Category Archives: Fort Hood Shooting

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler on Tueday addressed Tavis Smiley's claim that Christian terrorists commit far more violence than Muslim ones. Smiley also issued a statement that defended his comments, though it misrepresented what those comments actually were.

"I don't think he made his case, or even came close," Getler said. He rightfully noted that the 2000 Columbine massacre, Smiley's only example of supposed Christian terrorism, "had nothing to do with Christianity." In fact, as Brent Bozell noted in his column today, the shooters even "mocked students who cried out for God to save them."

Though Getler should be applauded for noting Smiley's total failure to offer a convincing argument, he seems to suggest that a convincing case could be made, but simply wasn't in this instance. "One would think," Getler states, "that Smiley would have been better prepared to make what was certain to be a controversial case."

But the point of objection is not that the case is controversial, it's that there is no case to be made in the first place. There are no grounds whatsoever to claim that more Christians than Muslims commit terrorist acts (motivated primarily by their respective religions) in the United States. Whether by the sheer number of attacks, body count, scale of destruction, or impact on policy and our way of life, Muslim terrorists have wrecked havoc on the United States on a scale far beyond the occasional Scott Roeder.

Getler chastised Smiley's "equating the occasionally deranged individual in this country with religiously fanatic suicide bombers and those like Maj. Nidal M. Hasan at Fort Hood in Texas." Smiley did conflate murderers who are Christians with people who murder in the name of Christianity--a logical fallacy in itself.

But the larger issue is Smiley's primary argument (though he apparently considers it a given) that Christian terrorism is more widespread than Muslim terrorism.

That is an argument that should be dismissed outright, but Getler subtly avoids it. Instead, he notes that "there are no doubt people who kill in the name of different religions" and shifts the issue to whether Smiley's examples served to support his argument. But the argument itself is invalid.

For his part, Smiley replied to his critics in a statement that completely misrepresented both his exchange with Ali and the argument that riled up his critics. Smiley stated:

Ms. Hirsi Ali and I were talking about violence perpetrated in the name of religion or by people who claim to be religious. We agreed that there is extremism in Christianity just as there is in Islam and other faiths. We agreed that people have always found ways to use religion to justify heinous acts. Where we disagreed was that followers of any one religion are predisposed to violence. Unfortunately, history has shown us that believers of all stripes have been misguided.

Actually, the disagreement arose not out of a claim that any one religion is "predisposed" to violence, as Smiley disingenuously states. Ali told Smiley "I think you and I disagree" on Smiley's contention that "There are so many more examples" of acts of terrorism perpetrated by Christians than Muslims.

Either Smiley does not understand his viewers' objections, or he realizes how outrageous his statement was, and is trying to shift attention to a completely different argument (that there are violent followers of all religions).

Without a mention from Smiley or Getler, however, was the former's claim that Tea Party activists are comparably dangerous to jihadists. Their collective silence is quite troubling.

Though Smiley made the comment towards the end of the segment in question, he clearly meant to suggest that Tea Partiers--who, he claimed, "are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people 'nigger' as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people"--can justly be compared to Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber.

I'll let Bozell take point in dismantling that assertion:

Put aside the thoroughly unproven accusations, now that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver has backed off the story of conservative spitters, and there is no audio, or corroboration of the accusation of N-words being thrown. Had those events actually happened, would they in any way have been comparable to murder?

Tavis Smiley has apparently been asleep for the last ten years. That, at least, is the only logical explanation for his claim that Christains engage in terrorism far more often than Muslims. He also thinks the Tea Party is a comparably dangerous force to radical Islam.

"There are so many more examples of Christians who do that," Smiley claimed, referring to terrorism, "than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country where you live and work." He was discussing terrorism with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born writer and former member of the Dutch Parliament.

Ali claims it is her mission to "inform the West about the danger of Islam," but Smiley was more concerned with the danger posed by Tea Party protesters, who "are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people 'nigger' as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people." None of those claims are true, but then again the segment was replete with falsehoods (Full video and transcript below the fold - h/t Greg Hengler).


For her part, Ali pushed back against Smiley's absurd claims. Though she acknowledged that some have used Christianity to justify violence, she insisted that mainstream Christians are "accepting of other religions and tolerant."

As for Smiley's claims regarding the Tea Party, I am unaware of any protester being arrested for threatening an elected official. Perhaps he is referring to the Hutaree Militia, but they had exactly zero connections to the Tea Party movement (in fact, one militiaman is a registered Democrat). The n-word/spitting claims have been thoroughly discredited elsewhere.

Of course Smiley is hardly a paragon of journalistic objectivity. Most notably, he dubbed President Bush a "serial killer," but he has a long history of toeing the liberal line on virtually every issue.

Transcript of the segment, with Smiley's most outrageous remarks in bold:

SMILEY: When you were last here - I'm here every day - (laughter) when you were last here we were starting to have a conversation about your view of Christianity. We'll come back to that a little bit later in the conversation because I want to pick up on that conversation. I've been waiting for months to continue that dialogue.

Before we do that, though, in this book, the new one, you say unapologetically and rather frankly that your mission here is to inform the West about the danger of Islam. What danger do we need to be made aware of?

ALI: And when I say "Islam" I'm talking about Islam as a theology and as a political theory. Islam has different aspects. It has a spiritual aspect but it also has a political and a social aspect.

The spiritual aspect of praying and fasting, I have no problems with that. The political and social aspects have to do with concepts such as jihad - waging a holy war to either persuade people to become Muslim or to kill them.

The social aspect has to do with the treatment of women, and given the fact that we are now living in a world that is fast globalizing - people are coming from all different parts of the world, living here; people are leaving here and going elsewhere - I think it's very, very important to note that not only are people moving but ideas are also moving.

So people with ideas who feel that they should introduce Sharia law, a theocracy based on Islam such as Iran, such as what the Taliban have attempted in Afghanistan, that these people with these ideas, resources, convictions, can sometimes be successful.

What I tried to do with the book as an individual who grew up with Islam and I was once myself - considered myself a member of the Muslim brotherhood, I want to say that these ideas are really not only dangerous but a lot of people are subscribing to theSMILEYm.

SMILEY: I guess no one would argue that jihad is a dangerous and deadly political philosophy to have and to engage. I guess the question is whether or not jihad is the only way that that political involvement is expressed. Isn't it just an example of how policy, of how people engage politically and not the whole of the activity, politically?

ALI: Well, it's very important to note that not all Muslims subscribe to jihad.

SMILEY: Precisely, yeah.

ALI: That's really important. I don't ever want to make the impression that all Muslims are potential terrorists or potential jihadists. But there is a movement that wants to have Islamic Sharia or Islamic war introduced, through persuasion sometimes, without using violence, and sometimes by using violence. The society that they're aspiring to is a society that is modeled around a place like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

The point I want to make in this book is the majority of Muslims don't even read the Qur'an. They've just been told what is in there is good, it's God's word, it's perfect. The majority of Muslims don't know what Muhammad exactly said.

So these people who are coming to them are building - the agents of radical Islam, the agents of jihad, the agents of Sharia are just building on the fact that most Muslims have only been told the Qur'an is great, Muhammad is infallible, and then radicalizing them. It's very important for us to realize that.

If we do realize that, we are then able to compete with the radical agents of Islam, with the agents of jihad, for the hearts and minds of individuals who identify themselves as Muslim.

SMILEY: We compete by doing what? By, as you suggest in the book, converting them as Christians?

ALI: Well, I'm not a Christian. I would like to introduce to them critical thinking and the enlightenment and secular thought. But I've also met, through my last years here, a number of Christians, and I've realized that their concept of God differs very much from that of Islam. I've had people who've read "Infidel" and who write to me saying, "I just cannot be, I just can't fathom being an atheist. I can't. There is a force out there, it's a good force. I don't want to be with Allah or Muhammad, but I just need a different kind of -" and most of them convert to Christianity.

SMILEY: Are you at all concerned or are you ever concerned, put another way, that the mission, to use your word, that you are on is turning people against Islam, turning people against Muslims, because you're so - I don't want to say radical, but so aggressive in your approach?

ALI: Well, the mission is not to turn people against Muslims. My mission is to include Muslims into finding out that there are alternative sources of morality other than what the jihadists are offering them.

A lot of money made from oil in Saudi Arabia, in other parts in the Middle East that have that money, are using a very violent narrative, a very human-unfriendly narrative, and they're taking it to people who are sometimes poor, sometimes middle class, and people are subscribing to those ideas.

Right now there's no competition. There isn't a competing propaganda. We talk about it only in terms of national security. We talk about military means, we talk about what the FBI can do, but we don't talk about what you and I can do. Why can't we just reach out to Muslim-Americans living here and say, "Hey, do you really believe in practicing what is in chapter 4, verse 34 of the Qur'an - "Beat the disobedient wife?" I'll tell you most Muslims don't want to beat their wives and don't want to compel them to do that.

But with that justification, with that narrative, with that propaganda, more and more men are finding a reason to justify to themselves something that is truly abominably wrong.

SMILEY: As I got into reading your story, and it's obviously a very powerful narrative, I was left ultimately with this question, Ayaan, which is on the one hand you have moved away, for your own reasons, as you've expressed here now, you've moved away from practicing Islam. You don't practice the Muslim faith on the one hand, so you moved from that.

On the other hand, you, to my mind, at least, and I could read any number of passages to point this out, to my mind, again, you almost idealize Christianity on the other hand. But here you are in the middle an atheist, and I'm trying to juxtapose all that.

You don't want to practice the Muslim faith, you idealize Christianity, and yet you remain an atheist. That's the part of your journey I don't quite get. Maybe you can enlighten me.

ALI: It's a bundle of contradictions.

SMILEY: Yeah, it is. (Laughs)

ALI: Like all human individuals, I am a bundle of contradictions. I was very much, after I had written "Infidel," very much on the side of people who say all religions are the same and all religions are inherently evil. But again, what I learned from the enlightenment is when the fact change, change your mind, and the evidence I'm seeing - and this is what I admire about some Christians, not all of them. I'm not blind to extremist Christianity.

But what I admire about Christians today is - and I would like it for the Muslims too - is that many of them have come to grapple with their faith, have come to acknowledge that there are things in the bible and things that the institution, that different churches have done that are hostile to humanity, that are hostile to gay people, hostile to women, have justified slavery, for instance.

They have come not only to grapple with it and to understand it and to acknowledge that it's all in there, but they've also learned to distance themselves from that. That's what I admire about moderate Christians. I say in the book right now we cannot speak of moderate Muslims because they still cling to the absolute idea that everything in the Qur'an is the true word of God and cannot be changed by human beings, and that the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, left a moral guidance behind and all we can do is follow it, not question it.

SMILEY: Where is the evidence for you that, for those Muslims who live in the West, that we need to challenge them, we need to convert them, we need to change them? If what we're afraid of is jihad, all of that, at least until this present time, all of that attack, that terrorist activity, has come inside of this country from persons connected to that faith.

I guess I'm trying to understand where the evidence is that suggests that all of us who happen to be Christians or enlightened in some other way need to take on Muslims here in the West.

ALI: Okay, I think first and foremost what we have to acknowledge is we're not going to get a monster with horns, blue in the face, looking like a dragon called jihad coming in and terrorizing us. The people who are engaged in terrorist activities look like you and me. They look like everybody else here.

Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who in November shot 13 of his colleagues and injured 32, he's going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week, the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times Square who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn't know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter.

SMILEY: But Christians do that every single day in this country.

ALI: Do they blow people up (unintelligible)?

SMILEY: Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that's what Columbine is - I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians - and I happen to be a Christian. That's back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read. There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.

ALI: Well, I think you and I disagree, not so much on is there extremism in Christianity - I fully acknowledge that. There are people who want to take the bible and use passages from the bible as justification for violent behavior. I'm not denying that in the least. But mainstream Christians in the 21st century are more like you.

I'm an atheist, I'm not a Christian, but they are more like you - accepting of other religions and tolerant. The latest example, "South Park," where Jesus Christ was made fun of, watching pornography, people, Christians, maybe have been annoyed by it but the producers of "South Park" were not threatened by Christians.

They were not threatened by Buddhists. They showed Buddha snorting cocaine. Muhammad, whose picture wasn't shown, there was a line saying "censored" and he was imagined to be in a Teddy bear, some of the followers of Muhammad got very angry. A few of them posted threats about the producers, and this is very mild.

There are today - I don't want to say, and it's been established, not all Muslims are terrorists, we must emphasize that, but almost all terrorist activities that take place today in our time are done and justified in the name of Islam.

Now to acknowledge that, the point I'm trying to make is is it possible, is it imaginable, that we can compete with the radical jihadists for the hearts and minds of young men like Faisal Shahzad or like Nidal Malik Hasan, and I believe we can, before they get to that stage.

SMILEY: I hear that point and I accept it. The only point I'm making is there are folk in the Tea Party, for example, every day who are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people "nigger" as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people. That's within the political - that's within the body politic of this country. So I accept your point and my time is up so we won't debate that.

Let me ask as an exit question, and this is no secret; I just was reading about this in "The New York Times" the other day, an interview you gave to the magazine, so it's no secret here, but you travel with security because there is a constant cloud, at least, of a threat against your life because of your outspokenness. Is it worth it, living under these conditions? Is it worth it?

ALI: I ask myself that question every day, and I think it's worth fighting those who intimidate me. Those who threaten, those who try to kill people who disagree with them, I think it's worth it. I think it's worth continuing to fight.

SMILEY: I accept that. It's the new book from perennial now "New York Times" best-selling author Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The book is called "Nomad: From Islam to America, a Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations." Ayaan, always glad to have you on this program.

ALI: Thank you so much, Tavis. Thanks for having me.

SMILEY: Thank you for your time.

With the release of the Department of Defense's report on the November Fort Hood massacre, two tends are becoming increasingly clear: the administration does not want to talk about Islam's violent elements, and the mainstream media is more than willing to play along.

The administration's position clear to anyone examining official documentation. The Fort Hood report, the FBI's counterterrorism lexicon, and the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy do not even use the words enemy, jihad, Muslim, or Islam. The original 9/11 Commission Report, in contrast, used those words a combined 632 times.

The media's attitude towards radical Islam's role in this particular attack is evident in its reluctance to attribute Maj. Nidal Hasan's motives to jihad. The members of the media who share this attitude obfuscate the threats facing the nation.

Shortly after the shooting at Fort Hood, the Culture and Media Institute released a report that highlighted three telling facts:

Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort  Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.

ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.

Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

Chris Matthews was even said that Hasan's attempts to contact al-Qaeda were not necessarily cause for action. "That's not a crime to contact al-Qaeda, is it?" Matthews asked.

"The Christian religion has its full helping of nuts too," Bob Scheiffer made sure to note. That comment was indicative of the larger trend in the media's coverage of the incident. That "don't jump to conclusions" attitude stands in stark contrast to much of the media's condemnations of Christianity.

Take General William "Jerry" Boykin, for instance.

Boykin was reprimanded for voicing personal religious views regarding the war on terror at his church. The Washington Post reported that the General was issued "a 'complete exoneration' that ultimately found Boykin responsible for a few 'relatively minor offenses' related to technical and bureaucratic issues."

The liberal media disagreed. CBS carried a segment (found via Nexis) on Boykin entitled "Holy Warrior." NPR's Nina Totenberg hoped "he's not long for this world," quickly clarifying that she meant "in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job."

The Washington Post and New York Times -- among many other newspapers -- lamented that Boykin's comments would be construed as endorsing a holy war against Islam.

Meanwhile, swaths of the mainstream media danced around Islam's holy war (the direct translation of "jihad") against all of Western civilization. While the American left was opining about the inference of holy war, an actual holy war had already been declared!

The horrible plight that Muslims in the military were sure to suffer at the hands of their bigoted, light-skinned comrades in arms never materialized. Meanwhile, 14 Americans had just been killed by a man screaming "Allahu Akbar" as he pumped round after round into his unarmed victims.

If the liberal media -- and their ideological counterparts in the federal government -- continue their Orwellian campaign against the use of religiously-charged words in national security documents, we may forget that a real war is going on, and start worrying about a hypothetical one.

The Pentagon rescinded the invitation of evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at its May 6 National Day of Prayer event because of complaints about his previous comments about Islam.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation expressed its concern over Graham's involvement with the event in an April 19 letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. MRFF's complaint about Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, focused on remarks he made after 9/11 in which he called Islam "wicked" and "evil" and his lack of apology for those words.

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, told ABC News on April 22, "This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue."

In a press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the Army's decision "further evidence that the leadership of our nation's military has been impaired by the politically correct culture being advanced by this Administration. Under this Administration's watch we are seeing the First Amendment, designed to protect the religious exercise of Americans, retooled into a sword to sever America's ties with orthodox Christianity."

Graham's comments could certainly be considered inflammatory, but it should be noted that the Obama Administration hasn't always backed away from controversial religious leaders.

An April 17 front page Washington Post article by Krissah Williams on Rev. Al Sharpton detailed how he has been an "ally" to Barack Obama since the 2008 election:

Sharpton has been among the president's chief defenders against criticism from television host Tavis Smiley that "black folks are catching hell" and that the president should do more to specifically help blacks.

"We need to try to solve our problems and not expect the president to advocate for us," Sharpton said on his radio show. "It is interesting to me that some people don't understand that to try to make the president do certain things will only benefit the right wing, who wants to get the president and us."

Williams also noted several times in the article the link between Obama cabinet officials and Sharpton, with officials speaking at his National Action Network conference and regularly appearing on his radio program.

But Sharpton is not without his own controversies, to say the very least. Earlier this spring he told Fox News "The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

Last fall Sharpton played a role in blocking Rush Limbaugh's ownership bid of the NFL's St. Louis Rams, going so far as to send a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The letter read in part, "Rush Limbaugh has been divisive and anti-NFL on several occasions, with comments about NFL players, including Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and his recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons was disturbing."   

Furthermore, Sharpton, the race huckster, owes his current status to his involvement in a string of contemptible incidents in New York. In the 1987 Tawana Brawley case, he slandered an innocent man in the course of defending an infamous "race crime" hoax. He was sued and lost a judgment for $345,000, without ever retracting or apologizing for his accusation. His race demagoguery resulted in violence and deaths on more than one occasion.

Safe to say, Franklin Graham's remarks about Islam, however objectionable, didn't incite murder.

The Pentagon rescinded the invitation of evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at its May 6 National Day of Prayer event because of complaints about his previous comments about Islam.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation expressed its concern over Graham's involvement with the event in an April 19 letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. MRFF's complaint about Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, focused on remarks he made after 9/11 in which he called Islam "wicked" and "evil" and his lack of apology for those words.

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, told ABC News on April 22, "This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue."

In a press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the Army's decision "further evidence that the leadership of our nation's military has been impaired by the politically correct culture being advanced by this Administration. Under this Administration's watch we are seeing the First Amendment, designed to protect the religious exercise of Americans, retooled into a sword to sever America's ties with orthodox Christianity."

Graham's comments could certainly be considered inflammatory, but it should be noted that the Obama Administration hasn't always backed away from controversial religious leaders.

An April 17 front page Washington Post article by Krissah Williams on Rev. Al Sharpton detailed how he has been an "ally" to Barack Obama since the 2008 election:

Sharpton has been among the president's chief defenders against criticism from television host Tavis Smiley that "black folks are catching hell" and that the president should do more to specifically help blacks.

"We need to try to solve our problems and not expect the president to advocate for us," Sharpton said on his radio show. "It is interesting to me that some people don't understand that to try to make the president do certain things will only benefit the right wing, who wants to get the president and us."

Williams also noted several times in the article the link between Obama cabinet officials and Sharpton, with officials speaking at his National Action Network conference and regularly appearing on his radio program.

But Sharpton is not without his own controversies, to say the very least. Earlier this spring he told Fox News "The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

Last fall Sharpton played a role in blocking Rush Limbaugh's ownership bid of the NFL's St. Louis Rams, going so far as to send a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The letter read in part, "Rush Limbaugh has been divisive and anti-NFL on several occasions, with comments about NFL players, including Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and his recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons was disturbing."   

Furthermore, Sharpton, the race huckster, owes his current status to his involvement in a string of contemptible incidents in New York. In the 1987 Tawana Brawley case, he slandered an innocent man in the course of defending an infamous "race crime" hoax. He was sued and lost a judgment for $345,000, without ever retracting or apologizing for his accusation. His race demagoguery resulted in violence and deaths on more than one occasion.

Safe to say, Franklin Graham's remarks about Islam, however objectionable, didn't incite murder.

Believe it or not, CNN - the same CNN which has recently dismissed the Fort Hood terrorist as lonely, has featured a member of ‘Jihad U' as a teacher of the ‘nuts and bolts of Islam', and which has run three separate stories interviewing the father of radical jihadist, Anwar al-Awlaki - has actually taken interest in a jihadist threat of physical violence upon the creators of South Park.

It seems that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have raised the ire of a radical, pro-jihad Web site known as RevolutionMuslim.com, for the egregious crime of portraying the Prophet Mohammed disguised in a bear suit.  A posting on the Web site does what most jihadists do - makes a direct threat and calls it a warning. 

The outstanding citizens of RevolutionMuslim.com, an organization based in New York City, had this to say:

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Van Gogh was murdered partly because of another man's ‘religious conviction', and partly because of a controversial film he directed about the abuse of Muslim women.

The posting puts an exclamation point on the threat, by showing a photograph of Van Gogh's corpse with a knife driven into his chest, including the caption, "Have Matt Stone And Trey Parker Forgotten This?"

There are other factors however that make this posting more than just a simple ‘warning' as the author states...

CNN's investigative report states:

Over still photographs of Parker, Stone, van Gogh and others, the Web site runs audio of a sermon by the radical U.S.-born preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who is now in hiding in Yemen. The sermon, recorded some time ago, talks about assassinating those who have "defamed" the Prophet Mohammed - citing one religious authority as saying "Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that." U.S. officials say al-Awlaki is on a list of al Qaeda leaders targeted for capture or assassination.

So now we have violent imagery to incite violence, and a statement that Muslims should kill those who defame Allah.  The only thing left is to include directions to where one deranged lunatic can locate the South Park creators.  RevolutionMuslim.com doesn't disappoint, advising readers that:

"You can contact them [the makers of South Park], or pay Comedy Central or their own company a visit at these addresses ..." before listing Comedy Central's New York address, and the Los Angeles, California, address of Parker and Sloane's production company."

If the fear of violence from jihadists is taken half as seriously as it should be, then these comments will surely have been investigated thoroughly by the FBI.  Have government officials finally learned to take threats seriously, or will they simply look away as they have in the past?

- Please Join Rusty on Facebook.

The progression of Anwar al-Awlaki – if not the most influential force in terror operations, certainly one of the more popular faces – from simple cleric to proud member of the ‘kill or capture’ list, has sparked little interest in the MSM from a threat aspect.  Instead, it has prompted yet another interview from CNN with his father, begging the United States to call off the military.

Imagine Osama bin Laden being treated with kid gloves shortly after serving as the influential and inspirational leader of the 9/11 attacks.  In contrast, presenting bin Laden’s side of the story was an overwhelming goal of the liberal media shortly after 9/11, with CNN leading the charge – so much so that it prompted Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center to write a column concerning the network’s willingness to ogle the Al-Qaeda leader. 

According to Bozell, CNN’s desire to interview bin Laden (through Al Jazeera) clearly demonstrated that “it does not matter to them if their offer ends up harming the American war effort on terrorism by giving this terrorist an international forum to promote his propaganda.”  

Curiously, that exact scenario is being played out in the current media as well – in reverse...

The main stream media have spent months diverting attention from the influence of radical preachers such as one Anwar al-Awlaki.  But the Awlaki tentacles to terrorism are far too numerous.  His blood-stained fingerprints have been identified with 9/11, Fort Hood, the Christmas Day terrorist, nearly a dozen other events, and more recently, the New Jersey terror suspect, Sharif Mobley. 

Despite these numerous cases involving Awlaki, they are only the ones that our federal law enforcement officials are aware of at this point.  Rest assured, there are more people out there being influenced by Awlaki, ready to attack innocent Americans, his inspirational words ringing in their ears. 

Yet the media will only identify him as a cleric.  A cleric.

Mohammed Albasha, a spokesman for the Yemeni embassy in Washington, recently stated that Anwar al-Awlaki is “a fixture in jihad 101.”

Being a fixture in jihad reaps little interest from the networks.  However, when it comes to creating sympathy, or overtly humanizing this terrorist with syrupy family interviews, the networks have little problem finding a story.  A case study of the media reaction can be witnessed in coverage provided by CNN. 

When Fort Hood was besieged by a terrorist rampage in November, the gunman, Nidal Malik Hasan, was quickly cast as a loner, an outcast.  This portrait was initially painted by the Obama Administration, but the media quickly caught on and ran with it.  CNN jumped to the forefront of the loner argument, offering up ‘criminologist’ Pat Brown, who defined Hasan as ‘a lone guy’ who ‘had no luck finding a wife’.

The credentials of CNN's profiler of choice are dubious to say the least - she is self-taught in her profession, has no formal police training, and has been dubbed ‘reckless' by at least one instructor at the FBI Academy's Profiling Unit. 

When confronted by the association between Hasan and his mentor Awlaki, Brown refused to acknowledge any link between the men, or any link to terrorism in general.  She pulls no punches, stating point blank that the Fort Hood attack was not terrorism.  Given evidence to the contrary, this statement is stunning.  More stunning is Brown's interpretation of the law code definitions of terrorism, as can be seen in a previous NewsBusters post.  Essentially, Brown had based her assessment on definitions of terrorism that simply do not apply.  And so, CNN had successfully played up this lone wolf defense, and simultaneously downplayed the role of any outsiders in the Fort Hood massacre, most notably Awlaki.

In February, as evidence mounted of yet another link, this time between Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Awlaki, CNN chose to focus not on Awlaki as a potential terrorist organizer, but instead interviewed the cleric's father, relaying his pleas with the U.S. government to spare his son's life - something the network had already covered a month earlier.  In this new piece, Awlaki is further portrayed as a simple preacher, being wrongfully accused by the U.S. government.  It is briefly reported that Awlaki and the Christmas Day bomber have met, but that there was no transfer of knowledge, nor any discussion of the bomber's intent with his teacher.

Yet, it was a mere two days after the parental piece that for the first time, the Christmas Day bomber specifically confirmed that he and Awlaki had met.  This time though, there was a new twist - Awlaki had actually ordered the attack, according to Abdulmutallab, making him an operative in the War on Terrorism. 

CNN's coverage of this particular aspect of the Awlaki story was noticeably nonexistent.

Several weeks after ties between Sharif Mobley and Awlaki had been publicly announced, the network continued to remain silent on the matter, again demonstrating they had no desire to cover the influence of a major jihadist.

More recently, the government has finally figured out the threat that Awlaki poses, placing him on the ‘kill or capture' list.  Amazingly, CNN's main point of concern again is his father's pleas to spare his son.

Will the rest of the main stream media break free from the blind eye cast by the current Administration, identifying Awlaki for what he truly is - an outright terrorist? 

While that remains unlikely with an administration and media more obsessed with right-wing extremists, man-caused disasters, and the impeccable success of our counterterrorism systems, perhaps it's time to start holding networks like accountable for their own unwillingness to connect certain jihadist dots. 

But then we wouldn't want them to start 'jumping to conclusions'.  Rather, they'll likely continue a governmental and media policy of crawling to conclusions instead. 

Ignorance should no longer be considered bliss.

- Please visit my Facebook page.

