Why Wasn't Hasan Discharged?
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Nidal Hasan was not only unhinged, but also an entirely inappropriate character to counsel U.S. soldiers on war-related stress and injuries. The wingers are exaggerating much of this--the fact that he attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers is guilt by association, at best; the fact that he communicated with an Al Qaeda leader is more troubling, but the emails were monitored and judged to be non-threatening.
What is very troubling is that his colleagues at Walter Reed seem to have had grave doubts about the guy (it'll be interesting to see the evaluations he received from superiors)--and yet he was allowed to continue to counsel American troops, troops who were in an extremely delicate psychological state. That seems beyond careless. And the question has to be asked: Was this a matter of political correctness? Was the Army reluctant to discharge a Muslim in a sensitive position because it might be portrayed as an act of bigotry or censorship--that he was fired for his views?
Well, in some jobs, your views matter. In this case, Hasan's apparent belief that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were an anti-Muslim crusade, had to influence to way he interacted with his patients. No doubt, those views were influenced, and perhaps exacerbated, by his experiences treating the tormented troops in his care...and, perhaps, in some cases, they made Hasan a more compassionate therapist. But they were wrong and extreme--the war in Iraq was a disgrace for any number of reasons, but it was not an anti-Muslim jihad--and they were inappropriate for a person in Hasan's position. He should have been discharged.
By the way, it is possible to believe that Hasan should have been discharged...and to also believe that his act of insanity was not an act of terrorism. Most terrorists kill strangers; Hasan killed people he knew and worked with, fellow therapists, in fact. His disgraceful act has far more in common with Columbine than it does with 9/11.
In any case, I don't understand where calling the act "terrorism" gets us. If it was terrorism, rather than sheer insanity, what are the policy implications? That devout Muslims should be regarded as inherently suspicious characters? That Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military or in sensitive government agencies? That we should be more vigilant at home and more aggressive fighting the War on Terror overseas? (Add: There is a real danger, as we saw during the Bush Administration, of overreacting to a serious, heinous but non-existential threat.)
I'd draw a far more narrow lesson: that even though the Army has made dramatic improvements in its treatment of our psychologically wounded warriors, the vast increase in the need for therapists has allowed standards to slip. It is important that the military use this massacre as an impetus to pay much closer attention to the therapists entrusted with the care of our troops.
-
1
Joe, Michael said below
But in 2001, he was imam at a mosque in Falls Church, near Washington; Maj. Hasan may have been one of his congregants.
You say
the fact that he attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers is guilt by association, at best
Has this assertion been verified?
-
1.1
Yes, verified over and over again. Even Hasan's dead mother was a member.
-
-
2
Joe- where is you apology for your post a few days ago that the "wingers" were jumping to conclusions that this butchering had anything to do with Muslim extremism. Once again, the ultra-liberal unobjective Joe klein was wrong. Go back to MSNBC where you belong
-
2.1
Exactly, I wrote then, the one thing for sure is the Joe K. knew nothing about the situation.
And maybe the reason the Army was (too) slow to act is the barrage of accusatory articles fro the like of you and Chris Tingles about being insensitive or racist.
That flushing sound is getting louder Joe
-
-
3
When someone kills a dozen people and injures almost 3 dozen more, all questions need to be on the table. Including whether his psychological issues were not addressed due to oversensitivity towards a religious or ethnic background.
That said, at this juncture, I have a hard time believing this "P.C. run amok" theory. The military is not exactly known for being overly sensitive. They kick out Arab translators because they have teh gay cooties. They have organized grab-ass parties with women soldiers and sailors. And, last time I checked, the evangelical Air Force brass nearly justify that service being renamed the Air-Borne Again Force.
Anything remains possible at this point, but if the military can fly nuclear weapons across the country without authorization and proper protocols then it can probably let an emotionally unstable officer slip through the cracks.
-
3.1
Amen, Square1.
.
I happen to know a former soldier who had a breakdown after returning from Gulf1. The military was too happy to kick him out and wash their hands of him (His commander felt that he was a detriment to the troop's morale). After a run-in with the law, he's managed to straighten his life out with the help and support of his parents and friends.
.
I wonder when we're going to see the spike in UT type shootings... -
3.2
"I wonder when we're going to see the spike in UT type shootings..."
.
Impossible. College campuses are designated as gun-free zones!
-
-
4
Now, if we discharge everyone who should be discharged, what will be left of our fighting forces - "those who grunt and groan in the trenches"?
For it is said we are all cuckoo, to various degree.
.
" .. he fact that he attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers is guilt by association, at best .."
