Category Archives: Nidal Malik Hasan

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…

5. Hide the Decline: “Climategate” and the CO² ruling

Why it’s important: The unauthorized release in November of 61 megabytes of confidential files and emails hacked from the computers at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit – Ground Zero of the “anthropogenic global warming” racket – shocked nearly all sentient people into the realization that scientists could be just a corruptible as your average politician or, worse, your average “environmental journalists” as they sought to “hide the decline.” While each country’s capo di tutti capi was gathering in Copenhagen to hatch yet another scheme to beggar the industrialized West in the name of collective guilt, the scandal burbled along under the radar as rational people finally had the proof they needed that the Chicken Little alarmists were, well – crowing capons.  For years, skeptics had been derided by such barking lunatics as Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., as “deniers” – the word was deliberately loaded to evoke the Holocaust – even as the Man Who Flunked Out of Divinity School did his best to dodge all challenges to his newfound religion:

Meanwhile, with AGW going up in smoke like a fruitless sacrifice to a god that failed, and the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” extortion bill faltering in Congress, along came the EPA, right on schedule, with its “endangerment finding” that carbon dioxide – you know, the stuff you breathe out when you exhale, and the same stuff that makes the good green plants happy, healthy and wise – is, of all things, a “pollutant.”  Still, the news for the Karbon Krazies just keeps on getting worse.

Why the MSM ignored the story: Are you kidding?  Corporations such as General Electric – the closest thing we have in America to the Krupp Steel Company – have bet the farm on “green technology,” and have mobilized their propaganda arm, better known as NBC/MSNBC, to go along with the charade.  Even the “Special” Commentator, Keith  Olbermann himself, is not dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds him.  And as for the New York Times, its climate apologist/blogger, Andrew C. Revkin, went for the progressive trifecta with a recent post that brought together “climate change,” money and, of course, George Soros.

4. Death Panels

Why it’s important: Because Sarah Palin, the woman who rules the world from her secret redoubt somewhere in the bowels of Facebook, said it.  What else do you need to know?  In one pithy phrase, the Woman Who Drives the Left Nuts drove them nuts yet again by summing up all that is wrong and monstrous about Obamacare.

My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”  Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

Why the MSM ignored/made fun of the story: Are you kidding?  It’s an article of faith among the left that Sarah Palin is the stupidest woman in the world, too dumb to know how dumb she really is.  She’s the avatar of all their worst fears: a woman who declined to exercise her right to choose, who loves God, hunts and fishes and, in her spare time, exerts a political influence all out of proportion to her actual elected office – which, come to think of it, at the moment is none.  The Gaia-fearing progressive’s worst nightmare is of Sarah climbing in through his window one moonless night, there either to convert him to Christianity, take him on the Iditarod, or gut him and serve him up for supper.  So fearful is the Tolerant Left of Sarah that they set her church on fire with people inside it — after which, of course, she was the one who apologized, “if the incident is in any way connected to the undeserved negative attention the church has received since she became a vice presidential candidate.”

3. The “Army Psychiatrist” and other Muslim plots against America.

Why it’s important:  Because, eight years after 9/11, the ongoing jihad against our country continues, whether we want to recognize it or not.  And yet, whenever there is an incident, the authorities, led by the FBI, immediately assure us that “there’s no evidence” it has anything to do with terrorism, and then slowly have to back away from their politically correct stupidity.  Recall the “Beltway sniper,” John Allen Muhammad, who recently met his Maker at the hands of the people of Virginia for murdering ten people in the Washington, D.C., area in 2002.  Or Najibullah Zazi, the “Denver man” who turned out to be an al-Qaeda-trained Afghan terrorist who wanted to blow up the New York City subways.  And then, in a class by himself, is Nidal Malik Hasan, the “Soldier of Allah” who (allegedly) shot and killed 13 real American soldiers last month at the Fort Hood army base in Texas.  And what was the MSM’s first reaction?  Why to describe him as an “Army psychiatrist,” of course!  Here’s the Christian Science Monitor’s take: note the scrupulous omission of the “M-word”:

As the military begins its eighth year of the war on terror, much of the focus has been on the inability to fully support the growing number of troops diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury. But the events at Fort Hood cast the issue even wider. According to reports, Mr. Hasan desperately wanted to avoid being deployed to a war zone. While there appeared to be several reasons for this, including a conviction that he was a victim of harassment, he was also troubled by the stories he heard from overseas.