Upon further research and examination into the Army's complete findings on the Fort Hood shootings, in a February 22 report, the Boston Globe's Bryan Bender conceded that politically-incorrect conservatives were right all along - just not in those words of course.

Immediately after Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 U.S. soldiers November 5, major news networks and publication bent over backwards to omit Hasan's Islamic identity or to excuse the killing of 13 soldiers as a result of stress or psychosis.

Report after report, interview after interview, and press conference after press conference, reporters, politicians, and government officials warned against jumping to conclusions - in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Among the Globe's conclusions from the investigation:

• extremists views spouted by the Major were clear grounds for discharge;
• superiors overlooked Hasan's radical views due to fear of losing diversity;
• in a clear act of insubordination Hasan gave a presentation about Islam that was "shut down" by the instructor, without any disciplinary action - or counsel;
• from 2003, Hasan repeatedly broke regulatory standards his superiors were informed of;
• the Army's investigation concludes "he exhibited a single-minded fascination with religion" leading to noticeable decline in job-performance; 
• increased distress, isolation, and intensification of extremist views over time by Hasan;
• statements by Hasan proclaiming the precedence of Sharia law over the U.S. constitution;
• instructors informed investigators about a risk of psychosis in Hasan.    

In short, the Boston Globe concluded that Hasan's Army superiors were reluctant to take action despite "careful documentation and of individual episodes dating back to 2005" because of diversity or fears of being labeled "insensitive."

The Culture and Media Institute released a report on November 11, documenting 85 percent of broadcast stories refrained from using the word "terror," and only 29 percent of evening news even mentioned Hasan was Muslim (half of which felt the need to either defend or include experts to defend Islam).

Many reporters like CBS' Bob Schieffer are addicted to pointing out Islam does not have a monopoly on terrorism, while in equally impulsive and irrational manner, many individuals fallaciously resort to labeling any convicted white male of being Christian terrorists (i.e. Timothy McVeigh).    

During an interview with Schieffer shortly after the massacre, Congressmen Ike Skelton - chairman of the Armed Services Committee - urged everyone to refrain from jumping to any conclusion, assuring Americans an investigation would reveal the nature of Maj. Hasan's motives.

Congratulations to the liberal Boston Globe for belatedly reaching the conclusion conservatives had immediately. Meanwhile, 3 1/2 months later, the rest of the media remains uninterested.

On Saturday, February 13,  the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia – about 20 minutes from the White House -  held a fundraiser dinner to raise money for Sabri Benkhala’s various legal appeals.  (They’re holding an even bigger fundraiser in April, which may be attended by some well-known elected officials – more on that later….)  Benkhala is serving a 10-year term in a federal prison for perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.

According to a February 5, 2007 statement from the Department of Justice, “Benkahla was convicted of making materially false statements both in his grand jury appearances in 2004, as well as to the FBI in 2004. These false statements included his denial of his involvement with an overseas jihad training camp in 1999, as well as his asserted lack of knowledge about individuals with whom he was in contact.”

If you want to fundraise for a jailed jihadist, Dar Al-Hijrah is definitely the $40-donation-for-a-halal-chicken-dinner venue of choice.  Dar Al-Hijrah’s  jihadist credentials are impeccable:

Dar Al-Hijra is the mosque where Anwar al-Awlaki was Imam  between January 2001 and April 2002.  Al-Awlaki (bio here and here) was the senior al-Qaeda recruiter and motivator for various terrorists, including three 9/11 hijackers, the accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Christmas Day 2009 attempt to blow up  Northwest Airlines Flight 253.  Al-Awlaki may still be alive in Yemen, and after some concerns about his civil rights, reportedly the Obama administration now has him targeted as a terrorist.

And who can forget that earlier Dar Al-Hijra Imam from 1995-1999, Mohammed Al-Hanooti,  named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  In 1999, when he was still Imam at Dar Al-Hijra, he testified in support of Ihab M. Ali, who had refused to testify before a grand jury investigating the 1998 United States embassy bombings.   Al-Hanooti told the federal judge that Islamic law “gives him [Ihab M. Ali] the right to abstain from giving testimony in case it hurts him or it hurts any other Muslim.”

Or the Dar Al-Hijra Islamic Studies teacher – and Dar Al Hijra Islamic Camp Counselor -  Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, convicted in 2005 of providing material support to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and conspiracy to assassinate President Bush, now serving a life sentence.  Abu Ali was also valedictorian of his class at the Saudi Islamic Academy, the Saudi Embassy-backed 900-student school in the Washington, DC suburbs, that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has repeatedly urged the US State Department to shut down on the grounds that it teaches religious intolerance.

Or the Dar Al-Hijra Imam between August 2003 and May 2005, the memorable Sheikh Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, formerly a Muslim Brotherhood member and Shariah judge in the Sudan, and one of the founders of both the mosque and the Muslim American Society (MAS), who left the mosque to become the executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America.

That’s the same  Fiqh Council that on February 9, 2010 issued a legal opinion – a fatwa – against the use of full body scanners in airports for Muslims.  He’s also active in bringing Shariah law to America, as the head of the Islamic Judiciary Council of the Shari’ah Scholars’ Association of North America (SSANA).

And we cannot neglect to mention the member of Dar Al-Hijrah’s Executive Committee, Abelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar, convicted in November 2007 of contempt and obstruction of justice for refusal to testify before a grand jury with regard to Hamas, and sentenced to 135 months in prison.   A major Hamas operative since at least 1988,  Ashqar was accused of opening bank accounts and maintaining U.S. records for Hamas.

Nor is Dar Al-Hijrah  just your average, friendly neighborhood mosque.  In fact, their original Constitution required their Board of Directors to  include  leaders of  Muslim Brotherhood front groups who would later be identified as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial: “the Current Secretary General of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Current President of Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), the Current General Manager of North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and the Current President of Muslim American Society (MAS).”  In 2005, when the current Imam Shaker Elsayed became Imam, he amended the mosque’s constitution to give precedence to the Muslim American Society, and now the mosque Board is run by the “Current President of the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Current MAS DC Area Chapter President, the Executive Director of MAS National Office.”  Elsayed had been Secretary General of the Muslim American Society before becoming Dar Al Hijrah’s imam.  The Muslim American Society was founded in 1993 as the American chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It was Imam Shaker Elsayed who sent the email invitation text for the February 13, 2010 fundraiser for Sabri Benkhala:

“Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:22:48 -0700
From: legaladmin@universal-justice.net
Subject: Mark Your Calendar (2/13/10): Dinner

Dear Friends of Justice,

Assalamu Alaikum. The Universal Justice Foundation is pleased to announce that it will be hosting a fundraising dinner to support Br. Sabri Benkahla by contributing to his legal fees. The event will feature Dr. Jamal Badawi from Canada, Imam Rodwaan Saleh from Texas, and Br. Sabri’s attorney John Sheldon, Esq. and will be held at Dar Al Hijrah IslamicCenter’s Main Courtyard. Tickets are only $40 and registration will be at 5:30. The program will begin promptly at 6:00 P.M., and dinner will be served early. Please arrange to purchase tickets as soon as possible because space is limited! You may buy tickets at our website www.universal-justice.net or from Sh. Shaker at Dar Al Hijrah. If neither option is convenient, please email us at legaladmin@universal-justice.net and we will arrange your ticket sale…

May Allah reward you greatly for your efforts in serving justice!

Sincerely,

Shaker Elsayed
Founder and Chairman, UJF

Shaker Elsayed, the current Imam, and founder and Chairman of that “United Justice Foundation” fundraising organization for convicted terrorists,  is a dual citizen of Egypt and the U.S.  He stated in  a sermon at the Dar Al Hijrah in 2005, shortly after becoming Imam there and stacking the Board of Directors with Muslim American Society leaders,  that “Islam forbids you to give allegiance to those who kick you off your homeland, and to those who support those who kick you off your homeland…We do have license to respond with all force necessary to answer our attackers.”  And in the same sermon he stated, “The call to reform Islam is an alien call.”  He is also an outspoken supporter of Hamas and their objectives, including the destruction of Israel.

The Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan, attended Dar Al-Hijrah periodically when he lived in the Washington, DC area, up to 2009 when he was transferred to Texas, and his now infamous powerpoint presentation, “The Koranic Worldview as it Related to Muslims in the Military” is closely in line with the 2005 preaching of the current Dar Al-Hijrah Imam, Shaker Elsayed.    See for example slide 11 in that series: “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims”; the examples in slide 13; or the quote that appears to track exactly with Elsayed’s 2005 sermon, on slide 49:  “Fighting to establish an Islamic State, to please God even by force, is condoned by the Islam.”

Dar Al-Hijrah has been staffed by a series of Imams who  radicalize their members – the members don’t “self-radicalize,” as Major Hasan was said to do in the negligent report on the Fort Hood Shooting put out by the Pentagon.  The U.S. intelligence community missed the warning signals from Dar Al-Hijrah’s earlier Imam Anwar al-Awlaki; they should heed the warning signals from the current Imam, Shaker Elsayed.

More on this in days to come – including which invited elected officials could be coming to dinner at Dar Al-Hijrah in April, at their gala annual fundraiser…

It's often said that bias shows through in what journalists decide to cover or not cover. So it was telling when Politico's Michael Calderone tweeted today, "@DavidShuster just said he's off to New Orleans to report on the O'Keefe arrest." "He's giddy," added Mediaite's Steve Krakauer.

Shuster's Twitter account, meanwhile, was lighting up with scorn for activist filmmaker James O'Keefe, who was arrested yesterday after an alleged attempt to tamper with phone lines in an office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). After O'Keefe tweeted, "I am a journalist and the truth will set me free" yesterday, Shuster responded: "a) you are not a journalist b) the truth is you intended to tap her phones c) it's a felony d) you will go to prison."

So Shuster is personally invested in O'Keefe's fate and convinced not only that he tried to tap Sen. Landrieau's phones--a contention that the affidavit does not support, not that that has stopped others in the mainstream media from reporting it as fact--but that he is, without a doubt, guilty.

RedState's Caleb Howe compares Shuster's reaction to the O'Keefe saga with his tweeted statements after the Fort Hood shooting. Far from presuming guilt or extrapolating contentions not supported by the available evidence, Shuster issued an "Amen" to Jake Tapper, who noted "No word on motive yet and at a time like this ppl should listen to their better angels."

Lest readers gather that Shuster was trying not to politicize the massacre, consider this tweet: "Hasan e-mails intercepted during Bush admn. But some conservatives are blaming Obama???" So we should all listen to our better angels until we know more in the case of a mass murderer who we now know--and then suspected--was acting out of a radical hatred of the United States military.

But by Shuster's standard, jumping to conclusions and issuing erroneous accusations and premature proclamations of guilt are just fine in this case.

Shuster also made sure to cite a Media Matters post in the latter Tweet, and another reissuing MMFA's latest potentially slanderous claim, this one falsely asserting that Andrew Breitbart was somehow involved with O'Keefe's arrest and behind the alleged plot to tamper with the Senator's phone lines.

Howe concludes: "Does David Shuster care more about James O’Keefe filming ACORN than Nidal Hasan murdering Americans? Well … let’s just say the word allegedly and leave it at that."

At the very least, as NB's Mark Finkelstein has noted, Shuster "really lets it all hang out on Twitter."

CNN’s Jack Cafferty blasted the Defense Department’s report on the Fort Hood massacre as a “joke” on Thursday’s Situation Room, singling out how there was “no mention in the report of the suspect’s [Major Nidal Hasan] views of Islam.” Cafferty also highlighted a recent Gallup poll that found that “43 percent of Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice toward Muslims.”

The CNN commentator wasted no time in criticizing the 86-page report released by the Pentagon on the Fort Hood shootings: “The Pentagon report into the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas that left 13 people dead- it’s a joke. No mention in the report of the suspect’s views of Islam- none- in fact, the 86-page report doesn’t even once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name. It lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, and instead, focuses on things like military personnel policies and the emergency response to the November shootings.”

Cafferty later read a quote from 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, and continued his attack on the report: “Lehman...told Time magazine the Pentagon’s silence on Islamic extremism- quote, ‘shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,’ unquote. What a shame....The Pentagon acknowledges it did not focus so much on Hasan’s motives, as on what it called ‘actions and effects.’ The report says they didn’t want to interfere with the criminal probe into Major Hasan. Garbage.”

read more

In a recent puff piece, The New York Times reports that our President is tired. This is not the first such report. Back in May, when he treated England’s Gordon Brown so shabbily, the excuse given — according to The Daily Telegraph – was that wrestling with the economic crisis had left Barack Obama too exhausted to be able to focus on foreign affairs.

We should perhaps discount what was said in May. For, as I have attempted to document in detail here, here, here, here, here, and here, President Obama is a gentleman, and, as such, he is never unintentionally rude. He is, in fact, a master of the insulting gesture, which he seems to reserve for political opponents, such as Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin, and for political leaders in countries, such as England, France, Germany, Israel, and Poland, which were closely associated with the United States prior to the Age of Obama.

This time, however, Barack Obama may be genuinely tired, and he may be depressed as well. He certainly has warrant. In public, he may claim that he deserves a B+ for his first year in office, but the polling data suggests that he has earned a failing mark, and he has to know better.

As I observed in an earlier post, if Barack Obama harbored any doubts as to whether he was leading his party off a cliff, William Daley — the brains behind the Chicago machine — put these doubts to rest in the op-ed that he published on Christmas Eve in The Washington Post, warning that, if the Democrats did not plot “a more centrist course,” they would “risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.”

Barack Obama has thus far led a charmed life — prep school in Hawaii, Occidental College, Columbia University, Harvard Law School, the Illinois State Senate, the U. S. Senate, the Presidency. He did lose a race for a Congressional seat. But, otherwise, to all appearances, he has never even stumbled.

One fact is emblematic. Obama managed to get elected editor of The Harvard Law Review without having to do what all of his predecessors did — which is to write an article of a quality that would allow it to be published in the journal. With the one exception mentioned above, his political races have been easy. Events consistently broke in his favor. He has never really been tested — until now.

And, of course, now he finds himself in over his head.

Obama’s difficulties are of his own making, and they arise from his failure thus far to recognize what it means to be President of the United States.

American presidents put aside personal pique and pay close attention to protocol. They do not bow to queens, kings, and emperors; they do not warmly embrace dictators and thugs; and they do not direct gratuitous insults at America’s allies.

They know that, for a president, the personal is not political and the political is not personal. What happens has little to do with the man and everything to do with the office he holds, and no president can opt out of the responsibilities that go with the office.

A president who ignores the niceties, who stiffs America’s friends and embraces her enemies, who betrays weakness and irresolution with regard to an ongoing war will soon discover that others can be rude as well — that those who sense his weakness will treat him and, more to the point, his country like dirt. This is what the Chinese did when Barack Obama visited Beijing and Copenhagen, and Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have repeatedly done the like.

This is no minor matter — for what begins with calculated rudeness can turn into something far worse, as John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter learned to their regret.

In the domestic sphere, American presidents do not leave the initiative to Congress, and they do not continue the presidential campaign after the election is over — not, that is, if they know what is good for them.

The President of the United States represents the national interest; Congressmen often cater to particular interests. If legislation is left to the latter, principle tends to give way to patronage, and the result can be a profound embarrassment. Like it or not, when he signed the so-called “stimulus” bill, Barack Obama accepted responsibility for the national debt and for the systematic looting embedded in the bill.

Once the looting begins, Congressmen may not be able to help themselves. The current crop needed — Congressmen always need — adult supervision, and Barack Obama offered them none. The same argument applies to the healthcare proposals passed by the House and the Senate, which are, by any system of accounting, a disgrace.

The Obama administration’s handling of terrorism is of a piece with the pattern of irresponsibility evident in its conduct of foreign policy and its management of domestic affairs.

When news came that a Nigerian trained in the Yemen and equipped with an explosive device had very nearly brought down a Northwest Airlines jumbo jet outside Detroit, Janet Napolitano initially thought it appropriate to say that “the system had worked,” and Barack Obama, after remaining ostentatiously silent for three days, dismissed the matter as “allegedly” the work of an “isolated extremist.”

Both backtracked in subsequent statements, to be sure. But it was clear that, at first, neither took the incident seriously.

It was obvious from the start that it was dumb luck and nothing else that saved the passengers on that flight, that no “isolated extremist” could have done what Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab managed to do, and that the elaborate security procedures put in place after 9/11 had failed ignominiously.

By the time that President Obama first bothered to address the matter, it was already evident that the authorities in the United States had been warned about the man and that he had been trained by a branch of Al Q’aeda in the Yemen; and we now know that the religious leader that Abdulmutallab sought out in the Yemen was the very man with whom Major Nidal Malik Hassan was in communication before he massacred thirteen Americans at Fort Hood.

The event at Fort Hood, which revealed deep flaws in our intelligence apparatus, should have been a wake-up call. What Major Hassan did and what Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to do are not crimes in the ordinary sense of the word. They are acts of asymmetric war, intimately linked with one another, and, if we are to reduce the likelihood of things like this happening again, they need to be treated as such.

Even left-liberals are beginning to figure out that something serious is amiss. The latest of these is, of all people, Maureen Dowd — who, on Tuesday, in a column in The New York Times aptly entitled “As the Nation’s Pulse Races, Obama Cannot Seem to Find His,” posed the following question:

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

In her column, Dowd went on to compare Obama with Star Trek’s Spock, noting his propensity to oscillate between inspiration and listlessness, and observing just how “chilly” he appeared in “his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253, issuing bulletins through his press secretary and hitting the links.” What bothered her most, however, was that the President of the United States did not even “seem concerned.”

When Obama ran for the Democratic nomination, his opponents — Joe Biden among them — warned that he was not ready. When his party nominated him, Republicans made the same point, but to no avail.

Now, if I am correct in my interpretation of the character of his exhaustion, even Obama appears to realize that he may not be up to the job. It seems not even to have crossed his mind when he ran for the office and assumed it that with the office would come responsibilities of a sort that had never previously encountered and that he had no particular desire to shoulder.

Now he is stuck with those responsibilities, and we are — at least, for the time being — stuck with him. Let’s hope that he returns from Hawaii rested, resolute, and intent on carrying out in a responsible fashion the duties associated with his office — for this would require of him a radical change of course.

Someone should give President Obama sign for his desk in the Oval Office. It should read, “The buck stops here.”

Representative Pete Hoekstra recently indicated that the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 should be a clue that helps the Obama Administration ‘connect the dots' on terrorism.

While that remains unlikely with an administration more obsessed with right-wing extremists, man-caused disasters, and the impeccable success of our counterterrorism systems, perhaps it's time to start holding the main stream media accountable for their own inability to connect certain dots. 

Such is the case of the media's handling of Anwar al-Awlaki...

One of the more recent events to look at is the Fort Hood shooting nearly two months ago, in which - and say it out loud MSM - a Muslim terrorist, Malik Nidal Hasan, shot and killed 14 people and wounded 30 others. 

Hasan has definitively been linked to Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki, a man who previously held the title of spiritual adviser to two 9/11 hijackers.  Awlaki himself made it clear that Hasan's action were indeed terror related, by referring to the massacre as an ‘operation' and frequently reminding listeners in an interview with Al-Jazeera that Hasan had attacked a military target.  In other words, the mass shooting was an act of war, and Awlaki, by extension, was involved.

Next, news accounts previously had reported that Awlaki was killed in an airstrike in Yemen, until recent indications suggest that he is still alive.  Strikingly, a spiritual adviser was one target in a military operation.  

Now, Umar Abdulmutallab, the failed underwear bomber, has said that "he received instructions and training from al Qaeda operatives based in Yemen ahead of boarding the Detroit-bound flight Friday."  According to the Daily Express, there is intelligence which indicates Awlaki was in contact with the attempted Nigerian plane bomber, Abdulmutallab. 

The Yemeni crackdown targeting Awlaki suggests that their operatives have at least been partially successful in connecting the dots that the Obama Administration has failed to, (Yemeni authorities dispute the level of the CIA's involvement).  Yet, there has been scant evidence that the American media can bring themselves to identify Awlaki as anything more than a ‘cleric'. 

They would have you believe that Awlaki is nothing more than a radical preacher, the crazy guy who talks to himself on the street corner, waving his hands and shouting at non-existent threats.  But the Awlaki tentacles to terrorism are far too numerous.  His blood-stained fingerprints have been identified with 9/11, Fort Hood, the Nigerian plane terrorist, and nearly a dozen other cases.

In fact, the favorite description of Awlaki in the media seems to be the word ‘cleric', hardly an indicator of his true nature as an inciter of violence.  In a briefing by the New York Times on Christmas Day, a single paragraph (four sentences) on the airstrike in Yemen refers to him as a cleric four separate times.  The Los Angeles Times also tends to refer to him as a cleric, the definition of which is nothing more than a harmless ‘member of the clergy'.  Occasionally, someone in the media will venture out on a limb and label him as a ‘radical cleric', as the Wall Street Journal has done.

But if the media is hesitant to call the actual perpetrators of the crime terrorists, as they definitively were in the Hasan case, then it is clearly too much to ask that they refer to the man inspiring the terrorists as anything more than a spiritual leader.  A member of the clergy.  A cleric.

On the bright side, the Guardian UK had the audacity to go against the PC grain, referring to Awlaki as one ‘who has inspired a number of terrorists'.  Baby steps...

Lo and behold however, CBS News has apparently had the revelation that Awlaki ‘may be an al-Qaeda recruiter'.  Additionally, and surprisingly so, the Washington Post has been one source willing to go so far as to identify Awlaki as an actual member of al-Qaeda.  They report that:

"U.S. officials said Aulaqi was a member of al-Qaeda and has been moving up the ranks, having recently been promoted to regional commander."

Maybe the rest of the main stream media will follow suit, identifying Awlaki for what he is - at the very least an accessory to terrorism, at most an outright terrorist. 

But then we wouldn't want them to start 'jumping to conclusions'.  Rather, they'll likely continue a governmental and media policy of crawling to conclusions instead. 

Photo Credit:  AFP/Getty Images

On the CBS Evening News on Saturday, correspondent Kimberly Dozier reported on a recent rise in homegrown Islamic extremism in the United States and explored the motivation behind it: “... terrorism experts agree militant Islam is becoming an American problem....the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make potent recruiting tools. They’re portrayed by the militants as America’s war on Islam.”

Dozier went on to cite American bigotry as another cause: “Muslim community leaders here say young people are also being driven to extremes by post-9/11 anti-Muslim propaganda like this.” An obscure anti-Muslim video was played as she continued: “And rising incidents of genuine anti-Muslim discrimination. Civil rights complaints have jumped 10 percent in just the past year, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations.”

While using C.A.I.R. as a credible source, Dozier only briefly mentioned the organization’s radical ties: “There’s been tension between the FBI and the Council over alleged links to militant groups which it denies.” She then offered a dismissive statement from C.A.I.R.: “It says U.S. authorities should start using the Muslim community as a resource, not an adversary, to help it police its own.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

6:35PM

JEFF GLOR: Pakistani police today continued to question five young American Muslims suspected of making contact with a Taliban recruiter. Well, here at home, law enforcement officials and Muslim leaders alike are doing a lot of serious rethinking. Kimberly Dozier in Washington has more.

KIMBERLY DOZIER: From the shooting last month at Fort Hood, to this week’s arrests of five young American suspects in Pakistan, terrorism experts agree militant Islam is becoming an American problem.

ZEYNO BARAN [SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE]: We do have a homegrown terror problem that really needs to be addressed and explained.

DOZIER: Alleged Army shooter Nidal Hasan and the young men who traveled to Pakistan all worshipped at mosques in Virginia. But Zeyno Baran says they were more likely exposed to the extremes of militant Islam only a click away on the Web.

BARAN: And we have these ‘Google imam’ problems where you just Google a question and then you get a bunch of Web sites and you have no idea who these people are.

DOZIER: Muslim experts say the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make potent recruiting tools. They’re portrayed by the militants as America’s war on Islam. Al Qaeda even has its own American spokesman, U.S.-born Adam Gadahn. He addressed American Muslims in a tape that came out just yesterday.

ADAM GADAHN [AL QAEDA SPOKESMAN]: The blood of countless innocent Muslims is on your hands.

DOZIER: But Muslim community leaders here say young people are also being driven to extremes by post-9/11 anti-Muslim propaganda like this.

[CLIP OF ANTI-MUSLIM AD]

TEXT ON-SCREEN: Muslims Are Taking Over The World; and faster than you ever imagined.

NARRATOR: There are over nine million [Muslims in the United States].

DOZIER: And rising incidents of genuine anti-Muslim discrimination. Civil rights complaints have jumped 10 percent in just the past year, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations. The group is launching a new Web site to give young Muslims an outlet for their anger through civic action, in court or at the ballot box, not on a foreign battlefield.

NIHAD AWAD [COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS]: And we can immunize our people against these cyber attacks, so to speak.

DOZIER: And it was the Council which urged the families of those five suspected would-be militants to report them missing to the FBI.

AWAD: I believe that was a success story because the Muslim community took the lead.

DOZIER: There’s been tension between the FBI and the Council over alleged links to militant groups which it denies. It says U.S. authorities should start using the Muslim community as a resource, not an adversary, to help it police its own – Jeff.

GLOR: Alright. Kimberly Dozier in Washington tonight – Kimberly, thank you.

Charlie Daniels, the legendary country and rock musician, is NB's newest blogger.

Considering the condition of most of the media in this country, I can't say I'm surprised at their reaction to the murder of 13 and wounding of 30 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.

They are trying to blame Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan's terrorist act on the stress of being in the Army and harassment by other soldiers because of his religion. In other words, trying to blame it on anything besides what it is. The fact is that he is a radical Muslim who hates the United States of America and wants to destroy it.

Hasan had never been to war anywhere, so that dog won't hunt. He was a major, and if he was under such heavy persecution why didn't he simply resign his commission?

People are going to say that the Army knew about his disapproval of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his radical Muslim beliefs, so why didn't they simply put him out of the Army?

The answer to that is simple; it's the accursed policies of political correctness. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Army had gotten rid of an officer because he was a Muslim? It would have been the biggest news story in the country. The justice department under Eric Holder would have ruined the careers of anybody who would have been a part of it.

So let's forget all the Dr. Phil B.S. about stress and strain and persecution and all the rest and lets look at the facts.

No matter how the media tries to spin it, no matter how many times the president tells us not to jump to conclusions, no matter how many psychiatrists and psychologists they bring on board, the fact remains.

Hasan is a radical Muslim.

According to a classmate, Hasan viewed the War on Terror as a war against Islam. One of the strongest clues to Hasan's mindset, prior to his rampage, was a post he made on a message board. On it, he tried to compare Islamic suicide bombers with heroic soldiers who would willingly jump on a grenade to save the lives of their fellow soldiers, implying that by blowing up themselves and their enemies, they were saving the lives of fellow Muslims. The thought of going to Afghanistan where he would be surrounded by soldiers who were killing Islamic terrorists was probably more than he could take.

Hasan hated America's War on Terror policies, and reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar" -which means "God is great" in Arabic- before he deliberately murdered and maimed 43 innocent Americans. He is a terrorist, plain and simple and there is no other was to define it.

I know that all Muslims are not terrorists. I have met some who seemed like fine people. However, radical Islam represents the biggest threat to the United States of America from without and within and if the Muslims of America truly care for this nation they need to start making a lot more noise than they have been.

If Islam is truly a peaceful or even a humane religion, this act should be totally condemned in all of the mosques of this nation. Instead of preaching jihad, the Mullahs should be steadfastly convincing their young people that what Hasan did is nothing more than murder.

On the other hand, it is up to the president and the powers that be to deal with this incident as what it is, an act of domestic terror.