If if you have been in the same church as a pedophile - or if your priest is subsequently found be be guilty of it - then that makes you guilty of pedophilia by association ....
MS, do you always bring up the word "insanity" when dealing with mass killers? If not, then what makes this case deserving?
-
4.1
Just curious, do believe random mass killings to be "normal"?
-
4.2
"Just curious, do believe random mass killings to be "normal"?
.
No, but jayackroyd and Joe Klein do!! Do not mind cfukura any attention. She/He doesn't even know who wrote this blog post. She/He thinks it was "MS" for Michael Scherer.
.
Talk about delusional. -
4.3
rustyreturns: "Talk about delusional."
My!
yeah! talk about it rusty.
-
-
5
"If it was terrorism, rather than sheer insanity, what are the policy implications? That devout Muslims should be regarded as inherently suspicious characters? That Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military or in sensitive government agencies? That we should be more vigilant at home and more aggressive fighting the War on Terror overseas?"
.
So much to answer, we must break it down for you Joe Klein. I am so happy you have responded to this very important event in this manner.
."If it was terrorism, rather than sheer insanity, what are the policy implications? That devout Muslims should be regarded as inherently suspicious characters?"
.
Let me ask a question, by asking one, Joe. If let's say Michael Scherer had been making statements such as Hasan has made lately and to his fellow workers. You Joe. Do you think it would be appropriate on your part, knowing that Michael has access to the White House that you would not only bring this to the attention of the TIME supervisors? Perhaps that is the policy changes you are seeking. Perhaps during our liberal political correctness era, we now encourage people to speak out about stuff like this instead of putting a gag in their mouth with PC-like negative responses back to the potential whistle blowers. Liberals like you Joe, will hopefully re-look at your stance on all things deemed in your book as "politically correct".
."That devout Muslims should be regarded as inherently suspicious characters?"
.
I think you need to further define what you mean by "devout Muslims". With a Jihadist, someone that is a known terrorist, do you believe that they rate the same "devout Muslim" label you might also give to someone that goes to the mosque 4 or 5 times a week?
.
I think it would be totally appropriate to ask someone such as Hasan the question, "do you agree with the Jihadist movement, and their war on the US of A? Do you believe that what the Jihadist are doing, such as al-Qaeda are correct in their attempts to destroy non-muslims?
."That Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military or in sensitive government agencies?"
.
This is not only stupid but would not benefit us with our National Security. Doesn't it make sense to employ someone that speaks a Muslim language. Let's use Farsi as an example. At minimum you need people who are pro-America to be part of the War on Terror.
."That we should be more vigilant at home and more aggressive fighting the War on Terror overseas?"
.
Did you really mean to ask this question? Are you serious? Especially after Hasan has done the henious act he has done. Especially after the attacks on 9/11. I can only shake my head in complete wonder as to how you even made it to TIME as a so-called journalist. How did you even get through school to even make the claim of "journalist".
.
Now it makes sense to me why Obama has been so deligent in changing the names of everything since taking office. Changing the name of "War on Terror". Changing the name of the people from "Terrorists".
Changing the strategy plan overall. All in the name of political correctness. Thank you Joe for proving my point..
-
6
Once again, the fun-house mirror claims more victims. The notion of collective guilt has no rational basis but anytime anyone dies for actions they didn't personally engage in or condone, injustice is served.
The neocons and the Muslim extremists are just two sides of the same coin.
There is a better way.....-
6.1
Bobo really irked me in this regard today. Nary a word from him about a radical Christianist murdering a doctor in church.
-
-
7
Here is an idea: Since Hasan is alive why don't we wait to see if he talks openly about what he was thinking and what led him to do this. I know it isn't as fun as a good guessing game, but we may actually get down to the truth of the matter.
-
7.1
queencersei said:
"Here is an idea: Since Hasan is alive why don't we wait to see if he talks openly about what he was thinking and what led him to do this. I know it isn't as fun as a good guessing game, but we may actually get down to the truth of the matter."
Of course, why didn't I think of that?
The fact is if he starts talking he will blame others and claim he was harrassed by other solders because he is a muslim. Or he will blame post tramatic stress even though he was never in combat. He already has a cadre of gullible members of the press feeding us this tripe.
We all know why he did it. He is part of an extreme religous movment that justifies the mass murder of non-islams. He may have been stressed but that is no excuse, nor a complete explanation. I do not care what B.S. excuse this nut gives. Give him a trial and then execute the SOB.
-
-
8
If it was terrorism, rather than sheer insanity, what are the policy implications?
.
