Writing from: Washington, DC
Though it’s been moving in this direction for quite some time, political correctness has finally gone from a cute liberal idea meant not to offend anyone to become a dangerous idea that threatens the lives of American soldiers and citizens.
Of course, this isn’t in reference to racial and ethnic slurs, but America has become a society where we often can’t discuss an issue, or are forced to skirt around one, because we’re afraid we might hurt somebody’s feelings. But if our national security is at risk, though, then peoples’ feelings need to be thrown out the window.
The shooting at the military base at Fort Hood, Texas, which resulted in the deaths of 13 innocent people, is just such an instance, where political correctness may have cost us American lives and may impede true justice for lives lost.
To briefly review what happened last week, Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan is accused of having entered the Soldier Readiness Center armed with two handguns, killing 12 soldiers and one civilian, and wounding 30 other innocent bystanders.
Hasan, who is alive in a hospital, having been wounded by two police officers attempting to stop the rampage, has so far refused to speak to authorities. But that doesn’t mean authorities aren’t speaking about him.
Hasan is a Muslim. Witnesses say that, just before he began shooting, he yelled “Allahu Akbar!” meaning, in English, “Allah is great!” This is a war cry used by radical Islamic jihadists. He was known to be an admirer of Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam with various ties to al-Qaeda and someone found on a number of United States and United Nations terrorist lists. Awlaki praised Hasan for the Fort Hood shooting, and on his web site encouraged other Muslims serving in the American military to “follow in the footsteps of men like [him].”
Hasan had attempted to contact al Qaeda, and according to an ABC News report, he had a variety of other questionable connections. During one presentation to superiors, Hasan wondered aloud whether or not the war on terror was actually a “war on Islam,” and he went on to say “maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.”
Business cards in his apartment had the letters “SoA” underneath his name, standing for “Soldier of Allah.”
Is there any doubt that this guy is a Muslim terrorist?
I’m not sure which is more disturbing: that a member of our Armed Forces was contacting al Qaeda and other Muslim leaders with widely-known hatred of America, or that our government knew about Hasan’s correspondence with terrorists for six months and never saw fit to remove him from the military, or even to watch him closely. Perhaps the shooting could have even been prevented. And Obama supporters wonder why we, on the other side, question his decision to close Guantanamo Bay. Clearly, Obama and his administration know a thing or two about national security.
Obama refused to call the shooting an act of terrorism, and urged the American people not to jump to conclusions before all the facts are known. I’m still waiting to hear which sorts of facts we need to hear before acknowledging that Hasan was a Muslim and a terrorist.
According to a study cited by Bill O’Reilly on his show, 85% of network news stories didn’t mention the words “terror” or “terrorism” when discussing the tragedy at Fort Hood. In addition to that statistic, a mere 29% of stories mentioned that Hasan was a Muslim. Of that small number of stories which mentioned Hasan’s religion, half defended the tenets of Islam.
It’s one thing to ignore the religion of a person if it is clearly unrelated to the issue at hand. With Hasan, his religion is the issue at hand. The government knew about Hasan’s links and did nothing. The media know about his links, but most journalists refuse to acknowledge the crucial fact that Hasan was a Muslim.
All of this political correctness is downright scary and poses an extreme threat to our national security. The question we need to be asking is: would we rather have some people with hurt feelings, or would we rather have innocent people killed to maintain political correctness?
He’s a muslim.
He shot people.
He has a card that says “God is good”
Yup! Must be a terrorist.
–
Come on Glenn, I mean Alec, this guy was a paranoid, insane mentally damaged man on medication. Why are you focused more on the Islam than you are on the Prozac?
This is exactly the problem.
I don’t know if you bothered to read the article or look at any of the evidence, but the man killed people BECAUSE he was a Muslim. He made statements to the effect of: “Muslims should rise up and kill the American aggressors.” He contacted al Qaeda.
I’m guessing he did all that because he was on depression medication and not because he like…believed in those ideas.
I mean it isn’t like he wrote “Solider of Allah” on his business cards or anything.
Do some research, because you grossly understate what has happened here, probably under the guise of political correctness.