And if anything should make Obama refute his order to close Guantanamo Bay, this should be what does it. Can you imagine bringing Islamic terrorists to the American mainland and putting them on trial knowing there are people out there who would be willing to murder the judge, jury and prosecutor before, during or after the trial?

I know Obama is supposed to be a smart man, but it is downright stupidity to even consider bringing these murderers to American soil and trying them in an American courtroom. They were captured on the field of battle and should be treated as military combatants and spies, falling under the auspices of a military tribunal.

If the prisoners at Gitmo are tried in America, the defense lawyers can demand and obtain the secret documents of the CIA and military intelligence exposing the names of our operatives and rendering them useless as well as placing them in danger of Islamic vengeance.

How many more Hasans are out there waiting to explode? How many deep cover crazies are in our society living as ordinary citizens and waiting for the time when they are activated to walk into the streets of America and shoot down our families.

How is the Obama administration going to deal with this? I know how they'd treat it if one of our soldiers went berserk in the marketplace in Bagdad and shot down 43 people.

This situation needs immediate and decisive action right now, not tomorrow, and to tell you the truth I don't believe that Obama has the guts to deal with it.

Only time will tell.

My prayers and condolences go out to the families who lost loved ones at Fort Hood, and the ones who were wounded.

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo of the Washington Post’s On Faith blog took left-wing moral equivalency to new lows in a November 24 post where he compared Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hassan to General Patton and World War I hero Alvin York. What does this mass murderer have in common with two American heroes, in Stevens-Arroyo’s view? All three recited what he labeled “bad prayers.”

Matthew Archbold of the Creative Minority Report blog devoted an entire post on Monday to picking apart the Washington Post writer’s arguments. Before Stevens-Arroyo compared Hassan to Patton and York, he cited other examples of such “bad prayers.”

In citing the worst prayers in the world, I start with the thanksgiving of the Pharisee in the Gospel (Luke 18:10). He was thankful he was not like “other people.” His conversation with God was replete with political and religious prejudices against others whom he scorned. It was a bad prayer and you don’t have to take my word for it; listen to Jesus....

Number two on the parade list is the so-called “Prayer for Obama,” that cites Psalm 109:8 and applies it to the President: Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow....You can buy T-shirts...trinkets and coffee mugs with this “prayer.”

In biblical terms, this is not a prayer at all, but rather a curse. So here are so called “Christians” spending time and collecting bucks to curse the president of the United States, his wife and innocent children. Some prayer! Certainly, among the worst in the world!

As bad as Stevens-Arroyo portrays these “worst prayers in the world,” there is something much worse in his book:

But the granddaddy of bad prayers is, “Allahu Akbar!” uttered before shooting innocent people or setting off bombs to slaughter innocents to advance your own salvation. Such abuse by violence of God’s will was not invented at Fort Hood. After all, General Patton ordered the composition of a prayer for good weather so that thousands of Germans could be bombed. Army sharpshooters - like the famous Alvin York of the First World War - prayed to God for a good aim to kill people. And the tradition goes back to the Crusades and beyond. But the Muslim version is the most current and the one with the least amount of disguise as we approach Thanksgiving 2009. It is quite simply and without equivocation, “The Worst Prayer in the World!”

p.s. I owe the idea of the “world’s worst” to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. The content here, however, is all my own. Have a Happy Thanksgiving and don’t use bad prayers.

The Washington Post writer must have wanted to be doubly-sure to maintain his left-wing credentials in this column. Not only did he make the obligatory damning reference to the Crusades in his condemnation of Hassan’s prayer, he credits Olbermann for giving him the idea for the “worst prayer in the world.” That aside, Archbold rightly and brilliantly took Stevens-Arroyo to task for this “blatant and ridiculous display of moral equivalence:”

The prayer Arroyo is referring to which Patton disseminated was actually written by Catholic chaplain James H. O’Neill who wrote:

Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies and establish Thy justice among men and nations.

So according to Arroyo, General Patton asking for God’s help in defeating the scourge of Nazism was similar to Nidal Hasan taking out his fellow American soldiers with a prayer to Allah.

Maybe Mr. Arroyo isn’t aware but war is different than murder.

Nidal presumed to know God’s will and to kill in his name. Patton’s prayer is a prayer for assistance, leaving the response to God.

One is a request, the other a statement.

And impugning Alvin York is outrageous as well. York was a war hero who, at first, was a conscientious objector but finally (after much prayer) saw fit to fight in World War I after praying on a mountainside for two nights.

York was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading an attack on a German machine gun nest, taking 32 machine guns, killing 28 German soldiers and capturing 132 others....

I’ll ask Mr. Arroyo, how many prisoners did Nidal Hasan take?

Has the left finally a reason to be impassioned by a threat to our national security? Michaele and Tareq Salahi seem to have provided that reason.

After the Salahis literally crashed a White House State Dinner on Nov. 24, the two demonstrated how vulnerable President Barack Obama could be to outside intruders. And justifiably, it has not only caused some concern with members of Congress, but also some of the more outspoken members in the media.

On the Fox Business Network's Nov. 30 "Imus in the Morning" program, host Don Imus conveyed this concern, suggesting it exposed potential weaknesses in the U.S. Secret Service's protection of the President (h/t Tim Graham of Newsbusters.org).

More Video Below Fold

"There's no place - the Secret Service doesn't check them out. So you could get on the White House grounds, do whatever the hell you want to do," Imus said."And don't say you can't get on because we've just seen that and then just leave."

But Rolling Stone political reporter Matt Taibbi, a guest on the Imus program, commented that the perpetrators of this alleged intrusion, which is still under investigation, should be made an example out of for the public, execution-style.

"Right, right - I think we should bring back public executions or, you know, drawing and quartering, something like that," Taibbi said. "I mean, just, you know, send the message with this kind of thing. I mean, because obviously they're going to get off with some kind of mild fine or, you know, it's going to be talked away. I think they have to do something very serious to these people. Those were pretty good entertainment."

New York Times columnist Frank Rich, who also appeared on Imus' Nov. 30 program, also expressed some aggravation with the security breach. He told viewers after the Fort Hood incident, security should have been more stringent.

"I mean, it's just unbelievable and frightening, you know?" Rich said. "What is the security in this country? You know, you have the guy at Fort Hood, who we more and more seem to think that, you know, practically wrote a book of warning signals that he was crazy and perhaps had radical political ideas. And that's right in the middle of Fort Hood, and now you have this right in the middle of the White House."

Rich had his own description for the Salahis - "party terrorists."

"Not that they are terrorists, but they are party terrorists," Rich said. "But still, it's a leading edge of something."

Rich's prompt declaration of "party terrorism" is a bit curious, considering his Nov. 15 column following the Fort Hood incident. According to Rich, those exhibiting outrage over Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspect in the Fort Hood shooting, for a "terrorist" act were doing so as some sort of partisan ploy, even if they were "perhaps" correct.

"Their verdict was unambiguous: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born psychiatrist of Palestinian parentage who sent e-mail to a radical imam, was a terrorist. And he did not act alone. His co-conspirators included our military brass, the Defense Department, the F.B.I., the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and, of course, the liberal media and the Obama administration. All these institutions had failed to heed the warning signs raised by Hasan's behavior and activities because they are blinded by political correctness toward Muslims, too eager to portray criminals as sympathetic victims of social injustice, and too cowardly to call out evil when it strikes 42 innocents in cold blood," Rich wrote in his 1,510-word diatribe on how this heinous act can't be used to encourage Obama to increase troop levels in Afghanistan.

But despite Rich's verdict on party terrorism, he did suggest there should be "some kind of serious investigation," during "a very angry time in this country."

"And, you know, I think - I don't know if Congress should investigate it, but there's really got to be some kind of serious investigation where what happened is to a point that security allows it is made transparent and people are punished, that there are repercussions and systems are changed, because, yes, it is a 400 percent increase over Bush in terms of threats," Rich continued. "We know, you know, it's a very angry time in this country for a lot of people."

And according to Rich, a terrorist threat could come in any form, but likely won't "break security" dressed as a terrorist. So therefore, all threats must be taken seriously - even from a potential "Real Housewives of D.C." show participant.

"And thank God it was these flakes and these idiots who got in there," Rich said. "But you're absolutely right. It doesn't matter who it was, as long as someone could wearing a party costume - it's preposterous. I mean, do they think that anyone who is going to break security at the White House is going to be dressed like a terrorist? I mean, they can be dressed like the ‘Real Housewives of Northern Virginia' or whatever the hell it is."

Bill Cathcart, Clearing Away the PC Clutter

Bill Cathcart, Vice President and General Manager for CBS affiliate WTOC in Savannah, Georgia, took to the airwaves on November 9th with a blistering video editorial excoriating the hold political correctness (PC) has on our society (video and transcript below the fold).

It is certainly refreshing to hear and see a news executive say these sorts of things, given the prostraters to PC that so thoroughly inhabit his profession.

Cathcart began by speaking of the horrific Fort Hood, Texas murders by Islamist extremist Nidal Malik Hasan, and pointing out how it was political correctness (PC) that cowed everyone from talking to anyone about this obviously dangerous man.

Cathcart rightly points out that this oppressive PC regime dominates not just the Army, but the nation.  "We've become so ridiculous with our political correctness.  So afraid of offending, despite the truth.  So overly tolerant and self-effacing, pandering and apologizing to be liked.  Putting up with absurd challenges to our Constitution, laws, traditions and freedoms, that we've become a nation of enablers for those with evil intent."

Leading the charge on this are, of course, Cathcart's media cohorts.  There are no greater PC enablers and enforcers than the men and women who allegedly deliver us the news. 

We have chronicled multiple instances of media outlets obfuscating, downplaying or outright ignoring that Hasan was in fact a radical Islamist committing what he considered to be an act of holy war.

But this goes well beyond just Hasan's murderous rampage.  This sort of PC "reporting" takes place every day, and taints nearly every story the Jurassic Press delivers.

And Cathcart knows it.  And nails it.  And then some.  Please, enjoy this moment of media clarity in what is otherwise a PC-Press kultersmog.

BILL CATHCART: There are no words to ease the agony, outrage, and senseless loss caused by the vicious rampage of that American-born Army officer, whose devout Muslim beliefs degenerated from religious faith to politically based Islamic fanaticism.  Leaving in its wake thirteen Fort Hood patriots dead, and many others wounded, the President was quick to caution about jumping to conclusions.  Which is interesting, since he himself jumped to an erroneous one with that outstanding police officer.  Tell you what, when Swedes begin mass murdering Americans, we'll wait.  But given this taxpayer-educated ingrate's alleged repeated utterances and actions, the conclusion is clear: This demonic act was almost certainly a premeditated, treasonous act of terrorism - personal or otherwise - against his own nation and military, both of which he betrayed in pursuit of his radicalized views.  And who's ultimately to blame?

We are.  We've become so ridiculous with our political correctness.  So afraid of offending, despite the truth.  So overly tolerant and self-effacing, pandering and apologizing to be liked.  Putting up with absurd challenges to our Constitution, laws, traditions and freedoms, that we've become a nation of enablers for those with evil intent.  Case in point, failing to challenge or stop the open proselytizing, and statements against America's military mission by this officer, repeatedly uttered and witnessed.  The Army should have booted him long ago, but can't be faulted; as we've all now become driven by fear to eggshell sensitivity.  Devout Muslim beliefs can't be challenged.  Yet the devoted Jewish and Christian faithful remain a continuing target of offensive actions, insults, mockery and marginalization. 

In more ways than all of this, we've reached the height of absurdity in America.  It's past time to knock off the elitism, and level the tolerance playing field.  We must, however, pause to note, with heartfelt thanks, the efforts of the Muslim faithful who unseen, help maintain the security of our great nation - both in the community, and through their courageous FBI work as interpreters, informants, and terror-cell infiltrators; working at great risk to prevent similar barbaric acts.  That said, with Veterans Day upon us, amidst the pain of Fort Hood - regardless of origin, race or religion - this challenge to those in this magnificent nation who refuse to accept, adopt, and respect our traditions, laws and freedoms: Either gain English proficiency, fully assimilate, contribute positively, and be ever thankful for the incredible blessing it is to be here; or get the heck out.

If someone decided to commit mass murder after hearing hot talk on the radio, NPR "senior news analyst" Daniel Schorr wouldn’t really suggest blaming the talk radio host. He’d suggest blaming the radio itself. That’s the weird tone of his Wednesday commentary, titled "Was the Internet Complicit in Fort Hood Shooting?"

Schorr explored blame for that mysterious "series of tubes" that is the Internet: "From what is publicly known about Maj. Nidal Hasan, accused killer of 13 in a rampage at Fort Hood, he had no accomplice — unless you count the Internet in which he communed, exchanging sinister thoughts with an extremist cleric."

This is the kind of analysis that would inspire humor, if it wasn't already odd: if we can blame the Internet for Fort Hood, does that mean Al Gore is somehow responsible for the tragedy?

The long-time CBS correspondent didn’t really want to rush to blame a radical imam for Major Hasan’s violent turn:

In the case of Hasan, judging from what has been disclosed, Internet contact with the like-minded seemed to replace human contact. An important influence, apparently, was Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical imam....

Texts of the messages have not been released, so it is difficult to know who said what to whom. It is not known whether Fort Hood or any other target was specifically discussed. But the tone of the relationship can be judged by a message Awlaki posted on his Web site after the Fort Hood attack. It said, "Fighting against the U.S. Army is an Islamic duty today."

The cleric told an interviewer, according to The Washington Post, that he never directed or pressured Hasan to harm Americans. But he said that he was the major's confidant by e-mail.

And he said the Fort Hood attack was allowed by Islamic law because it was a form of jihad, permissible because the United States had brought the battle to Muslim countries.

Is the radical imam culpable for retroactively justifying the attack? Or does the Internet merit some of the responsibility for helping the violence prone to fester there in communion with the machine?

At best, it seems a little too early to blame the imam just for "retroactively justifying the attack," when it's not yet known what kind of conversation Hasan and al-Awlaki were conducting before the attack occurred.

(Hat tip: Dennis L.)

On Nov. 18, Foreign Policy's Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson wrote an article titled "The Real Shock of Fort Hood." If you thought that the shock of Fort Hood was that an Army Major fired over 100 rounds into a crowded processing center on a military base - killing 13 and wounding 29 - you're wrong. "It's not that the massacre occurred," said the article. "It's that it hadn't occurred before."

According to Simon and Stevenson, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was simply another American Muslim that was the victim of "innumerable stresses, including discrimination and the strain of divided loyalties in their country's eight-year-long war against Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia."  

The authors argued that such circumstances would be "enough to inspire conflict in the minds of even the most patriotic of American Muslims in the U.S." So much so that it should be "no surprise" that "one unstable member of this community finally erupted in violence."

It's our fault. Americans aren't making Muslims "comfortable." And the article specifically cited "Christian right-wing rhetoric" as a catalyst in the "Muslim alienation" which led to Hasan's shooting spree.

"Since Sept. 11, Muslims have faced increasing racism, employment and housing discrimination, and vandalism," wrote Simon and Stevenson. "Media coverage dwelling on the violence associated with radical Islam and ignoring the respectable lifestyles of most American Muslims, along with Christian right-wing rhetoric casting the campaign against terrorism as a clash of religions, has contributed to the public's misunderstanding of Islam."

The article applauded the general Muslim population in America for rising above the fray and rejecting "violent protest or reaction," despite the refusal of Americans to open welcoming arms. They warned, though, that if Americans don't learn how to play nice, Muslims may not be able to stand it much longer.

"The Fort Hood massacre arguably showed that the continued civility of the Muslim population against undeniable pressures cannot be taken for granted," they said.

In order to avoid pressuring another Muslim into attacking America, we need to "resist the paranoia to which [the Fort Hood] tragedy could potentially lead." The authors also felt compelled to warn the President of the United States.

"Barack Obama should use his bully pulpit to fight for the better treatment and monitoring of vulnerable Muslim service-members, to avoid another tragedy," they said.

They even suggested that Obama offer a second speech, after his Fort Hood eulogy, to emphasize that "Fort Hood was an anomaly and that the very rareness of such incidents illuminates the overall loyalty of American Muslims and the need to protect that population."

But that's still not enough. According to the article, we also need policy changes.

"Soldiers cannot be expected to function well in the service of their country for a cause that they oppose," Steven and Simonson said.

Those policy changes included instituting better "interagency early-warning mechanisms" to detect such internal conflicts before soldiers become "alienated from their country." They also claimed that Hasan's violence was "partly driven by the taunts of fellow soldiers." Since Muslims in the military are "extraordinarily sensitive," the military needs to "to redouble efforts to enforce antidiscrimination standards."

If you thought that the legacy of the Fort Hood massacre was remembering the courageous men and women that protect our country, you're wrong. According to Simon and Stevenson, the Fort Hood massacre should instill in Americans a "greater commitment to ensuring, through accommodation of political and religious sensitivity and equality of treatment, that American Muslims don't suffer for their loyalty to their country."

Correction: The earlier incorrectly identified the article as a Newsweek article. It was a Foreign Policy magazine article, although it was posted on Newsweek.com.

On Nov. 18, Foreign Policy's Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson wrote an article titled "The Real Shock of Fort Hood." If you thought that the shock of Fort Hood was that an Army Major fired over 100 rounds into a crowded processing center on a military base - killing 13 and wounding 29 - you're wrong. "It's not that the massacre occurred," said the article. "It's that it hadn't occurred before."

According to Simon and Stevenson, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was simply another American Muslim that was the victim of "innumerable stresses, including discrimination and the strain of divided loyalties in their country's eight-year-long war against Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia."  

The authors argued that such circumstances would be "enough to inspire conflict in the minds of even the most patriotic of American Muslims in the U.S." So much so that it should be "no surprise" that "one unstable member of this community finally erupted in violence."

It's our fault. Americans aren't making Muslims "comfortable." And the article specifically cited "Christian right-wing rhetoric" as a catalyst in the "Muslim alienation" which led to Hasan's shooting spree.

"Since Sept. 11, Muslims have faced increasing racism, employment and housing discrimination, and vandalism," wrote Simon and Stevenson. "Media coverage dwelling on the violence associated with radical Islam and ignoring the respectable lifestyles of most American Muslims, along with Christian right-wing rhetoric casting the campaign against terrorism as a clash of religions, has contributed to the public's misunderstanding of Islam."

The article applauded the general Muslim population in America for rising above the fray and rejecting "violent protest or reaction," despite the refusal of Americans to open welcoming arms. They warned, though, that if Americans don't learn how to play nice, Muslims may not be able to stand it much longer.

"The Fort Hood massacre arguably showed that the continued civility of the Muslim population against undeniable pressures cannot be taken for granted," they said.

In order to avoid pressuring another Muslim into attacking America, we need to "resist the paranoia to which [the Fort Hood] tragedy could potentially lead." The authors also felt compelled to warn the President of the United States.

"Barack Obama should use his bully pulpit to fight for the better treatment and monitoring of vulnerable Muslim service-members, to avoid another tragedy," they said.

They even suggested that Obama offer a second speech, after his Fort Hood eulogy, to emphasize that "Fort Hood was an anomaly and that the very rareness of such incidents illuminates the overall loyalty of American Muslims and the need to protect that population."

But that's still not enough. According to Foreign Policy, we also need policy changes.

"Soldiers cannot be expected to function well in the service of their country for a cause that they oppose," Steven and Simonson said.

Those policy changes included instituting better "interagency early-warning mechanisms" to detect such internal conflicts before soldiers become "alienated from their country." They also claimed that Hasan's violence was "partly driven by the taunts of fellow soldiers." Since Muslims in the military are "extraordinarily sensitive," the military needs to "to redouble efforts to enforce antidiscrimination standards."

If you thought that the legacy of the Fort Hood massacre was remembering the courageous men and women that protect our country, you're wrong. According to Simon and Stevenson, the Fort Hood massacre should instill in Americans a "greater commitment to ensuring, through accommodation of political and religious sensitivity and equality of treatment, that American Muslims don't suffer for their loyalty to their country."

Correction: The earlier incorrectly identified the article as a Newsweek article. It was a Foreign Policy magazine article, although was posted on Newsweek.com.

On Thursday’s CBS Early Show, after Rudy Giuliani suggested the Obama administration was trying to “satisfy left-wing critics” by trying 9/11 terrorists in civilian court, incredulous co-host Harry Smith saw no such connection: “But Hang on. So it’s – so the idea of them being tried in open court is a left-wing political agenda?”

Smith began the interview with the former New York City Mayor by skeptically wondering: “You said yesterday that this was a political decision. How is it – do you think it’s a political decision?” Giuliani responded: “Well, it’s a political decision because I believe that this is being done to satisfy left-wing critics....After all, it was lawyers in Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm that challenged the military tribunal, challenged the habeas corpus, fought these cases all throughout. So I think this is a political agenda.”

After Smith was taken aback by the charge that liberal politics was involved in the decision, Giuliani began to explain: “Of course. Because they could be tried in military courts. As everyone else was up until now. And it would add-” Smith cut him off: “So as the attorney general yesterday, ‘we need not cower in the face of this enemy’” Giuliani shot back: “Please let me finish what I was saying. I didn’t get a chance to complete my thought.”

Giuliani continued to emphasize the political motivation: “And this is something that was pushed very, very hard by the left-wing for President Obama to do and he’s been criticized for delaying in doing it.” Smith tried to discredit the former Mayor: “And you’ve been criticized, though, because some people feel it’s a flip-flop on your part, the ‘Blind Shaikh’ and other conspirators in the first World Trade Center bombing, were tried here in New York successfully. You called it a symbol of American justice.” Giuliani pointed out: “The reality is of course there was no military tribunal in 1993. It would have been absurd for me to argue for a military tribunal in 1993.”

At the top of the interview, Smith tried to portray a CBS poll showing a clear majority of people opposed to trying the 9/11 terrorists in civilian court as evidence that Americans were “deeply divided” over the issue. He reported: “40% said the trial should be in open federal court. 54% said they should take place in a closed military court.”

In his final question to Giuliani, Smith asked about the Ft. Hood shooting: “...a 2007 performance review of Major Nidal Hasan....[shows] He’s dealing with PTSD patients and he’s talking to them about Jihad, it sounds like. How is it that in this day and age we’re still not able to connect the dots?” Giuliani blamed the political correctness pushed by the left: “I think there’s a fear that you’re going to be accused of discriminating against people of the Islamic religion.... It comes with the administration saying you can’t use the term ‘war on terror’....they’re committing these crimes in the name of Jihad. That is precisely what Major Hasan was doing. The administration doesn’t seem to want to recognize that.”

Smith loyally defended the Obama administration: “Except – except the report was written in 2007 and that was – way precedes the Obama administration, so I’m not sure there can be a delineation that – that you’re trying to make.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:07AM

HARRY SMITH: Now to the latest on the 9/11 suspects coming to New York City. The man who made the controversial decision to put them on trial in federal court told the Senate Judiciary Committee, Wednesday, why he’s doing it. CBS News chief judicial correspondent Bob Orr is in Washington with the story. Good morning, Bob.

BOB ORR: Good morning, Harry. Well, Attorney General Eric Holder is strongly defending his decision to try confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York, saying the criminal justice system will win a conviction.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Terror On Trial; A.G. Holder Defends Court Decision]

ERIC HOLDER: Failure is not an option. This – these are cases that have to be won.

ORR: But Senate Republicans ripped Holder’s decision, saying public testimony could compromise sensitive intelligence.

JEFF SESSIONS: I believe this decision is dangerous. I believe it’s misguided.

ORR: Critics said Holder should have left Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his four henchmen in military court, where they had already asked to be martyred.

HOLDER: I’m not going to base a determination on where these cases ought to be brought on what a terrorist, what a murderer wants to do. He will not select the prosecution venue. I will select it. And I have.

ORR: But 9/11 families who watched the hearing, wearing and holding pictures of victims, also challenged the decision and quietly confronted Holder in the hearing room. Geraldine Davie lost a daughter in the World Trade Center.

GERALDINE DAVIE: My country already let me down once and my daughter was caught in the cross hairs. Now this is letting me down a second time? This is unconscionable. Absolutely unconscionable.

ORR: Now, Holder said if somehow the government manages to lose the case, KSM and the others would not be freed. In fact, they would continue to be held as enemy combatants. Harry.

SMITH: Bob Orr in Washington this morning, thanks. Americans are deeply divided on where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other defendants should be tried. In a recent CBS News poll, 40% said the trial should be in open federal court. 54% said they should take place in a closed military court. Former New York City Mayor and federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani has called this one of the worst decisions of the Obama administration. He joins us this morning. Good morning, Mr. Mayor.

RUDY GIULIANI: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Rudy’s Outrage; Former Mayor Bashes Decision On Terror Trial Venue]

SMITH: You said yesterday that this was a political decision. How is it – do you think it’s a political decision?

GIULIANI: Well, it’s a political decision because I believe that this is being done to satisfy left-wing critics who all during the last two or three years have campaigned against these military tribunals. After all, it was lawyers in Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm that challenged the military tribunal, challenged the habeas corpus, fought these cases all throughout. So I think this is a political agenda. Because it makes no sense. There’s no reason for it, it’s unnecessary-

SMITH: But Hang on. So it’s – so the idea of them being tried in open court is a left-wing political agenda?

GIULIANI: Of course. Because they could be tried in military courts. As everyone else was up until now. And it would add-

SMITH: So as the attorney general yesterday-

GIULIANI: And it was – let me finish what I’m saying-

SMITH: -‘we need not cower in the face of this enemy’-

GIULIANI: Please let me finish what I was saying. I didn’t get a chance to complete my thought.

SMITH: Go ahead.

GIULIANI: The – the reality is that they could be tried in a military tribunal, there is no reason to try them in a – in a civilian court. Others are going to be tried in the military tribunal. And the reality is we’ve never done this before. And this is something that was pushed very, very hard by the left-wing for President Obama to do and he’s been criticized for delaying in doing it.

SMITH: And you’ve been criticized, though, because some people feel it’s a flip-flop on your part, the ‘Blind Shaikh’ and other conspirators in the first World Trade Center bombing, were tried here in New York successfully. You called it a symbol of American justice.

GIULIANI: Yeah, correct, the people who accused me of a flip-flop were on Sunday when I appeared on the talk shows, the Obama administration did. The reality is of course there was no military tribunal in 1993. It would have been absurd for me to argue for a military tribunal in 1993. And in 2006, there was no military tribunal because lawyers that worked for Attorney General Holder and others had gotten them declared unconstitutional. They’ve since been fixed. Now there’s a military tribunal. And if there wasn’t a military tribunal, I would be the first one to say ‘try them in federal court, try them in New York, we have no other choice and we will show that we can – we can provide justice.’ But military courts can provide justice just as well without the same unnecessary risk.

SMITH: Alright, let me ask you this question very quickly. And this is a little bit off the subject. But about connecting the dots. There was a report on NPR yesterday that says it’s obtained a 2007 performance review of Major Nidal Hasan, this doctor who is alleged to have fired at all of these soldiers down in Ft. Hood. And in this performance report, it said ‘while he was competent to deliver safe patient care, he demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment, lack of professionalism, counseled for inappropriately discussing religious topics with assigned patients.’ He’s dealing with PTSD patients and he’s talking to them about Jihad, it sounds like. How is it that in this day and age we’re still not able to connect the dots?

