The Disturbing Pattern of Obama's Administration in Responding to Terrorism

I found this blog post by Jim Geraghty of The Campaign Spot to be chillingly insightful.  Geraghty points out that there have been four major terrorist attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. soil over the past few years, and in EVERY CASE the Obama Administration issued statements in response to those attacks attempting to mislead the public, mischaracterize the facts, and downplay or deny the clear links to Islamic terrorism.  If this had only happened once or twice, it might be possible to chalk it up to honest mistakes, but the fact that it has happened in every case seems to make it clear that it is a deliberate pattern of deception. 

Geraghty links to an excellent The Weekly Standard article by Stephen Hayes which goes into more details about the Obama Administration's claims in the wake of the recent embassy attacks in Libya and Egypt.  After documenting a long list of the false claims coming out of the Administration and demonstrating how they played right into the hands of the Islamic extremists who attacked our embassies, Hayes sums up his case thusly: "Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened. This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal."  He concludes by noting that "the defining characteristics of [Obama's] foreign policy have been mendacity, incompetence, and, yes, stupidity."

Not On Obama Administration's Agenda: Fighting Terrorism, Defending Free Speech, or Maintaining Ethical Standards

In this excellent editorial, The Wall Street Journal explores the laughable claims of the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice that the attacks on U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East do not constitute terrorist attacks against the U.S. and have nothing to do with U.S. policy but are merely a spontaneous response to that "very hateful, very offensive" obscure video that was posted on YouTube six months ago.  Rice's "blame America" view is contradicted by the evidence and by Libyan officials.  Apparently this administration's idea of responding to foreign terrorist attacks against Americans consists primarily of denying that any such attacks occurred, pressuring a private company (Google) to remove an "offensive" video from its website and of sending authorities to the filmmaker's house in the middle of the night to bring him in for questioning.  That should a send a powerful message to our enemies around the world!

In light of these attacks against this filmmaker's free speech, you might be worried that the Obama Administration would entertain the idea of criminalizing speech against religions such as Islam.  I don't think this disturbing video from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez's testimony before Congress a couple of months ago will do anything to allay such fears:



Well, even if the Obama Administration doesn't seem too concerned about responding forcefully to terrorism or defending American's free speech, at least it is taking great pains to be free of corruption and ethics violations, right?  Or...not.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius blatantly violated the Hatch Act by using taxpayer funds to campaign for Obama's re-election at an official HHS event.  Not surprisingly, she faces no disciplinary action from President Obama.

Odds 'n Ends

Here are a few interesting links and comments for today:

First, I had the privilege of attending a prayer rally outside of Leroy Carhart's late-term abortion clinic in Germantown, Maryland on Monday morning. The rally memorialized the first anniversary of Carhart's presence in Germantown and planted 720 crosses in the ground to symbolize the approximately 720 human lives killed during that first year. I was greatly encouraged to see how many people came out to participate on a weekday morning, but I couldn't believe it when I checked online afterwards and found out that more than 2,000 people attended! That is more than double the attendance for the other large protests I have attended over the past year and far more than organizers expected.

Second, I found an interesting exchange relating to the treatment of enemy combatants between Andrew McCarthy of National Review and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky which I thought was well worth reading. McCarthy's original article was in response to a discussion on the Senate floor between Sen. Paul and Sen. McCain on this topic (McCarthy links to a video of this discussion in his article). While I don't necessarily agree with everything McCarthy writes, especially related to the topic of Lincoln's conduct during the War Between the States, I think it is one of the best articles I have read refuting Ron and Rand Paul's positions on the War on Terror. McCarthy also has some harsh words regarding the U.S.'s attempts (under Pres. Bush) to set up democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think I have largely come around to McCarthy's perspective on this as well, in hindsight. Rand Paul wrote a short response to McCarthy's article here, which McCarthy then responded to again here and here. Of course, I think McCarthy by far got the better of this argument, but I'm far from an objective observer and Paul's single response may have been too brief to present his argument well.