Unsurprisingly, Joe Klein left out the "stop killing Iraqis and Afghans" policy option, but managed to keep that War on Terror bs alive.
.
In point of fact, there are no policy implications. There were no policy implications from Columbine. There were no policy implications from the VaTech murders. None from the DC sniper. None from the U of Texas water tower shootings.
.
Fallows-
8.1
Not only naive, but stupid. The comparisons you and Fallow use are in no way connected to this shooting. This WAS a terrorist act. The others you cite were completed by utter mad-men. Period.
.
Put your head back in the sand, jayackroyd. That way when the next barage of bullets from the terrorist's gun occur, you can at least protect the mush that is in your skull. -
8.2
I am increasingly convinced that Rusty is actually a performance artist.
-
8.3
" .. I am increasingly convinced that Rusty is actually a performance artist."
It is interesting to note what gets Rusty all fired up. It seems to be an comic act but then now and then those supremacist KKK actualize their comedic blustery of hate.
-
8.4
Oh my cfuk. A "racist" allegation. Very very inventive on your part.
.
Did MoveOn.Org send out another email saying
"If you can't beat them with facts, just simply call them a racist"
.
You do know that those from Media Matters, MoveOn, etc are simply out to get your money don't you? Everything else they represent is complete and utter bull-crap. -
8.5
Hmm Columbine, VaTech, DC sniper, UT...what do all of these places have in common?
-
-
9
Interesting story on Hasan's time at Walter Reed. His co-workers thought his problems were his problems and didn't have anything to do with his Muslim faith.
More important question is why wasn't something done then. Several co-workers were certain he would snap; thought he was not good at his medical duties. Doctors afraid to deal with a bad colleague?
Audio available after 2:00
-
9.1
A retired Col Jones who worked with Hasan at Fort Hood also knew the extremism was apparent. Your questions, 'why wasn't something done', will hopefully be answered.
.
Unless the Obama Administration white washes it all, which is what I believe is currently being done.
-
-
10
"Put your head back in the sand, jayackroyd. That way when the next barage of bullets from the terrorist's gun occur, you can at least protect the mush that is in your skull."
Question Rusty - what are we going to do if we indeed call it a terrorism act? Will that change any policies? I've heard people mentioning interment like with the Japanese. Or even more draconian legislation to listen in on everyones communication. Yet they already did and dropped the ball on this guy.
I also hear a lot of people raving about loss of freedom in regards to 'being forced to pay for a public plan'. Some even talk about revolt and a bloody one over a thing like tax policy and legislation.
But when it comes to knee-jerk reactions to murderous scum, then out goes reason, common sense and all manner of things have to happen or 'they will run amok in the street shooting innocent people.'
One claim defies common sense, the other is nothing more then hyperbole.
I'll sign off on any kind of reasonable legislation when you and your cohorts start demanding the same for any fringe group and fundamentalist whomever they are. Otherwise your moslemphobia is nothing more then hysteria.
-
10.1
Have I mentioned interment hippo? Have you seen me call for that?
.
I am simply saying the liberal PC (Political Correct Crowd) are to be blamed for part of this. That political correctness as it is claimed, is now to be considered a threat to our National interests.
.
Take a happy pill, hippo. Shove it up your a$$ and pray that the next terrorist act does not fall at your door step. Perhaps you can even share with the victims' family, I am sure they will give you an earfull.
.
Just saying.
.
Recommendation for a happy pill, just for you, hippo.
.
http://www.pristiq.com/?wtAdv=1&WT.mc_ID=366851b8-8194-49bb-ac79-d8f8b76deaf3
.
We need more gullible people taking this medication to see actual effects.
-
-
11
Obviously it wasn't terrorism. Terrorism, by definition, targets civilians, so no attack on military targets qualifies for the label, unless you've been taken in by the neocons' campaign to fatten up the word until it applies to everything and everyone they dislike.
.
If it turns out to have been ideologically motivated, then it was an act of treason, and perhaps an act of war. In which case, Jay, I'd have to agree with Joe that it has some - very narrow - potential implications for personnel policy. On the other hand, many crazy people have ideologies, just as many sane ones do. In the end it may turn out to be utterly imponderable whether Hasan's (presumptive) ideology pushed his instability over the edge, or the other way around.-
11.1
Hmmm, no civillian's died. Imgaine that! WRONG!
.
Why not call this victims family and explain it to them.
.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa091107_wz_fthoodcahill.2929bc6cb.html
.
Tell them their Son/Husband was not a vitcim of terrorism. Tell them that it was just a mad-man loose on the grounds of Fort Hood.
.
Tell them that they have no fears now, this was just a simply, isolated incident.