GIULIANI: Oh, I think – I think there’s a tremendous thrust – and particularly in these areas – not to do it. Because I think there’s a fear that you’re going to be accused of discriminating against people of the Islamic religion. There isn’t an ability to separate these two things. It comes with the administration saying you can’t use the term ‘war on terror.’ You can’t talk about Islamic extremism terrorism. You’ve got to call it something else. There’s even a – some kind of a word category they set up for it, which sounds a little Orwellian. But the reality is we can make the distinction. There are wonderful people of the Islamic religion, most of them. Then there are Islamic terrorists. And they are committing these crimes, not for some abstract reason, not for some unconnected reason, they’re committing these crimes in the name of Jihad. That is precisely what Major Hasan was doing. The administration doesn’t seem to want to recognize that. And until it does, it’s going to send a signal all through – all through the bureaucracy, including the Army, ‘you better be careful, you’ll be an accused of profiling. You’ll be accused of discriminating.’

SMITH: Except – except the report was written in 2007 and that was – way precedes the Obama administration, so I’m not sure there can be a delineation that – that you’re trying to make.

GIULIANI: Oh, but those criticisms – those criticisms were happening politically way back 2003, 2004.

SMITH: Okay.

GIULIANI: A whole sense of don’t profile, don’t pick on people. That’s been going on for some quite some time. The Obama administration has kind of institutionalized it now, but that’s been going on for – for a number of years.

SMITH: We got to go. Mr. Mayor, thanks for your time this morning.

GIULIANI: Thank you.

On Monday's Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, presumably picking up on a posting by the far left ThinkProgress.org -- one of his regular sources of information to attack conservatives -- made the arguably inaccurate claim that FNC political analyst Bill Kristol had on the Thursday, November 12, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, called for Fort Hood gunman Nidal Hasan to be convicted and executed without trial. After calling the FNC analyst's words "anti-American," and quoting a portion of Kristol's words, Olbermann lectured:

But seriously, the men and women that this man killed – however you define him – those men and women of the U.S. military, Mr. Kristol, were fighting for the right to trial, due process, justice. Thanks for spitting on the dead of Fort Hood, William Kristol, today’s “Worst Person in the World.”

But a trial is where a criminal normally is "convicted," so the fact that Kristol argued that "they should just go ahead and convict him and put him to death," does not necessarily mean that he was suggesting skipping the trial phase. Additionally, the purpose of Kristol's comment about convicting Hasan was to point out that that part of the process should be a straightforward open-and-shut case since there is so much evidence of his guilt, as the FNC analyst was complaining that Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano made a statement about exacting justice on Hasan being her "number one issue." Napolitano: "And the number one issue, I think right now, is that Major Hasan be brought to justice."

Kristol thought that her highest priority at present should be to determine why the military had ignored suspicious behavior by Hasan so that in future these kinds of attacks within the military might be minimized. Kristol:

The number one, if you’re the head of Homeland Security, shouldn't you say the number one priority is figuring out what went wrong? This is what is most disturbing about this. What is disturbing is that it happened, and there were huge failures, I think, within the Army and the intelligence community connecting the dots.

But Olbermann omitted Kristol's reasons for disagreeing with Napolitano's statement -- as did the posting at ThinkProgress.com -- and went on to attack Kristol.

Notably, just last Wednesday, Olbermann included FNC's Bill O'Reilly in Countdown's "Worst Person" segment after O'Reilly argued on his November The O'Reilly Factor show that the Fort Hood massacre should be called "terrorism," although part of Olbermann's complaint was that O'Reilly had jokingly claimed that he had the right to decide whether the event should be called a terrorist act because the popularity of his show on FNC gives him the right. Olbermann:

Our runner-up, Billow: He’s back in fine delusion of grandeur form, having decided that Fort Hood was terrorism. Now, I could read this in the Ted Baxter voice, but then you’d get the impression that O’Reilly was kidding here or being self-deprecating. Nuh-uh.

After showing a clip of O'Reilly and FNC political analyst Alan Colmes in which O'Reilly glibly commented that "I have the highest rated show, Colmes, so ... I can decide, okay?" Olbermann continued: "So Dancing with the Stars drew nearly 16 million viewers last night – nearly three times O’Reilly’s highest rated show. Does that mean host Tom Bergeron gets three votes on the 'what actually happened' ballot?"

Below are transcripts of relevant portions of the Monday, November 16 Countdown show on MSNBC, the Wednesday, November 11, Countdown, and the Thursday, November 12, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC:

#From the Monday, November 16, Countdown:

KEITH OLBERMANN: But our winner is William Kristol. This is about Fort Hood and Major Hasan, and it is, in short, anti-American.

"I was very struck also by Janet Napolitano's comment. I hadn’t read it before to see her say that, that the number one priority is to bring him to justice is such a knee-jerk comment and such a stupid comment. He’s going to be brought to justice. He’s not going to be innocent of murder. There are a lot of eyewitnesses to that. They should just go ahead and convict him and put him to death."

Firstly, Bill, if this is the new rule, please report to Leavenworth in the morning. You are guilty of 931 counts of federal felony factual mistakes. But seriously, the men and women that this man killed – however you define him – those men and women of the U.S. military, Mr. Kristol, were fighting for the right to trial, due process, justice. Thanks for spitting on the dead of Fort Hood, William Kristol, today’s “Worst Person in the World."

#From the Wednesday, November 11, Countdown:

KEITH OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, Billow: He’s back in fine delusion of grandeur form, having decided that Fort Hood was terrorism. Now, I could read this in the Ted Baxter voice, but then you’d get the impression that O’Reilly was kidding here or being self-deprecating. Nuh-uh.

ALAN COLMES: “-facts before we decide, okay, it’s terrorism."

BILL O’REILLY: Okay, I’ve decided it’s an act of terror because-"

COLMES: Well, okay, you’ve decided.

O’REILLY: Yeah. I have the highest rated show, Colmes, so I can [UNINTELLIGIBLE], I can decide, okay?

COLMES: Excuse me, that makes you the authority on defining things. I understand.

OLBERMANN: Yeah, he’s not kidding, is he? So Dancing with the Stars drew nearly 16 million viewers last night – nearly three times O’Reilly’s highest rated show. Does that mean host Tom Bergeron gets three votes on the “what actually happened” ballot? And what happened to, “We report, you decide”? They don’t mean you, Billy.

#From the Thursday, November 12, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, "Fox All Stars" segment:

CHRIS GREY, ARMY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION: U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a 39-year-old psychiatrist assigned to Darnell Medical Center here at Fort Hood, has been charged with 13 specifications of premeditated murder under article 118 of the uniform code of military justice.

JANET NAPOLITANO, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: This is a matter under investigation. It's going to be looked at, obviously, very, very fully. And the number one issue, I think right now, is that Major Hasan be brought to justice.

BAIER: Well, it's official. Major Nidal Hasan has been charged, and now he will face a military trial on these charges. In addition to this, a new discovery. Today, officials coming out with this business card that was found inside his apartment, boxes of these business cards that he had made. There you see it there. No mention of his military affiliation with the U.S. Army, but underneath his name, you can see SOA and then SWT. SOA is commonly used on jihadist Web sites as the acronym for "Soldier of Allah." SWT is commonly used, we're told, as an acronym for "Glory to God." Again, no mention of the U.S. Army on that card.

We are here to analyze the investigation and where it’s heading from here. Let's bring in our panel, Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Charles, in addition to that, ABC News is reporting that he used numerous names, e-mails, to get onto jihadist Web sites and had contact with other jihadists even in Europe outside of this one radical imam in Yemen that we’ve reported on.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Look, this is the kind of evidence you’d expect from someone who was reported at the time of the shooting to have been shouting out "Allah Akbar," which is the battle cry of jihadism. I mean, this is not a surprise. The amazing part is in the business card. Here’s a man whose entire adult life essentially, or professional life has been spent in the U.S. Army. This is a business card. There’s no mention whatsoever of the U.S. Army, but he says himself, in the business card – imagine, it is a card. It is not just something in his head. It’s something he presumably wants to hand out, "Soldier of Allah." I mean, if that’s not slam-dunk evidence of what he thought of himself, then nothing is.

This, remember, comes after days and days of the media trying to avoid any implication that there was any connection between his Islamist beliefs, which many of which he expressed to colleagues and in lectures, and his actions. I mean, what we heard about was secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a disorder which incidentally doesn't exist. If you look in the DSM IV, which is the current statistical manual of the American Psychiatric Association, it isn't in there.

And those who do believe it exists have a synonym, "compassion fatigue." Imagine. What we're say, something this is a guy who killed 13 people cruelly. He pursued the wounded to finish them off. And the cause, excess of sentiment and compassion. If we can't speak clearly in moral terms about this kind of absolute evil, then we are in trouble.

BAIER: Mort?

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: You know, with all due respect to Secretary Napolitano, the number one issue here is not to bring this guy to justice. The number one issue here is to find out, and even the President said that they're going to conduct an extensive investigation and so is Joe Lieberman on the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate, of why weren't the dots connected here?

I mean, his colleagues at Walter Reed knew that he was uttering this wild jihadist stuff, that he was also, by the way, incompetent and belligerent. We had evidence -- the NSA undoubtedly had intercepts of his contacts with various jihadists. And there was even a Defense Department analyst who tracked all this stuff, his connections with Al Alwaki. So why wasn't something done?

I mean, 100 years ago when I was in the Army Counterintelligence Corps, there was a category of people called "disaffected," and we conducted security investigations on these people. This guy was totally disaffected and blatantly disaffected, and why he wasn't closely monitored is the question.

BAIER: Bill?

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: I guess parts of the Army are not on war footing, they’re on diversity footing here at home, maybe especially in the medical services profession, especially not on the front lines.

I was very struck also by Janet Napolitano's comment. I hadn’t read it before. To see her say that, that the number one priority is bringing him to justice is such a knee-jerk comment and such a stupid comment. He’s going to be brought to justice. He’s not going to be innocent of murder. [STARTS LAUGHING] They’ve got a lot of eyewitnesses to that. They should just go ahead and convict him and put him to death.

But Mort is absolutely right. The number one, if you’re the head of Homeland Security, shouldn't you say the number one priority is figuring out what went wrong? This is what is most disturbing about this. What is disturbing is that it happened, and there were huge failures, I think, within the Army and the intelligence community connecting the dots. We know that. This Al Alwaki, the cleric, he's not just a radical cleric. He’s an Al Qaeda cleric. And that connection alone is just a huge alarm bell that should have gone off.

But what has happened since the killing, that’s what, in a way, has me most upset. The FBI director says, oh, right away, no terrorist connections without thinking really about a terrorist connection. Then they had these business cards, presumably, with these "Soldier of Allah," "Slave of Allah," I guess it is, acronym on it, General Casey goes on TV, the Army chief of staff, Sunday, diversity can't be a casualty of this. And now we have the Homeland Security Secretary saying, well, we have to bring people to justice. Are we still not going to be serious about dealing with jihadists in the U.S., in the Army who are killing soldiers at a base here in the United States?

BAIER: So is there a point where this evidence adds up and it’s a tipping point and somebody starts talking about terrorism?

KRISTOL: Yeah, I think so.

BAIER: From the administration, not from, you know, the commentators or the news people, but from the administration?

KRISTOL: And we don't know everything yet. I mean, there were multiple e-mail accounts, some which seem to have been disguised. He had a shredder in his apartment which shredded stuff and it apparently was emptied out before people got there. That's why they're searching through these garbage cans and dumps, you know, elsewhere in Killeen near fort hood. I mean, we don't know what the terror connections were. At best, he’s a lone, you know, a lone terrorist with connections with jihadists, which is itself a huge problem. At worst, there actually were much more serious connections with people abroad and elsewhere in the U.S.

BAIER: Charles?

KRAUTHAMMER: I think it’s worse if he acted alone, because if there are connections, then  you have people, sort of agents of those abroad. We have been rather good since 9/11 at having prevented outsiders from infiltrating, but the idea of somebody who grows up here and who, on his own, becomes a jihadist with the sort of spiritual or intellectual influence of outsiders. He’s not a directive, he’s not hired he’s not owned.

He’s not an agent but he acts as a self-agent on behalf of jihadism, that is harder to find, and it’s harder to go after because, as happened at Walter Reed, people will be worried about if you questioned this guy, and it was a question among all the psychiatrists, is he a nut, is he a terrorist? They didn't want to raise it. Why? Because you would be accused of prejudiced against him on the account of religion.

KONDRACKE: There’s a, you know, the STRATFOR, which is a private intelligence gathering operation, had an e-mail that got sent out about another Yemeni terrorist, the guy who’s in charge of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula sent out worldwide this e-mail saying, you know, you don't have to knock down buildings, you don't have to stage spectaculars, you can engage in small attacks with knives, guns, whatever, on soft targets. And for all we know, you know, this was inspired by that.

KRISTOL: Al Alwaki was a big hero to the people who wanted to kill the soldiers at Fort Dix two or three years ago. They found all of his sermons preserved on the computers of those people. This guy, the idea, it’s one thing I agree there’s a terrible problem with self-starting jihadists who read something who get inspired and do things. He was in touch with Al Alwaki should have been such an unbelievable alarm bell, that that didn’t go off is worrisome. And then afterwards, that half the U.S. government seems to be saying, well, let's not be alarmed even though we now know that that's the case is even more worrisome.

The Culture & Media Institute’s report on network coverage of Major Nidal Hasan and the Ft. Hood murders continues to gain media attention. On Nov. 14, Fox’s “News Watch” program led off with CMI’s findings.

“The Culture & Media Institute noticed something about the news coverage,” said host John Scott said of the Ft. Hood shooting. “Until President Obama spoke on Tuesday at a memorial service for the victims of the Ft. Hood attacks, 29 percent of evening news reports mentioned that Major Nical Malik Hasan was a Muslim. 93 percent of the stories ignored any terror connection. But after the president hinted at what ABC called ‘Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.”

Scott listed CMI’s other findings: 85 percent of reports didn’t mention the word “terror,” and the three broadcast networks referred to the terror connection just seven times in 48 reports.

The host then turned to syndicated columnist Cal Thomas for comment. “There’s a double standard in the media,” Thomas said. “Back in the 1980s, when the so-called ‘religious right,’ the conservative Christians came up in the political system, the media sent cameras to their churches. They stereotyped little old ladies and men driving pickup trucks. They labeled them ‘ultra-right,’ ‘extreme right,’ ‘fundamentalists’ – they didn’t care about labeling then. But now it’s hands off – no cameras in the mosques, no labeling of Islamic extremists beyond that word: a terrible double standard.

In case you missed the media coverage of the Fort Hood shooting for the last several days, let's sum up the main theme:  Nidal Malik Hasan is not a terrorist.

CNN continued that theme early Thursday morning with an interview from a profiler who claims that Hasan is nothing more than a lonely, wifeless, psychopath in the midst of a midlife crisis. 

Criminologist Pat Brown states that:

"He was simply a lone guy who had issues, problems, psychopathic behaviors that escalated to the point where he wanted to get back at society, and he took it out on his workmates like most of them do."

What does Brown base that assessment on?  During a correspondence with her (outlined in full at the end of this post), CNN's profiler of choice had very little to say about the radical Muslim ideology in the Hasan case.  You'll be amazed at what follows:

The entire basis for Brown's reluctance to call a terrorist a terrorist is in her definition of the word, which hinges on the need for someone to be part of a group to meet the guidelines.  In reading Brown's recent blog post on the matter, she defines the word terrorism as follows:

"First of all, we must define "terrorist." Under the United States Law Code: the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; the term "terrorist group" means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.  By this definition, Hasan does not even begin to qualify as a terrorist."

The first problem we have here is that the section of Law Code being quoted is U.S. Code Title 22, Ch. 38, Para. 2656f(d), which defines terminology for the Department of State's Annual Country Reports on Terrorism.  This involves an annual report that the Secretary of State is to present to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.  It is to provide detailed assessments with respect to foreign countries.  As this is not a foreign country, it is hardly apropos in this case.

Now, if we go to U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Ch. 113B, Para. 2331(5), a section actually referring to the definition of ‘domestic terrorism' as it relates to a crime, it reads:

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended-

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Check, check, and check.  Not one mention of the word ‘group'.

Despite this, Pat Brown's correspondence reveals her rationale a little further.

When asked about the CNN interview, Brown explains, ‘they have an expert on the show and they are discussing what they can determine as far as the facts that are released. News is always about commentary on what is known'.

However, when confronted with some recently discovered ‘knowns', Brown had very little to say.  In fact, the only answer she seemed willing to give, was ‘no.'

In one of the questions, it was asked whether or not one has to physically be part of a group in order to be considered a terrorist.  The question was posed as follows:

"... isn't this pretty much ignoring what I have laid out below?  A terrorist doesn't need to be part of a larger group to commit terrorism.  The association with the radical imam Anwar Awlaki, the monetary transactions to Pakistan, the discussions with his peers about Islam, the postings which justify suicide bombings, the shouting of 'Allahu Akbar!' - these are all things that can't be ignored.  The disconnect appears to be that you're thinking a terrorist should be part of a group, but doesn't being part of a radical ideology make him, by extension, part of a group?"

Brown's response was simply, ‘no'.

Here are the questions that had been laid out which were referenced in the above dialogue:

"Can there be no individual terrorist acts?"

 "Could he not have been acting individually, but with a group mindset, as if he felt he was doing this on behalf of a group cause?"

 "Wouldn't being in touch with Anwar Awlaki possibly inspire him to commit this act on behalf of a group, maybe more susceptible to this mindset if he was a loner, wouldn't that still be a terrorist attack?"

 "I believe the plotters in the Fort Dix attack were not (directly) associated with a group, but were also in touch with the inflammatory Awlaki.  Would that have been a terrorist attack if it was pulled off?"

 "Also, would your assessment of Hasan be changed if he had killed 13 people via a suicide bombing rather than a gun?"

 "And, does the possibility that he had wired money to Pakistan change your profile?"

 "What of his business card containing the acronym SoA (Soldier of Allah)?"

The answer:  Simply, "no."

So, CNN has furthered their ‘he's not a terrorist' agenda by interviewing a criminal profiler who confuses law code definitions, and even using the wrong definition, fails to support her arguments by willfully ignoring several known elements in the story.  Seems a bit reckless.

Reckless, of course, is a term which has been used to describe Pat Brown in the past.  An article from the American Journalism Review in December, 2002, criticizes profiling as a whole while examining the D.C. sniper case - a case similar in its elements of domestic terrorism.  In the article, Gregg McCrary, a former profiler and instructor at the FBI Academy's profiling unit says of Brown:

"To put people on who say those things is reckless of the media.  I hope something like this is a learning experience, that they'll go back and look at the people they've put on, and say, 'Are these really the best people to put on?' Go back to the people who've really done this, worked cases, been qualified to profile, maybe been qualified in court as an expert in this area. Just declaring yourself to be a profiler doesn't really make you a profiler."

Indeed, Brown had no formal police training.  She defined herself as a profiler simply based on having read ‘hundreds of psychology and forensics books, attending training seminars and working "dozens and dozens" of homicide cases.'  She is a self-taught, freelance profiler - an armchair quarterback if you will.

The profiler CNN chose to further their agenda of providing excuses for an obvious terrorist, Pat Brown, said it best herself:

"...profiling, especially, when you're doing something on TV, people are guess working... they don't have all the little the details that are there. So you get a lot of people -- just making guesses."

Brown's assessment that Nidal Hasan is not a terrorist is just plain wrong - but that's just a guess.

The entire e-mail thread in reverse chronological order reads below:

------Original Message------

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Date: Fri, Nov 13, 11:23 PM +0000

Subject: Re: Re: Hasan

Pam,

All you had to say was that you didn't want to discuss it any further and I would gladly have stopped asking you questions.  But you gave an answer, and all I wanted was clarification. 

Anyway, thank you for your help.

Rusty

----------

Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone

------Original Message------

From: Pat Brown

To: Rusty Weiss

Date: Fri, Nov 13, 5:32 PM -0500

Subject: Re: Re: Hasan

Rusty, you refuse to read what I said and are simply being argumentative and you are now harrassing me. The conversation is over.

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 5:15 PM

Subject: FWD: Re: Hasan

Pam,

Am I to assume the answer to each of the questions I posed was 'no'?

Rusty

----------

Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone

------Original Message------

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Date: Fri, Nov 13, 4:41 PM +0000

Subject: FWD: Re: Hasan

------Original Message------

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Date: Fri, Nov 13, 1:41 PM +0000

Subject: Re: Hasan

Which question was the 'no' to?

------Original Message------

From:  Pat Brown

To: "Rusty Weiss" Date: Fri, Nov 13, 1:38 PM +0000

Subject: Re: Hasan

No

-----Original Message-----

From: "Rusty Weiss"

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:06:10

To: 'Pat Brown'

Subject: RE: Hasan

Pat,

But isn't this pretty much ignoring what I have laid out below?  A terrorist doesn't need to be part of a larger group to commit terrorism.  The association with the radical imam Anwar Awlaki, the monetary transactions to Pakistan, the discussions with his peers about Islam, the postings which justify suicide bombings, the shouting of 'Allahu Akbar!' - these are all things that can't be ignored.  The disconnect appears to be that you're thinking a terrorist should be part of a group, but doesn't being part of a radical ideology make him, by extension, part of a group.

The difference with the Unabomber was his obvious issues with industry and technology, not a religious ideology.  Hasan's motivations were of a radical Muslim terrorist nature, a faction which just so happens to have attacked our country for many decades, and an ideology which has led us to the current War on Terror.

I see your point.  I do.  I just really don't understand why a terrorist can only be called as such if he is physically part of a group.

And for the record, I've read your work and your posts, I don't find you to be unfair or beholden to anyone in particular.  I just tend to think that there are many experts who would disagree with the loner assessment, and I think CNN jumped all over your statements to further their liberal agenda.

Thanks for the time.

Rusty Weiss, NewsBusters

 

From: Pat Brown

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:09 PM

To: Rusty Weiss

Subject: Re: Hasan

The Unibomber was a serial killer even though he used bombs. It realy doesn't matter to me what ideation a psychopaths drums up in his head. We could call any murderer a terrorist. But, the point for the label is to be able to identify a planned threat by a group against our country and its people. It is to stop them from being able to carry out their plans. It is to break up their methodologies.

I am a conservative and I all for finding and doing something about terrorist cells. I happen to love being in India and it is concerning that they get attacked by terrorists on a regular basis. Most of it comes from radical Islamic groups, some fighting to get India out of Kashmir, others over Bangledesh and still others because of the LOC (Line of Control).

Occasionally, radical Hindu groups enact terrorist attacks against Muslims and mosques. I want all of them found and destroyed. I feel the same about the issue here in America. But I call it like I see it and I see nothing as of yet that Hasan worked with any group and wasn't just a disgruntled middle age psychopath.

As to CNN, yes, they lean toward a more liberal thinking. I work for all the networks and I am beholden to no one. I politcally fit FOX but I don't usually talk politics. This is as close as it gets.

I would be happy to call Hasan a terrorist if I thought he was one, but I won't call him one if I can't find the justification to do so.

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: 'Pat Brown'

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:13 PM

Subject: RE: Hasan

Pat,

I see your point, but CNN, along with the majority of the media, seem to be finding ways to excuse Hasan's actions other than terrorism.  This seems to be deliberate.

As you stated in general, 'one of the issues that is often misunderstood about profilers on television is that we are not actually doing criminal profiling'.  Would you say that is true in this case, that you were not actually doing a criminal profile?  The bottom line question is, for this particular case, were you providing the loner explanation as an opinion, or an actual profile?  If an actual profile, then I have further questions below if you have the time.  If an opinion, then because CNN is presenting this as an actual profile, then it is at the very least a questionable tactic.

Additionally, my other questions remain:

In reading your blog posting, it seems that you're basing the individual loner assessment mainly on the fact that Hasan was not part of a terrorist group.  Can there be no individual terrorist acts?  Could he not have been acting individually, but with a group mindset, as if he felt he was doing this on behalf of a group cause?  Being in touch with Anwar Awlaki would possibly inspire him to commit this act on behalf of a group, maybe more susceptible to this mindset because he was a loner, wouldn't that still be a terrorist attack?

I believe the plotters in the Fort Dix attack were also not associated with a group, but were also in touch with the inflammatory Awlaki.  Would this have been a terrorist attack if it was pulled off?

Also, would your assessment of Hasan be changed if he had killed 13 people via a suicide bombing rather than a gun?  And, does the possibility that he had wired money to Pakistan change your profile?  What of his business card containing the acronym SoA (Soldier of Allah)?

Anyway, I appreciate your time and consideration.  You've been very helpful.

Rusty

 

From: Pat Brown

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:54 PM

To: Rusty Weiss

Subject: Re: Hasan

No Rusty, I think you are misreading what I said. I was talking about unsolved cases in the news where it is asked, in general, what might have happened and what kind of person might have committed the crime. I talk about the possibilities based on what we all know at the point. If there is a lot of information, then one can do a fairly good analysis.

CNN is not being disingenous. They have an expert on the show and they are discussing what they can determine as far as the facts that are released.  News is always about commentary on what is known: it is silly to think that we can comment on what isn't known or that we should never comment until every known fact on earth has been discovered. This level of evidential information is for the courts and even then facts may be missing because evidence has been damaged, lost, never found, or witnesses are incorrect. We do with what we have.

All I was saying is that I am not giving a full crime analysis in the sense of what I would do with a police department. I am discussing what we know at that point in time and it is not at the level of testifying in court.

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:22 PM

Subject: Hasan

Thanks for getting back to me Pat.

In that case, would you say CNN is really misconstruing your services for this particular report?  That they should have been presenting you as more of a commentator here as opposed to your comments being actual profiling work?

Because, based on what you're saying, it almost seems that CNN is using your job title to further portray this man as anything but a terrorist.  That this is your surface opinion, not a real profile.

Also, you stated that when you do 'real profiling,' you 'have access to all the evidence and time to spend analyzing it.'  Does this mean your assessment in the CNN piece is without the assistance of all the evidence, and with little time committed?

It would seem a little underhanded for CNN to present this as a profile, if you're telling me that it is nothing more than a quick opinion.  I think that is a disservice to your work quite frankly.

Please advise.  I am a writer for NewsBusters and would like to discuss this further.  Do you mind the questions?  Thanks!

Rusty

>>> Pat Brown 11/12/2009 2:19 PM >>>

Yes, Rusty, that would be me. One of the issue that is often misunderstood about profilers on television is that we are not actually doing criminal profiling. We are giving commentary and general concepts of behaviors. When I do real profiling, I have access to all the evidence and time to spend analyzing it.

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:29 PM

Subject: Re: Criminologist Pat Brown

Pat,

I thank you very much for the clarification.  I hadn't actually come across that in my research of the sniper case.  In fact, the coverage I had seen regarding your work with the sniper case lies in this article:

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2723

They're referring to you in that one?

One question I have for you, if you have the time is, in reading your blog posting, it seems that you're basing the individual loner assessment mainly on the fact that Hasan was not part of a terrorist group.  Can there be no individual terrorist acts?  Could he not have been acting individually, but with a group mindset, as if he felt he was doing this on behalf of a group cause?  Being in touch with Anwar Awlaki would possibly inspire him to commit this act on behalf of a group, maybe more susceptible to this mindset because he was a loner, wouldn't that still be a terrorist attack?

I believe the plotters in the Fort Dix attack were also not associated with a group, but were also in touch with the inflammatory Awlaki.  Would this have been a terrorist attack if it was pulled off?

Also, would your assessment of Hasan be changed if he had killed 13 people via a suicide bombing rather than a gun?

Okay, so that was much more than one question.

Anyway, I appreciate your time and consideration.  You've been very helpful.