Finally, Charles Krauthammer summarizes Obama's case for re-election in this article with two words: class resentment. After all, what else does he really have to run on? He has no ideas to solve the big problems facing our country -- the ballooning national debt, out-of-control government spending, runaway entitlement programs, and an outdated and unfair tax code. In fact, his policies have only made these problems worse. He has not been active in working with Congress and seeking a bi-partisan solution to these problems, and barely lifted a finger to help the debt commission (that he himself authorized) succeed. As Gov. Chris Christie succinctly put it, "What the hell are we paying you for, Mr. President?" He says he needs to be re-elected because there are so many pressing problems facing our country that he hasn't finished solving, but he's spent the past year doing little more than giving campaign-style speeches, attending fundraising, and golfing. Next year will certainly be more of the same. He can't run on his record, so he has to blame others for all our country's problems -- especially the rich. His big campaign strategy is to pound the Republican nominee relentlessly and propose big new taxes for the rich to make sure they pay "their fair share." And I'm sure, with the help of the media, that strategy will lock up tens of millions of votes for him. Maybe enough to get re-elected.

The Smell of Our Fear

Another great column by Ralph Peters in the New York Post about our government's embarrassingly submissive response to Islamic terrorism. He's right, of course. Appeasement does not work against terrorism. Just for once, I'd like to see Obama show angry determination about something other than Arizona's immigration law or Fox News.

Watch Out for Those Right-Wing Christian Terrorists!

So, a bomb almost went off in New York's Times Square last week. Word quickly came out that the person of interest in the attack was a naturalized American citizen originally from Pakistan who had just returned after spending five months there. What was the reaction of the chattering classes?

--New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the identity of the bomber: "If I had to guess twenty-five cents..., homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something." Ah yes, because opponents of the health care bill are in the habit of blowing up cars and buildings.

--New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler gives his expert opinion as well: "Whether the guy who did this, or the people who did this were with some Islamic terrorist group or whether they were some right-wing nut group or whether they were by themselves, in one sense it doesn't matter." Of course not. Islamic terrorists, Republicans, the Christian Right -- they're all the same!

--MSNBC terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann: "The potential culprits -- it's a wide range, I think it's fair to say that the presumption is that it's more likely to be a homegrown group. Whether it's Al-Qaeda group, a right-wing group, whether it's somebody else." Hmmm...like maybe a left-wing group?

--MSNBC's Contessa Brewer on Stephanie Miller's radio show: "There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country.... There a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry." If only the bomber were a right-wing Christian, it would be very politically useful....

--On the O'Reilly Factor last night, O'Reilly asked liberal radio talk show host Alan Colmes about why Obama refuses to call this bombing an act of Islamic terrorism. Colmes countered by saying, "Wait a minute. We have a Christian militia who said I'm going to throw rocks through Democratic office buildings. Should we define that as Christian terrorism." Now I'm finally getting it. Right-wing Christians and Islamic jihadists are all the same. Some wacky militia person talks about throwing rocks through a building, and Muslim jihadists have attempted four mass killings on U.S. soil just since September. Sounds like Christian and Islamic terrorists are both a serious threat!!!

--Mayor Bloomberg had some additional words of wisdom after it was proven that the Times Square bomber was, in fact, an Islamic terrorist: "I want to make clear that we will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers. All of us live in this city. And among any group, there's always a few bad apples." This warning is clearly necessary due to the meteoric rise in violence against Muslims in the U.S. after previous terrorist attacks. Wait....there wasn't any. Maybe Mayor Bloomberg should be warning Muslims to stop killing American civilians?

Now, put these comments together with the Nazi and racism rhetoric of the left about the Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration and the Tea Party movement, and a disturbing picture is starting to emerge. Health care policy and government spending and illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism are serious policy concerns for our country, and it's important to be able to discuss them openly, honestly, and rationally. Unfortunately, that is becoming increasingly hard to do because the Left will not engage the Right on policy. All they want to do is yell "Racist"! They continue to falsely accuse Republicans of supporting the status quo on health care. They have no solution to the problem of illegal immigration and their only policy position on the issue is to claim Republicans are bigoted and racist against Mexicans. They make up racial incidents at Tea Party rallies out of thin air and then claim the entire movement is some kind of power play by white supremacists. They equate Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists, despite the fact that Christian fundamentalists don't commit acts of terrorism, and they immediately play politics with any terrorist attack by using it as an excuse to attack "homegrown right-wing nuts." And I'm not talking about Daily Kos and Moveon.org. I'm talking about columnists from major newspapers, anchors and senior reporters on cable news channels, and top elected politicians such as big city mayors and members of Congress in leadership positions.

