That is the question.  I suppose there are other options.  Whaddaya think?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Still waiting for the full story. My feeling so far is that the fact the guy was apparently depressed and unbalanced is more important than his religion. I wonder if the guy's last name was Smith or Johnson, whether we'd even talk about "Domestic Terrorism" rather than a workplace shooting.

From what I understand, the guy a) sucked at his job, b) his job was listening to hundreds of people with PTSD, c) got freaked the f** out about being deployed.

Virginia Tech connection is interesting coincidence. 

Yeah.  I guess we need a whole lot more information beyond everything he wrote, spoke and eventually did.  Shouting "Allahu Akbar" as you shoot your fellow soldiers (unarmed), giving out copies of the Koran and writing/talking about your belief that being a Muslim has priority over your duty to your nation... equating suicide bombers to heroes.  That's just flooky stuff.  And being deployed to Afghanistan where you would NOT be fighting but still acting as a doctor... maybe there's an element of PRE-traumatic stress syndrome. 

I'm glad he survived his own injuries.  Yesterday I heard he was paralyzed.  Oh, if one believed in karma!  Now maybe we'll learn the whole story.  It's going to likely be  as surprising as learning his name was not Smith. 

No patterns to be detected here, are there?  No precedents that sort of correlate with this wacky behavior?  Just another variation on Columbine, I suppose.  But definitely not terrorism.  In the same way it wasn't terrorism when that guy shot up the El Al ticket counter at LAX on the 4th of July.  No symbolic act there.  That too was as random as a hypothetical guy named Smith, an rabid racist who heads to the NAACP headquarters on Martin Luther King day and shoots it up.  The media and the public would all have to sit back and wait to assess his motivation.  (if there was one...)   

Life's stresses do get to people and then they act out in shocking, inexplicable ways.  But it's all pretty random.  As for the murdering major... none of those indicators prior to his acting out were of much importance I guess.

Susan

PS  Senator Lieberman has questions...

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I thought I had invented "Pre-Traumatic Stress Syndrome" but listen (or read) this NPR (yep, NPR) discussion .  There may be some well-concealed "clues" within this recording.

OHMYGAWD. The speaker goes on to talk about how many soldiers commit suicide before going overseas rather than after.  He didn't detail how many go on shooting rampages killing their comrades however.  I'm sure there's a logical leap to be made.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

OK- after reading a little more on this I'm more willing to call this terrorism. I hadn't heard about his links to the 9/11 hijakers and their mosques. 

I guess I think of terrorism as having a political goal, and from what I'd heard at first my impression was more about mentally unstable person "protesting" his deployment and maybe seeking revenge for poor treatment.  But the fact that this guy, while probably acting alone, was indoctrinated by radical islamic teachers, makes it more than just an isolated event with an exclusively personal goal.

Does any hate crime = terrorism?  Just curious your opinions.  I had tended to not think any racist or group-targeted act as being automatically terrorism, but I guess it makes a good argument for treating things like anti-gay or anti-religious crimes as worthy of harsher penalties.

Warning signs? check.

 Bio, I am one who has never been a proponent of a category of crimes known as "hate crimes."  I think  law enforcement has done just fine without thought police breaking down the perceived reasons why someone has broken the law.  The acts should be defined.  The reasons for those acts is factored into sentencing.

From the smallest -- a voiced slur of some sort, graduating up to burning crosses or swastikas painted on a building and all the way up to murder -- to me the MOTIVE of a crime becomes part of the process of determining the penalty. 

You burn a cross on a neighbor's lawn and you are minimally guilty of vandalism.  Arson and coercion/intimidation/death threats might be additional charges.  The WHY of how the perp's mind behaved is taken into consideration when sentencing. If the perp is a hardcore racist being charged with a repetitive act on black neighbors' properties, you throw the book at him.  Etc.  In that Texas murder case where a black man was dragged to death by white men in a pick-up truck for example -- those murderers got the death penalty.  Texas didn't have specific hate crime legislation. 

But all this is an aside to your question.  And my answer is certainly not.  Terrorism is more specific.   Dictionary.com definition:

The major seems to fit the bill quite tidily.  Remember the elderly white supremacist who went to the Capital Bldg and started shooting earlier this year or maybe it was last year?  He had a website filled with racist and pretty much every kind of anti-establishment anti-government rhetoric.  Terrorism?  Well, probably.  It's just that he didn't get off as many rounds before being shot and killed.  (I think he was killed, right?) 