Rusty Weiss

>>> Pat Brown 11/12/2009 11:53 AM >>>

Yes, I am the female even though the article does refer to me as a "he." For a more complete view of what I actually think on the labeling of the Fort Hood sniper, read my article at http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

BTW, in the article on the sniper, they reported incorrectly that I said the snipers were white. The one who said that was the retired female FBI criminal profiler. I have been on the forefront for years trying to knock down the foolish concept that all serial killers are white (and Antony Sowell proves this yet again that there are many black serial killers out there).

Warm regards,

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Cc:

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:35 AM

Subject: Criminologist Pat Brown

Good Morning,

I had asked this question of CNN, but haven't heard back yet.  Are they referring to you in the Profile of the Fort Hood suspect?  Thanks for your help!

Rusty Weiss

Speaking to the defense attorney for Ft. Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked: “Do you think – and this is not from a scientific or even legal standpoint, but just as you’ve been able to speak with him, do you think he’s competent to stand trial?”

In his first question to Hasan’s attorney, retired Army Colonel John Galligan, Smith wondered: “First things first, you met with Hasan at some point yesterday. Is he coherent?” Galligan replied: “He’s coherent.” He then lamented: “I learned from, actually members of the media, that apparently he was going to be charged yesterday. I was surprised by that and I was saddened by the manner in which it occurred, because I – I received belated notice.”

Smith seized upon that statement: “How unusual is it for a case as important as this one is, for the suspect to be charged with a crime and for his attorney not to be present?” Galligan admitted: “Well, there’s no legal requirement that I have been present when the charges are preferred, under the manual.” He then added: “I was extremely upset to learn that they were going about this important step in the pre-trial procedural process without formally notifying me....my first five minutes with the client were spent almost apologizing for the manner in which it went down.”

After Smith questioned Hasan’s competence, Galligan explained: “...he understands who I am, we can talk, he knows what time it is. But, again, I was only there for an hour and could I tell at the end of that one hour session I was kind of pushing the limits in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me. His medical condition is extremely serious.”

Smith first spoke with Galligan on Tuesday, and was similarly concerned with Hasan’s mental state: “Is he coherent?....Does he know what he is alleged to have done?” At that time Smith also asked Galligan: “You said yesterday you don’t think the Major can get a fair trial. Why not?” Galligan replied: “Well, I don’t know if I said that he can’t get a fair – I – I think that would be difficult to achieve at Ft. Hood given the – the national media attention that’s been focused on the Ft. Hood community.”

Smith went so far as to cite a terrorist who praised Hasan’s actions:

Right. The – the military feels like the Major acted alone, that’s why this is going to be a military trial. Yet at the same time, he – we know now that he has exchanged these many messages with this radical cleric named Anwar Al-Awlaki. Awlaki said over the last couple of days, he called Major Hasan a hero: "He’s a man of conscious who could not bear living a contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an Army that is fighting against his own people." Are you satisfied that Major Hasan acted by himself?

Smith later suggested a possible legal strategy to Galligan: “Is it possible the government failed to defuse a ticking time bomb and might that end up being part of your defense?”

Here is a full transcript of the Friday segment:

7:07AM

HARRY SMITH: One week after the Ft. Hood massacre, the suspect, Major Nidal Hasan, has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder as he lay in his hospital bed. Joining us from Ft. Hood, Texas is Colonel John Galligan, a retired Army officer who is Hasan’s civilian attorney. Good morning, Colonel.

GALLIGAN: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Facing the Death Penalty; Hasan’s Atty. Speaks Out On Murder Charges]  

SMITH: First things first, you met with Hasan at some point yesterday. Is he coherent?

JOHN GALLIGAN: He’s coherent and I – you’re correct, I did meet with him. I was totally surprised to learn that there was going to be a major press release or a meeting with the disclosure by PAO officials. When I queried about that, I wasn’t too sure what time it was going to occur, what it was going to be about. But I learned from, actually members of the media, that apparently he was going to be charged yesterday. I was surprised by that and I was saddened by the manner in which it occurred, because I – I received belated notice.

SMITH: Here’s the important question. How unusual is it for a case as important as this one is, for the suspect to be charged with a crime and for his attorney not to be present?

GALLIGAN: Well, there’s no legal requirement that I have been present when the charges are preferred, under the manual. However, given, as you’ve noted, the high profile nature of the case, given his location and status, still in an ICU unit, and described by me, based on the last time I saw him, in a medical condition that I would describe as guarded, I was extremely upset to learn that they were going about this important step in the pre-trial procedural process without formally notifying me. And by that I mean ensuring that I knew that it was going to be done, coordinating it in advance. That would have permitted me to be down there. In all honesty, my first five
minutes with the client were spent almost apologizing for the manner in which it went down.

SMITH: Right, let me-

GALLIGAN: This that wasn’t, I don’t think, my responsibility, but that’s what happened.

SMITH: Right. Let me ask you this. Now that you’ve had the opportunity to speak with him a couple of times, do you think – and this is not from a scientific or even legal standpoint, but just as you’ve been able to speak with him, do you think he’s competent to stand trial?

GALLIGAN: Well, his competence, and that is not mental responsibility or culpability for any charged offenses, but his competence, his ability to relate with me, he understands who I am, we can talk, he knows what time it is. But, again, I was only there for an hour and could I tell at the end of that one hour session I was kind of pushing the limits in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me. His medical condition is extremely serious.

SMITH: Colonel Galligan, thank you very much for your time this morning.

GALLIGAN: You’re welcome, sir. Thank you.

SMITH: You bet.

Back in June, liberal columnists at the New York Times lined up to link conservative talkers Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh to James von Brunn, the 88-year-old man who killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, and the murder by Scott Roeder of abortionist George Tiller.

Columnists Paul Krugman and Judith Warner both weighed in on June 12.

Krugman’s “The Big Hate” blamed Fox host Bill O’Reilly’s rhetoric (“Tiller the baby killer”) for the Tiller murder, as well as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, for contributing to the dangerously toxic atmosphere.

Warner’s online entry, “The Wages of Hate,” read: “You can't accuse Beck or Limbaugh of inciting violence. But they almost certainly do stoke the flames.”

Frank Rich also blamed O’Reilly for the Tiller murder in his Sunday column, "The Obama Hater's Silent Enablers," two days later.

Bob Herbert came in late, on June 20, referring to the killings as “right-wing, hate-driven attacks” and also blaming “over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association.”

So how did these professional hand-wringers treat another incident of violence, this one even more tragic: A mass killing of 13 people, many of them soldiers, at Fort Hood in Texas by a Muslim Army major shouting “God is great” in Arabic?

They’ve ignored it.

As of November 13, eight days after the Fort Hood murders, neither Rich, Krugman, or Warner have mentioned the massacre, much less Hasan’s radical Islamic beliefs. Only Bob Herbert devoted two sentences to Hasan on Saturday, using the killings as a leaping-off point to talk about post-traumatic stress suffered by veterans home from Iraq and Afghanistan (even though Hasan hasn’t even seen combat).

It's one thing to avoid the "terrorist" label when reporting on Ft. Hood suspect Major Nidal Hasan. It's quite another to say that those who do use it are making a political calculation to "paint the Democrats as soft terror." Yet that's what MSNBC's Rachel Maddow insisted on her Nov. 11 broadcast.

Maddow launched into a minute-and-a-half soliloquy on why it is bad for the Democratic Party when commentators label Hasan a "terrorist." She even attempted to make the case on Hasan's behalf against a terrorism label. Who needs a legal team when you have friends like Maddow and Chris Matthews, who fretted over the legality of Hasan's al Qaeda communications?

"Remember this one? Yes, it is the old ‘paint the Democrats as soft on terror' routine," Maddow said. "But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democratic greatest hits, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Now, regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it's worth asking was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer."

Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and, according to Maddow, because those charges don't indicate terrorism, the terrorism characterization should be avoided.

"And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism," Maddow said. "Terrorism is not just conceptual political jargon. It's a legal term and it has interestingly changed over the past few years. In order for something to be legally considered terrorism, do you have to be taking instructions from a terrorist group? Do you have to have some sort of clear political motive behind the violence? Is it about the way that you commit the crime, what sort of weapons that you use in doing? Is it about how many people that you kill in your crime? Is it about the specific type of people you target, whether they're civilian or military?"

However, as Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command, explained, these charges are not set in stone and could change, which could altogether ruin Maddow's argument against branding Hasan a terrorist. But that wasn't stopping Maddow from sanctimoniously contending that using the word terrorism is nothing more than a strategic political maneuver and that it is an indictment of those making them, not the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding 29.

"If you're interested in more than just making political hay out of the Fort Hood case, these are the sort of legitimate questions you would want to ask before labeling this or any case an instance of terrorism," Maddow said. "Those who are calling this terrorism or making their case in large part because Maj. Hasan is a Muslim and because he's alleged to have said ‘God is great' before the shootings. And while it might make for exciting politics to argue murders by committed religious Muslims are presumptively terrorist acts, those exciting political allegations actually say a lot more about the people making them than they do about the real character of the tragedy at Fort Hood and how we, as a country, should respond to it."

In a piece on Nov. 11 called “False Dichotomies,” Newsweek religion writer Lisa Miller advanced a very sensible argument regarding the Ft. Hood gunman. “The question about Nidal Hasan isn't whether he's a mental-health victim or a terrorist. He has shades of both, so let's not reduce him to a caricature.” Putting it another way, Millar quoted Georgetown professor Bruce Hoffman: “Just because somebody may be mentally unstable doesn't mean this isn't an act of terrorism.”

Given the incomplete and contradictory reports about Hasan’s activities and statements before the shooting, that seems wise. But rather than leave it at that, Miller ended up reinforcing aspects of the politically correct approach to issues of Islam and terror, and blaming Americans to boot.

Miller cited New York Times’ David Brooks in particular, and partially agreeing with those on the right that complain of the media’s politically correct desire to explain away Hasan as just a lone psycho (or even better: a psychological victim of Bush’s wars).

“Major Hasan may suffer from loneliness, isolation, PTSD, and a terror of being deployed overseas. He may, indeed, be mentally ill,” Miller wrote. “But he was also allegedly exchanging e-mail with Anwar al Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric whose rhetoric urges Muslims to see terrorism as a selfless and righteous act for the greater good of the global Muslim community.”

So far so good. But then Miller unveils the other side of the “dichotomy.”

The number of moderate Muslim clerics and organizations who immediately and publicly condemned the violence at Fort Hood is notable. The Council on American-Islamic Relations; Egypt's Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa; the African Council of Imams in America – all these (and more) issued statements in sympathy with the victims' families, condemning such bloodshed as un-Islamic. This is a massive cultural change from just eight years ago, when everyone was asking "Where are the moderate Muslim voices?" Here David Brooks's critique – that we're glossing over serious threats just so we can play nice – falls short. For Muslims to oppose other Muslims in the name of peace is more than PC lip service.

That could be. Or it could be that those groups learned something about PR in the intervening eight years. But let’s say Miller’s right. We are then supposed to applaud those groups for having a civilized and civically acceptable reaction to mass murder. That sounds like what George W. Bush called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Miller’s special pleading continued as she argued that it’s not easy being a Muslim in America (50 percent of them say it’s “more difficult” since 9-11). She cited polls saying 60 percent of Americans believe there is “a lot of discrimination” against Muslims, and that 38 percent say that Islam is a violent religion, “a more than 10-point increase since 2002,” Miller noted. 

The only surprising thing is that that increase isn’t more than 10 points. In 2002, Americans were still trying to get their arms around 9-11. The concept of suicide bombing was new; Bali, London, Madrid and all the rest hadn’t happened yet. With the limited, though horrific, experience of 9-11 (and the USS Cole, and the Khobar Towers, and the embassy bombings, and … ) Americans were still willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Strangely, that’s not how Miller remembers it. The alternative to willful PC blindness about Hasan, she said, is “a reversion to the early days after 9/11, when every brown-skinned man in a skullcap was a terrorist suspect.”

Well then, that is a “false dichotomy,” because that characterization of America post-9-11 is abjectly false.

On Nov. 12, Bill O’Reilly led off “The O’Reilly Factor” by framing his “Talking Points” segment around a report from the Culture & Media Institute on the biased network coverage of the Ft. Hood Massacre.

“A new study, by the Culture and Media Institute, a conservative group, says the following: 85 percent of network evening news stories on Ft. Hood did not mention the word ‘terror,’ O’Reilly said. “In fact, in 48 reports, ABC, CBS and NBC referenced terrorism just seven times. Only 29 percent of the evening news reports even mentioned Major Hasan was a Muslim. Unbelievable. Of those mentions, 50 percent defended Islam. And before the president’s speech at Ft. Hood, 93 percent of the network evening news stories ignored any discussion about a terror connection. But after the president said that extremist views were involved, all three networks began to report a possible connection.”

“So you can see that apparently the American media’s still under the sway of the White House,” O’Reilly concluded, “and not accurately portraying things as they really are.”

CMI studied the evening news reporting of the three networks from Nov. 5, the day of the shooting, to Nov. 10, the day of the memorial service at which President Obama made what ABC’s Jake Tapper called “wa tacit acknowledgment of the Islamic extremist views investigators say were held by [Hasan].”

Time magazine appears to be throwing caution to the political correctness wind by placing a picture on the cover of its soon to to be released November 23 issue with the word "Terrorist" written across the face of alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.

Straddling the fence slightly, the magazine chose to put a question mark after the word.

Even so, given media's discomfort portraying Hasan as anything more than an overwrought, over-worked soldier petrified of heading to Afghanistan, Time's "The Fort Hood Killer: Terrified ... or Terrorist?" was so uncharacteristicly un-PC you could almost call it a Mac.

Just count the references to Islamic extremism in the first paragraph alone:

What a surprise it must have been when Major Nidal Malik Hasan woke up from his coma to find himself not in paradise but in Brooke Army Medical Center, deep in the heart of Texas, under security so tight that there were armed guards patrolling both the intensive-care unit and checkpoints at the nearest freeway off-ramp. This was not the finalé he had scripted when he gave away all his earthly goods — his desk lamp and air mattress, his frozen broccoli and spinach, his copies of the Koran. He had told his imam he was planning to visit his parents before deploying to Afghanistan. He did not mention that his parents had been dead for nearly 10 years.

For eight years, Americans have waged a Global War on Terrorism even as they argued about what that meant. The massacre at Fort Hood was, depending on whom you believed, yet another horrific workplace shooting by a nutcase who suddenly snapped, or it was an intimate act of war, a plot that can't be foiled because it is hatched inside a fanatic's head and leaves no trail until it is left in blood. In their first response, officials betrayed an eagerness to assume it was the first; the more we learn, the more we have cause to fear it was the second, a new battlefield where our old weapons don't work very well and our values make us vulnerable: freedom, privacy, tolerance and the stubborn American certainty that people born and raised here will not reject the gifts we share.

Former President Bill Clinton was in Chicago yesterday, speaking at a fundraiser on the subject of the current health insurance overhaul.

Somehow, some way, Clinton wound up talking about ethnic diversity, the Fort Hood murders, and – most bizarrely – the AMC network’s “Mad Men.”

Clinton began his descent with the following, quoted from Lynn Sweet’s Chicago Sun-Times blog:

Clinton mentioned the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, and tried to tie it into a broader discussion about people of the world respecting each other's differences as he says he sees in Chicago.

"You have people from more than 150 different ethnic and racial groups," Clinton said. "Think about what sparked the tragedy at Fort Hood. Some of the most moving things I have read since the Fort Hood tragedy have been the comments of our Muslim veterans who were horrified by what happened and feel no one will ever trust them again."

I could write reams on the fallacies shot through that last statement.

What does this have to do with the currently proposed health insurance overhaul?  Nothing that I know of, but that’s the beauty of a Bill Clinton speech – sometimes the “cavernous narcissism” takes over, and there’s no telling what you’ll get.

Which is where AMC’s perennial Emmy-winning series ‘Mad Men’ makes its entrance:

Clinton looked out at the diverse crowd and said it was different than a crowd of white men that might be seen on the TV show "Mad Men."

"You ever watch that TV series 'Mad Men?' " Clinton asked. "If I keep watching this program, will I ever find a happy person? Great television. Good drama. But a lot of really painful reminders in that show about how black people were supposed to run the elevators... were supposed to ask permission before they get on an elevator. The way women were treated is appalling, and only occasionally funny to me."

It’s true – Mad Men has an all too-accurate portrayal of how minorities were demeaned in the 1960s.  And it’s also true that women were treated in a way that was appalling by most present-day standards.

But of all the people to point out the bad treatment of women in the 1960s, is Bill Clinton really the right messenger?  And does Lynn Sweet miss the tremendous irony, if this were a conservative?  Let’s face it: Bill Clinton’s Oval Office could have been the basis for any number of the episodes of Mad Men’s misogyny.

Which still has nothing at all to do with health insurance or the proposed overhaul – but has a lot to do with Bill Clinton.

Richard Esposito, Mary-Rose Abraham and Rhonda Schwartz of ABC's "The Blotter" have a fresh post up on ABCNews.com about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's ties to jihadi groups. It's a fascinating read.

Esposito and his colleagues report that:

• Hasan printed personal business cards emblazoned with "SoA(SWT)" which stands for: "Soldier of Allah: Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala [Glory to God].
• "On Hasan's official Army personnel record, obtained by ABCNews.com., Hasan lists his e-mail address using the first name of Abduwall, instead of Nidal. Abduwalli, in Arabic, means "slave of" the great protector, or God"
• "U.S. officials and analysts told ABCNews.com today that Hasan used multiple e-mail addresses and screen names as he contacted several jihadist web sites around the world."

The bottom line?:

"He was making no secret of allegiances," said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant. 

Here is the latest episode of NewsBusters’ Notables Quotables show, featuring the liberal media’s most outrageous sound bites.

In this week’s episode we have Chris Matthews wondering what’s wrong with a quick phone call to terrorists, Matt Lauer worried about America getting a big head, and Actor Scott Wolf revealing the inspiration behind his role as a sell-out journalist in a new TV series.

Enjoy the show and to see current and past episodes in a larger format, visit the ‘Notable Quotables Show’ channel on the Media Research Center’s video sharing website, Eyeblast.

 

 

Since Friday's massacre at Fort Hood, NewsBusters has been covering the efforts of several news outlets, including the New York Times, to warn of Muslim persecution in America.

This is quite a departure from the treatment offered other religious groups by the Times, particularly the paper's disgraceful coverage of Mormon persecution at the hands of rabid protestors in California.

Back on November 4, 2008, when gay marriage was outlawed for the second time by popular vote in the Golden State, angry protestors stormed the streets. Word quickly spread that Mormons had played a big role in getting the ban to pass prompting gay activists to attack Mormon citizens in fits of rage.

Unlike now, the Times wasn't worried about protecting a religious group from an angry backlash. Quite the contrary, when rumors of the Mormon influence on the proposition grew, the Times was more than willing to actively build the case against them.

On November 15 of that year, the paper used prominent space on its front page to print a hit piece titled "Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage." In the middle of a literal culture war on the streets of California, the Times thought it wise to convince gays and lesbians angered by the proposition's passage that Mormons were single-handedly responsible:

As proponents of same-sex marriage across the country planned protests on Saturday against the ban, interviews with the main forces behind the ballot measure showed how close its backers believe it came to defeat - and the extraordinary role Mormons played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers.

Nowhere in the article did the Times worry that promoting a national blame game might provoke a witch hunt against innocent Mormons. Not even close, for in a painstaking account that lasted more than 1500 words, reporters Jesse McKinley and Kirk Johnson waited until the very end to mention that angry protests had been happening at all:

That said, the extent of the protests has taken many Mormons by surprise. On Friday, the church's leadership took the unusual step of issuing a statement calling for "respect" and "civility" in the aftermath of the vote.

The Times felt no need to explain who was behind the protests or to offer any statement from a gay activist in agreement on stopping the violence. After a thousand words spent laying Prop 8 directly at the feet of the LDS church, an obligatory call for peace was tacked onto the end.

Thankfully, some newspapers were honest enough to cover the entire situation.

To the credit of the Washington Post, reporter Ashley Surdin did an excellent job of reporting what the Times would not about the violence in California:

Protests and vandalism of churches, boycotts of businesses and possibly related mailings of envelopes filled wit white powder have followed the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.

In Sacramento, a high-profile theatre director resigned from his job of 25 years after a boycott threat over his $1000 donation in support of the measure. In Los Angeles, a Mexican restaurant owner, a Mormon who donated $100, was reduced to tears and left town after hundreds of protestors confronted her at work, by phone and on the Internet.

No wonder Mormons were so surprised by the "extent of the protests" launched against them. Since the Post article was published on the same day as the Times piece, there was no excuse for the Times to play dumb about the violence.

Persecution of Mormons eventually spilled out of California and appeared in other states as gay activists stepped up their efforts. The Denver Post reported on November 12, 2008, that a local church found a copy of the Book of Mormon set on fire and laid on the front steps. Mormon individuals across the western states were also harassed:

Over the weekend across the Wasatch Front in Utah, windows at several LDS ward houses were shattered by rock throwing and BB-gun shooting protestors. The property crimes in Utah are being investigated.

Vandalism, harassment, sacrilegious actions, and private citizens being publicly branded in an epidemic that stretched over multiple states was the "extent of the protests" that the Times glossed over in its coverage.

The paper eventually got around to covering the story again, but still had no sympathy for Mormons hiding in their homes for fear of being pelted with rocks.

On December 10 reporter Jesse McKinley returned to Sacramento for an update on the protests. Instead of condemning the ongoing chaos, the Times actually lavished praise on gay activists for being more forceful:

Many grass-roots leaders say the emergence of new faces, and acceptance of tactics that are more confrontational, amount to an implicit rejection of the measured approach of established gay rights groups, a course that, some gay men and lesbians maintain, allowed passage of the ban, Proposition 8...

The new activists have impressed some gay rights veterans.

The article oozed with excitement about gay activists having "a sudden burst of energy" and "impatience with the status quo." This time, not one single word was spoken about violence. No critics were quoted or even mentioned, and McKinley felt no need to suggest that the activists should let the will of Californians be recognized.

Perhaps if Major Nidal Malik Hasan's worst crime almost exactly one year later had been voting for Proposition 8, the Times would have been more outraged about his religious convictions. Instead, Hasan shot 13 innocent people on an Army base in Texas.

When faced with evidence that Hasan's motives had sprung from fundamental Islam, the Times got right to work blaming it on everything else.

NewsBuster Matthew Balan reported on Monday that the paper refused to admit Hasan's religious beliefs had anything to do with the massacre. Instead, an explanation could be found in the fact that he'd allegedly been teased by his colleagues:

He had been the subject of taunts and felt singled out by his fellow soldiers for being Muslim, friends and relatives said. His uncle in Ramallah, West Bank, Rafik Hamad, said Major Hasan's fellow soldiers had once called him a "camel jockey."

The paper went on to insist that such taunting was common in the military. Now the challenge was not to prevent another Hasan from going crazy, but to assure that no more innocent Muslims would be affected by public anger:

In the aftermath of the shootings at Fort Hood on Thursday by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan of the Army, a psychiatrist, many Muslim soldiers and their commanders say they fear that the relationship between the military and its Muslim service members will only grow more difficult.

Mormons in California and Utah would have loved for someone from the Times to care about their "difficult" plight one year ago. Window smashing and book burning were arguably more disturbing than the juvenile names allegedly hurled against Major Hasan, but Mormons took the high ground and never resorted to violence in revenge.

Even so, the Times kept on portraying them as bigots and defending the anger spewed against them.

While the Times continues to print sensational claims of American Muslims being ostracized, Mormons are still waiting for the paper to admit to documented proof of violent persecution carried out against another unpopular religion.

Mormons deserve the respect of someone in the media giving them credit. In the face of angry protestors, daily marches, a governor promising to fight their very votes, and a media that glamorized "confrontational" activists, Mormons somehow managed to refrain from random bouts of murder.

No thanks, however, to the New York Times.

The Radio Equalizer blog is hot on the trail of left-wing talk radio bringing out the weirdest scenarios to shift the blame for the Fort Hood shooting onto the Islamophobic prejudice of the American people. Montel Williams is really starting to fit into the ludicrous Air America radio family: he suggested on Monday that the Fort Hood backlash against Muslims could be so great we would put Muslims in internment camps like the Japanese under Franklin Roosevelt:

WILLIAMS: We pulled something like this back in World War II when we decided to round up all Japanese Americans and put them in internment camps. This is something that I think before we can blink, the [anti-Muslim] rhetoric, Doc, could get out of hand. What do you think?

FRANK FARLEY, psychologist, Temple University: I agree totally. I mean, the possibilities of prejudice and racism and so on are incredible here. You know, we should be treating this as a unique incident and look at the factors involved in this very unique and specific incident, and not overgeneralize. Unfortunately, we tend to overgeneralize all the time. The idea that all Muslims are the same is ridiculous....

Everybody’s got their own personal qualities and individual differences and let’s just treat this asa very specific incident and try to figure out why this particular person did this particular thing.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. No matter what it comes out to, at the end of the day, even if it comes out in the last five months and all his anxiety around his impending deployment, he decided his frame of reference was his religion and that was what was giving him, you know, the power within himself to make his stand, that doesn't mean that the religion is to blame.

FARLEY: Absolutely, it’s his interpretation of everything, and his interpretation [of Islam] may vary dramatically from his fellow Muslims.

Farley, a psychologist, is an all-purpose media quote machine on fear and panic and strange driving habits. It's funny how he's somehow academically qualified to agree with Montel's wildest whiplash-inducing paranoia.

What kind of rhetoric is Montel using? Shooting up a military base killing 13 people (14, counting an unborn child) is about Major Hasan finding in Islam "the power within himself to make his stand"? This is certainly not an occasion for goo-goo psychologist cliches. Montel is so afraid of a dramatic overreaction that he’s guilty of a dramatic counter-overreaction.

On Wednesday’s Situation Room, CNN’s Brian Todd actually considered that political correctness prevented earlier action against Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. Despite referencing “a senior investigative official who...said he has never heard any indication...that Hasan got any favorable treatment...before this shooting,” Todd also cited three others who were certain of the political correctness factor.

The CNN correspondent did not lead his report with any mention of the possible PC treatment the Muslim army major might have receive, a graphic on-screen hinted what was to come later in the report: “Hasan’s Contacts & Behavior Examined: ‘Political correctness’ a possible concern.”

After mentioning the investigation into Hasan’s e-mail conversations with a radical cleric in Yemen, Todd noted that “[q]uestions continue over Hasan’s behavior while in medical training and the response to that behavior, specifically presentations Hasan gave on Muslims in the military, when, according to one classmate, he was supposed to be talking about health issues. The classmate...tells CNN, despite the discomfort of others in the room, he doesn’t believe Hasan’s superiors counseled him about it, and the classmate says he believes it was because they didn’t want to alienate a Muslim soldier.”

The correspondent did try to downplay this allegation from Hasan’s classmate by stating that “while this was his strong belief, he [the classmate] didn’t provide evidence of that.” But Todd continued that “a retired military lawyer, familiar with such investigations, says political correctness does factor in these situations,” and played a sound bite from this former JAG officer.

Near the end of the report, Todd played a sound bite from former Bush advisor and CNN advisor Frances Townsend, who also was convinced that political correctness prevented any further action against Hassan. But he continued that “a senior investigative official who we spoke with said he has never heard any indication, seen any allegation that Hasan got any favorable treatment along the line any time before this shooting because of the fact that he’s Muslim.”

