Lieberman Going Rogue (Again)

Clearly, JNS, the ball was dropped. This clown had a biz card that indicated that he was a "Soldier of Allah". Whether this means that the Obama Administration should take serious blame is another issue. But certainly, if Lieberman were not the Chairman, wouldn't any Senate Dem want to hold hearings on this issue? An Army Major, with clear and known jihadist sympathies, simply was left alone. That, it seems to me, is worthy of an investigation. Do you disagree?

@spob: I can see a lot of reasons why a senate committee chairperson with a sense of proportion might not think it's necessary to hold hearings about what was essentially a workplace shooting.

"@spob: I can see a lot of reasons why a senate committee chairperson with a sense of proportion might not think it's necessary to hold hearings about what was essentially a workplace shooting."
.
JNS, would you agree with this take? Palininatowel? Anyone?

Then please say so explicitly. It doesn't seem to an ordinary observer that the Senate holding hearings about an Army major shooting up 40-odd soldiers and civilian support personnel is an example of someone "going rogue", especially when said major wasn't exactly secretive about his sympathies. And once again, why wouldn't the Obama Administration welcome an investigation into this by someone who is a member of the Democratic caucus? That's a bit of a rhetorical question--but Obama himself has promised answers.
.
I also don't think that 9/11 is really a good example, since there was, you know, a whole commission on it. And also, JNS, a House GOP investigation probably would have also picked up things like "Gorelick's Wall", so the issue would not have only been whether Bush dropped the ball. Balls were definitely dropped pre-9/11--but the apportionment of blame to Bush was hardly the only issue with a 9/11 investigation.

Jay:

Did you hear of the 9/11 commission? And what exactly is wrong with a Congressman exercising his duty of oversight? And I am curious as to why you would deem it wrong to to investigate an action because one party is in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Ave? I think the technical term is separation of powers.

It is different than Henry Waxman investigating a grocery store opening if it involves a Republican. I know that a possible security breach pales against maybe a company paying non-unions wages at a grocery store.

By refusing to admit that this was an act of terrorism only shows how out of touch most Liberals are with the majority of Americans. This was an obvious act of terrorism and to say differently is pure ignorant.

So is it your position, palininatowel, that no Senate investigation should happen?

and I'm just askin', but usually we don't impugn the motives of someone who is doing the right thing. Do you agree that holding hearings is the right thing to do?

I was making a general observation on Lieberman. Sure, hearing are warranted here. But in typical Lieberman fashion, they will likely be a show all about Joe Lieberman and little to do with the event, itself.

So rather than addressing the issue of a hearing you chose to deride a Congressman you don't like.

And I suppose you would argue that the Waxman and Dingel exhibitions are only about finding the truth?

You make a fair point. I think JNS was talking about the implications, rather than the actuality.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000-present
-
Some examples:
-
# May 2002 Mailbox Pipe Bomber: Lucas John Helder rigged pipe bombs in private mailboxes to explode when the boxes were opened. He injured 6 people in Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Iowa. His motivation was to garner media attention so that he could spread a message denouncing government control over daily lives and the illegality of marijuana as well as promoting astral projection.
# 2007 October 26: A pair of improvised explosive devices were thrown at the Mexican Consulate in New York City. [36]
# 2008 July 27 Jim D. Adkisson opened fire in the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville,Tennessee killing two and injuring seven before being tackled to the ground by congregation members. A note found in his SUV indicated this was intended as a suicide attack and said the church was apparently targeted because of its support of liberal social policies.[42]
# 2008 August 2, August 3 University of California-Santa Cruz molecular biologist David Feldheim's home was firebombed.[43][44]
# 2008 Summer and Fall: White House computer email archives attacked several times. Chinese intelligence suspected.[45]
# 2009 May 31: Assassination of George Tiller. Dr. George Tiller, a doctor who provided late term abortions was shot to death in a Wichita, Kansas church.[47][48]
# 2009 June 1: Arkansas recruiting office shooting One military recruiter was killed and another critically injured by gunshot at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army/Navy Career Center. The suspect Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad said he was upset over U.S. killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.[50]
# 2009 June 10: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting.[52]

Would have been interesting to see Mayor Nagin explaining the flooded buses that could have evacuated people before the storm hit and the levees collapsed . . . .

@spob: would have been, you're right. We'll never know.

My point, of course, is that the narrative of people like Claire McCaskill probably would have been destroyed had serious hearings on Katrina been held. There really was no political upside for Dems to hold such a hearing.

spob:

You are correct. There would have been no upside to the Katrina investigations. It was easier to take pot shots at Bush without fear of rebuttal than to put the Democratic leaders of the state of LA. under review.

As the saying goes about LA: Half the state is under water the other half under indictment.

Of course, he's doing his patriotic duty here, isn't he? Army people aren't exactly free to criticize the government and demand answers, so the Senate, through Lieberman, is giving them a voice. Seems like we all should support that, n'est-ce pas?

Like Arlen Specter?

Yes. Like Specter. Specter isn't heading any committees. Joe shouldn't either. Let them both prove their worth before they are allowed any positions of authority. We agree on this?

Your caucus, your problem.
.
You know what is funny though. I get what JNS is saying--that this is unusual. But she really is carrying water for the Obama Administration. What she really is saying is that Obama has a right to expect party courtesy here. And I'm not sure that's a position that journalists really should be taking. If a lack of oversight is a problem, then shouldn't journalists as a whole be asking hard questions about it? I doubt the public really accepts a "we don't investigate our own". Why should journalists?