It is still to early to understand all of his motives (because he will not speak) but the evidence produced by his prior behaviors suggests that this was an act of terror. Many of his fellow soldiers reported odd behavior (after the shooting) and these quirky statements about “rising up”. I don’t understand why you can’t make an assumption that he is a terrorist…current evidence points to this answer.
Instead of being politically correct in you life use a logical method of reasoning (use the scientific method for starters) and deduce what this situation was, Kelly.
Oh and if you would like the steps on how to produce such a theory…
1. form a hypothesis that is falsifiable
2. test the hypothesis and gather data
3. compare hypothesis with data
4. If your hypothesis matches with your data, you are finished. If your data rejects the hypothesis, start over.
Kelly, I will agree with you that Hasan is clearly mentally unbalanced. However, I do believe that is one of the first requirements for al-Qaeda membership.
According to your reasoning, if a terrorist – sorry, someone who kills people in the name of Allah, has contacts with al-Qaeda, and acts like a jihadi – is mentally unbalanced, then their crimes should be excused. “Oh, you killed 2,000 innocent civilians? But you’re on Prozac. Well, okay then.” No, I don’t think so.
If Prozac was the solution to radical militant Islam, call up Pfizer and shut down the CIA, because clearly the only problem is that jihadis are a little sad. Face the facts: Hasan was killing American civilians in the name of Islam. Unless you’ve been asleep for the past 8 years, that’s basically the definition of terrorism.
Hilarious, reactionary piece. And here I thought Fox was the only real source for lulz.
Dylan: Your reactionary smugness IS the strain that Alec argues is going to get us all killed. Who is the enemy here, in your mind, Hasan, or Fox news?
How many more have to die while we hold our crotch and wait for these Dylan’s to consort with the enemy?
Dylan: Why should I not see your thought processes as the current expression of Chamberlainism?
What would a Muslim have to have done for it to be terrorism, for you?
I remember when the term “political correctness” didn’t exist. The condition did, just not the name. I don’t remember what term we used. Perhaps “wrong” or “demented” or “delirious”. I remember encountering it; it was so refreshing that a new term existed for a frustrating new strain of denial or obstructive speech or behavior that seemed to mock it and explain it(“What do we need a “Women’s Studies Department” at this University for?” asks the college pres. at a budget meeting in the 70’s, “We can’t afford that!” “Ford Foundation’s gonna fund it, sir.” came the reply. “Uh, OK. I guess it’s politically correct.”)
How much folly, waste, and destruction is attributable to the concept, not the term?
Arguing about whether or how much Hasan( my Word Spellcheck red-underlines his name, just like “Obama”!) is describable as a terrorist is a useless diversion: he’s self-described as a soldier of Allah, he’s performed an ancient treachery: he’s donned the uniform of our nation’s fighting force, and then as a member of it, killed soldiers of ours.
A measure of our own dementia is visible in Alec’s piece, meaning no disrespect, Alec; it can happen to anybody. When you wrote about Hasan’s crime you said “Hasan is accused of”. With so many trustworthy witnesses, I think we can dispense with the “politically correct” terminology “accused” etc.
This is not the time to hurl accusations or arguments about “political correctness” or parse whether it was “terrorism” or just a soldier going postal. To the extent we natter on about terminology, we’re not killing him, and all the rest who deserve to pay with their lives(if need be) or their freedom (if that’s the answer) so that free citizens are safe.
dude i’ve been reading your columns for quite some time. i also read in your profile that you aspire to be ann coulter.
well, i guess she never makes fluid/coherent arguments either. congrats you are on your way!
Manny: It;s like when you hear a song you don’t like(I didn’t like “Layla” the first time through!) you just gotta read it again, And if you don’t get it then, read it a third time. Ask Colin, he likes them, because he reads real carefully. BTW “dude” isn’t a very good way to start, but you’re young, and you can change.
I got a profile? Who did that?
He is referring to Alec’s profile on the site.
How is this not terrorism? He acted out of political beliefs to kill innocent people. I don’t see the argument against classifying this as something other than terrorism.
On another note Chicago Mayor Daley came out and said that this attack was a result of “America’s obsession with guns”. Seems like the most PC way to go, blame the work of a nutjob terrorist on the 2nd amendment.
Dylan,
I’m glad you find this act of terrorism hlarious.