Despite highlighting this statement from the “senior investigative official,” and how Hassan’s classmate’s “didn’t provide evidence” of his political correctness allegation, it is definitely noteworthy that a correspondent for a mainstream media outlet was willing to consider the possibility of a PC climate towards Muslims in the army and played two clips from those who believe it exists.

The full transcript of Todd’s report, which aired 18 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour of Wednesday’s Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER: More questions about the suspect in that shooting, 39-year-old Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan.

CNN’s Brian Todd is joining us with the latest on the investigation, and it gets more complicated each day.

BRIAN TODD: It certainly does, Wolf. We’re getting more information now on what investigators say are communications from Nidal Hasan to a Yemeni cleric, and also more information about other leads being followed in this case.

TODD (voice-over): A source familiar with the investigation tells CNN, Nidal Hasan not only contacted a radical cleric in Yemen, but it’s believed he also got communications back from that cleric. Investigators say, during that time, that cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, was the subject of a federal probe, but the source says all the communications seemed innocent in nature, and says officials are following other leads- leads on connections Hasan may have had with other people who would have been of concern to investigators.

Questions continue over Hasan’s behavior while in medical training and the response to that behavior, specifically presentations Hasan gave on Muslims in the military, when, according to one classmate, he was supposed to be talking about health issues. The classmate, who witnessed one of the presentations, tells CNN, despite the discomfort of others in the room, he doesn’t believe Hasan’s superiors counseled him about it, and the classmate says he believes it was because they didn’t want to alienate a Muslim soldier. While this was his strong belief, he didn’t provide evidence of that. A retired military lawyer, familiar with such investigations, says political correctness does factor in these situations.

CAPTAIN THOMAS KENNIFF, FORMER ARMY JAG OFFICE ATTORNEY: In a post-9/11 world, there are a lot of forces in the military that may be very hesitant to give the appearance that they’re singling out Muslim soldiers, even when that individual Muslim soldier may be making statements that are looked at as very incendiary and very questionable.

TODD: A Defense Department official wouldn’t comment on that, and there’s no specific information that Hasan’s superiors didn’t address his presentations with him or that they avoided doing so because he’s Muslim.

I asked former Bush Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend, a CNN contributor, if political correctness could have inhibited investigators looking into Hasan’s communications.

FRANCES FRAGOS TOWNSEND: There is no question in my mind that investigators, when they looked at this material, understood very well that, if they decided to pursue this investigation, they’d have to justify why they were- they chose to pursue one of the few Muslim Americans inside the U.S. military, and perhaps alienate him.

TODD (on-camera): Now, a senior investigative official who we spoke with said he has never heard any indication, seen any allegation that Hasan got any favorable treatment along the line any time before this shooting because of the fact that he’s Muslim, Wolf.

Interviewing Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith cited a cause of the shooting at Ft. Hood: “...the Iraq war, the escalation in number of cases of post traumatic stress disorder...the more people go back to these fields, these theaters of war, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, it multiplies the incidence of these kinds of things occurring.”

Smith went on to ask Shinseki: “Is the Army and is the Veterans Administration really equipped to deal with this flood of a problem?” The VA secretary responded: “Veterans Affairs employs 19,000 mental health professionals to address things like PTSD and TBI and depression. And some of the other mental health issues that come up from time to time with exposing people to the high stress, high dangers associated with combat.” The shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, never served in combat nor had post traumatic stress disorder.

Smith’s initial question to Shinseki actually attempted to focus on Hasan: “As a former secretary of the Army, how disturbing is it to you that it looks like various agencies failed to connect the dots on Major Hasan?” Shinseki began by correcting Smith: “Well, first of all, I served as chief of the Army, Harry.” He then shifted away from Hasan’s radicalism to mental health issues: “What I will tell you is that Secretary Gates and I two weeks ago co-hosted something called a national mental health summit to address PTSD, TBI, and other mental health issues that we think –  it’s important for us to address at this time.”

Prior to Smith’s interview, correspondent Don Teague reported on evidence of Hasan’s Islamic extremism: “Officials say the government knew Hasan had communicated with radical Cleric Anwar Al Awlaki over the internet....And in 2007, Hasan gave a shocking presentation to colleagues at Walter Reed Medical Center. Using slides, he argued U.S. Muslim soldiers be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting against other Muslims. And another slide warned  ‘we love death more than you love life.’” Those radical comments were left out of a CBS Evening News report on Tuesday.

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Now the blame game. As President Obama pays tribute to the fallen at Ft. Hood, the governmental finger pointing begins over the missed warning signs.

JUAN ZARATE [CBS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST]: Was somebody looking at the complete picture of Dr. Hasan?

7:00AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: First, though, President Obama and thousands of others remember the shooting victims at Ft. Hood yesterday. Meanwhile, government officials are pointing fingers over who knew what and when about alleged shooter Nidal Hasan. CBS News correspondent Don Teague is in Ft. Hood with the latest on that. Good morning, Don.

DON TEAGUE: Good morning, Harry. The investigation is moving forward quickly, even as this post and the nation paused to remember the fallen. Five days after the deadly rampage on Ft. Hood that claimed the lives of 13 people, 15,000 soldiers, civilians, and family members gathered together to remember those lost.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Blame Game; As Obama Honors Fallen, Officials Snipe Over Hasan]

BARACK OBAMA: No words can fill the void that’s been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and care givers. You knew them as mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers.

TEAGUE: Who knew what, when, and finger pointing overshadows the investigation of alleged shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Officials say the government knew Hasan had communicated with radical Cleric Anwar Al Awlaki over the internet. But defense officials say no one at the Pentagon or the Army knew of the connection, even though there was a military representative participating in the joint terrorism task force review. And in 2007, Hasan gave a shocking presentation to colleagues at Walter Reed Medical Center. Using slides, he argued U.S. Muslim soldiers be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting against other Muslims. And another slide warned  ‘we love death more than you love life.’

JUAN ZARATE [CBS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST]: A major question for the Department of Defense, and the Army in particular, is was somebody looking at the complete picture of Dr. Hasan?

TEAGUE: Well, the President has ordered a thorough review to determine if the agencies involved failed to connect the dots that could’ve prevented a tragedy. Harry.

SMITH: Don Teague at Ft. Hood this morning. Thank you very much. Joining us now from Washington is Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki. General, good morning.

ERIC SHINSEKI: Good morning, Harry.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Ft. Hood Tragedy; What Could Have Been Done Differently?]

SMITH: Thanks very much for taking the time to speak with us today. First, you were at Ft. Hood with the President yesterday, can you describe what it was like there?

SHINSEKI: Well, yes, it was, as you might expect, heart wrenching, terrible tragedy, unexplainable. But I think the President did what was required yesterday. And that was to bring the community together and begin the healing.

SMITH: As a former secretary of the Army, how disturbing is it to you that it looks like various agencies failed to connect the dots on Major Hasan?

SHINSEKI: Well, first of all, I served as chief of the Army, Harry-

SMITH: Sorry.

SHINSEKI: - but I’m sure that there is – the right – the right people will look at this. What I will tell you is that Secretary Gates and I two weeks ago co-hosted something called a national mental health summit to address PTSD, TBI, and other mental health issues that we think –  it’s important for us to address at this time.

SMITH: We know from the beginning of the Iraq war, the escalation in number of cases of post traumatic stress disorder. The other fact is, is that the more people go back to these fields, these theaters of war, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, it multiplies the incidence of these kinds of things occurring.

SHINSEKI: Sure, yes.

SMITH: Is the Army and is the Veterans Administration really equipped to deal with this flood of a problem?

SHINSEKI: Well, we are working diligently to increasing our capabilities here. I will tell you that today the Veterans Affairs employs 19,000 mental health professionals to address things like PTSD and TBI and depression. And some of the other mental health issues that come up from time to time with exposing people to the high stress, high dangers associated with combat.

SMITH: And very quickly, you have an enormous bureaucracy you’re trying to wrestle to the ground and get in some sort of an order. How confident are you that you’ll be able to turn the Veterans Administration into an agency that really does fulfill its – its promise?

SHINSEKI: Well, we’re working at that very hard. We’ve been at it nine months now. First thing – first order of business was to implement a new post-9/11 G.I. bill, that’s underway. We have a large backlog of claims that has been there for years. And that’s the next priority. And we’ve begun taking that down, as well.

SMITH: Secretary Shinseki, we knew that you were the chief of staff of the Army. And we apologize for that. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us this morning. Do appreciate it, sir.

SHINSEKI: Well, Harry. Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.     

SMITH: Alright, take care.

Liberal talk-radio hosts are finding other reasons why Major Nidal Hasan would shoot up Fort Hood, other reasons than glorifying Allah. On Tuesday, Stephanie Miller suggested it could be because "George Bush made many people around the world feel like this was a war against Islam by using words like crusade."

Does this accurately reflect the words Bush routinely offered on Islam?

In the first week after September 11, Bush made an off-hand remark that "this crusade, this war against terrorism, is going to take a while." When Europe "cringed" in revulsion, Bush tried to avoid the word going forward. It was much more common for Bush to call Islam a "religion of peace."

Also high on the list, naturally following from Bush's alleged Islamophobia, is the bullying of Hasan and other Muslim soldiers: "the fact that he apparently was taunted for being Muslim because of the attitudes that developed here." Even if this was true and not just hearsay, it doesn't excuse mass murder.

Here's a fuller snippet of Miller's commentary. She quickly realizes she sounds like she's making excuses, and denies it, but then returns to saying we need to find the "real reasons" for the Fort Hood shooting, somehow outside the sphere of Major Hasan:

MILLER: This to me is a perfect storm of what we’re seeing. You know, somebody listed yesterday, there’s been a bunch of these obviously shootings at Army bases that is part of what Senator Webb has come on and talked with us about about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. How many tours these guys have had to go on you know between the two wars.

You know I think in his (Hasan) particular case since that he’s counseling these guys, hearing about the horrors of these wars he’s now going to be sent into, you know. You add to it obviously the fact that he appeared to be and again, we don’t have all the details yet, but appeared to be getting more radicalized, you know. But also you add in that look, George Bush made many people around the world feel like this was a war against Islam by using words like crusade and all of that.

And so you add to the fact that he apparently was taunted for being Muslim because of the attitudes that developed here. So, and that’s not to excuse him in any way. That’s what I keep hearing on the right is "Oh you people on the left are trying to excuse him. Oh, its politically correct." No. Nobody is saying that this is any kind of excuse at all. I think you've got to get to the real reason if you want to stop this from happening again.

Some of the mainstream media intelligentsia following the Fort Hood, Texas massacre have cautioned people to reserve judgment about the suspect Major Nidal Malik Hasan and have bypassed many key details in order to live up to what could be construed as a politically correct standard. CNN's Lou Dobbs isn't one of them.

Dobbs, on his Nov. 10 radio program, didn't reserve judgment and criticized President Barack Obama for telling people to do so in a speech following the tragic event. Dobbs played a clip from the speech Obama gave last week in which he warned, "We don't know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

"Isn't that remarkable, telling the American people not to jump to any conclusions?" Dobbs said. "Not to speculate, not to be curious about what is happening to our men and women, who should be the center of all of our attention and concern and care. Let's compare that statement by our president to what he said at the end of a press conference about health care shortly after the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates, his good friend."

In that press conference, Obama said, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."

According to Dobbs, it was just a matter of compare and contrast - the treatment Hasan got from the President versus the treatment the arresting officer in the Cambridge Police situation received.

"So, there are the two Presidents Obama," Dobbs said. "You pick which one is most palatable to you and you try to explain to me if you will how the more recent statement squares with the previous statement."

But then Dobbs showed he was clearly aggravated by Obama's double standard, especially after the casualties of the Fort Hood tragedy.

"How dare he stand up there and sanctimoniously tell the American people not to rush to judgment, to jump to conclusions," an impassioned Dobbs said. "My God - there are 13 people dead, 29 of them wounded, 29 of our troops wounded at Fort Hood and so I'm going to jump to some conclusions here because all we have are eyewitnesses and surveillance tape and that's all I've got to go on."

And Dobbs wasn't afraid to call this an act of terrorism, as so many others have shied away from doing. The CNN host said he would indeed be jumping to conclusions and encouraged others to do so as well.

"Let me tell you - this man carried out an act of terrorism against the United States of America," Dobbs declared. "Was he a troubled and dispirited and deeply conflicted person with all sorts of behavioral issues? Yes. And was the United States Army derelict in its responsibility to care for those who they put in the charge of Major Hasan? Absolutely. I'm jumping to those conclusions, Mr. President. I'm curious and I'm going to speculate just like tens of millions of other Americans. It's a healthy thing, not a bad thing. We're not in a court of law here - that will be administered by the United States Army, thank God."

Tuesday night ABC's Brian Ross highlighted how in a 2007 presentation mass-murdering Army Major Nidal Hasan exposed his radicalism and adherence to Islam over the U.S. Army as he charged “it's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,” and declared: “We love death more than you love life.”

But neither CBS nor NBC cited those quotes for their viewers as they gave short-shrift to Hasan's remarks in “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military,” a slide show disclosed by Dana Priest in Tuesday's Washington Post (click on “Launch Photo Gallery” for Hasan's entire presentation at Walter Reed in June of 2007).

On the NBC Nightly News, Pete Williams just briefly noted how Hasan asserted that “releasing Muslim soldiers as conscientious objectors would increase troop morale and, quote, 'decrease adverse events.'” Bob Orr, on CBS, at least characterized it as “a shocking presentation to colleagues,” and related only how “Hasan argued forcing Muslim soldiers to fight wars in Muslim countries puts them 'at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly' and he ominously warned of 'adverse events.'”  

ABC anchor Charles Gibson set up the Ross story: “There is interest now focused on a presentation written by Hasan two years ago that provides insights into his views about Muslims, like himself, serving in the military.”

Brian Ross reported:

The Washington Post reported today that Hasan presented this PowerPoint presentation at Walter Reed hospital in 2007, saying: “It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.” Under comments, he wrote: “We love death more than you love life.” And his conclusion was that Muslim soldiers be given the option of being released from the military, as conscientious objectors, to decrease what he called “adverse events.”

Bob Orr, on the CBS Evening News:

There were reasons to worry. Hasan received poor performance reviews at Walter Reed, frequently criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in June, 2007, Hasan gave a shocking presentation to colleagues. Using slides, Hasan argued forcing Muslim soldiers to fight wars in Muslim countries puts them “at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly” and he ominously warned of “adverse events.” Yet it's not clear that anyone inside the military had a complete picture of Hasan's growing radicalization.

Pete Williams, who spent most of his story on ties between Hasan and radical/al Qaeda imam Anwar al-Awlaki, related on the slide show at the Walter Reed Army Hospital:

Hasan formally expressed some of that criticism in a 2007 classroom presentation first obtained by the Washington Post. His conclusion: Releasing Muslim soldiers as conscientious objectors would increase troop morale and, quote, “decrease adverse events.”

As we survey the horror of the Ft. Hood massacre, it might be useful to remember that we’ve been here before, with another shooting 16 years ago. The circumstances were very different, but the reaction of the media and other elite – the excusing, the spinning, the slight regard for the victims – has been eerily similar.

On Dec. 7, 1993, aboard a crowded rush hour Long Island Railroad train from Manhattan to Hicksville, N.Y., a Jamaican immigrant named Colin Ferguson pulled a gun and began firing at fellow passengers. He killed six and wounded 19 before being subdued by three passengers.

The story of Ferguson’s trial is bizarre and tragic, played out against the backdrop of a “Bonfire of the Vanities” New York in the pre-Giuliani era. When the Nassau County commissioner quite sensibly called Ferguson “an animal,” Jesse Jackson parachuted in to condemn the comment as racist. Al Sharpton took time out from inciting arson and murder long enough to warn of a backlash against blacks.

On Dec. 13, the New York Times quoted one Doris Perkins, who, when she first heard about the crime, had hoped the shooter wouldn’t turn out to be black. “‘I figured if he was black, there was going to be hell to pay,’ said Mrs. Perkins, a black nurse from Jamaica, Queens. ‘I told my two teen-age sons to stay in the house and off the streets until this thing blows over.’”

Without apparent irony, the article went on to quote Jesse Jackson, saying, “In a sermon at the Cathedral of the Incarnation in Garden City, L.I., yesterday, Mr. Jackson warned against revenge and race-baiting as a result of the incident.”

Meanwhile, the Understand and Excuse engine kicked into high-gear. Leftist attorneys William Kunstler and Ron Kuby, who never met an America-hating psycho they wouldn’t represent, took up the case. With characteristic contempt for the criminal justice system, they invented the “black rage” defense for Ferguson.

Helped by Ferguson’s own lunatic writings uncovered after the crime, Kunstler and Kuby’s “black rage” theory argued that repeated and prolonged exposure to racism drove Ferguson to an act of violence for which he wasn’t responsible, in the same way “battered wife syndrome” exonerated women who killed their abusive husbands.

In the New York Times, Robert D. McFadden recounted Ferguson’s “tormented life” in a world of “unjust laws and universal hostility” where he “brooded over what he saw as the implacable racism of America.” Time magazine’s Anastasia Toufexis and Patrick E. Cole quoted the Ferguson’s landlord in the New York Daily News, saying, "He had the 'American Dream,' and when it fell apart, he looked to blame somebody.”

“In the end,” Toufexis and Cole wrote, “all Ferguson had left was rage.”

Fast forward 16 years. Replace Colin Ferguson with Nidal Hasan, the LIRR with the Fort Hood soldier processing center, “black” with “Muslim,” and “black rage” with “pre-traumatic stress disorder.”

Yes, “pre-traumatic stress.” As the media heroically struggled not to notice that the Ft. Hood gunman was a Muslim (after all, President Obama had warned us all not to jump to conclusions, and his FBI immediately ruled out terrorism), they cast about for ways to excuse Hasan. The war must have done it to him! Unfortunately, Hasan had never left the States. But he was a psychiatrist who had to counsel those who had been in combat. And he was set to ship out for Afghanistan.

On CBS, Bob Scheiffer said, “Sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.” Well, if you mean that this is the caliber of shrink the army is providing, you may have a point, Bob.

On NPR, Nov. 6, reporter Tom Gjelten said, “There's - almost seems to be a phenomenon that you could maybe call a pre-traumatic stress disorder.”

But eventually, the press could no longer ignore Hasan’s religion. In an echo of Doris Perkins, ABC’s Martha Raddatz said, “As for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’” Newsweek’s Evan Thomas cringed “that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears,” while ABC’s Charlie Gibson fought a valiant rear-guard action: “With America fighting Islamic enemies overseas, Muslim troops face a unique burden … not seen since Japanese-Americans fought in World War II.”

It gets really depressing when you consider similar blather from the Army Chief of Staff. On ABC “This Week,” Gen. George Casey said he feared a (you guessed it!) “backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers," said Gen. George W. Casey Jr. on ABC's "This Week."

"I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," Casey said.

The anti- Muslim backlash won’t occur, just as “Let’s Roll” didn’t roll into mosques after 9-11. Just as the anti-black backlash didn’t occur after the LIRR shooting. But the hand-wringing about backlashes tells us much. Our elites – even some of our elite soldiers – fundamentally distrust this country.

It’s somehow fitting that the Fort Hood massacre took place within days of Obama’s no-show at the Berlin Wall. Our head of state, the man with the bully pulpit who never misses an opportunity to talk (mostly about himself), couldn’t be bothered to commemorate that great moment for human freedom – maybe America’s greatest victory. To his acolytes in the media, the same people who apologize for killers and await phantom backlashes from ordinary Americans, that’s OK. After all, the Cold War was won by people who understood right and wrong and could tell good guys from bad. And as Ferguson and Hasan and so much in between proves, that’s not how our news media roll.

CNN misquoted a soldier at Fort Hood who was wounded in last week's shooting to  suggest that the soldier's recollection that Major Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before firing was in doubt. Many in the media have been doing their best to downplay evidence suggesting Hasan was acting in accordance with radical Muslim beliefs.

"I was sitting in about the second row back when the assailant stood up and yelled 'Allahu Akbar' in Arabic and he opened fire," Pvt. Joseph Foster recalled yesterday on CNN's "American Morning" (Video below the fold - h/t Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit).


Anchor John Roberts commended Foster on his quick reaction to the situation.

So you were acting like a soldier. You were acting heroically. We should point out that you're with the 20th Engineer Battalion and despite your best efforts and I guess the efforts of your comrades, as well, four members of the battalion were killed, 10 others were injured. And you were shot in the hip and you didn't realize it at the time?

To which Foster replied with all of the modesty one might expect from a 21-year-old Army private: "I had realized it at first, but with that much adrenaline, you tend to forget things." It should go without saying that Foster was noting that with his adrenaline pumping, he did not immediately realize that he had been shot.

But CNN, in its written report on the interview, quoted him completely out of context in an effort to dismiss his claim that Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar". "Foster, 21, said he wasn't clear about whether the gunman said those exact words, noting that 'with that much adrenaline, you tend to forget things,' " CNN reported.

Some might claim that if Foster's adrenaline rush could cause him to forget he had been shot, surely he could have heard Hasan wrong. But Foster heard the cry before he was wounded. It could not have been distorted by the adrenaline that follows a gunshot wound, as no shots had been fired when Hasan screamed the call to jihad.

CNN's blatant distortion of Foster's account seems to be an attempt to downplay any evidence that Hasan was acting out of a radical Islamist hatred of the United States military. The cable news network is terrified of the "backlash" that could ensue against Muslims in the military (even though it hasn't), but doesn't seem to have much concern for the facts surrounding the deaths of 13 of our men and women in uniform.

Of all the things that might give you comfort in the wake of Nidal Malik Hasan's murderous rampage, where would you rate the news that the military's commitment to "diversity" endures?  Down there, dare I guess?  Ah, but you're probably not part of the MSM elite.

Chrystia Freeland is. And on today's Morning Joe, the Financial Times editor did indeed announce that she was "comforted" by that very fact of the military's unflagging devotion to diversity.

Joe Scarborough countered Chrystia with a tough question.  And--sacré bleu!--Mike Barnicle, not normally an NB fave, made some very blunt and on-target observations . . .

CHRYSTIA FREELAND:  I mean, the one thing that I've been really comforted by is the statements that we've had from so many senior people in the military saying that they don't want this incident to be a cause to end diversity in the military.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Right. I wonder, Mike Barnicle, whether that may have been, that concern, that fear that we need to be politically correct here, we certainly don't want to target Muslim-Americans who are in the military, because that's good for America to have Muslims fighting in our wars. But could it be that maybe the feds were too sensitive and that's why  13 people are dead today?

MIKE BARNICLE: Two things: I think he escaped, Hasan escaped through a loophole of political correctness.  He should have been cashiered out of the Army, clearly, many months ago.

The second thing is, there is an obscenity of silence that's been going on now for more than eight years with regard to the upper structure of Islam, I'm talking about the religious heads of Islam. They don't speak out and condemn these types of actions after they happen.  No matter what happens, there's silence at the top of Islam.

As is seemingly tradition, the media is once again playing that classic game known as ‘How Can We Blame Bush?'  It's the party favorite where liberals take the biggest headline of the day, and immediately link Bush to the cause in one fell swoop, eliminating all facets of rationale. 

Now, syndicated columnist Gwynne Dyer has introduced his own version, something that is only surprising in the length of time it took for this kind of diatribe to crack the pages of the media:  ‘Fort Hood = Bush's fault'.

In his latest column, Dyer makes the tired argument that it is the War on Terror which breeds Muslim resentment, and by extension, is an obvious explanation for the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan.  It was President Bush who popularized the War on Terror phrase, delivering a speech shortly after the attacks of September 11th which would outline his future plans. 

As Dyer states (emphasis mine):

The one explanation that is excluded is that America's wars in Muslim lands overseas are radicalizing Muslims at home.

Dyer's revisionist history also explains that the War on Terror itself was not in response to escalating attacks by jihadists - rather, it was part panic, part ignorance, and a heaping portion of racism.

(More after the break)

Dyer explains:

So why did the U.S. invade those countries?  The real reasons are panic and ignorance, reinforced by militaristic reflexes and laced with liberal amounts of racism.

This incredible argument is nothing new - that U.S. foreign policy is somehow responsible for the murderous actions of deranged jihadists.  An argument rooted in the same vein as a Jeremiah Wright, the only phrase missing from Dyer's piece being ‘chickens coming home to roost'.  In essence, the 13 lives lost at Fort Hood were lost because of the actions of our government.

Saying that the War on Terror breeds Muslim resentment is in a word, absurd.  Muslim resentment has been prevalent for quite some time, long before any tangible war had been waged.  The U.S. was not engaged in a war prior to 9/11, when bloodshed was brought to our shores.  Muslim fanatics on the other hand, were clearly already at war with America.  It was certainly not Bush's war that contributed to the numerous terrorist attacks prior to 9/11.  Not the bombing of the USS Cole, perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalist group Al-Qaeda.  Nor the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. 

It is rather stunning to sit here over eight years removed from 9/11, watching the media transform the story of that day from Americans being the victims, to Muslims being the victims; even when a Muslim commits 13 acts of cold and calculated murder in the name of God.

What Dyer fails to recognize, and what the main stream media has struggled mightily with since the War on Terror began, is that events such as this are not independent of the Muslim religion.  They are, at least in part, because of extremists within the Muslim religion.  Jihad, after all, is a religious term for ‘holy war'.

It is quite a simplistic attitude to believe that violence perpetrated by hard line Muslims is merely a response to American foreign policy.  It is an excuse that Islamic fundamentalists want you to believe, and one which has flourished in the media.  But it is nothing more than an excuse - one which avoids the harsh realities behind sharia law.  Foreign policy, for example, does not enter the minds of those engaging in an epidemic of religious-based honor killings in the U.S. 

The media would have you believe that the massacre at Fort Hood occurred because of every reason under the sun, other than the obvious.  Hasan was a victim of taunts about his religion.  He was stressed about his pending deployment.  His car was keyed.  His bumper stickers were removed.  And now, according to Dyer, he is a product of U.S. aggression. 

The problem here is that the media is far too frightened to admit the truth, preferring political correctness to an acceptance of reality.  The reality being that there is a portion of the Muslim population which condones and supports violence, without reasonable justification. There is a jihad being waged upon our way of life.  Hasan made himself a part of this holy war long before he shouted the phrase "Allahu Akbar!" 

The media may not want to believe this, but it is true. 

These religious fanatics kill over depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a cartoon.  They kill when their daughter's become ‘too westernized'.  They lob hand grenades at fellow soldiers while they sleep because of resentment.  They behead their wives if they request a divorce.

Pointing this out however, will leave you marginalized in the media as bigoted and racist.  Accusations which have actually helped to create this current climate of political correctness; political correctness which has now directly cost innocent American's their lives.

The war may be won when Muslim fanatics such as Nidal Malik Hasan can no longer threaten the safety of our people.  More realistically though, it will be won when the media finally disavows the ideology of death to innocent Americans, and once again portrays the dead as the real victims. 

No, it is not the War on Terror which has bred Muslim resentment and violence.  It is radical Muslim terror which has brought us to this war.

Photo Credit:  U.S. Government via Getty

MSNBC's Chris Matthews has said some things that would make your scratch your head - like getting a thrill up his leg from a speech given by Barack Obama. However, this one will really make you wonder what he was thinking.