And yes, I include the President of the United States in that category too. Because Obama himself uses the same inflammatory rhetoric. Obama himself was quoted in a new book by Jonathan Alter as calling members of the Tea Party "teabaggers," an insulting and obscene sexual reference. He told flagrant lies about the Arizona immigration law, claiming that if you were Hispanic you could be arrested "just for walking down the street to get ice cream." He and his administration refuse to even use terms like "Islamic terrorism" or "jihad" or "radical Islam" for fear of offending Muslims, but his Department of Homeland Security has specifically singled out "right-wing militia groups" and "anti-abortion activists" as threats to our country's security. He has personally attacked everyone from Cambridge, MA cops to Sarah Palin to Fox News, which is far below his dignity as President. (I challenge my readers to point out one time in which President Bush EVER personally attacked private citizens, elected officials, his presidential predecessors, or news organizations during his 8 years in office.)

The political climate today is the most polarized and angry I have ever seen it. And the Left is primarily to blame for that. They are following a scorched earth policy of ramming through an unpopular, hard-left agenda on purely partisan votes, and then, with help from their pals in the media, demonizing ordinary citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest and speak out. If you are against illegal immigration or government-run health care, or if you believe Islamic terrorism is a serious threat, or if you are sympathetic to Tea Party ideals of limited government, then the Democratic Party and the White House consider you a racist, a bigot, and a threat to America. Of course, conservatives are becoming more and more outraged at these unfair charges, which just serves to increase the temperature of the debate.

It is vital that we as conservatives channel our anger into making every effort to vote out the bums and elect principled conservatives to the House and the Senate this year (and then the Presidency in 2012). I don't think we can take another 6 years of Democratic control.

Obama and Terrorism

This post is a response to Island Boy's comment on my previous post about how Obama's national security decisions are making us less safe. This issue is so important that I decided to respond with a full post instead of merely a responding comment. If there were ever an issue with life-or-death significance, this is it. I want to demonstrate three things in this post. 1.) The Bush Administration's tough approach to terrorism is both moral and necessary. 2.) The Obama Administration's weak approach to terrorism is immoral and dangerous. 3.) The evidence demonstrates that Obama's weak approach to terrorism is not working.

1.) Island Boy makes the following claim: "If we torture and waterboard terrorists, then are we any better than the terrorists we are trying to capture? Who gives us this divine right to do as we are please with another human? Nate, I guess you subscribe to 'an eye for an eye' belief." This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bush Administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques," which are not the same as torture. The purpose of these techniques is not to take vengeance on people we don't like. It is to obtain valuable information about future planned attacks and terrorist activities that will enable us to stop those attacks, capture more terrorists, and in the process save many innocent human lives. There is no conceivable moral equivalency between us and the terrorists. Terrorists blow up innocent civilians, including women and children. CIA & military interrogators use tough, but not inhumane, methods to extract information from hardened killers in order to protect those innocent civilians. Terrorists are evil, violent murderers; CIA & military interrogators are heroes who work tirelessly to keep us safe day and night. There is no comparison between torture and enhanced interrogation techniques (including waterboarding). Torture is used by totalitarian regimes to inflict permanent physical harm on people they don't like. Saddam Hussein made torture chambers for his political opponents. Islamic countries in the Middle East sentence women and girls guilty of "unchastity" to have their arms sawed off or to be gang-raped. By contrast, our country under Bush subjected a select few of the most dangerous, top-level capture foreign terrorists to techniques like sleep deprivation, aggressive questioning, loud music, and drowning simulations to frighten hardened killers into giving up vital information for our national security. There were less than 30 terrorists who were interrogated in this way, and only three of them were waterboarded. No serious or permanent physical harm was done to any of them, and in each case we received valuable information about planned terrorist attacks that we had been previously unable to obtain. Thousands of lives were saved as a result of these targeted interrogations. This is the very definition of moral and right, at least in my book. These terrorists are being treated far better than they deserve -- reasonable living conditions, plenty of food and water, freedom to practice their religion of hate, no immediate execution. So don't claim "human rights" violations to me.