.
Go ahead, nicteis. Tell THEM -
11.2
I knew I could count on rusty to respond, and also count on him not to respond to what was actually said.
.
Did I write that no civilians died? No. I wrote that it was an attack on a military target. We do not call it terrorism when Israel or the USA send drones or missiles at an Al Qaeda or Hamas target, and more civilians than enemy combatants end up dead. Nor should we. Liberals might point out that beyond a certain level, ancillary civilian carnage becomes counterproductive, or even immoral. But calling those strikes "terrorism" because civilians also died is just pumped-up rhetoric when the left does it. By the same token, calling the Fort Hood incident "terrorism" is just pumped-up rhetoric when the right does it.
.
Nor, of course, did I claim that it was "just a mad-man on the loose". I quite clearly said that - though neither of us of course knows the motivation at this point - it was quite possibly ideologically based, and an act of treason. Nor did I claim that it was "an isolated incident"; although you have proposed no argument or evidence to support the notion that it was part of a conspiracy, or even an emerging pattern within the Armed Forces.
.
We're five days past Guy Fawkes. Why don't you start putting away your little straw men?
-
-
12
"Was this a matter of political correctness?"
.
No. Being a psychologist is an elite club who's members are reluctant to create membership discipline for fear that it might someday harm them. Compared to protecting your own long-term professional and political interests, it really doesn't matter what failures or harm other club members might cause, the important thing is to not rock the boat.
.
I'm quite sure you can figure out how all this works, Joe, if you try to think about it in a more parochial context. -
13
From Greg Mitchell on Twitter -- Need more focus on this: Nearly as many soldiers have committed suicide at Ft. Hood this year (10) as killed by Maj Hasan. 76 in 6 years.
-
14
I keep waiting for someone to point this out, somewhere, and nobody does. So I will:
Hasan may have been a terrorist, he may have been a Jihadi, he may have been crazy, he may have driven to it by PTSD, he may have been drinking too much flouride in his water, he may have been controlled by voices in his brain...
... but if he didn't live in a country and state where he could buy deadly handguns and unlimited amounts of ammunition, no questions asked, no authorities alerted, most, if not all, of the people he killed would be alive today.
The soldiers at Ft. Hood were unarmed that day because the military understands it is dangerous to have people walking around with loaded weapons all day, so they lock the guns away. How come we're not as wise?
-
14.1
You are right yagur.
.
Melt all of the guns and ammo into blocks of steel.
.
We can all go back to throwing rocks at each other, that makes perfect sense to me!!
.
Oh, would you also while you are at it. Convince the leaders of Iran to do the same. You know, the ones Obama is "talking" with right now so they will change their minds and not arm a missle with nuclear warheads. -
14.2
Do you really think that a Major in the US Army couldn't have gotten Guns even if none were available to you and me. Do be stupid, of course he could have.
I just ask a friend of mine, who is a retired Col. and he agrees with me. -
14.3
Yagur - normally I'd agree with the sentiment, but I've got to agree with meanjogreen59.
.
Quite frankly, even if gun control was available and even if he couldn't get weapons from the armory, he could probably still build up an arsenal as a collector and it wouldn't really be outside the realm of reason for him to want to do so - especially considering his profession. Bullet control has little impact on this other than it being a plausible way around the second amendment... -
14.4
I knew someone on here would blame availability of guns for this sooner or later. So predictable.
.
Do you think he would've been able to shoot so many people if it wasn't designated as a "gun-free zone"?
.
Do you think that if others in the room had guns they would've at least attempted to stop him?
.
Do you think that if the perpetrator knew that others in the room likely had guns that he would've thought twice about this?
-
-
15
"I am simply saying the liberal PC (Political Correct Crowd) are to be blamed for part of this. That political correctness as it is claimed, is now to be considered a threat to our National interests."
Of course you are, liberals are always at blame for something. Whatever that is. Yet when a idiot on the right does it, it's not the 'conservative' movement of fostering fundamentalist thoughts - it's the single insanity of a person. It's strange that liberals and Obama is at fault somehow on a corner with this killer, but 'rightie' killers only act alone.
"Take a happy pill, hippo. Shove it up your a$$ and pray that the next terrorist act does not fall at your door step. Perhaps you can even share with the victims' family, I am sure they will give you an earfull."
Don't worry about me - if I see any terrorists in the streets shootin' I'll take care of it myself. I assume however that your remedy for this NOT to happen is to remove the liberal PC police - we apply magic sauce and the problem will simply go away. You can blame liberals all you want, but it won't stop the next shooter from doing what they do for any insane reason whatsoever. Not even the rightie ones.