On his Nov. 9 broadcast of "Hardball," in an interview with Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Matthews compared the incident of Maj. Nidal M. Hasan at Ft. Hood to Sirhan Sirhan's 1968 assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

"You know, I have a hard time with this because people like Sirhan Sirhan, who is still serving time for killing Bobby Kennedy, didn't like what Bobby Kennedy had said on television," Matthews said. "Bobby Kennedy had made political statements saying we're going to sell arms, fighter planes directly to Israel, not under the table. We're going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Those are the things that triggered his killing spree. He killed one person - Bobby Kennedy, horrifically. But did he become a different religious person because he committed the crime? And when did this happen?" [Audio: Part I here (925 KB), Part II here (1.18 MB)]

But the struggle Matthews was having - that given Reuters had reported Hasan had tried to contact al Qaeda, was that reason enough to intervene on the activities of Hasan (emphasis added).

"See - we have a problem," Matthews said. "How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he's an Islamist until he's made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?"

And this was obviously a philosophical struggle for the "Hardball" host, as he reiterated he confusion.

"Well, this guy, according to all the testament, admittedly it has not been admitted into court. We cannot call him the shooter until we have a trial. That's the way we work here, you know, that's how it works in America, certainly not in the news business. You can't call somebody a murderer until you get a conviction in court. And the question here is when can you identify a problem? That's what we have to deal with. And you say it's an ideological point - you can find the problem. But then we get into the business of checking out on people's thinking. And that's the problem.

Incredibly, this wasn't just a one-time lapse for Matthews. He reiterated his question, if contacting al Qaeda, an institution classified as a terrorist organization by several international governments and organizations, was crime (emphasis added).

"When does a person become a danger, when they have a certain thought system? Or when they go out and buying semi-automatic pistols, or when they start phoning up al Qaeda, saying how can I join the gang? I mean, where do you stop a person? This is criminology, maybe not ideology, but or even religion. But how do we weed out a guy - it seems to me, all of the warning signs, I mean, we have seen them all now. It's like looking at pictures of Muhammad Ata hanging around convenience stores and going to ATM machines. We got all kinds of information on this guy after it's too late."

Amazingly, Matthews even compared himself to Hasan - suggesting his actions were just criticism of the United States invasion of Iraq, with just one subtle difference.

"But this guy was running around shooting his mouth off saying how he hated this country's wars with - look, you can listen to me on television and hear me saying I didn't like the war with Iraq. You know, I don't agree with the war on Iraq and a lot of Americans didn't like the war with Iraq. They didn't start shooting people about it."

At the end of Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer offered commentary on the cause of the mass shooting at Fort Hood: “That doctor [Major Nidal Hasan] should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals....sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.”

Schieffer went on to argue: “And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.” In similar fashion, Schieffer “shuffled off” the responsibility of an overly politically correct media that continually denounces profiling of criminal suspects or terrorists.

Earlier in the broadcast, Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton: “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?”

Speaking to Senator Lindsey Graham, Schieffer referred to Hasan’s Islamic extremism, but countered: “Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too.”

Here is a full transcript of Schieffer’s commentary:

10:55AM

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, the President has asked the nation not to jump to conclusions about what happened at Fort Hood, which is usually good advice, but it’s also what government officials generally say when the government fouls up.

Good advice or not, I am jumping to an obvious conclusion. This should not have happened. That doctor should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals. A government psychiatrist with bad performance ratings who has been trying to get out of the Army and who had been saying what Dr. Hasan had been saying about the war on terrorism should not have been shipped off to Fort Hood to give grief counseling.

What do you suppose he was telling the soldiers? That after what they had done, they ought to feel bad?

Certainly no officer with his record would have been allowed to lead soldiers into combat. But sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.

And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.

Investigators confirm now that someone by his name had been posting messages on the Internet about how suicide bombers are as heroic as American soldiers who fall on grenades to save their comrades. But the investigators say it is not clear if Dr. Hasan actually wrote those messages. Based on what we found out so far, my question is, do you suppose anyone has even asked him?

Two-and-a-half years before Army Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim medical doctor, murdered 13 at Fort Hood in Texas in what more-and-more looks like a jihadist terrorist attack given his anti-American rants and ties to Islamic extremists, ABC's since-canceled Boston Legal drama ridiculed the idea a doctor could be a terrorist.

A scene in the episode first aired on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 -- meant to show the silliness and incompetence of the military for detaining obviously innocent men -- concluded with a released terror suspect being asked in courtroom about a colleague who had committed suicide to avoid the mistreatment: “Was your friend a terrorist?” The man replied with these words, dripping with disgust, which dramatically ended the scene: “No, he was a doctor.”

Audio: MP3 clip

The specifics were different than the situation at Fort Hood since in the ABC show the terror suspects had been held at Guantanamo Bay, but the ABC show accurately conveyed the liberal ethos that Muslims successful in U.S. society -- such as an officer in the U.S. Army -- should be beyond reproach and so it's uncouth to dare to explore their ideology.

From the September 25, 2007 MRC CyberAlert:

Nearly eight weeks before six medical doctors were arrested for their involvement in the late June terrorist attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow, ABC's Boston Legal drama -- which has its 90-minute season premiere tonight (Tuesday) -- aired an episode which ridiculed the idea a doctor could be a terrorist.

In the May 8 episode, titled "Guantanamo by the Bay," attorney "Alan Shore," played by James Spader, takes up the case of British citizen "Benyam Kallah" suing the government, oddly in state court, over Kallah's torture at the Guantanamo Bay facility after he was picked up in Afghanistan where he claims he was doing "humanitarian" work. On the witness stand, Kallah describes the torture and how a friend detained with him couldn't take the torture any longer and so committed suicide. Concluding the scene meant to show the silliness and incompetence of the military for detaining such obviously innocent men, Shore asked: "Was your friend a terrorist?" Kallah replied: "No, he was a doctor."

Pressed by the Massachusetts state court judge about jurisdictional questions, Shore launched into a political diatribe: "Okay. I realize the jurisdictional barriers are prohibitive but, your honor, we don't let the little things like the law stand in our way in this great country. The law, for example, recognizes the Geneva Convention but we say, 'the Hell with it.' The law has very strict regulations on domestic wiretapping and we say, 'the Hell with it.' The law says if you shoot somebody with a shotgun mistaking him for a quail you really should call the police."

Shore is victorious as the case is heard and the judge rejects the government's motion to dismiss the case.

At the very end of the show, "Denny Crane," a pompous and misinformed lawyer who is Hollywood's idea of a prejudiced and chauvinistic conservative, contends: "We would never be in Guantanamo if it weren't for Hillary Clinton." The reasoning of Crane, played by William Shatner: "Bill Clinton would never have lied in the deposition. He wouldn't have risked impeachment. So what if the sexual indiscretion [indecipherable] the public would have forgiven him. But Hillary! The reason he lied is because he was afraid Hillary would find out. That's why he was impeached. That's why Al Gore didn't win. And after all that impeachment scandal crap, the public would have elected any fool other than a Democrat."

On the attempted terrorist attacks in Britain in late June in which car bombs were discovered in London and a car exploded at the Glasgow airport, the Washington Post reported on July 8: "The eight suspects detained by police are highly educated and have overlapping family, work and school links. Six are foreign doctors or trainee doctors working in British hospitals; two of the doctors inquired about continuing their medical training in the United States."...

# Scene in court room (matches audio/video):

SHORE: Mr. Kallah, you've stated that you were tortured. Can you give us an example?

KALLAH, ON WITNESS STAND: I was beaten; repeatedly deprived of sleep. I was forced to wear a hood over my head, sometimes for days. I was sexually humiliated.

SHORE: How so?

KALLAH: I'd rather not go into it.

SHORE: And what else?

KALLAH: I was forced to lie in a fetal position, my eyes and my mouth duct taped. The worst part is that we felt it was forever. We we're never going to be released, never going to get a trial. One man, Ali, a friend, was arrested with me.

SHORE: What happened to your friend, sir.

KALLAH: Finally he couldn't take it. He hung himself.

SHORE: He committed suicide?

KALLAH: The Pentagon called it "manipulative self-injurious behavior: an act of asymmetric warfare engaged against the United States."

SHORE: Was your friend a terrorist?

KALLAH: No, he was a doctor.

On Monday’s American Morning, CNN’s Carol Costello highlighted a column on the “right-wing” Pajamas Media website during a report on a possible backlash against Muslim soldiers, but omitted how the author of the column is a noted feminist, and that her only “right-wing” credential is her focus on Islamic misogyny.

Anchor John Roberts introduced Costello’s report, noting that  apparently “many people [are] fearing a backlash against America’s Muslim soldiers” after the shooting rampage at Fort Hood on November 5. The CNN correspondent featured the mother of a Muslim army corporal who was killed in the line of duty in Iraq during the segment.

This mother, according to Costello, is “worried there will be a backlash against Muslim American soldiers. She knows some are already reaching conclusions as to why Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire on his fellow soldiers.” As an example of someone “reaching conclusions,” the correspondent quoted from a column by Phyllis Chesler of Pajamas Media: “The right-wing website, Pajamas Media, is an example. Phyllis Chesler writing, ‘I knew in my bones that the shooter or shooters were Muslim. We must connect the dots before it's too late.’ The suspicion about Muslims, even those born in the United States, intensified after 9/11.” The quote comes from a November 5 column on the conservative website.

Costello did not explain during her report that Chesler is a professor emerita of psychology and women’s studies at the College of Staten Island, and has written 13 books, mainly on feminist subjects, including “Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness” and “Feminist Foremothers in Women’s Studies, Psychology, and Mental Health.” In a 1998 interview with Time magazine about feminism, she defined the ideology, in part, as “a woman’s body is her own, and she should not be invaded against her will by a rapist , nor should she be prevented from having an abortion.” Clearly, Chesler is no huge “right-winger,” as Costello would have one believe.

Chesler’s contributions to Pajamas Media, which date back to May 2008, largely focus on subjects related to Islam’s subjugation of women, such as “honor” killings and bans on the burqa. Her personal website has an entire section devoted to the subject of “honor” killings. One might conclude that her personal stances on these issues lead CNN to label her “right wing.”

The full transcript of Carol Costello’s report, which began 45 minutes into the 6 am Eastern hour of Monday’s American Morning:

JOHN ROBERTS: The massacre at Fort Hood has many people fearing a backlash against America’s Muslim soldiers. Thirteen people were killed, and dozens more injured last week when army psychiatrist, Nidal Hasan, allegedly opened fire on his fellow troops. Hasan is Muslim. His motive remains unknown.

Our Carol Costello live in Washington this morning with an ‘AM Original.’ And army leaders, even the President, are worried about a potential backlash here, Carol.

CAROL COSTELLO: They are, John. The army’s chief of staff is worried about backlash against Muslim soldiers. General Casey saying as great as tragedy as it was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty, as well. It’s something that deeply worries many Americans who are Muslim and have made the ultimate sacrifice.

COSTELLO (voice-over): Elsheba Khan visits Arlington National Cemetery every Sunday without fail. Her son, Army Corporal Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq, is buried here.

ELSHEBA KHAN, SON KILLED IN IRAQ: He’s a Muslim and he would stand for his county. It doesn’t matter what.

COSTELLO: Khan is worried there will be a backlash against Muslim American soldiers. She knows some are already reaching conclusions as to why Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire on his fellow soldiers. The right-wing website, Pajamas Media, is an example. Phyllis Chesler writing, ‘I knew in my bones that the shooter or shooters were Muslim. We must connect the dots before it's too late.’ The suspicion about Muslims, even those born in the United States, intensified after 9/11. It’s the reason Khan’s American-born son joined the army as soon as he turned 18, telling his parents-

KHAN: I’m a citizen. I protect my country, whoever is there in the country. It doesn’t matter race, whatever.

COSTELLO: And Kareen Khan did that- awarded a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, and an honored place at Arlington National Cemetery. A picture of Khan’s tombstone with symbols of his religion and patriotism so touched General Colin Powell, he used the image to open minds about Islam when he endorsed Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential run.

GENERAL COLIN POWELL (from interview on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’): Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that’s not America.

COSTELLO: Powell’s acknowledgement of her son’s service profoundly touched Khan.

KHAN: When he mentioned my son and he mentioned his full name, and he pronounced it correctly, I was like the proudest mom that day.

COSTELLO: President Obama also honored Kareem Khan, and Khan’s fellow soldiers have written her glowing accounts of Khan's outstanding service to country.

KHAN: I don’t like nobody touching anything [sic].

COSTELLO: Of course, the public outpouring has quieted now. Still, Khan keeps her son’s medals and his pictures on display in her home, and every Sunday, she visits him, now praying her fellow Americans will not pass judgment at all Muslims because of the actions of one man.

COSTELLO (on-camera): Roughly 3,500 American servicemen and women are Muslim, and if you ask the U.S. Marine Corps if it’s concerned about that, 1st Lt. Josh Dittums told us bluntly, the Corps has not seen any trends that indicate individuals are any more likely to be involved in an incident based upon their religion- John?

ROBERTS: But here’s something I am wondering about, Carol, that this clash of cultures in the military- when a Muslim enlists in the military, I have heard many stories that they’ve been harassed, that a lot of pressure has been put on them, and they’re just not made to feel welcome. Did Kareem Khan- has Kareem Khan experienced any of that?

COSTELLO: Kareem Khan did experience that, but as his mother told me- you know, he was a good soldier, and he earned the respect of his fellow soldiers and that eventually stopped. He joined the service because he was Muslim and because he was American, and he wanted to defend both his religion and his country because Muslims, in his mind- you know, don’t carry out suicide bombings.

ROBERTS: Yeah, exactly. All right- great story this morning. Carol Costello for us from Washington. Carol thanks so much.

On Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer tried to provide some perspective on the Fort Hood shooting, committed by an Islamic extremist: “It’s looking more and more like he was just, sort of, a religious nut. And you know Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too.”

Schieffer made the comments while speaking to Senator Lindsey Graham, who agreed that Muslims do not have “a corner” on extremism. Schieffer went on to wonder what role political correctness played in the shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, not being held accountable for radical comments he made prior to the attack: “Do you think the fact that he was a Muslim may have caused the military to kind of step back and be reluctant to challenge him on some of this stuff for fear that they’d be accused of discrimination or something like that?”

Graham replied: “I hope not. I hope – I hope that’s not the case....his actions do not reflect on the Islamic – Muslim faith” Schieffer added: “Well, I’m not suggesting that they do.” Promoting the very political correctness that Schieffer asked about, Graham argued: “But some people are. Some people are, and I want to say, as a United States Senator, that I reject that....Let’s don’t accuse people of basically giving him a pass because he’s a Muslim. Because I don’t think there’s any evidence of that.”

After discussing the issue with Graham, Schieffer turned to Congressman Ike Skelton about another cause for the shooting: “The irony also is that why did he wind up there in that particular job [as an Army psychiatrist]? Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended, Congressman Skelton?” Skelton responded: “The Army is strained. I’ve been saying that for some time.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

10:33AM

BOB SCHIEFFER: Alright. Well, we’re going to shift now to the situation and this awful thing that happened down at Fort Hood. Congressman Skelton, you’re chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I’ve got to ask you. Here we have a man who was trying to get out of the Army, who had ranted about the U.S. war on terrorism, whose contemporaries had reported him to their superiors as, what is going on here? And yet somehow he winds up being the doctor that’s sent down to Fort Hood to counsel our soldiers going to Iraq and Afghanistan and coming back. Who dropped the ball here?

IKE SKELTON: Well, it’s very difficult to say. We had a briefing two days ago by the Army, and they went through all that they knew at the time. And they did say to us that they are investigating it. As you know, the Army has its investigators. The FBI is investigating. And, Bob, the truth will out.

SCHIEFFER: But shouldn’t someone have caught this, Congressman?

SKELTON: That’s – that could very well be true. But let’s wait until the investigation is over. If that is the case, they’ll be front and center. But right now, let’s give them a few days to find out just where the ball was dropped, if that’s the case.

SCHIEFFER: Do you plan to investigate?

SKELTON: I’m going to wait and see what they do. If they are not thorough – we will, of course, have additional hearings, briefings on this. It’s a tragedy of the first order. It’s a tragedy not just for the soldiers and their families that were there. It’s a tragedy for all of the families that wear the uniform. You see, it was not just a – a fellow soldier that did this. It was a fellow soldier whose job it was to help people. And I can imagine how traumatized the average military family must be.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I don’t think there’s any question about that. Let me go to the Senators now. Senator Lieberman – I mean, this broadcast seems to be talking a lot about Senator Lieberman and what he thinks about things. But he said this morning on Fox there should have been a zero tolerance for the kinds of things that – that were being said. And as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, he says he is going to open an investigation. Do you think that’s the right way to go, Senator Reed?

JACK REED: Well, I think we do have to look closely at what the Army has done, what the whole armed services has done. But Chairman Skeleton has put it in the right context. We have to wait for their careful deliberations. There’s a criminal investigation going on. But we have to look at the broader issues, not just this incident, but are we taking adequate care of these soldiers? Are we providing the adequate support systems for the families? Are we also – have appropriate command responsibilities for all of our soldiers, including our medical personnel? And these are issues that go beyond this incident, and responsible for the Congress to look at them.

SKELTON: It brings to the top of the table the issue of the post- traumatic system disorder. And we in our committee, we in Congress, have addressed this now for three years. And the bill we just passed, it increases the mental health providers. It also requires additional research into this. But that is being dragged to the front and center because of this incident.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me go now to Senator Graham. Senator Graham, I think all of that – that is true. But after all, this doctor had not gone to Afghanistan. I mean, he hadn’t gone to Iraq. He was fighting to not go there. The question I have is, what happened here that this man who had a very poor performance record at Walter Reed was somehow shuttled off down to Fort Hood, and he winds up being the one talking to these soldiers? It’s not clear to me how this could have happened. And, clearly, it should not have happened. Senator?

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, Bob, I’ll be – yes, sir. I’ll be honest with you. I think, as Ike said, we’re doing a lot. I’m on the personnel subcommittee to address post-traumatic syndrome, the wounded warrior program. We’ve thrown a lot of money; we’ve put more medical personnel on the front lines of evaluating people. But, about this case, you know, it’s easy to second-guess. And I want to – you know, I`m not going to go down that road yet. I mean, does every soldier who shows discontent with the war and every soldier that has a bad performance report – what are we going to do with those folks? So, at the end of the day, let’s see what the evidence trail suggests here and not overreact. Because we live in a free and open society. You can be in the military and disagree with policy.

What did his co-workers say about his behavior? How strong were the warning signals? At the end of the day, maybe this is just about him. It’s certainly not about his religion, Islam. It’s not about the Army; it’s not about the war. At the end of the day, I think it’s going to be about him. And if we missed some signals, some clear signals, we’ve got to fix that. And I trust the Army to want to fix it, because it means more to them than any politician because it happened within their ranks.

SCHIEFFER: Well – Senator Graham,  let me just, kind of, cut to the chase here.

GRAHAM: Yes sir.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think that the fact that this man was a Muslim – obviously he was either part of some terrorist plot – and I think most suggestions are that he wasn’t. It’s looking more and more like he was just, sort of, a religious nut. And you know-

GRAHAM: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: Islam doesn’t have a majority-

GRAHAM: A corner on that-

SCHIEFFER: -or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too. But do you think the fact that he was a Muslim may have caused the military to kind of step back and be reluctant to challenge him on some of this stuff for fear that they’d be accused of discrimination or something like that?

GRAHAM: I hope not. I hope – I hope that’s not the case. But to those members of the United States military who are Muslims, thank you for protecting our nation, thank you for standing up against people who are trying to hijack your religion. I hope that’s not the case, Bob. But we need – his actions do not reflect on the Islamic – Muslim faith any more than burning a cross-

SCHIEFFER: Well, I’m not suggesting that they do.

GRAHAM: I know.

SCHIEFFER: I’m just suggesting-

GRAHAM: But some people are. Some people are, and I want to say, as a United States Senator, that I reject that. This man’s actions reflect on him. And if we missed some signals about him that we should have known, great. But let’s don’t take this to a level that we should not. Let’s don’t accuse people of basically giving him a pass because he’s a Muslim. Because I don’t think there’s any evidence of that.

SCHIEFFER: Alright. Senator Reed, what’s your thought on that?

REED: Well, there are approximately 3,000 Americans, men and women of the Muslim faith who are serving in the Army. They’ve been wounded. Some, I’ve been told, have been killed in action. Their record is one of service and dedication to the nation and selfless service. So I agree entirely with Senator Graham. This is not about theology. This is about doing your duty as a soldier.

And also, I think we have to be careful not to leap beyond the current investigation. And I think, again, what we will find is that someone who has deep psychiatric problems. They’re not unique to the Army. We’ve had terrible shootings in college campuses and office buildings, and those things are the result of ultimately of one person’s psychological, psychiatric difficulties. The irony here is, is he was a psychiatrist. The irony here is he joined the Army as ROTC, at Virginia Tech, came through the Army. He was not sort of just here as a transient-

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just interrupt you, because I want to get one final comment. The irony also is that why did he wind up there in that particular job? Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended, Congressman Skelton?

SKELTON: The Army is strained. I’ve been saying that for some time. That’s why we increased the size of the Army this year. But let me say this, Bob. We should not rush to judgment. I’m an old prosecuting attorney and I know that it takes time to investigate. We have excellent Army investigators. We have the FBI, and they’re as good as they come in investigating this whole issue. The truth will out. We will soon find out answers to the very questions that you’re asking. And the chips will fall where they may. Right now, I think our sole concern should be those families, the military families, the Army families, and those that suffered injuries and death.

SCHIEFFER: Well, gentlemen, I want to thank all of you for being here to talk about this, this morning.

ABC's Brian Ross reported Monday that suspected Fort Hood shooter Nidal Halik Hasan tried to contact people connected to the terrorist group al Qaeda.

Even worse, U.S. intelligence officials were aware of this months ago, and "it's not known whether the military was ever told by the CIA or others that one of its majors was making efforts to communicate with figures under electronic surveillance."

Given media's discomfort with discussing Hasan's Muslim ties, as well as their desire to never point fingers at the Obama administration, it's going to be very interesting to watch how Ross's exclusive report on "Good Morning America" Monday will be covered in the coming days (video embedded below the fold with full transcript):

ROBIN ROBERTS, ABC: We're going to turn now to the attack at Fort Hood. Authorities are actively investigating whether the suspected gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had links to any terrorist organizations. Our chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross has learned that Hasan was most-likely trying to just do that, forge that kind of link?

BRIAN ROSS, ABC: Indeed, Robin. As Major Hasan's road to increased radicalization becomes clearer, ABC News has learned that U.S. intelligence agencies became aware months ago that he was attempting to make contact with people connected to al Qaeda. Two American officials who have been briefed on classified information say it's not known whether the military was ever told by the CIA or others that one of its majors was making efforts to communicate with figures under electronic surveillance by the U.S. Congress has now asked the CIA and other intelligence agencies to preserve all documents that relate to Hasan, as it appears a full investigation is now likely into whether the warning signs were missed.

Officials say they suspect Hasan was in contact with the former Imam of a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, who now operates out of Yemen. Anwar al Awlaki, an American, runs an English language website that advocates worldwide jihad, and overnight called Major Hasan a hero and a man of conscience who did the right thing. Awlaki left for Yemen after he come under investigation by the FBI for his ties to two of the 9/11 hijackers. He denied any involvement in their plot, but continues to urge violence against the U.S.

We also heard this weekend from one of the Army doctors who studied with Hasan, Dr. Val Finell, who says he complained to his superiors about Hasan and his strident views on the war and religion.

(VIDEOTAPE):

DR. VAL FINELL: He would frequently say that he was a Muslim first, and an American second. And that came out in just about everything that he did at the university. And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office, be an officer in the military, and swear allegiance to the Constitution, and to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic, and, and have that type of conflict.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROSS: Shortly after that, Hasan was promoted to Major, and scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan.

ROBERTS: (Inaudible) the military is being very cautious, worried about any possible backlash.

ROSS: This just seems to be a lone wolf serious emotional troubles.

ROBERTS: All right, Brian, thank you for your investigation.  

Fascinating stuff which obviously raises questions about how these new details will be reported in the coming days.

In particular, as our media loved to question whether the Bush administration did a good job of connecting the intelligence dots to try and prevent the 9/11 attacks, will the Obama administration be scrutinized for not preventing this massacre?

After all, if U.S. intelligence officials were aware that Hasan was trying to contact al Qaeda representatives, and may have been in touch with someone alleged to have ties with the 9/11 hijackers, shouldn't the military have been informed as soon as this information was obtained?

As the answer is definitively "Yes," will the intelligence agencies that dropped the ball take heat from the press for missing such obvious warning signs, and will any fingers be pointed at the Administration that currently oversees these agencies?

Stay tuned. 

Check out the headline from on the front page of the hard-copy New York City edition of today's New York Times:

The article reports that Nidal Malik Hasan began feeling disgruntled with the Army as far back as 2004.

Let's see, there are 525,948 minutes in a year. If Hasan's been feeling "tension" for about five years, that makes about 2,629,740 tension-filled minutes.  And during that entire period, he only engaged in a homicidal rampage for seven minutes.  I mean, come on, he was only a murderer for some tiny, tiny fraction of 1% of the time!  

To put things in better perspective, Nidal Malik Hasan only murdered one person per roughly 202,287 minutes of disgruntlement endured.

Before we add, by prosecuting him for murder, to the anti-Muslim harrassment poor Nidal has suffered, perhaps the Times will nominate him for some kind of medal for the admirable restraint he manifested.

Note: the online edition of the same article is headlined "Fort Hood Gunman Gave Signals Before His Rampage."  Perhaps an editor realized just how grotesque the hard-copy headline was. But by then, it had hit the streets.

On CNN Saturday Morning News today, anchor Betty Nguyen interviewed a psychiatrist about Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 and wounded 30 others in a shooting spree Thursday in Fort Hood, Texas.  She began by delving into possible reason for Hasan's actions:

NGUYEN: Dr. Paul Ragan, a psychiatrist who specializes in post-traumatic stress disorder joins me now from Nashville. Dr. Ragan, let me ask you this. Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from PTSD?

DR. PAUL RAGAN, SPECIALIZES IN POST-TRAUMATIC SYNDROME: I think actually that's fairly unlikely. Dr. Hasan just finished a two-year fellowship at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress and he had only been an independent Army psychiatrist for about four months. That is at an operational base. So for him to have been suffering from PTSD I think is highly unlikely.

NGUYEN: Doctor, let me ask you this, then. A lot of people find it awfully ironic too, he was a psychiatrist, someone to help people when they have issues, yet he's also accused of shooting of this magnitude. What would cause someone, especially with that kind of training and that kind of background to do something like this?

RAGAN: Well, that's the huge question before us. I don't have the exact answer. I can give a little guidance. To put it bluntly, the wheels came off many, many months or even years probably before he showed up at Ft. Hood. Usually, in the military after you finish your residency, you go and do your operational tour. That's what I did. Then, the Army allowed him to do a two-year fellowship. There's some evidence that he may have been trying to avoid deploying. And so where did he not identify with the military mission? He had been in the military as the soldier said earlier, over 10 years. What was it that happened that he couldn't fulfill his military obligations?

Nguyen then moved on to another potential reason for the massacre:

NGUYEN: Yeah. So, the question, too, is it the fact that he disagreed with the mission or was it taunting, was it teasing, was it harassment? Could these things have played a role as well?

RAGAN: They may have. I can tell you, in the medical community over 25 years I have been intermittently teased for being a psychiatrist. That, I don't think, was the tipping point for him. And clearly, there's a good deal of prejudice in certain areas of our society toward Muslims, but, again, as the soldier told us, the Army has been pretty strict about not engaging in that type of harassment. So again, I don't think that was the tipping point. I think it was earlier.   