Why the MSM ignored the story: Are you kidding?  For the clueless media, it’s all about the narrative, and the narrative has no room for card-carrying (in Hasan’s case, literally) Muslim terrorists deliberately infiltrating the officer corps, being trained in the use of weapons, and then unleashed on unarmed and unsuspecting grunts who were getting ready to ship out.  That sounds too much like the old Soviet “illegals” program, in which likely moles were found, cared for, supported and guided as far up the governmental food chain as Moscow Center could get them.  And Allah forbid that anyone in the “Christian” Science Monitor say something derogatory about Arab culture.

No, the official “narrative” is about an America at the breaking point, an Army stretched too thin, and the horrors of war – even when, like Hasan, you experienced them second-hand.  In the annals of pseudo-intellectual academic codswallop, “Secondary Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” has to rank right up there with phrenology and the eugenics movement endorsed by the sainted Planned Parenthood screwball Margaret Sanger, who, among other things, recommended forced sterilization.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously said: three generations of imbeciles are enough!

But there’s a larger reason the MSM punted on this one, aside from the usual sob-sister features analyzing the slayer’s “motives.”  It’s an ugly truth, but here goes: they want us to lose.  As long as nothing, you know, too violent happens, especially to them.  For a generation of reporters and columnists raised on moral equivalence, nurtured on cultural relativism and wedded to the notion that our enemies are really friends who just haven’t tried to kill us yet, every foiled terrorist plot is “a bunch of clowns” and every Hasan is an “Army psychiatrist.”  After all, we deserve it.  With friends like the media, who needs enemies?

Meanwhile, let’s bring the jihadis here to America!  Yeah – that’ll work.

2. ACORN

Why it’s important: Let’s let Hannah Giles, who played the “prostitute” in the now-famous videos, explain:

Back in early September ACORN, one of the most established community organizing groups in the United States, found itself involved in an undercover video scandal involving a pimp, a prostitute, tax fraud, the smuggling of underage girls from El Salvador and a brothel used to fund a congressional campaign. Within days of releasing footage of ACORN employees assisting the pimp and prostitute with their business plans, the Census declared it was severing all ties with ACORN. The Senate voted 83-7 in favor of de-funding the controversial group. The House voted 345-75 to cut ACORN’s funding, and more than 20 states have demanded either a full investigation of ACORN or that they lose their funding. The IRS also ended up cutting their connections to the group.

Why the MSM ignored it: Are you kidding?

Because 25-year old James O’Keefe and 20-year old Hannah Giles acted on a hunch, took a risk, sought the truth and shone a giant light on corruption. If it weren’t for media daredevil Andrew Breitbart their story would have never caused the shockwaves it did. The MSM is afraid of stories like Giles’s and O’Keefe’s because: 1) it makes them look useless; why aren’t the professionals breaking stories like this? How dare the tykes take the initiative? 2) The release method and style of the videos was intended to resonate with everyday Americans, not gain the approval of the media elites 3) The story had everything to do with a corrupt entity. And unfortunately, rather than exposing corruption the MSM has itself adopted a questionable and shady lifestyle.