-
15.1
Along with hippo and yagur, THIS is how they intend to "scare away the terrorist hords coming to America"
."Don't worry about me - if I see any terrorists in the streets shootin' I'll take care of it myself."
.
-
-
16
It could, reasonably, be considered terrorism depending on how much of this was driven by statements from the Al Queda leader. Obviously, the non-threatening contact probably disqualifies it being anything remotely resembling a direct order, but if you have suggestions of the US military or government being immoral or unclean or retribution being needed or something along that line, it could conceivably be as close to terrorism or at least an attack by a declared enemy that we are at "war" with. Compare this with suicide attacks in Israel - part of the point is to send a message to the "infidels" who "desecrate the land" attempting to pressure them to stop (and obviously, causing the exact reverse). Obviously, the Columbine comparison (or "going postal" since Columbine was an intentional and planned act whereas going postal is more about a person "snapping") is equally plausible at this point, but without actually knowing Hassan's fundamental motives, we can't say for sure. (Note: if he doesn't know, it would fall under the going postal scenario).
.
Regardless, just as the wingnuts here want to call this a terrorist act, I'm sure Al Queda is going to take advantage of this and claim they convinced Hassan to murder the infidels - at least until Hassan claims otherwise. Personally, I think if Hassan doesn't proudly declare that he was doing the work of Allah or some equivalent statement, I highly doubt it was intended to be an act of terrorism. Time will tell.... -
17
Stupid Liberal statements and questions: Count down 1-8 (so far).
.
1.
"... but if he didn't live in a country and state where he could buy deadly handguns and unlimited amounts of ammunition, no questions asked, no authorities alerted, most, if not all, of the people he killed would be alive today."
.
2.
"Obviously it wasn't terrorism. Terrorism, by definition, targets civilians, so no attack on military targets qualifies for the label, unless you've been taken in by the neocons' campaign to fatten up the word until it applies to everything and everyone they dislike."
.
3.
"Question Rusty - what are we going to do if we indeed call it a terrorism act? Will that change any policies? I've heard people mentioning interment like with the Japanese. Or even more draconian legislation to listen in on everyones communication. Yet they already did and dropped the ball on this guy."
.
4.
"In point of fact, there are no policy implications. There were no policy implications from Columbine. There were no policy implications from the VaTech murders. None from the DC sniper. None from the U of Texas water tower shootings."
.
5.
"" .. he fact that he attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers is guilt by association, at best .."
If if you have been in the same church as a pedophile - or if your priest is subsequently found be be guilty of it - then that makes you guilty of pedophilia by association ...".
6.
"That said, at this juncture, I have a hard time believing this "P.C. run amok" theory. The military is not exactly known for being overly sensitive. They kick out Arab translators because they have teh gay cooties. They have organized grab-ass parties with women soldiers and sailors. And, last time I checked, the evangelical Air Force brass nearly justify that service being renamed the Air-Borne Again Force."
.
7.
"the fact that he attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers is guilt by association, at best
Has this assertion been verified?"
.
8.
"In any case, I don't understand where calling the act "terrorism" gets us. If it was terrorism, rather than sheer insanity, what are the policy implications?"
.
Therefore we have a case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
.
Let's just blame it all on liberals in general. Liberal stupidity at it's best!!-
17.1
...speaking of which, the Grand Prize for Milestones in Stupid Human Opinions is --
...wait for it...
...aw, three guesses, two don't count.
-
17.2
If you're going to debate us, debate us. Explain why those 8 statements are ridiculous so that we can have an actual discussion about it. Personally, I think a few of those statements are wrong (not even close to all, but a few), and I know why I think it, but I'm not using the fact that I think they're stupid to win an argument.
.
If you never say anything of value, you can't have your beliefs challenged. I guess from that perspective, you're just a coward - your too afraid to openly discuss your beliefs with people and find out that there's just the small possibility you're wrong. Grow up, grow a pair, and prove to yourself (if no one else) that you actually know and understand what you believe. -
17.3
Or maybe it was all the fault of Conservatives who had a hissy fit over the Homeland security report that told law enforcement to loo out for the lone wolf. I remember, liberals being accused of hating the troops and being beyond the pale to dare to accuse a member of the armed forces of being susceptible to radicalization. Well he was a member of the armed forces, a lone wolf, and possibly radicalized. so does that mean Rush owes an apology for jumping all over Janet Napolitano?