Manny,
What was incoherent about my argument. Which part of “a + b + c = Hasan is a Muslim terrorist” did you have difficulty with?
O&D,
Just to clarify, the law mandates that until someone is convicted of a crime, you must use “He is accused of…” rather than “He committed…” I doubt this blog is at risk of being sued for any kind of libel, but I figured it was better safe than sorry.
Don’t you think it’s possible that Obama asked people not to jump to conclusions because he didn’t want there to be any anti-Muslim violence in retaliation, as there was after 9/11?
One of the many jobs of the President is to ensure that the public doesn’t panic and to ensure order. If he runs around screaming, “OMG OMG OMG TERRORIST ATTACK ZOMG U GAIZ,” how long do you think that public order is going to last?
Alec –
The Politicizer is not at risk for being sued for libel because we are protected as the press (in which case Hassan would have to show reckless disregard for the truth — and, because you put forth evidence in your article for the conclusion that he WAS a terrorist, this is legally not possible to show.)
N
I agree with you in terms of political correctness – we are awash in it, often to the detriment of progress and ideas. This can be a huge problem with liberalism and I grant you that entirely.
The use of PC-ness, however, is that it asks people to exercise caution around these sensitive and dangerous issues.
If he is, in fact, a Muslim terrorist, and that can be proven, then it will be said, PC or no PC. There is no doubt in my mind. Media will break that story, the government will talk about it, the military will take measures to prevent against infiltrators again, etc. However, the power of PC, is that until there is 100% certainty, people explore non-offensive options, not allowing their judgment to be clouded by their biases and their fears.
You’ve talked about facts that may prove his link to terrorism – contacting al-Qaeda, for example. This is very convincing and you have every right to bring it up. But at the same time, in this article, you’ve also demonstrated a lack of knowledge about Islam, and made subsequent assumptions about his terrorism based on his religion. This is not just not politically incorrect – it is blatantly offensive and potentially physically dangerous to Muslim Americans. It also further radicalizes Islam in this conflict, when the overwhelming majority of practicing Muslims do not condone terrorist acts.
For example:
“Witnesses say that, just before he began shooting, he yelled “Allahu Akbar!” meaning, in English, “Allah is great!” This is a war cry used by radical Islamic jihadists.”
This is absolutely ridiculous Alec. A war cry? It’s also what every Muslim chants five times a day as they pray toward Mecca, and used as a general informal conversational expression. Every Muslim says this all the time. If people believed what you said, however, whenever they heard this, images of radical terrorism would come to mind.
Shouting this at this moment, the moment where he probably believed he was going to die, doesn’t make him a terrorist, it just makes him a Muslim, which everyone already knew. The way you wrote this however, seemed to very intentionally invoke fears of Islam in order to make your point.
You have a right to any opinion, obviously, however the danger of any discrimination or hint of it is that Muslim Americans will have to live in a different and dangerous world. The value of forced PC as a response, is that it necessitates a certain caution. If everyone had instantly assumed that he was a terrorist, and that we all should have known at least partially simply because he was a Muslim, can you imagine being a Muslim child in the United States, trying to go to school that day? Can you imagine being a Muslim soldier?
Without a little political correctness, we may go down a similar road to the one we took with Japanese Americans during world war II, a very dark chapter in our history.
Stephanie: I was told by a historian that during WWII there was a company(battalion?) of Japanese American soldiers. They fought in the European theater, and they were the most, or among the most, decorated soldiers who fought for the US. I don’t see a Muslim company or battalion in this war. Perhaps we should start one. Not having one is just more suggestion of PC.
If the little Muslim children went to school ashamed that day, and it shook their faith, good. A little shaking of the confidence of Muslims worldwide would help them and us, I think.
Noah,
I guess I just don’t think that the public should be stopped from claiming that this was an act of terror. I don’t want mass panic, but this WAS an act of terror and should be acknowledged as so. And thanks for the libel clarification.
Stephanie,
Where did I demonstrate any lack of knowledge about Islam? That line is something that jihadists say as they head into battle. It may also be a prayer said by peaceful Muslims, but in this case it was used be Hasan as a battle cry, I really don’t think there is any disputing that.