1.  It’s the End of the Media as We Know It And We Feel Fine

It’s only fitting that the last word goes to Andrew Breitbart:

Why it’s important: The absolute admission by the reigning media class that they are not objective journalists and earnest gumshoe reporters is cause for celebration. The cabal that made sure George W. Bush became a toxic name to the body politic had even greater plans in 2008 when it offered up one-term senator and former Punahou School benchwarmer, Barack Obama, as the candidate of the millennium. Now that the deed is done, multiple scandals that would have felled mere-mortal presidents have gone completely unreported. Who needs Teflon when it’s not you who’s frying in the pan? Problem for the ostriches, however: the undermedia — the Internet, social networking, talk radio — has grown to become a formidable checks and balances for the traditional media. The current paradigm bodes ill for those rooting for ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, Time Magazine, et al. As their readership and viewership plunges with every missed megastory, so do those eyeballs transfer to the more reliable and democratic new media now being fueled by citizen journalists testing their abilities in groundbreaking investigative journalism.

Why the MSM ignored it: Are you kidding?

5. Hide the Decline: “Climategate” and the CO² ruling

Why it’s important: The unauthorized release in November of 61 megabytes of confidential files and emails hacked from the computers at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit – Ground Zero of the “anthropogenic global warming” racket – shocked nearly all sentient people into the realization that scientists could be just a corruptible as your average politician or, worse, your average “environmental journalists” as they sought to “hide the decline.” While each country’s capo di tutti capi was gathering in Copenhagen to hatch yet another scheme to beggar the industrialized West in the name of collective guilt, the scandal burbled along under the radar as rational people finally had the proof they needed that the Chicken Little alarmists were, well – crowing capons.  For years, skeptics had been derided by such barking lunatics as Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., as “deniers” – the word was deliberately loaded to evoke the Holocaust – even as the Man Who Flunked Out of Divinity School did his best to dodge all challenges to his newfound religion:

Meanwhile, with AGW going up in smoke like a fruitless sacrifice to a god that failed, and the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” extortion bill faltering in Congress, along came the EPA, right on schedule, with its “endangerment finding” that carbon dioxide – you know, the stuff you breathe out when you exhale, and the same stuff that makes the good green plants happy, healthy and wise – is, of all things, a “pollutant.”  Still, the news for the Karbon Krazies just keeps on getting worse.

Why the MSM ignored the story: Are you kidding?  Corporations such as General Electric – the closest thing we have in America to the Krupp Steel Company – have bet the farm on “green technology,” and have mobilized their propaganda arm, better known as NBC/MSNBC, to go along with the charade.  Even the “Special” Commentator, Keith  Olbermann himself, is not dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds him.  And as for the New York Times, its climate apologist/blogger, Andrew C. Revkin, went for the progressive trifecta with a recent post that brought together “climate change,” money and, of course, George Soros.

4. Death Panels

Why it’s important: Because Sarah Palin, the woman who rules the world from her secret redoubt somewhere in the bowels of Facebook, said it.  What else do you need to know?  In one pithy phrase, the Woman Who Drives the Left Nuts drove them nuts yet again by summing up all that is wrong and monstrous about Obamacare.

My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”  Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

Why the MSM ignored/made fun of the story: Are you kidding?  It’s an article of faith among the left that Sarah Palin is the stupidest woman in the world, too dumb to know how dumb she really is.  She’s the avatar of all their worst fears: a woman who declined to exercise her right to choose, who loves God, hunts and fishes and, in her spare time, exerts a political influence all out of proportion to her actual elected office – which, come to think of it, at the moment is none.  The Gaia-fearing progressive’s worst nightmare is of Sarah climbing in through his window one moonless night, there either to convert him to Christianity, take him on the Iditarod, or gut him and serve him up for supper.  So fearful is the Tolerant Left of Sarah that they set her church on fire with people inside it — after which, of course, she was the one who apologized, “if the incident is in any way connected to the undeserved negative attention the church has received since she became a vice presidential candidate.”