-
17.4
forgottenlord
Rusty I'll take the first one: The right to bear arms is a constitutional right unlike say the right to health care. Additionally, saying guns kill people is akin to saying a fork made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
-
17.5
Freeinpa: I don't believe that Yagur was disputing that it was or wasn't a constitutional right, but rather whether that right should exist in the first place (I could get into a debate with you about possible interpretations of said legislation that would basically say "that's irrelevant" or even "it's not a constitutional right", but frankly I don't care enough...that and both arguments are kinda killed by decades of legal precedent).
.
Also, technically speaking, bullets kill people by, when launched at high velocity (as they were designed to do) and successfully colliding with the body of any living creature, proceed to shread their tissues and has sufficient energy to break bones. But making that argument bypasses the entire point of the NRA argument which is also a pretty stupid argument and reasonably false when you consider the number of gun deaths due to accidental discharges at family members (also beside the point).
.
The reality is that violent people are in society. It's a fact of reality. It is an equal fact of reality that at some point, you're going to meet one of those people. Pro-gun individuals would argue that at that point, either A) you should have a gun to shoot them or B) the fact that you have a gun on you that said violent person will be less likely to molest you. All of this is reasonable and true but it ignores scenario C where said violent person catches you unawares and has a gun in your face before you've made the clear connection that this person is dangerous or Scenario D where, very conscious of the possibility of Scenario C and a bit fidgety, you, in a bit of nervousness, act too suddenly at someone you think is threatening and pull a gun on them. Scenario D, sadly, happens all too often (I think at one point, the most likely way to die from gun violence was to be misidentified as an intruder by a loved one). Also, there's Scenario E - most violent people are only violent under certain circumstances (sadly, I'm one of those people). Most of the time, they're reasonable people but a bad day at the office, a few drinks, and the discovery that his wife is cheating on him might make him a tad more violent. Now, if there is no gun in the house, the worst thing he can do is destroy things and that's pretty dangerous on its own - but the chances of both of them surviving the incident drops dramatically when either of them have a gun.
.
Shockingly, even that is immaterial because, as I say above, I disagree with Yagur. -
17.6
Addendum: also worth noting is that you really went after the wrong argument there. As 3 different people noted above (including both rusty and myself), the problem with Yagur's argument is that this guy was a soldier and there's a reasonably good chance he'd have had access to weapons suitable for this sort of massacre anyways.
-
-
18
I think I've got it: the difference between liberals and conservatives is that cons think they're right 100% of the time.
-
18.1
Actually we're only right 99.1% of the time. We thought we were wrong a couple of times but we were mistaken.
-
-
19
"Along with hippo and yagur, THIS is how they intend to "scare away the terrorist hords coming to America""
Amusing - and indicative of the righties - moslem- and homophobia.
It's interesting though that you really don't have any answer to what we SHOULD do, just the regular 'liberal', 'homo' and whatever.
I understand that clueless windmill flailing is the fundists best answer - and maybe shooting something. Anything.
BTW - terrorist hordes? Seriously. Grow a pair. You sound terrified.
So other then another amusing youtube video or something, what do you have in mind? Policy changes, ideas? Windmilling?
-
19.1
Well let's first start off with the fact that this is the first attack on American soil since 9/11 that has successfully claimed lives. Hasan is a Jihadist, I am convinced of that by the reports thus far. His motive was purely premeditated, and he acted out on his beliefs.
.
Political correctness, a liberal cornerstone, belies anyone from asking sane and rational questions out of fear that they will be labeled some sort of "racist", hatemonger or any other negative noun you would like to put towards it.
.
Joe Klein's initial question was should there be policy changes? I say the policies are or should be in place. The change needs to be in the attitudes of this Administration, as well as the entire liberal community.
.
I have defended the Muslim Community in previous blogs, and have said that they should not be held accountable for the actions of this one Muslim who was successful in his plot to kill Americans.
.
However, I do believe it is appropriate to ask questions, especially when that individual has made statements in the past that are of concern. Hasan made many statements to his fellow co-workers. One that I listen to on TV, a retired Col Terry Lee (I said I thought it was Jones, my apologies) said that Hasan said "“outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy,” and even once claimed that: “Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
.
http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=10437
.
Now the question should be asked of our Military leadership, how much of this was reported to them, and what actions were taken?
.
In the rest of my comments, which I did address each and everyone of the claims made by the other commenters, was simply challenging their own statements. Statements that clearly represent more of the crazed political correctness meme, and forgoes all rational investigation, discussion and determination if policies do need to be amended.
.
It no longer suffices to "blame it on Bush". Or, that we cannot take action because it is a particular minority group. It doesn't solve any problems to take away or restrict guns more. And, it doesn't do any good to dither and way lay decisions to send in more troops.