You seem to have missed the crux of this article. If he was a Muslim, fine. There would be no reason to investigate him or question his motives. If he was a Muslim who regularly preached that Muslims should kill Americans, attempted to contact terrorist organizations, and made his anti-Americanism known while serving in our military, then there’s a reason to give him a second look.
I wish that what you say about the media breaking the story and the government taking action was true. But as we’ve seen in this case, it just doesn’t happen that way.
O&D –
We also had a black battalion. We don’t have one anymore because of a little thing called desegregation, something you may have missed in your yearning for the 1800s.
Imma Letchu Finish(I’ m NOT, BTW): So now we’ve hit the “nut of it!” You say giving up battalions with a racial or religious unity(My Japanese-American company, of your all black one) is progress? It’s required by this new fashion of having every group reflect whatever racial and religious mix the citizens comprising the group come out of? That’s affirmative action– perhaps in terms of public policy moves the most visible affect of the political correctness Alec decries. Letting Hasan stay in the Army(as a psychiatrist, to boot!) because they were afraid to wash out the Muslim IS EXACTLY THE MALADY!. This mixing is not necessarily progress, and it was death to 13, and wounding to 32.
Your dementia is the same dementia that caused the Captain of Fort Hood to say afterward that none of it(13 lives!) was worth giving up “diversity. Is diversity worth that much? You tell me why.
Imma NOT gonna letchu finish.
Hey Alec, it’s Adam. I’m a liberal, but you already knew that. I see your points, they make sense, they’re clear, here are the problems with your argument:
1. You blame the liberals for absolutely no reason. Why are only people on the left too PC to discuss national issues without reservation? Aren’t people on the right holding back too? You make this an attack on the left when in reality it should just be an attack on media as a whole.
2. I don’t think this is an issue of political correctness at all, actually. I believe it’s people refusing to jump to a conclusion that is not as definite as you make it seem. This man is NOT without a doubt a terrorist. There is not irrefutable evidence and he has yet to speak about his actions. He could have very well been an Islamic man in the army who slowly grew tired of the system and developed a hatred for the country he was working for. You have the ability to make grand, sweeping statements like this because you write for a blog, and don’t work for a media organization that needs to get its facts right before they make such a big statement.
3. “Clearly, Obama and his administration know a thing or two about national security.” I couldn’t recreate the sarcastic italics, but really? At this point, you just come off as one of the right-wing fringe members, when most of the time you sound like an intelligent conservative. This had nothing to do with the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and to blame Obama for not preventing it is just ludicrous. At this point, the FACTS are that this man acted on his own behalf. Explain to me how that could have been prevented, and how “questionable connections” (what, exactly?) would have ever found themselves on Obama’s desk 6 months ago.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, how is this in any way Obama’s fault? Is it his job to interview every member of the military to make sure they aren’t psychotic people with potential connections to al Qaeda? The signals should have been caught at a lower level, the administration itself cannot be blamed for this.
This is most likely a man who slowly developed a hatred for America, and attempted to imitate terrorists with an independent killing of his own. To blame the democratic administration and their national security for this tragic event makes you sound less intelligent then you are.
I’m just sayin’.
Stephanie: I too was thinking of Japanese Internment, and the scary hints that Alec brings up here. “It may also be a prayer said by peaceful Muslims, but in this case it was used be Hasan as a battle cry,” says Alec, and that is true. But it does not mean that was the battle cry of a terrorist, it means it was the battle cry of a Muslim man.
Adam,
1) I blame liberals at first because political correctness is a liberal idea in the first place, and liberals embrace political correctness, which is a problem that I don’t really see with conservatives (in fact, most of the time I hear about political correctness, the story deals with criticizing conservatives for making politically “incorrect” statements). I haven’t heard anyone on the right holding back in talking about this act of terrorism.
2) This is by no means a man who slowly came to this conclusion, and in your second point you say exactly what I argue we shouldn’t be saying. Who is the victim in your opinion? The people killed or wounded by Hasan, or Hasan because he was in the military (by choice) and was stressed out? An act of terror is (though there isn’t a universally accepted definition) is defined by dictionary.com as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.” Clearly, this was not a random act of violence. Hasan knew what he was doing and planned this act of terror. A terrorist doesn’t just mean a member of a terrorist organization. A terrorist is someone who commits an act of terror. The shooting at Fort Hood was without a doubt an act of terror, and Hasan is without a doubt a terrorist.