3. The “Army Psychiatrist” and other Muslim plots against America.

Why it’s important:  Because, eight years after 9/11, the ongoing jihad against our country continues, whether we want to recognize it or not.  And yet, whenever there is an incident, the authorities, led by the FBI, immediately assure us that “there’s no evidence” it has anything to do with terrorism, and then slowly have to back away from their politically correct stupidity.  Recall the “Beltway sniper,” John Allen Muhammad, who recently met his Maker at the hands of the people of Virginia for murdering ten people in the Washington, D.C., area in 2002.  Or Najibullah Zazi, the “Denver man” who turned out to be an al-Qaeda-trained Afghan terrorist who wanted to blow up the New York City subways.  And then, in a class by himself, is Nidal Malik Hasan, the “Soldier of Allah” who (allegedly) shot and killed 13 real American soldiers last month at the Fort Hood army base in Texas.  And what was the MSM’s first reaction?  Why to describe him as an “Army psychiatrist,” of course!  Here’s the Christian Science Monitor’s take: note the scrupulous omission of the “M-word”:

As the military begins its eighth year of the war on terror, much of the focus has been on the inability to fully support the growing number of troops diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury. But the events at Fort Hood cast the issue even wider. According to reports, Mr. Hasan desperately wanted to avoid being deployed to a war zone. While there appeared to be several reasons for this, including a conviction that he was a victim of harassment, he was also troubled by the stories he heard from overseas.

Why the MSM ignored the story: Are you kidding?  For the clueless media, it’s all about the narrative, and the narrative has no room for card-carrying (in Hasan’s case, literally) Muslim terrorists deliberately infiltrating the officer corps, being trained in the use of weapons, and then unleashed on unarmed and unsuspecting grunts who were getting ready to ship out.  That sounds too much like the old Soviet “illegals” program, in which likely moles were found, cared for, supported and guided as far up the governmental food chain as Moscow Center could get them.  And Allah forbid that anyone in the “Christian” Science Monitor say something derogatory about Arab culture.

No, the official “narrative” is about an America at the breaking point, an Army stretched too thin, and the horrors of war – even when, like Hasan, you experienced them second-hand.  In the annals of pseudo-intellectual academic codswallop, “Secondary Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” has to rank right up there with phrenology and the eugenics movement endorsed by the sainted Planned Parenthood screwball Margaret Sanger, who, among other things, recommended forced sterilization.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously said: three generations of imbeciles are enough!

But there’s a larger reason the MSM punted on this one, aside from the usual sob-sister features analyzing the slayer’s “motives.”  It’s an ugly truth, but here goes: they want us to lose.  As long as nothing, you know, too violent happens, especially to them.  For a generation of reporters and columnists raised on moral equivalence, nurtured on cultural relativism and wedded to the notion that our enemies are really friends who just haven’t tried to kill us yet, every foiled terrorist plot is “a bunch of clowns” and every Hasan is an “Army psychiatrist.”  After all, we deserve it.  With friends like the media, who needs enemies?

Meanwhile, let’s bring the jihadis here to America!  Yeah – that’ll work.

2. ACORN

Why it’s important: Let’s let Hannah Giles, who played the “prostitute” in the now-famous videos, explain:

Back in early September ACORN, one of the most established community organizing groups in the United States, found itself involved in an undercover video scandal involving a pimp, a prostitute, tax fraud, the smuggling of underage girls from El Salvador and a brothel used to fund a congressional campaign. Within days of releasing footage of ACORN employees assisting the pimp and prostitute with their business plans, the Census declared it was severing all ties with ACORN. The Senate voted 83-7 in favor of de-funding the controversial group. The House voted 345-75 to cut ACORN’s funding, and more than 20 states have demanded either a full investigation of ACORN or that they lose their funding. The IRS also ended up cutting their connections to the group.

Why the MSM ignored it: Are you kidding?

