I have refrained from saying anything about the attack at Fort Hood until the facts became clear. It is remarkable how much we have learned about the activities and beliefs of Major Hasan, and how clearly they indicate that his act was an act of terrorism. It is even more remarkable how unwilling the Army, the media, and the President are to embrace that conclusion. Fortunately, there are signs that the American people have not abandoned common sense. A friend who has just returned from California told me that most people he talked to raised the issue of the Fort Hood shootings with him, scoffed at the ridiculous commentaries they had been hearing, and found it obvious that they were acts of Islamic terror. Phyllis Chesler found the same even at CNN, after appearing on the Lou Dobbs show:
And last night, as I was leaving CNN’s very spiffy headquarters in NYC, a tall and handsome CNN man stopped me and said: “You spoke very well. Thank you.” The guest who followed me said, “I agree with you.”
Folks: I am talking about CNN, not FOX. I think, maybe, perhaps, possibly, my God, if not now when, that things might be beginning to change. (The realist in me is scoffing; the optimist has her fingers crossed).
What if the Ministry of Truth insists that war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc., and no one believes it?
There is another interesting angle. How do we know so much so quickly about Major Hasan? And why was nothing done? A. J. Strata puts the pieces together, and conjectures that Hasan was under investigation in 2008, but that the investigation was later canceled. Michael Isikoff notes:
But although an FBI-led task force undertook an “assessment” of the Army psychiatrist as a result of those contacts, counter-terror officials concluded earlier this year that Hasan’s communications with the terror suspect were “protected” by “free speech” and did not warrant opening up a criminal investigation of him, the investigators said.
Bingo. The timeframe is perfect with the incoming administration (which we all now know is very liberal and willing to take all sorts of risks with American lives and fortunes). And the excuse is right out of MoveOn.org. Free speech is protected, that is what the FIS Court is all about – the balance between free speech and protecting Americans from harm. It is why the information is gathered, held closely to protect the individual’s reputation.
There is no harm in monitoring someone who shows the signs of losing his mind and going violent. Whoever called of the surveillance was an Obama official with far left views. Isikoff’s article indicates his ‘government official source’ is trying to turn this into a gun control debate. Of course, he only has this person’s word (who may be trying to cover his ass) as to whether there was no notice of Hasan’s gun purchase.
This is starting to reek of a cover up.
Maybe that’s why the administration and their media groupies are so eager to think of other explanations.
None of this should actually be surprising. Obama has consistently decried what he terms “false choices” such as that between liberty and security. But they’re real choices, and tipping the balance away from security has real consequences—consequences we’ve only begun to see.