3) Obviously Obama is not personally responsible. But his administration is responsible for not acting to prevent this from happening. They knew about his questionable connections (which I describe in the article, from being in contact with al Qaeda to attending a mosque at which al-Awlaki was an imam). It has to do with what seems to be a general disregard for doing what it takes to protect our national security. The attempt to close Guantanamo was one in a string of examples. Bringing KSM to trial in New York as opposed to trying him in a military tribunal is another. This incident, knowing about a serviceman who had attempted contact with al Qaeda and doing nothing, is yet another.
It doesn’t matter to me whether he slowly developed this hatred. The point is that it was fully developed six months ago, nothing was done, and it was the fault of this administration for not doing anything to stop something like this. You can have your opinion and say that it isn’t the administration’s fault, but you don’t have the authority to say definitively (as you do), that the “administration itself cannot be blamed for this.”
And with regard to the internment camps, I don’t know what kind of “scary hints” you’re talking about, but I didn’t mention anything about an internment camp or make any hints about anything like that. I’m wondering where you’d construe anything remotely like that.
And on a general note to everyone: “Muslim” and “terrorist” are not mutually exclusive terms. Hasan is a Muslim. He committed an act of terror. He is a Muslim terrorist.
Good Washington Post article published today (Monday):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111503160.html?wprss=rss_world&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20wp-dyn/rss/world/index_xml%20(washingtonpost.com%20-%20World)
Alec: I think you scrubbed him up there pretty good.
adam o: So by your logic, Hitler wasn’t really guilty of all that blasted stuff in the death camps, that was just a systemic problem underneath him in the German nation that he wasn’t necessarily responsible for, right?
Of course you just blew a gasket, I hope, but if you didn’t , you might as well just sign up right now for the other side, because in trying to “understand” the complaints and the motivations of these crazy b——s, past a certain point you join them. If you don’t believe it, check the U.N. Security Council. They “understand” so well they’ll send Israel to it’s national and racial death, rather than stand up for their meaningless ‘resolutions.”
Old & Decrepit: No, by my logic, Hitler organized groups, and camps, and systematically devised a plot to murder innocent people, organizing an army to aid him in doing so. Hasan was one man who had a psychological breakdown and blew up, killing army members of a country he hated. Hitler could have been stopped once America knew what he was doing. Hasan could not have, because he acted spontaneously.
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
Also, from the Examiner:
“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.’”
I don’t have time to read the Rich article, though I will later and respond in another comment. I do want to quickly discuss a couple more things:
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.
Hey again Alec, I appreciate the responses and they clear up a lot of your point. I see where you are coming from on a lot of manners, but I also think there is a fundamental disagreement between you and I that neither of us will really be able to change with comments. I really do appreciate the replies though, and I find them to come off much more sensible than the original article. I always enjoy hearing what you have to say, even when I may vehemently disagree!
Enjoy the Rich article, I hope it can help you see the issue from another perspective.
Stephanie, I don’t think that Hasan is a terrorist just because he is a Muslim (and I don’t think Alec thinks this either). That is, as you correctly state, a silly and uninformed opinion. I see Islam largely as a religion of peace, much like the majority of other religions – however, the most common image of Islam today is unfortunately that of the terrorist. Is this unfortunate? Yes. Does this represent the vast majority of Muslims? Absolutely not. But is Islamic extremism and Islamic terrorism still something we should be worried about? Absolutely.
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.
As I’ve said, it’s not Obama personally but his administration. 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.
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.
Alec: Between adam o and you we have stumbled on an interesting phenomenon in politics and leadership that comes up a lot and confuses a lot of people. Is Barack Obama literally, or figuratively, responsible for Hasan’s terrorism?
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?!
I really want to stop arguing here, but I have to jump on another comment made by Alec:
“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.
I’m guessing the Bush administration and his FBI would argue that Hasan made outrageous statements when Bush was president, yes, but those statements on their own didn’t warrant a full on investigation. Like if I said to my sister, “I’m gonna kill you!” that would be different than me having called a hitman. I don’t necessarily agree with this, and the Bush administration does share some blame.
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.
Adam,
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.