.
What this proves is that we are not winning any "War's on Terror". We are losing because America is being controlled by a bunch of limp wristed liberals. People who are afraid to take any actions in fear of being wrong. Fear of not being "politically correct".
.
Fear that Bush was right, and you have been proven wrong. -
19.2
In fairness, political correctness was born out of the fact that too many people (and far too many of them would be classified as conservatives) who couldn't differentiate between "asking the right questions" and "false accusation because of premeditated beliefs". (In fairness, far too many in the majority get accused of doing the latter when doing the former because the accuser is doing the latter all of which comes back to the conclusion that people are idiots). But that's not to say you're wrong....and most of the rest of your points on that particular issue pretty much put you in agreement with me except for your generalizations of the Liberal community - though maybe I'm just too much of an idealist of the reasonability of the community I like to consider myself a part of.
.
Moving on to your other points, I don't believe anyone here has attempted to blame this on Bush - though I'll be doing that in a minute. We've disputed the claim that this was terrorism because the reality is that whenever people hear "terrorist", they start thinking about an invasion of Muslims by people like Hasan that are getting ready to attack us. As I think we've established at this point, Hasan was pretty much a single individual who's only possible external motivating factor was "non-threatening" emails with an Al Queda member - which is less collusion than Timothy McVeigh.
.
At worst, this is a case of domestic terrorism with foreign policy motivations. At best, this was a stressed out coworker who went nuts - and what we know so far could easily place it on the terrorism end of the scale. If that's true, I think we can all agree that this doesn't justify a retaliatory strike against some Al Queda stronghold or an invasion of Iran (not that either aren't justified for other reasons, just that any justification isn't added to by this), nor does it mean immigration laws should be changed to exclude Muslims or that all Muslims should be treated with suspicion as they undoubtedly will be. In my mind, this is no different than the guy who shot two security officers at the Holocaust museum.
.
Problem is, that's far too much where the discussion is headed with some folks in the media and, sadly, when extremism solidifies on one side, the other side tends to get more extreme at which point, the Liberals might very well not lock down on everything for fear of doing too much overreach that they accuse conservatives of doing. The middle ground gets ignored.
.
Now on to blaming Bush. Perhaps Political Correctness "lost" this round of the War on Terror (though I'd point out that times when we win a round in the War on Terror often go unpublished or remain in the paper for only a few days), but the one front where we're fighting an actual "War" against the Terrorists we're doing incredibly poorly on for, more than any other reason, because Bush failed to keep much focus on it. By Dick Cheney's own admission, they didn't have a strategic review of Afghanistan until the fall of 2008, 7 years into the war. As for whether Obama is dithering....all I can offer is Klein's previous posts on the matter which pretty much say "he should spend the time to make intelligent, informed decisions of where, when and how many troops to deploy but he should've done it out of the public view". I agree with it simply because I do believe any Commander and Chief should spend the time to make informed choices based upon a variety of opinions just as I agree that having this be such a public process far too heavily undermines the confidence of troops already in Afghanistan - heck, as a Canadian citizen with our soldiers in Kandahar, hearing rumors that Obama was seriously considering withdrawing American forces in favor of an off-shore bombing campaign was incredibly disheartening - and I'm not even serving there.
.
As for whether Liberals are limp wristed.... "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, leave it to beaver trip back to the fifties" (as quoted from West Wing)
-
-
20
Why is Arnaud de Borchgrave claiming that Hasan was a "9/11 truther"?
"There are tens of thousands of Hasans all over the Western world — from Brussels to Berlin and from Burgos, Spain, to Birmingham, U.K. For them, Sept. 11, 2001, was a conspiracy cooked up by the CIA and Mossad, Israel's external intelligence service."
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/then-they-came-for-me/
-
21
I keep feeling the need to point out that there are 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world. If they were all terrorists we'd be in some deep sh!^. Fortunately they aren't. Anybody who tries to make the conflict more about religion and less about violence in general is doing nothing but making a bad situation worse.
-
22
Political correctness is the fuel in the chainsaw that is busy cutting away the foundations of our society. Of course Hasan's race and religion were factors in the Army's inability to get rid of him. (An NPR report today explored the difficulties of firing people in his position even more thoroughly, so it isn't all a matter of race/religion).
But can you imagine the stink he would have raised had he been fired? And because of laws protecting employees privacy the Army could not have justified the firing, leaving it with, at best, a black eye and at worst the stigma of being "insensitive to the needs of minority soldiers" or some such drivel.