2.) By contrast, the Obama Administration has completely abandoned the "tough" approach to terrorism. His Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, abandoned the term "terrorism" in favor of the words "man-caused disaster." This sends a clear message that we are unwilling to recognize evil for what it is and confront it; instead we prefer to sugarcoat it. Obama is trying to shut down Guantanamo Bay, which means that dangerous terrorists will either be released overseas or brought to the U.S. The first option invites dangerous killers to kill more U.S. citizens, and the second option puts Americans at risk of having dangerous killers present in their communities. This sends a clear message that we are willing to compromise the security of Americans in order to appear "nice" to the world. Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has announced that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks, will receive a civilian trial in the U.S. along with numerous other foreign terrorists. Such a move gives foreign terrorists many constitutional and legal rights reserved only for U.S. citizens, offers them a huge public forum to spout their hatred for the U.S., puts the safety and security of American cities and communities at risk, risks the public release of a huge amount of classified intelligence information, and offers the opportunity that killers might go free based on any number of technicalities or procedural violations -- all at huge expense to taxpayers. This sends a clear message to terrorists all over the world that if they are caught by America they will be treated like U.S. citizens instead of the enemy combatants they are, and encourages them to believe that our country is more concerned about cultivating a non-threatening image abroad than protecting our citizens and giving justice to terrorists. After the failed Christmas Day attack, a vacationing Obama waited three days to give an extremely brief, detached public statement before quickly heading back to the golf course. This sends the message that our president doesn't think terrorist attacks are that big of a deal. Once the Christmas Day bomber was captured, he was only interrogated for about 50 minutes by the FBI before being read his Miranda rights and "lawyering up." Even though the initial interview revealed he could provide significant information about terrorist activities, as soon as this non-U.S. citizen was given a lawyer and constitutional rights, he clammed up and completely stopped cooperating. No one from the CIA and no terrorist experts ever had a chance to interview him or to follow up on any important information. People could lose their lives because of this mistake; yet no one in the Obama Administration was held accountable for this. This sends the message to terrorists that if captured they have nothing to fear from us. Obama's Attorney General has opened an investigation into the CIA for alleged human rights violations that were legal at the time they were committed. This sends the message to the CIA that they should be more focused on protecting themselves from internal investigations than tracking down terrorists, and encourages terrorists that our country is weak and disunited.

I could go on and on with these examples. All of them send the message that we don't take terrorism seriously, that we aren't going to be aggressive in tracking terrorists down and interrogating them, that we are more interested in being popular in the world than in keeping our citizens safe. These terrorists have spent their lives in a world of violence, have been taught hatred from their youngest years, and are hardened to the worst of cruelties. In their society, freedom and democracy are non-existent. The strong rule the weak. The only language they know is force. They perceive our gestures of goodwill not as a reason for them to renounce violence, but as an admission by us of weakness and defeat. Repeatedly backing away from confrontation with a bully just encourages his behavior rather than stopping it. This is far more true with hardened terrorists.

3.) In light of my previous analysis, it makes sense that radical Islamic terrorism would be emboldened by Obama's actions. And when we look at the evidence, we find that this is the case. Internationally, terrorist attacks spiked by almost 50% in 2009 compared with 2008, including significant increases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Twelve terrorist incidents occurred on U.S. soil in 2009, compared with an average of less than three per year each year of the Bush Administration after 9/11. Of course, the worst of these was the only actual successful terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 - the Fort Hood shootings. And we know that there were many warning signs prior to the attack that were ignored due to an obsession with political correctness. There were also the Christmas Day bombing and the plot to bomb NYC targets. Terrorist "chatter" is up significantly in recent months. Bin Laden recently released another videotape, and he doesn't seem very impressed with Mr. "Nice Guy" Obama. Iran continues to ignore our attempts at engagement and defy our repeated cooperation deadlines. The terrorists are becoming more active, not less. Obama's response cannot be prevention techniques like "full body scans." This just eats into our liberties. We have to go after the terrorists and destroy them. Or they will destroy us. This is a life-or-death struggle, and Obama and his people seem oblivious.

