NP Rank:
Obama Refuses to call Hood What It Was
"It is remarkable how much a pinch of malice enhances the power of an idea or an opinion. Our ears, it seems, are wonderfully attuned to sneers and evil reports about our fellow men." - Eric Hoffer
President Obama would appear to have deliberately characterizing this terrorism as such just to avoid the political repercussions and to avoid poking holes in the idea that Islam is not the problem.
FT. HOOD ATTACK WAS TERRORISM at DickMorris.com
In his nationally televised remarks following the horrendous killings at Ft. Hood, President Obama never mentioned the T word. The attack was an act of violence. No mention of terrorism.
In fact, the Ft. Hood shooting is the first terror attack on American soil since 9-11.( Not lone wolf ones!) But Obama, reluctant to take the rap for inadequate protections against such attacks, is doing everything he can to make it look like an adult version of the Columbine school shootings. We are treated to stories about the killers dread of being sent back to Afghanistan and his deformed personality.
But, the fact is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan jumped on a table, yelled Alah Hu Akhbar and began the shooting rampage that killed 13 people and wounded 30 more.
Ilana Freedman, CEO and Senior Analyst for the Gerard Group International, which provides intelligence analysis for business and homeland security, describes Hasan as a lone wolf terrorist who acts without apparent coordination with any other person or organization. But that does not make him any less of a terrorist.
The dividing line, of course, between a terrorist and a psychopathic killer is political motivation. His statements right before opening fire would indicate that Hasan was motivated by fanaticism and a commitment to Islamic fascism, even though President Obama bends over backwards to avoid saying so.
Obamas refusal to call the attack terrorism, and to heed the warning signs about the porous nature of our security system that allowed it to happen on a military base, recalls President Clintons deliberate decision to downplay the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He did not visit the site of the attack and treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them.
There may be no groups behind Major Hasans attack, but the fact that he was an officer in the Army, with full access to a military base and its arsenal of weapons, while holding the views he did, is the first indication of a laxity in security under President Obama. This attack did not take place in a shopping mall or a school, where security procedures are, understandably, relaxed. It happened on the highest security place of all - a military base! That the military failed to spot the possibility of an attack and had no measures in place to prevent it must be laid at the feet of the commander-in-chief of that military: President Barack Obama.
Many commentators have warned that the diminution of security and the weakening of our anti-terrorist protections would leave us vulnerable to be hit again. Now it has happened. And the president is doing everything he can to blur the distinction between murder and terrorism.
It was his failure to understand the difference between an act of war and a crime that undermined President Clintons administrations anti-terror efforts and led directly to 9-11. It would appear that President Obama is going down the same road of denial and minimization of political harm. There may be casualties at Ft. Hood, but Obama is determined that his popularity will not be among them.
Recommendations (16)
-
albertacowpoke
Canada -
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States -
snuffysmith
Washington D.C., D.C., United States -
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (12)
at 18:22 on November 8th, 2009
Something went awry with the formatting. - I saw Roy fixed that, thanks
Oh and Allah is spelled with two L's, not one - not too sure if that was the source or an added error. Looks like the error was at source, but given the source not a huge surprise.He and she are both such consummate "experts"
The rest...I will leave to others to debate
(Edited as formatting fixed - thanks)
at 18:29 on November 8th, 2009
Thanks Roy! It was the source. I am a champion speller . If it is wrong it is a typo
He and she are both such consummate "experts". by rng
Go away rng. You are a stalker. : )
at 18:58 on November 8th, 2009
I was referring to Dick and Ilana. I would question both of them as experts on this is all
at 19:48 on November 8th, 2009
Excuse me . I have been harassed by you so much I presumed...you know what they say when one assumes anything which I am sure you have been guilty of too. It makes an ass out of both of us.
I really wish you would just stop it. Don't you have a Mother?
at 22:42 on November 8th, 2009
Huh? Yes I have a mother.
She is in her 80's but rational,clear of mind, free of any mind-altering medication and quite cogent. She is physically well, and quite cheerful. She is apparently at peace, not overly paranoid, though one does get more suspicious as one gets older, I fear. She is still well-regarded in her academic circles, is hard at work at her latest research and still happily married. She always encouraged intellectual rigor and debate. We enjoyed that intellectual freedom as youngsters and I thank her for it. That is one of her most admirable characteristics. She makes a point, no matter how contentious, but is also willing to support it rationally and non-emotively. Thank you for asking.
If one makes statements, especially outrageous ones, it is not unreasonable to be asked to support them.You may term that harassment, especially if you have little history of being held accountable for ones actions. However you are making your extreme positions in a public forum, so are asking for comment albeit subconsciously. I call it honesty, and intellectual honesty through analysis is the greatest truth of all. Rational opinions can be discussed, bigotry opposed. There is a difference
IMHO
at 04:41 on November 9th, 2009
Wow, this explains everything. Mom tied your brains and balls to her steel apron.
at 17:26 on November 9th, 2009
`Mom tied your brains and balls to her steel apron.`
This is innapropriate, please refrain from using this kind of language to address another member of the site.
We have a code of condut for a reason, please remember it when making comments to other members, even if you don`t like them personally we ask that you be civil to them.
at 02:13 on November 9th, 2009
Good morning ! Am I still sleeping ?
at 04:02 on November 9th, 2009
"There may be casualties at Ft. Hood, but Obama is determined that his popularity will not be among them."
That is a pretty good line. At least we know he has priorities.
at 04:42 on November 9th, 2009
Thank you Hugh The only intelligent comment.
at 04:50 on November 9th, 2009
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/11/09/nyt-wants-you-know-percentage-wise-hasan-was-hardly-ever-homicidal
at 09:36 on November 9th, 2009
President Obama, unlike his predecessor, is unwilling to strike terror into the hearts of Americans until he has all the facts. Yes i can see where that would irritate the extreme right wing of the Republican party.