It is a shame that when somebody loses a job these days, the first question is either what color is their skin, who do they sleep with, or which God do they worship rather than "Well, were they worth a damn?"
-
23
Why Wasn't Hasan Discharged?...Was this a matter of political correctness? Was the Army reluctant to discharge a Muslim in a sensitive position because...
.
Over-analysis. Hasan wasn't discharged because he wasn't the first to take advantage of the Army's paid medical education program and want to get a discharge when it was time to be deployed.-
23.1
grape, I think even that is over-analyzing it. The truth is that the U.S. Army had a sever shortage of mental health professionals. According to numerous reports, returning soldiers with PTSD and PTSD-related disabilities often had to endure waits of 12 to 18 months just to get an appointment to see a counselor.
.
As I note downthread, a friend who is a psychotherapist and who treated many Vietnam vets for PTSD was asked by colleagues still working in the VA system of he would be willing to come back and take some patients because the backlog had grown to more than 15 months in terms of initial appointments.
.
My friend declined, only because he said work with PTSD soldiers was the very toughest work he had ever done, and at his current age, he just didn't think he could cope with the strain.
.
I think the simplest explanation for why Army brass did not move Hasan out despite the numerous compaints and concerned expressed through the chain of command by his fellow soldiers is because:
1. They paid for his education and wanted a full commitment, and
2. They had desperate need for mental health professionals.
.
"Political correctness" seems like a stretch. -
23.2
I think the simplest explanation...
.
Agreed, absolutely.
-
-
24
His acts are the results of the extreme rhetoric of left wing wingnuts like Joe (just like the Holocaust Museum shooter was the result of right wing rhetoric).
-
25
The comments of rusty and the rightwing hordes notwithstanding, the question of why Hasan was still active military is a fair one.
If Hasan was part of a nefarious, secret terrorist plot, he sure had an odd way of hiding it. He had been trying to get out of the military since 2001, when, according to a quote from a family member, he was told that he could only get out "with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld." He had voiced his objections to U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan enough times that many of his fellow soldiers had registered concerns about him with higher-ups.
The real question is why the military failed to act on numerous complaints up the chain of command about the actions of Hasan.
Of course, these simple facts will not stop the rustys, spobs and freeinpas of the world from somehow suggesting that these complaints about a lone office in the Army should have made it to the desk of the president, whereupon Obama should have immediately canned the guy from the military. But if the the self-professed Obama Loathers Club think that is true, then why didn't the brilliant George W. Bush bounce Hasan, given the numerous complaints against him dating back to 2001?
The real question may go back to the Army's penchant for not letting anyone out, including the many documented instances of the Army pushing possible PTSD-affected soldiers back into combat rotation because the troops were stretched thin.
Psychiatrists and counselors were in even shorter supply, with many soldiers having to wait 12-18 months to get a treatment appointment at VA facilities.
A friend of mine who is a psychologist and had counseled many Vietnam vets for PTSD was asked by former colleagues at the local VA hospital if he would come back and take some patients because the backlog of cases was so enormous.
He declined, only because, as he told me, treating PTSD soldiers is gruesome work for all involved, far more challenging, difficult and potentially depressing than any work he has ever done.
Not surprising, then, that the Army didn't want to let Hasan out of his obligation.
But not taking the concerns of Hasan's fellow soldiers -- not to mention the many out-loud comments of Hasan, himself -- seriously shifts the focus for all of this back to the military chain of command.
Did they keep him in simply because they were so short-handed on the PTSD treatment front?
- TIME See TIME's cartoons of the week | http://su.pr/1jkRYJ - 1 day ago
- TIME See TIME's pictures of the week | http://su.pr/9eCMpE - 1 day ago
- TIME The road to World Cup glory | http://su.pr/4BIr6L - 1 day ago
Most Popular »
- Sarah Palin, Barney Frank and the Gridiron Club
- Baucus's Legal Affairs
- What Barack Obama Really Thinks Of The White House Press
- Wii Fit Plus Review
- 135 Money-Saving Resources and Tips, Special Holiday Season Edition
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown, Peanuts
- Gridiron Giggles
- Scandinavia Shuffle
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Did Amanda Knox Get a Fair Murder Trial?
- Are TV Chefs Taking on the Latest Diet Craze?
- Meg Whitman: Is California Ready for Another Celebrity Governor?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan
- Amanda Knox, Convicted of Murder in Italy
- Hate Your Job? Here's How to Reshape It
- Astronomers Spot Planet-Like Object GJ 758 B in Orbit
- Why Fake Snow Is Filling Beijing's Bird's Nest
Quotes of the Day »
RSS