The Washington Post Gets It Right Again!

Here's another great opinion piece by a left-wing Washington Post columnist. I rarely agree with Richard Cohen, but in this article he does a great job of explaining why Obama's naive national security policy is putting Americans in danger. From the handling of the Christmas Day bomber to the civilian trial for KSM to the closing of Guantanamo, this administration has been persistantly showing an unwillingness to stand up to radical Islamic terrorism. As bad as Obama's domestic policy has been, I think his prosecution of the "War on Terror" is even more dangerous for our country.

Lindsay Graham Destroys Eric Holder

Check out this video of Lindsay Graham destroying Eric Holder. The only disappointment is when Graham calls Eric Holder a "good man." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4.

Families of 9/11 Speak Out

Check out this letter to Obama, signed by many, many family members of 9/11 victims, strongly urging him to rethink his administration's irresponsible decision to have Mohammed tried in New York civilian courts. http://www.thebravest.com/ObamaLetter110909.htm.

In my previous post on this topic, I failed to mention how much pain this decision would bring to the families of the victims -- especially since Mohammed had already agreed to plead guilty and face execution under a military commission. Now this forces the victims' loved ones, who have already suffered so much, to have to go through the whole painful ordeal again -- in a public courtroom on a national stage, with the chance that the 9/11 mastermind might actually go free. Doubtless Mohammed will do everything possible to insult the U.S. and his victims and to re-open painful wounds and memories from that dreadful day -- which will inspire terrorists everywhere while demoralizing lovers of freedom here and around the world.

Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was killed by Mohammed in Pakistan. Pearl's father is speaking out about this, saying that the decision made him "sick to the stomach" since it would give the mass murderer the chance to "boast about his cruelty." He adds in an interview with the New York Post, "I don't want to hear every morning in the papers what KSM did. Danny was killed once. Now he will be killed 10 times a day. Leave him alone."

And now we hear that Obama wants to transfer all the detained overseas enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay to some detention center in Illinois, in the heart of America. What is our president thinking? His left-wing ideology is leading our country toward utter ruin.

Obama Administration vs. America, Part 239

Honestly, I would like this blog to be able to focus on something other than criticizing the Obama Administration. But almost every day, Obama and his administration are responsible for some new outrage. Just when I tell myself, "This is as bad as it gets," Obama and his cronies do something even worse that catches me off guard. I'm tired of being outraged. I wish Obama would do something bipartisan or patriotic so I could give him a little bit of credit for being in some way up to the task of being the leader of the free world. I'm still waiting.

The latest outrage is yesterday's announcement by Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, that top al-Qaeda terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-conspirators will be brought to New York City and tried in civilian courts for their roles in the 9/11 attacks. Mohammed, of course, is the admitted mastermind of the World Trade Center attacks. This is an outrageous decision for the following reasons:

1. Mohammed and other al-Qaeda terrorists, as well as the other Guanatanamo Bay detainees, are not U.S. citizens. They are foreign enemy combatants and part of an organization that is at war with our country. For this reason, these terrorists do have not constitutional rights and are in no way subject to the jurisdiction of the federal court system. Holder's decision grants these terrorists rights that do not belong to them -- and should not belong to them.

2. Trying these terrorists in civilian courts makes it far more difficult to prosecute them effectively. Remember -- these terrorists were detained under the laws of war. Some of them, including Mohammed, were subject to enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding. They were not read their Miranda rights and did not receive lawyers. Much of the evidence against them may not even be admissible in court. Left-wing, terrorist-sympathizing defense attorneys will have a field day with these cases. They will bombard the court with pre-trial motions and motions to dismiss and attempts to free the defendants based on technicalities. They will claim that these terrorists were tortured, that they were denied access to legal help, that they were held without proper evidence, and that their confessions were coerced. They could use all sorts of legal tactics to delay these cases for months or even years. We have all heard horror stories about corrupt, left-wing federal judges who award old ladies millions for spilling coffee on themselves and give child rapists three months in jail. What's to prevent such a judge from acquitting one or more of these terrorists because of the prosecution's failure to meet due process requirements, or to make a point about torture or war-time detention? These men are extremely dangerous terrorists, and we must never open the door to the possibility that any of them could be set free.