Because 25-year old James O’Keefe and 20-year old Hannah Giles acted on a hunch, took a risk, sought the truth and shone a giant light on corruption. If it weren’t for media daredevil Andrew Breitbart their story would have never caused the shockwaves it did. The MSM is afraid of stories like Giles’s and O’Keefe’s because: 1) it makes them look useless; why aren’t the professionals breaking stories like this? How dare the tykes take the initiative? 2) The release method and style of the videos was intended to resonate with everyday Americans, not gain the approval of the media elites 3) The story had everything to do with a corrupt entity. And unfortunately, rather than exposing corruption the MSM has itself adopted a questionable and shady lifestyle.

1.  It’s the End of the Media as We Know It And We Feel Fine

It’s only fitting that the last word goes to Andrew Breitbart:

Why it’s important: The absolute admission by the reigning media class that they are not objective journalists and earnest gumshoe reporters is cause for celebration. The cabal that made sure George W. Bush became a toxic name to the body politic had even greater plans in 2008 when it offered up one-term senator and former Punahou School benchwarmer, Barack Obama, as the candidate of the millennium. Now that the deed is done, multiple scandals that would have felled mere-mortal presidents have gone completely unreported. Who needs Teflon when it’s not you who’s frying in the pan? Problem for the ostriches, however: the undermedia — the Internet, social networking, talk radio — has grown to become a formidable checks and balances for the traditional media. The current paradigm bodes ill for those rooting for ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, Time Magazine, et al. As their readership and viewership plunges with every missed megastory, so do those eyeballs transfer to the more reliable and democratic new media now being fueled by citizen journalists testing their abilities in groundbreaking investigative journalism.

Why the MSM ignored it: Are you kidding?

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.

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.

Almost before the echo of gunfire from the massacre at Ft. Hood had faded, the news media launched a pre-emptive rationalization for the slaughter committed by Muslim traitor Nidal Malik Hasan. To...

View Original Post

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

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.

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. 

• 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.

Last week, Fort Hood, Texas was the site of the worst mass shooting in history on a U.S. military base. At 2:34 p.m. local time on Nov. 5, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan - one of the military's own - reportedly attacked fellow soldiers, yelling, "Allah Akbar." He then allegedly fired more than 100 rounds into Fort Hood's crowded processing center, killing 13 and wounding 29. This heinous act stunned the nation and captivated the news media.

Rather than call the attack "Islamic terrorism" or just plain "terror," the White House took a careful approach and news reporting did so as well. That all changed during the Fort Hood Memorial service Nov. 10. ABC "World News with Charles Gibson" anchor Charles Gibson said Obama was "unambiguous in judgment" about the attack, but that wasn't accurate. Obama never used the term "terror" and made no mention of Hasan's religion. But he did hint at it and that was enough for the media.

A blog by ABC's Jake Tapper said Obama's remarks "were a tacit acknowledgment of the Islamic extremist views investigators say were held by [Hasan]."

"No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts," Obama told the mourners, "no just and loving god looks upon them with favor."

That night, the evening news programs reflected the president's changed position. The three networks more than doubled their references to terrorism. CBS and NBC mentioned it once, while ABC referred to it twice.

Before the memorial, all three networks had downplayed any mention of terrorism, as well as Hasan's Muslim connections. The media themes reflected the White House position then as well.

Obama addressed the nation at 5 p.m. the day of the shooting, two-and-a-half hours after the attack. His brief remarks were sandwiched in between his speech at the Native American Tribal Nations Conference, Obama spoke about the Fort Hood massacre a total of 2 minutes, 39 seconds. During that time, he cautioned against "jumping to conclusions," about the shooting.

The "conclusions" Obama was hinting at were the facts that Hasan was a Muslim and that he had connections to radical Islamic extremists. The word he avoided saying was "terrorist." The media mirrored Obama's politically correct approach. 

It wasn't until Nov. 8, three days after the shooting, that the broadcast network evening news programs even mentioned the word "terror" in relation to this event. But even then the three programs only referred to it once each.  