"Your caucus, your problem."
.
I agree completely with that. This shooting was a tragedy. I'm not against the idea of an independent investigation for this. I want to see the story without any spin from either side. I don't believe that Jay is carrying water for the Obama administration, but I do think that just reporting the facts is becoming a lost art in investigative journalism. I quit watching any cable news programs quite awhile back.

She's not carrying water for the Obama Administration per se, but carrying water for the idea that the Obama Administration can expect party loyalty here. And that idea is just plain wrong.
.
As for an "independent" investigation--isn't oversight what we elect these guys to do?

I have serious doubts that either party can be trusted to police itself. I trust the democrats more than I do the republicans, but neither of them has my complete confidence. Politicians are politicans and as a group they can't be trusted.

Jesus spob. I can actually see your point and agree with some of what you say. Maybe there is something to this stuff about the world ending in 2012. It figures, that's my new retirement target date. I retire and the world ends. That just sucks.

Lessee, chris, guy who calls himself a "Soldier of Allah" shoots up an army base.
.
Nope, not terrorist. You're right.

@spob. We don't have all the facts. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that he's an Islamic militant. It is my view that conducting the attack he did doesn't qualify as terrorism.
.
It has more in common with a workplace shooting than terrorism. I understand terrorism to be a form of asymmetrical warfare where civilians are terrorized to further a political or ideological goal. This attack, as horrible and tragic as it was, simply doesn't qualify.
.
A great example of domestic terrorism is the attack in Oklahoma City. That fulfills what most reasonable people understand as "terrorism".
.
Likewise, I wouldn't call what Klebold and Harris did in Columbine as terrorism. Or a disgruntled employee who shoots and kills co-workers on a murderous rampage.
.
If words are to have any meaning, it's useful to keep them to well understood and definied concepts. Otherwise, we can argue that most violence, senseless and premeditated, is a form of terrorism.

Spob, would you consider someone a terrorist if they called themselves a Soldier for Jesus, a Soldier for Christ, or a Soldier of God? Or is it only Muslims that become radicalized when mixing military and religious ideas? Out of curiosity, are you objecting to the fact that he was in the army (and hence a 'soldier'), or the fact that he's Muslim (hence 'of Allah')?
Just for clarification, I think an investigation into what happened at Ft. Hood is a good thing, however charging in with 'Is this the first terrorist attack since 9/11' is not only the wrong way to go about it, but it will make for a politically charged investigation with the administration on the defensive- good for Republicans, not so good for learning the truth. Perhaps this is a good indicator of why you're all for it?

For f*cks sake- 'Soldier for Jesus', 'Soldier for Christ', and 'Soldier of God' are all links to web sites. What's the point of having html markup here if the site randomly decides when to highlight links?

I am on record in here as saying that the killing of Dr. Tiller is terrorism.
.
I didn't choose how JNS wrote this.
.
As for the political implications, well, guess what. It's crystal clear that balls were dropped here. And 13 people (14 if you count an unborn child) are dead as a result. I'd say that some political heat may make us better able to deal with a possible repeat. Moreover, soldiers deserve answers.

To follow up on chrisnbama's point, one that I and many others have made before- Spob, do you think that Hasan would have undertaken his attack if he had been discharged from the military? Do you think that this was him rebelling against the US, or him rebelling against his employers?
The things I've seen quoted as proof of his terrorism are that he attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque, he called himself a 'Soldier of Allah', and he yelled 'God is Great' when he began his attack.
The points that I don't see mentioned as often:
Dar al Hijrah sees 3000+ worshippers every week. Presumably their not all terrorists? Also, there is no evidence (yet) that Hasan had close associations with any of the radical elements there- not the 9/11 hijackers, not al-Awlaki.
'Soldier of God' is probably the exact appellation that the several thousand muslims serving in the US Army would use.
'God is Great' is the Muslim call to prayer- it has a significantly wider usage than just al Queda- about 1.2 billion wider.
What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I don't see anything productive that comes out of trying to shoehorn what happened under the umbrella of 'terrorism'.

Spob, would you not feel more comfortable posting comments in "Vogue"?

Good points Dee. remember how badly congress screwed up the case against Ollie North?

How about maybe we can have an honest discussion about terrorism and how we can prevent additional killings?

The biggest mistake that led to this tragedy was the bowing to the pressures of political correctness. Notice how quick Obama was to caution everyone about jumping to conclusions in this, a courtesy he did not extend to Officer Crowley in Cambridge.

The left is taking the same approach to terrorism that it does with race. They continually excuse the wrongs while holding the differences like a hammer above all and are quick to deride opponents as racist or anti-Muslim leading to no real discussion which in this case led to tragic deaths.

That's the "then what"

Yes the "honest discussion" that concludes "The biggest mistake that led to this tragedy was the bowing to the pressures of political correctness."
.
You slay me.

freeinpa. You make very valid points. It's a shame that all these liberal commentators refuse to be rational in their discussion points. 90% of their comments appear to be made by the extreme left fringe elements of our political system. They refuse to admit facts and choose to use personal attaches against anyone who disagrees with them.
Terrorism is terrorism and to say other wise is to be irrational.

Rusty
It appears the lefts only concern is that the truth that would come out in Lieberman's investigation might cause some embarrassment to the Obama Administration. They are not interested in the facts only in protection their hero and team in the white house.
Facts can be so inconvenient.