3. Trying these terrorists in civilian courts risks the exposure of intelligence methods and sources and other confidential information that could jeopardize U.S. national security. U.S. civilian courts have very burdensome discovery and witness-confrontation rules that could force the government to disclose a huge amount of classified intelligence information. This is dangerous to our country because it could give our enemies a great deal of insight into our methods and activities in the War on Terror which they will not hesitate to use against us. Bin Laden gained valuable information from the 1995 trial of one of the bombers of the World Trade Center, which led him to flee from Sudan to Afghanistan. Also, such a disclosure of U.S. national security secrets will discourage cooperation from intelligence sources and foreign intelligence services, leaving us even more vulnerable to terrorism.

4. Trying these terrorists in civilian courts gives the terrorists exactly what they want -- a big microphone to spout their hatred and contempt for the U.S. The civilian trial of the 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, turned into a circus. No one doubts that Mohammed is guilty. He and his lawyers will use his trial not to argue for his innocence, but instead to try to embarrass the United States military and the CIA while emboldening terrorist sympathizers around the world.

5. A civilian trial for al-Qaeda terrorists in New York is a huge security risk. Bustling, densely-populated Manhattan is already a bull's eye for terrorism, and a public trial of al-Qaeda members makes it worse. Our country will pay a huge amount of money for top-level security at these trials, and still run the risk of inviting terrorist attacks that could cost many lives.

6. Our country has a long history of trying foreign enemy combatants in special military tribunals during wartime. In 1942, eight Nazis who sneaked into the U.S. were tried by a military tribunal and hanged. And make no mistake about it -- we are in a war against radical Islamic terrorism. The Fort Hood attacks are just the latest reminder of that sobering truth. Military tribunals are not against the rule of law -- they are part of the rule of law. The 2006 Military Commissions Act was passed to establish a detailed legal process for detainees in response to a Supreme Court ruling and received bipartisan Congressional support. These commissions, held at the impenetrable Guantanamo Bay fortress, were widely considered to be impartial and effective. They provided very generous due process protections for wartime combatants, but ensured that information vital to our national security would not be disclosed. Such a commission had already been established for Mohammed and his fellow terrorists, and they had already agreed to plead guilty and accept execution. Yet Obama has broken with this long American tradition and discontinued this system of military commissions.

7. Obama apparently thinks this decision will reduce or eliminate radical Muslim hostility to the U.S. This is ludicrous. Obama has taken a much softer approach to terrorism than his White House predecessor, and the result has been a significant increase in attempted terrorist attacks on our soil. Nearly half of all the attempted terrorist attacks against U.S. targets that have occurred since 9/11 have occurred in the past seven months -- since Obama took office. He has also taken a conciliatory approach toward the worlds' #1 terrorist-sponsoring country, Iran, which has produced no positive results or cooperation whatsoever. Obama's approach is interpreted as weakness and lack of resolve on the part of our enemies, and they appear to be more emboldened than they have been in quite some time.

In summary, this is a terrible idea born out of Obama's twisted left-wing ideology. It shows that the Obama Administration does not take terrorism seriously. It is giving these terrorists far more respect and far more rights than they deserve and allowing them to use our country's institutions against us. It emboldens other terrorists around the world. It is putting our national security and confidential intelligence information at risk. It is creating the possibility that dangerous terrorists might be set free. It shows a dangerous lack of resolve during wartime. May God have mercy on our country.