"CBS Evening News" and "ABC World News" mentioned that Hasan had contacted Anwar al-Awlaki, "an outspoken advocate of violent jihad" through e-mail. NBC didn't even address the issue directly. It simply aired a short clip of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who warned Hasan was an "Islamic extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act." The network softened that position and followed the quote immediately with NBC's Janet Shamlian cautioning against "focusing on Hasan's Islamic roots."

Until then, the broadcast networks had also downplayed his Islamic connections. From Nov. 5 through Nov. 10, all three evening news programs only identified Hasan as a Muslim one-fourth of the time (14 times out of 48 reports). And out of those 14 times, seven included a defense of the Islamic religion and expressed concern about a "possible backlash against Muslims in the military."

ABC's Bill Weir claimed that "Muslims in uniform today face a challenge not seen since Japanese-Americans fought in World War II." NBC echoed a similar sentiment when it aired a clip by General George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff. "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength," Casey said. "And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

So within a day, Hasan went from being portrayed as the suspect in a horrific mass murder to a victim that, as ABC said, was "harassed by other soldiers who he said called him a camel jockey."

The broadcast networks haven't always been this sensitive. In two cases, where the media were quick to blame the right, this politically correct approach went out the window as they used words like "extremist," "hate groups," and "terror." Back in June, George Tiller, "the Kansas doctor notorious for his commitment to performing late-term abortions," was shot and killed. Two weeks later in a separate incident, James von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a guard. The result in both cases was a media frenzy that included statements like this by ABC's Pierre Thomas.

"Radicals of the ultra-fringe, filled with rage about illegal immigration, fear of losing their guns, abortion and race making law enforcement increasingly nervous about a potential wave of domestic terror," Thomas said.

CBS also pointed out after the Tiller and Holocaust Museum killings that "the number of hate groups in America has exploded," citing the Internet as the "number one driver for hate groups, for extremist groups on both sides, and even for terrorist organizations."

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."

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."

Andrea Elliott’s front page article in the November 9 New York Times played up the thousands of Muslims in the U.S. military and how their “service...is more necessary and more complicated than ever before,” but gave the false impression that a Medal of Honor recipient named near the end of her piece was a Muslim himself, when he was actually Catholic.

Elliott spent much of her article, “Complications Grow for Muslims Serving in the U.S. Military” (which appeared above the fold on the front page of the print edition of the Times), detailing the concerns of “many Muslim soldiers and their commanders...[who] fear that the relationship between the military and its Muslim service members will only grow more difficult” after Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood on November 5. She later noted that “[w]hatever his possible motives, the emerging portrait of Major Hasan’s life in the military casts light on some of the struggles and frustrations felt by other Muslims in the services.”

Near the end of the article, Elliott changed the subject ever so slightly that it might have gone unnoticed. The reporter quoted Captain Erich Rahman, an Iraq war veteran and Bronze Star winner: “Too many Americans overlook the heroic efforts of Arab-Americans in uniform, said Capt. Eric Rahman...He cited the example of Lieutenant Michael A. Monsoor, a Navy Seal who was awarded the Medal of Honor after pulling a team member to safety during firefight in 2006, in Ramadi, Iraq.  Lieutenant Monsoor died saving another American, yet he will never be remembered like Major Hasan, said Captain Rahman. Regardless, he said, Muslim- and Arab-Americans are crucial to the military’s success in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Elliott’s specific attention to Muslims in the military and their “struggles and frustrations” for most of her article, followed by this passing reference to Monsoor (pictured above, who was actually a Petty Officer, 2nd class), certainly gives the impression, despite the use of the “Arab-American” label, that the Medal of Honor recipient was a Muslim. However, this impression couldn’t be further from the truth.

The Navy’s biography of Monsoor, who died in 2006 after he jumped on a grenade to save the lives of fellow Seals, notes that the lieutenant “attended Catholic Mass devotionally before operations.” Another article written in tribute to the valiant officer cited his aunt Patricia Monsoor, who recalled that he “went to confession frequently.”