So who would taunt, tease or harasss a field grade Army officer?  It's implausible that anyone lower than him in rank would be so foolish.  People at his rank and above are probably astute enough in terms of political correctness to realize that their careers could easily be over with just one career ending utterance.

Moreover, earlier in her program Nguyen aired an interview of an Army sergeant who is Muslim conducted by correspondent Sean Callebs.  When asked about harassment because of his religion, the sergeant responded:

The only experience that I did have was while I was in basic training and a friend, a battle buddy is my own -- basically the guy I room with, the guy who I have to look out for and he has to look out for me, just made a joke regarding my religion and my drill sergeant took that very seriously and had him disciplined from my entire company and he was punished for his actions, even though he was jokingly saying it to me.

Still, Nguyen wanted to explore that as a reason for what happened.  With both PTSD and harassment effectively set aside, she moved on to one last reason:

NGUYEN: What about religious beliefs? Do you think that might have played a role because there were reports that he gave out the Koran the day of the shooting, also reports that he may have yelled Allah akbar right before the shootings. Could religion have played a role?

RAGAN: I think religion did play a role. Evidently he was counseled about proselytizing patients which was clearly a boundary violation. We have a report that he gave in his class at the fellowship, he was talking about endorsing suicide bombings. He was clearly engaging in some type of tunnel vision where this kind of radical view, which is not, as again the soldier said before, is not a part of mainstream Muslim religion. And so, he was -- there was something going on there, very much so.

Hasan's motivation may never be determined with absolute certainty.  Still, it's interesting that some in the mainstream media look for other reasons - as remote as they may be - before considering a more obvious one.  

Newsweek's Evan Thomas regretted the Fort Hood mass murderer, Major Nidal Hasan, is a Muslim because of how that reality will be abused by conservatives. On this weekend's Inside Washington, Thomas, now Editor at Large with Newsweek after stints as Assistant Managing Editor and Washington bureau chief, rued:

I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just -- I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse.

NPR's Nina Totenberg soon chimed in with agreement: “It really is tragic that he was a Muslim.”

Audio: MP3 clip

The weekly Inside Washington is produced by Washington, DC's ABC affiliate, WJLA-DT which runs it on Sunday morning, but it's first aired Friday nights on the PBS station and is carried several times by the DC-area all-news cable channel, NewsChannel 8.

NB reader Steven Parker sends along this mangled caption of a Fort Hood photo from AP on Yahoo! News:

U.S. Army soldiers lower the flag following Revile in front of the III Corp Headquarters building at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas, Friday, Nov. 6, 2009.

We're guessing the caption writer meant "Reveille," which is often the bugle call.....when the flag goes up, not down. Ouch. Buglers often play "Retreat" for the retirement of the colors.

This might inspire some Army people to want the draft reinstated -- just so the journalists aren't so ignorant.

ABC doubled the length of its evening newscast on Friday night and World News used its second half hour to suggest an exculpatory reason behind Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan's mass killing at Fort Hood -- as anchor Charles Gibson reasoned “treating the mentally wounded can be stressful” -- then to devote a story to the plight of Muslim soldiers: “It's not easy for anyone serving in the armed forces these days, but with America fighting Islamic enemies overseas, Muslim troops face a unique burden.” Reporter Bill Weir despaired:

The Pentagon has made a real concerted effort to create a military that is culturally sensitive and religiously tolerant, but Muslims in uniform today face a challenge not seen since Japanese-Americans fought in World War II. They taste suspicion from some fellow soldiers who question their loyalty and resentment from fellow Muslims opposed to both American wars.

Weir featured a Muslim soldier who lamented “our religion teaches better,” before Weir painted Muslim soldiers as victims of intolerance, highlighting the experience of one Muslim soldier who “began his overseas deployment on 9/11, and taunts followed him throughout his four-year enlistment.”

Weir acknowledged that “Major Hasan's motives are still unclear,” but he, nonetheless, recalled how “back in 2003 prosecutors alleged it was repeated taunting and religious ideology that led Sergeant Hasan Akbar to kill two of his commanding officers with a grenade.”

With “Stress Factor” as the on-screen heading, Gibson had set up the previous story from Martha Raddatz:

Many troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan bare the psychological scars of war, everything from anxiety to post-traumatic stress. The alleged Fort Hood gunman was a psychiatrist trained to help these soldiers. And while it's way too early to know why this rampage occurred, we do know that treating the mentally wounded can be stressful as well.

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide this transcript of the Muslim soldier story aired during the second half hour of the Friday, November 6 World News on ABC:

CHARLES GIBSON: Muslim groups here in the United States have moved quickly to condemn the rampage at Fort Hood after learning the alleged gunman was a practicing Muslim, born in the U.S. to Palestinian parents. The Council on American-Islamic Relations said no political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. Organizations representing Muslims in the U.S. military also are denouncing the attack. It's not easy for anyone serving in the armed forces these days, but with America fighting Islamic enemies overseas, Muslim troops face a unique burden. Bill Weir joins us now. Bill?

BILL WEIR: Charlie, the Pentagon has made a real concerted effort to create a military that is culturally sensitive and religiously tolerant, but Muslims in uniform today face a challenge not seen since Japanese-Americans fought in World War II. They taste suspicion from some fellow soldiers who question their loyalty and resentment from fellow Muslims opposed to both American wars. At the Islamic community center in Killeen today, Friday prayers took place under a cloud of despair. This is where Major Nidal Hasan worshiped, alongside Fort Hood's small Muslim community, including Sergeant Fahad Kamal, just back from a 15-month tour of Afghanistan.

SERGEANT FAHAD KAMAL, U.S. MILITARY: I feel let down because we're better than this. Our religion teaches better, and it just makes me feel hurt and just, I just feel like we're much better individuals.

WEIR: Of the 1.4 million active service members around the world, just over 3,500 call themselves Muslims -- one-quarter of one percent. But members of their community say there are tens of thousands more who keep their faith to themselves, bowing to Mecca five times a day in private to avoid potential conflict with fellow troops.

SERGEANT MCCALL ABDULLAH: My last name's Abdullah, so it's really hard to run from it. It's right there on your BDUs, it says Abdullah.
    
WEIR: Sergeant McCall Abdullah began his overseas deployment on 9/11, and taunts followed him throughout his four-year enlistment.

ABDULLAH: You get called a camel jockey or a sand nigger or, you know, Haji or something like that.

WEIR: While Major Hasan's motives are still unclear, back in 2003, prosecutors alleged it was repeated taunting and religious ideology that led Sergeant Hasan Akbar to kill two of his commanding officers with a grenade. He was sentenced to death for that crime, and he became a symbol for those who want to believe a true Muslim could never choose America over Allah in a war against fellow Muslims. Former Gunnery Sergeant Jamal Gadani could not disagree more.

FORMER GUNNERY SERGEANT JAMAL GADANI, U.S. MILITARY: What some of these individuals do, is they try to take the Koran, the Muslim Koran, out of context and say, well, we can't kill other Muslims. Well, our mission is not to go kill other Muslims. We're there to find the bad guys, al-Qaeda.

ABDULLAH: We are all Americans, and we are all contributing, quite a few of us. And it would do best to remember that before putting people in a box.

GADANI: I feel embarrassed for the Muslim community. The feeling is that, I want to believe that it was the individual, not the religion, that made him do what he did.

WEIR: I asked Sergeant Abdullah how he managed to answer the call to prayer or march while fasting during Ramadan, he said, you just have to want it more than the rest of your guys in your platoon.

ABCNews.com video of Weir's story.

Morning Meeting host Dylan Ratigan on Friday appeared uncomfortable discussing the faith of the Muslim shooter who killed 12 people in Texas. In a tease for a segment on the subject, he noted that Major Nidal Hasan is being "described as a devout Muslim, mortified at being deployed to Iraq. Did that drive him to allegedly commit murder?" Ratigan quickly added, "And who cares what his religion was?"

Talking to Corey Saylor of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ratigan offered a tortured, run-on question about the importance of Hasan’s Muslim faith: "Corey, it's very easy, considering, sort of, the history of the relations between our country and some nations- and some individual, really, of a Muslim faith. There's a very quick response or higher levels of anxiety for no reason other than because of the lesser familiarity."

Meandering his way to the end of this politically correct query, Ratigan concluded, "Is it appropriate to be looking at the- any sort of religious signals in a situation like this when you're clearly dealing with an American soldier, born in America, who enlisted again right out of high school?"

Speaking to FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt, Ratigan wondered what pressures Hasan may have been under:

RATIGAN: Yep. Clint Van Zandt, it's very easy to people to play pop psychiatrist or pop psychologist in a situation like this. Again, fear of war, abstractly, fear of going into combat abstractly would make anybody anxious, let alone working for as long as this man did as an Army psychiatrist, counseling men who lived and continued to live through war. Can you give us any indications, any commonalities of what happens when you're expose to do trauma like that repeatedly?

A transcript of the two exchanges, which occurred at 10:07am EST on November 6, follow:

9:59am

DYLAN RATIGAN: Still ahead here on the Morning Meeting, inside the mind of the alleged Fort Hood shooter, described as a devout Muslim, mortified at being deployed to Iraq. Did that drive him to allegedly commit murder? And who cares what his religion was?

10:07am

RATIGAN: Corey, it's very easy, considering, sort of, the history of the relations between our country and some nations- and some individual, really, of a Muslim faith. There's a very quick response or higher levels of anxiety for no reason other than because of the lesser familiarity. Is it appropriate to be looking at the- any sort of religious signals in a situation like this when you're clearly dealing with an American soldier, born in America, who enlisted again right out of high school?

COREY SAYLOR (Council on American-Islamic Relations): I think that it's really important that we, first of all, express our condolences to the victims of this tragedy and, which, those who are injured that they get better quickly. Right now, investigators need to do their jobs and look at everything. And the importance is we sew patience and sobriety in waiting for that investigation and let's hear what their conclusions are.

RATIGAN: Yep. Clint Van Zandt, it's very easy to people to play pop psychiatrist or pop psychologist in a situation like this. Again, fear of war, abstractly, fear of going into combat abstractly would make anybody anxious, let alone working for as long as this man did as an Army psychiatrist, counseling men who lived and continued to live through war. Can you give us any indications, any commonalities of what happens when you're expose to do trauma like that repeatedly?

CLINT VAN ZANDT (Former FBI profiler):Well, number one, there's going to be hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of men and women who have gone through this all the time. Dr. Hasan was not being sent in as a ground troop. He was being sent in to help care for those psychologically injured during the course of war, just like he had treated them in the states. Dylan, this was a contract that he had with the U.S. government. You and I and all of the taxpayers agree to pay his way through medical school with the understanding that he would stay in the military and that he would perform his duty, whatever the military said that was. So here, it appears we have a man who may have been in conflict between his duty to his country and his duty to his religion. And he, apparently, sided with one as opposed to the other and made the decision he was not going to go to Iraq. He was not going to be part of any action that saw the lives of Muslims taken in a combat situation and he was going to violate the terms of the agreement he had with this government.

Appearing on the Dr. Nancy program on MSNBC Friday, NBC News terrorism analyst Roger Cressy warned against labeling the mass shooting at Ft. Hood as terrorism, despite the apparent radical views of the shooter: “We’ve heard some family references that he was being criticized for his Muslim faith, that’s all we know right now....It’s still premature to draw the terrorism conclusion.”

Prior to Cressy’s assessment, host Dr. Nancy Snyderman spoke with Dr. Stevan Hobfoll, director of the Traumatic Stress Center at Rush University Medical Center and asked about the mental health of the attacker, Major Nidal Hasan. Hobfoll made no hesitation describing the shooting as a terrorist act: “Strangely enough, terrorism is not in itself an area – an act of mental illness. I think this was a Jihadist act, it’s certainly psychologically abnormal what he did, but that doesn’t mean that he had any psychological disorder, per se.”

Snyderman then turned to Cressy, citing his unwillingness to use the terrorism label: “Roger, I have heard you express caution that we not say this is terrorism, but that there was, obviously, despaired anger.” She went on to compare Hasan to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh: “I’m thinking of Timothy McVeigh, an American born on this soil, filled with despair, full of anger, but nonetheless, we labeled him a terrorist pretty darn early.”

Cressy argued that the two situations were not analogous: “Well Nancy, we did, because his was a political act. I mean the – the traditional definition of terrorism is premeditated violence for political purposes against noncombatants. And what McVeigh did in Oklahoma City was, he was trying to send a political message with attacking the Murrah building. What we don’t know yet with Major Hasan is whether or not he was trying to do the same.”

Another NBC analyst, former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt, was more willing to acknowledge the terrorism aspect of the attack: “I appreciate that we haven’t yet identified these internet postings to him....one posting that said if a suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard, that would be considered a significant victory. Should these postings ultimately be attributed to him, that sounds like some ongoing planning that he actually acted out yesterday.”

Here is a full transcript of the discussion:

12:03PM

NANCY SNYDERMAN: Well, today Major Nidal Hasan’s family is expressing grief over the shootings, just releasing this statement, quote, ‘We are shocked and saddened by the terrible events at Ft. Hood. We send the families of the victims our most heartfelt sympathies. We are filled with grief for the families of today’s victims. Our family loves America. We are proud of our country, and saddened by today’s tragedy.’

Investigators have learned that Major Hasan cleaned out his apartment days ago, telling a neighbor that he was being deployed today. And that has certainly raised questions about the attack. Let’s bring in our team of experts. Dr. Stevan Hobfoll, he is the director of the Traumatic Stress Center at Rush University Medical Center. Retired Army Colonel and military analyst Jack Jacobs will be with us. NBC terrorism analyst Roger Cressy and NBC analyst Clint Van Zandt, he’s a former FBI profiler and author of ‘Facing Down Evil.’

I think I want to sort of start with the basics, and Stevan, I’m going to start with you. Physicians in the military are, in many ways, sort of the top rung. And as a major, certainly an officer. Who guards, who profiles, who makes sure that the physicians taking care of people are, themselves, mentally healthy?

STEVAN HOBFOLL: Well, they are guarded and they are checked for mental health and it’s a part of the process. But strangely enough, terrorism is not in itself an area – an act of mental illness. I think this was a Jihadist act, it’s certainly psychologically abnormal what he did, but that doesn’t mean that he had any psychological disorder, per se. And that’s always a difficulty that we have that we think there must be a psychological disorder involved with doing something that is – the act is so abnormal.

SNYDERMAN: Roger, I have heard you express caution that we not say this is terrorism, but that there was, obviously, despaired anger. But then let me ask you about what the obvious is when we talk about domestic terrorism. And I’m thinking of Timothy McVeigh, an American born on this soil, filled with despair, full of anger, but nonetheless, we labeled him a terrorist pretty darn early.

ROGER CRESSY: Well Nancy, we did, because his was a political act. I mean the – the traditional definition of terrorism is premeditated violence for political purposes against noncombatants. And what McVeigh did in Oklahoma City was, he was trying to send a political message with attacking the Murrah building. What we don’t know yet with Major Hasan is whether or not he was trying to do the same.

We’re hearing contradictory and uncorroborated reports about potential postings on the internet. We’ve heard some family references that he was being criticized for his Muslim faith, that’s all we know right now. So until the investigators can determine through their analysis of his cell phone calls, his computers, some of his other things, the data, they’ll determine whether or not there was something that politically motivated him to commit mass murder. It’s still premature to draw the terrorism conclusion.

SNYDERMAN: Clint, as we look at someone who was motivated enough to plan this out, he had to have some forethought to walk in, armed, knowing that there was a mission that he individually wanted to accomplish. And, you know, as a doctor, I know dumb doctors, but you have to have some smarts to get through medical school and through residency. Does he fit a different kind of profile?

CLINT VAN ZANDT: Well, when we look at suicidal ideation, many times we’ll see someone who will give away their belongings before they commit some type of terrible act. In this case, what you just pointed Dr. Nancy, about him giving away furniture and personal belongings at least two full weeks before he was going to deploy, suggests there may have been some ongoing – ongoing planning.

Relatives have said, you know, he really didn’t like to be around weapons and firearms and yet this is someone who appears to have had two personal handguns, a semiautomatic and some other weapon, that he was able to use and with the number of people that he shot, he had to reload two, three times perhaps. That takes a little bit of planning, too. It takes a little bit of practice, Dr. Nancy, to understand how to use a weapon in that regard.

And, although I appreciate that we haven’t yet identified these internet postings to him, we only know that there’s somebody who uses his name, there is one, should this be him, there was one posting that said if a suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard, that would be considered a significant victory. Should these postings ultimately be attributed to him, that sounds like some ongoing planning that he actually acted out yesterday.

As reports of the Fort Hood shooting began to pour in yesterday, numerous news outlets neglected to mention that the shooter is a Muslim. Either the potential import of this fact was completely lost on these journalists, or they omitted the shooter's Muslim affiliations out of a concern for political correctness.

CBS and NBC both omitted the shooter's faith in their East Coast feeds last night, as reported by Brent Baker. The Los Angeles Times left key facts out of its report, published at 9:46 EST (which has since been edited), even though other other media outlets had reported them. Among these was that shooter Nidal Malik Hasan was Muslim, and that he had previously expressed on an Internet forum affinity for suicide bombers.

The Associated Press reported at 8:15 EST that Hasan had "come to the attention" of Army officials at least six months ago for these Internet posts.

The Times also noted the high number of suicides at Fort Hood this year, suggesting--though not stating outright--that the shooter could have been under tremendous mental strain.

Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the Army’s deputy chief of staff, has been leading an effort to reduce the number of Army suicides, which has climbed sharply this year, possibly as a result from long and repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Three of the four brigades of the 1st Calvary Division are in Iraq. The three brigades — the first, second and third — are on their third Iraq tour. The division’s newest brigade, the fourth, has done two tours in Iraq, returning most recently in June.

Ft. Hood also is home to three of the brigades of the 4th Infantry Division. The fourth brigade is now in Afghanistan. The first brigade has done three tours in Iraq, returning most recently in March. The second brigade has also done three tours, returning most recently in September.

The Times did not mention, however, that Hasan was about to go on his first tour, a fact disclosed by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson at roughly 6 PM EST. Hasan was reportedly very upset about his upcoming deployment, but the Times gives the impression that the mental strain endured by servicemen overseas for extended tours could be a possible motive, failing to note that Hasan had not been deployed.

As Patterico reported last night, "the L.A. Times story on the shooting has no mention of the shooter’s religion, his alleged rants against U.S. involvement in Iraq, his alleged approval of suicide bombings, or the allegations that he was shouting something in Arabic as he shot." These are all vital facts to the investigation, as they may indicate motive in Hasan's slaughter of 13 at the base.

With the exception of the shooter's Muslim faith and his "alleged approval of suicide bombings," these facts were not widely reported on until today. But as of 1:10 PM EST the Times still does not mention the many new--and disturbing--facts that have come to light.

According to military personnel present during the shooting, he shouted "Allahu Akbar"--Arabic for "God is great"--before opening fire.

The Times also leaves out reports from a retired Ft. Hood colonel who claims he heard Hasan say he was "almost sort of happy" about the shooting of an Army recruiter in Little Rock, Ark (see Patterico post).

NPR reported today that Hasan gave a lecture on the proper Muslim ritual for the beheading of an infidel. "It seemed to be his own beliefs. That’s what a lot of people thought," one attendee stated, adding, "people actually talked in the hallway afterwards about 'is he one of these people that’s going to freak out and shoot people someday?' "

While none of these facts are proverbial smoking guns in the country's efforts to discover the motives for the shooting, they all indicate a strong resentment of the military, and an affinity for anti-American violence. They are at least worthy of a mention in reporting the story.

Perhaps the Times will notice these new--and revealing--facts as they come to light and continue to update their story accordingly. Readers only ask that they own up to their politically correct instincts and admit when they left out facts critical to understanding the incident.

Facts have steadily streamed in, and there was an air of confusion shortly after the shooting. But the Times shied away from covering some of the more damning details of the shooter's life, even when those facts were reported by other sources. It seems that the Times joined the ranks of CBS and NBC in choosing the politically correct avenue rather than reporting the inconvenient facts that could give readers insight into the shooter's motives.

All three morning shows on Friday identified the man who killed 12 at an Army base in Texas as a Muslim. However, Good Morning America’s Diane Sawyer repeated a concern from Thursday’s World News: "...We heard Martha Raddatz say last night that the wife of a soldier said ‘I wish his name had been Smith,’ so no one would have a reflexive question about [a religious motive]."

In comparison, on Thursday’s CBS Evening News and NBC’s Nightly News both programs failed to reveal the religious faith of Hasan. GMA, as well as CBS’s Early Show and NBC’s Today, did not shy away from politically incorrect details, such as the surveillance footage of Major Nidal Malik Hasan in full Muslim garb in the hours before the shooting. Correspondent Brian Ross dug up information and informed, "In this internet posting earlier this year, Nadal Hasan compared suicide bombers to G.I.’s who saved their colleagues by throwing themselves on a grenade."

The Early Show’s David Martin explained, "He is an American citizen said to be of Jordanian decent and a life-long Muslim." He then added, "However, there’s a retired colonel who served with Hasan, has been quoted as saying that he heard Hasan react with glee to a news report that several American soldiers had been killed by a suicide bomber."

All three morning shows highlighted reports that the killer allegedly yelled "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic") prior to the shooting. Ross noted that a neighbor claimed Hasan had previously given away copies of the Koran and attempted to get rid of his property. News anchor Chris Cuomo reported live from Killeen, Texas and added that Hasan had been "disciplined for preaching to patients and colleagues about [Islam]."

On NBC’s Today, co-host Meredith Vieira talked to General Barry McCaffrey and worried about possible harassment:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: There were also reports, General, that Hasan had told family members that he had been harassed by members of the military, because of his Muslim faith. Is that common?

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY: Well of course again, factually it’s hard to know what’s going on. But the quick answer is, of course not. You know the Army is one of the most diverse institutions in the country. When you look around you see men and women of all faiths and colors in command positions.

Both GMA and Early Show also discussed this possible angle, as well as whether Hasan somehow had post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), despite having never gone to Iraq. Co-host Robin Roberts asked Raddatz: "But we're hearing talk that [PTSD] could be a factor with the suspected shooter, even though he has never been deployed?" On the Early Show, Dr. Michael Welner talked to guest host Debbye Turner-Bell and theorized about Hasan, who was an Army psychiatrist and treating people:

DR. MICHAEL WELNER: A person who is treating people with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is in an environment where they verbalize, so he’s dealing with victims who may have verbalized a tremendous amount of resentment and anger for people he identified with. And we know about mass shooters, that they are alienated and it is their alienation that enables mass shooting. You have to hate everyone to feel comfortable killing anyone. And a random mass shooting, you embrace the possibility, and as an educated professional, that anyone may die.

A transcript of the Brian Ross report on the shooter, which aired at 7:11am EST, follows:

DIANE SAWYER: And as we search for more clues about this man, who he might be, why he might have done this, we turn to ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross. Brian?

BRIAN ROSS: Good morning, Diane. Well, as we learn more about Major Hasan, it's clear that he was about to be deployed to Iraq. He was suffering from some of the same stress that he was trained as an army psychiatrist to treat. His family says he complained about being called a camel jockey by others in the military. And was reportedly being treated himself for problems with alcohol. Although Hasan had just been promoted to major in May, his family and a congressman briefed on the case, say he had hired a lawyer, to help him get out of the Army.

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): Apparently he became very disgruntled in the mission in Afghanistan, voiced that to a lot of his colleagues.

ROSS: In this internet posting earlier this year, Nadal Hasan compared suicide bombers to G.I.’s who saved their colleagues by throwing themselves on a grenade.

BRAD GARRETT (Fmr. Special agent, FBI): Just keep in mind, mass killers, pretty much know they're going to die. And they tend to want to take as many people with them as they can at a shooting.

ROSS: Hasan, an American citizen of Palestinian descent, went to college at Virginia Tech. And studied medicine at the military’s medical school.

FAIZUL KHAN (Islamic Society of Washington Area): I found him very quiet and have a nice, quiet disposition about him. Very all willing to talk. [sic] A humble guy. And I find him very interested in learning more about his religion.

ROSS: Hasan worked as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Military Hospital in Washington for six years until this July.

MCCAUL: Had a poor performance evaluation. Was transferred to Fort Hood Military Base. And while there, received a lot of advanced training in weapons, shooting classes.

ROSS: Overnight, federal agents carried out search warrants at Hasan's apartment outside Fort Hood. A neighbor told ABC News earlier this week that Hasan had been giving away his furniture, and copies of the Koran, as he apparently planned to dispose of all his belongings. In a statement, members of Hasan's family said, they sent their victims heartfelt sympathies. So far, there's been no indication that Hasan is connected to terror organizations. And Muslim groups around the nation are condemning the attack, Diane.

SAWYER: Yes, we heard Martha Raddatz say last night that the wife of a soldier said "I wish his name had been Smith," so no one would have a reflexive question about that. But they are sure that he never traveled overseas. They traced everything they can trace to see if there were any connection.

ROSS: He had a brother that lived in the occupied territories outside of Israel, in Palestine and Ramallah. He had never been deployed overseas. There's no known connection to any al Qaeda group at all.

Neither the CBS Evening News nor NBC Nightly News, in their East coast feeds Thursday night, noted the Muslim religious beliefs of the mass killer at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas, but ABC anchor Charles Gibson wasn't cowed by political correctness as he teased World News, “Fort Hood tragedy: An Army officer, a Muslim convert, is the suspect in a shooting spree...” Introducing his first story, Gibson referred to how Major Nidal Malik Hasan “an army officer, a Muslim, opened fire with handguns...” (With a range of frequency, during late afternoon/early evening coverage, CNN, FNC and MSNBC all identified Hasan as a Muslim.)

Cryptically, ABC's senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, concluded a story on reaction at Fort Hood: “As for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, 'I wish his name was Smith.'” So, a concern this will lead to groundless fear of Muslims?

The CBS Evening News avoided any mention of Islam or Muslim faith as Katie Couric provided this benign description: “Today, according to the Army, a soldier opened fire....He's identified tonight as Army Major Nadal Malik Hasan, a licensed psychiatrist and drug and rehab specialist from Bethesda, Maryland.” NBC anchor Brian Williams: “The soldier, identified as the initial gunman here, is an Army psychiatrist, Nadal Malik Hasan. He's an officer, a Major, and he was apparently armed with two handguns.” NBC's Pete Williams insisted, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth noticed, “everything about his background is rock solid, and nothing extraordinary stands out about his background.”

(At another moment on ABC, Gibson he pointed out there's “confusion” over whether Hasan was convert or was born a Muslim. Brian Ross then offered that he “attended Damascus University in Syria and may be Jordanian -- likely not a convert if that's the case.”)

From the latter part of the story narrated from Washington, DC by Raddatz on the Thursday, November 5 World News on ABC:

 

MARTHA RADDATZ: Fort Hood's 1st Cavalry Division is currently deployed to Iraq, making this all the more tragic. This woman's husband is among the soldiers in Iraq.

WOMAN: He's really upset. He's freaking out. Yeah, it says [reading from PDA], “I'm freaking out here. I have no idea what's going on. The guys keep asking questions. Can someone please tell us something?” I don't believe for a second that a soldier could do this to another soldier at Fort Hood. I just, I don't believe it.

SECOND WOMAN: It's very, very stressful and we don't know what's going on.

RADDATZ: And on Capitol Hill late today, a moment of silence. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said the shooter was about to be deployed.

SENATOR HUTCHISON: The shooters were military people. And of course that's very troubling.

RADDATZ, ON SCREEN AT ANCHOR DESK: As for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, "I wish his name was Smith." Charlie.