Lessons from Fort Hood Terrorist Attack

Last week, Maj. Nidal Hasan went on a horrific killing spree at Fort Hood, killing 13 Americans and wounding 29 others. Here are the facts:
1. Maj. Hasan was a radical Muslim who attended a mosque led by a jihadist cleric who is under investigation for terrorist involvement.
2. Maj. Hasan shouted out "Allahu akbar" ("God is great") right before going on his killing spree.
3. Maj. Hasan had been a vocal critic of America and of America's overseas wars for years and had declared that the U.S. was in a war against Islam.
4. Maj. Hasan had published odes to suicide bombers on the Internet, had publicly praised a radical Muslim who killed a soldier at a recruiting station in Arkansas earlier this year, and had attempted to contact Al Qaeda, all in the weeks and months leading up to the shootings.
5. Maj. Hasan was an Army psychiatrist who had never been in combat and had never even been deployed overseas, and who was promoted despite poor job performance.
6. Maj. Hasan sold off most of his belongings and handed out copies of the Koran in the days leading up to the shootings.

Here are the inevitable conclusions that an objective observer would draw from these facts:
1. This was a premeditated and evil act of Islamic terrorism perpetrated on American soil -- the worst one in fact since 9/11 -- and our government needs to publicly label it as such.
2. We need to condemn not only the attacks, but also the radical Muslim ideology that inspired this attack, and redouble our efforts to effectively monitor, and if necessary, arrest, deport, or silence clerics, mosques, and individuals that promote this ideology.
3. We need to ask ourselves what went wrong in our country's War on Terror to allow this Muslim extremist to get away with this crime. The warning signs were obvious, and Maj. Hasan has been on the FBI's radar screen for months prior to the shooting. Why was nothing done?
4. Many military acquaintances of Maj. Hasan's are coming forward now with damning statements about this man's sympathy with Islamic terrorism, his dangerous religious views, and his hatred and contempt for the U.S. and the U.S. military. Why did they not come forward earlier to report these things? Some of them have stated that it was because they were fearful of being branded as intolerant or being punished for opposing Islam or diversity. What does the military (and other branches of government) need to do to encourage members to report potential terrorist suspects or plots?

Here are the conclusions that our government and our media are drawing from this attack:

1. Gen. George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, made the following comments in the days following the attacks: “Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. It’s not just about Muslims, we have a very diverse army, we have very diverse society and that gives us all strength." NOTE: The real tragedy is not the death of the soldiers or the violence of radical Islam, but a potential backlash against Islam and diversity. He added in another interview, "I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that." NOTE: The real thing to watch for is not terrorism, but "anti-diversity" behavior. If that's the attitude of the military leadership, I wouldn't hold my breath to see changes for the better in preventing future terrorist attacks.
2. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano made the following comments: “This was a terrible tragedy for all involved. Obviously, we object to — and do not believe — that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this.... This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith." Well, obviously. There have only been a little over 14,000 attacks worldwide by Muslim terrorists in the 8 years since 9/11. So it's good to see the woman responsible for keeping American soil safe zeroing in on the real threat to our security -- anti-Muslim bigotry.
3. ABC's newly-picked World News Tonight anchor commented that she wished that Maj. Hasan were named "Smith." That's what I call real journalism -- wishing out loud that the facts would just go away.
4. Chris Matthews, who has a prime-time MSNBC show (with approxmately 7 viewers per night) made the following comments: "See - we have a problem. 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?" Hmmm. Once he kills a few dozen soldiers, gets arrested, gets a lawyer, and is duly declared guilty in a court of law, we can conclude he's dangerous. I'm feeling safer already.
5. And here's Evan Thomas, Editor-At-Large of Newsweek: "I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just -- I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse." Of course, no pattern here. The guy just happens to be Muslim. What a "tragic" coincidence! I just hope we can be vigilant about the real threat -- those right-wingers!
6. Numerous news outlets have claimed that he must have just snapped and are blaming post-traumatic stress syndrome (despite the fact he had never been in combat). This was the original explanation of most of the media, which failed to even initially report the fact that Hasan was a Muslim (which seems like it could be a somewhat relevant fact).

This politically correct attitude by people in top positions in government and media shows why this attack was able to happen in the first place. Nobody dares to report or go after anyone who is Muslim, no matter what they say or do, because they will be branded as bigoted. The pansy White House won't even use the word terrorism. Our government won't even admit we're in a war against radical Islam -- so how can we fight it effectively? How many people have to die before we learn the tragic lesson from Fort Hood?