Elliott, by covertly changing the subject to “Arab Americans,” committed a journalistic sleight-of-hand, and implied that it was somehow equivalent to “Muslim.” If a conservative had made such an assumption, it might have been attributed to backwards stereotyping.

[H/t: Andrew Cline at National Review Online, NB intern Mike Sargent]

[Update, 10:15 am Eastern, 10 November: The New York Times updated the article at the link above and included the following correction at the end: Earlier versions of this article misstated the religion and rank of Michael A. Monsoor and the act he performed that earned him the Medal of Honor. I’ve also made minor corrections to the blog post above, such as changing the phrase “Medal of Honor winner” to “Medal of Honor recepient” and clarifying he was a Petty Officer.]

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?

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.  

When in doubt, cite the need for more government funding of health care. You won't find an argument on MSNBC.

Among the guests offering their perspectives about the Fort Hood massacre on Rachel Maddow's show last night was Salon.com national correspondent Mark Benjamin, who tried to downplay growing evidence that suspected assailant Nidal Malik Hasan was motivated by a jihadist's hatred of America --

BENJAMIN: There are people that believe that this is a person that was suffering some sort of secondary post-traumatic stress from treating soldiers and there are people that believe he was somehow influenced by Muslim extremism. I think it could be a combination of both. I certainly have met mental health care providers in the military who after sitting all day long and listening to some really disturbing tales, you know, when they're treating these soldiers coming back from Iraq, and in combination with the fact that they're overwhelmed, overworked, don't have the resources to do their jobs, become extremely stressed and frazzled. And there's no reason to not think that this could, this could ultimately lead to that kind of a conclusion.

How could Benjamin know only hours after the massacre whether Hasan did not have "the resources" for his job as an Army psychiatrist? If Benjamin was in possession of such specifics, he wasn't sharing them with Maddow's audience.

More along the same lines after Maddow spoke of the high rate of suicide in the military ("even outpacing the civilian rate," she pointed out, as if that's surprising) --

BENJAMIN: The other thing that's interesting is that there's this discussion about whether there's some ideological component and, you know, motivation to this person. You know, I'm not sure that's necessarily separate from the kind of treatment this person was doing. I mean, in other words, if you sit, I have literally interviewed hundreds of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11, and in private moments, when they tell you some of the things they were forced to do, and I'm not talking about, you know, intentional My Lai stuff, but, you know, things that happened in the vagaries of war, really, really, awful, awful things, it can affect you, it can turn people against the war, it can make you really think about that stuff. It's extremely difficult to think about, you know, to work on that all day long, imagine this doctor, who, that was his job.

By Benjamin's logic, he is also at risk of going berserk from the stress of interviewing "literally" hundreds of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and hearing of the horrors they experienced.

By the same logic, every blood-splattered doctor and nurse toiling in emergency rooms is one bad day from a rampage, along with every cop, every police reporter, every victim's advocate in court -- the entire country after 9/11, for that matter.

The difference here, as Mark Steyn pointed out today while filling in for Rush Limbaugh, is the apparent absence of trauma when it comes to Hasan, who was reportedly upset over his pending deployment to Iraq but had yet to serve there or in Afghanistan. Perhaps Hasan suffered from a new malady, Steyn suggested --"pre-post traumatic stress disorder."  

Based on Benjamin's observations, I can see coming to a different conclusion about the wars we're fighting and the overarching conflict against radical Islam. If I am working as an Army psychiatrist, my patients might, for example, include soldiers who saw Afghan girls scarred from acid thrown in their faces as they walked to school. Who picked up the limbs after the mentally enfeebled were coerced into suicide bombings. Who returned fire at insurgents using children as human shields.

I might well conclude that as a soldier and single man of 39, as with Hasan, the only place for me is where I can serve to destroy the evil behind such malignancy.

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.