The major (no pun intended) distinction between the Ft. Hood killer and more broadly defined hate crimes seems to me its relevance to the fact that the country is at war with those adhering to the same mindset as whatshisname and that thousands of Americans have been killed in the process.  Those defending the US against this mindset of Islamist aggression against the West were attacked on their home front with a casualty count highest since 9/11. 

The larger question = what to do.  A smaller question = was Sirhan Sirhan the first of this string of terrorists acting out with Islamist fury against the US IN the US?  The loose affiliation of groups -- Muslim Brotherhood to Al Qaeda -- makes it difficult to pinpoint.  With a full 20 percent of the world's population as Muslim, this small percentage of those who act out becomes highly problematic.  1% of 1.3 billion = 13,000,000.  That's not so small.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Very thoughtful response, Susan. 

I think I generally agree with you on hate crime legislation. In most cases the law is irrelevant/redundant if prosecutors and juries would reach the same conclusions anyway.  My two main thoughts are then:

1) What about cases when the above is not true? This could go either way- for example, either an overly sensitive DA who calls everything a hate-crime, or one who's racist and without hate crime legislation, would charge bubba joe with lesser crimes.

2) Does the simple presence of such laws help or hurt? Do "protected" groups feel more protected or integrated because of them, and alternatively/additionally, does this harm unprotected (or protected) groups in any way?

I don't have any real data on either 1 or 2, but my gut feeling is that there is more of an upside than a downside to hate-crimes laws.

Quick and dirty response.

A crime is a crime. We are all equal under the law. If an added hate motive is envolved, by all means allow that into consideration at trial. However, I am opposed to creating certain "special" classes of people, citizens. Who should be so ordained, who not ?

Some idiots assault a gay kid, charge them by the book. Allow the extra circumstances presented to the jury. If the jury recommends a full tilt max conviction given the hate circumstance, fine.

Apparently Rush Limbaugh blames Obama for the shootings. Limbaugh said about the shooter, “ He didn’t like Americans in Afghanistan or Iraq, and by the way, playing the game the way the media and the Democrats do, we can almost say that this is Obama’s fault, because this guy said that he believed that Obama was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama hasn’t done it, and that’s one of the reasons why the guy cracked.”

Now Obama is a major reason the guy cracked? WTF?

R_Flagg

1)  I guess a well-informed population would have to vote that DA out of office.  I am so eternally optimisitc.

But here's the deal.  The law can only do so much to protect humans from other humans intent on doing them harm.  For example, I am closely aligned in sympathies to the Jewish people as a group and to Israel's well being as a nation.  Both groups have arguably been the recipients of more than their fair share of "hate" crimes.  There's a reason for the motto "never again" that came into the Jewish lexicon in the aftermath of WWII. (but could have been used for millenia with as much meaning)  Jews have. The nation of Israel and Jews in general in the US have taken it upon themselves (generally speaking...) to protect themselves. 

In this nation, I think our dependence on Mommy Protector Laws designed to save us from bullies, mean spirited people and 'haters' only tends to make for a childlike and false sense of security.

But clearly I am out of step with the current administration ethos and will have to wait it out.  Not sure this genie is going back into the bottle any time soon though.

Susan

PS Obama to speak at Ft. Hood memorial at 1:00 pm, local time, I presume.  Here is how the NYT describes his task. 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Jordan .

Anybody getting ready to watch Obama as he speaks at Ft. Hood?  I'm waiting.  What he says will be critical to my ever evolving view of this President.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

R_Flagg

Just looked at that transcript (ugh- I think i need a shower). It does seem a bit tongue-in-cheek, but in the same way Huckabee had a news conference to show his negative campaign adds that were to negative to show. "I don't really believe this, ha ha, but I'm still going to put that out there".

Please oh please let's not make this a Rush Limbaugh moment.  Jordan, I'm surprised at you.  You know how these sort of threads can go.

But it is like a discussion of health care where a Democrat might give us a video clip of Michael Moore's movie "Sicko." Almost immediately all reasonable discourse is lost as the commentary shifts to provacateurism.  And we become pawns in their games.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I think it's relative to the thread and how the news media (including, FOX, CNN, Limbaugh, etc) are exploiting this tragedy for "entertainment" purposes.

R_Flagg

 So did your view evolve, Susan? 

I didn't watch, but read the transcript. I thought it was a moving speech to read. I'm guessing those wishing to criticize it will find room to do so, however.

[quote]

We come together filled with sorrow for the thirteen Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is their legacy.

Neither this country - nor the values that we were founded upon - could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans. And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.

Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician's assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having a heart attack.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager. But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment. He is survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.

Staff Sergeant Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light wheeled mechanic and Satellite Communications Operator. He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and father.

After retiring from the Army as a Major, John Gaffaney cared for society's most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse. He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a Captain. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Specialist Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008 with the support of his family. As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for. He joined the Army after high school. He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he re-enlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn't take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: "Watch me."

Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service - diffuse bombs - so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

Private First Class Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher. He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play. He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.

Captain Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress. He had great respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Private Francheska Velez, the daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army. When she was killed, she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.

Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans. She was a single mother who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters. She also left behind a loving husband.

Private First Class Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child. He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service. He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.

These men and women came from all parts of the country. Some had long careers in the military. Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11. Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those did. Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity and the decency of those who serve, and that is how they will be remembered.

That same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering. In those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pick-up truck.

One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others that she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back. Two police officers - Mark Todd and Kim Munley - saved countless lives by risking their own. One medic - Francisco de la Serna - treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It is a chance to pause, and to pay tribute - for students to learn of the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us - every single American - must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations - all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today's wars, there is not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops' success - no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of their impact is no less great - in a world of threats that know no borders, it will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that is extended abroad. And it will serve as testimony to the character of those who serve, and the example that you set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest - when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today's servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown - it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.

[/quote]

Reading the transcript, it sounds very tongue in cheek to me. To follow the argument that Rush lays out (if not tongue in cheek), then Bush would ultimately be to blame since he went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not a strong argument at all so that's why i don't beleive Rush actually believes that.

Rush's point being that everyone wants to blame everyone or everything else BUT who/what is really to blame.

OR as he says on the show in that transcript, we have the media attempting to put fanatical Christians who go around killing people up to the same par as fanatical Muslims who go around killing people.

Or that if this guy had a book on his bed stand written by a conservative, then the media would jump on that - blaming that author for the killing.

But instead we got the media trying to blame this on everything else but what it really is.

We got Mayor Daley in Chicago blaming guns (video).

We got people trying to ignore the fact of the mosque he attended, and the fact that 9/11 killers went there too.

Entertainment purposes, or more what Rush alluded to? Is the media just trying to beat around the bush, and blame it on anything other than what it is?

Can we call this anything other than cold blooded terrorism? Can we call this anything other than fanatical Muslim religious beliefs rearing its ugly head again? Is this the beginning of internal terror cells - the same type of cells that just a few months ago the FBI probably stopped in NYC?

So the people asking "who to blame?" and "why?" are doing it for entertainment purposes because they are unwilling to either a) deliver the truth, or 2) handle the truth.

Rush obviously blames fanatical Mulsim beliefs as THE issue. As do I. And as I believe Susan alludes to with her 1% comment above.

Jordan .

Interesting comments all.  And good points.

R.Flagg, mass murder has always been a media event.  Call it entertainment if you will.  I recall that in 1960 a young Larry Schiller was sitting in that Dallas police station waiting to get an interview with Lee Harvey.  He'd spoken with the Mrs. earlier to get movie rights to their story.  Nowadays the vultures are there on the spot.  But as I recall there were some pretty entertaining crimes and how you say "tragedies" in days gone by that entertained us from Homer to Shakespeare and onto Jack the Ripper tales.  There are just more outlets today.

Bio, I thought it was a well-phrased, well-delivered speech.  Actually there's probably nothing in a speech -- well, at least not THAT one --  that is so earth-shattering as to move me either closer or further from Obama.  I think it is a speech almost any president would have/could have delivered.  And I guess a memorial isn't the place for discussing the murderer so much and discussing his motives etc.  It was a memorial.  The singer who did Amazing Grace was amazing!  I cannot listen to that song without crying and as I perused the audience, I wondered how anyone could remain dry-eyed through it. 

Now, onto that expression 'news media.'  I do listen to Rush several times a week.  Now that I have Sirius radio in my car I listen to BBC and CNN and FoxNews and Howard Stern 100 and 101 so I'm getting a nice assortment of sources.  For my serious news I need to get it either from the Wall Street Journal or a very small handful of TV personalities like Howard Kurtz or ... Oh, that's right.  Tim Russert died.  Or.... Well, I can't think of anyone off hand.  I suppose there is someone to echo each of our personal views that keeps us listening/watching/reading but it's really not enough.  There are a few websites that have an assortment of views presented as neutrally as possible where I can READ opposite views conveyed with thoughtful reflection.  Otherwise, don't you just feel as if you're being ranted at instead of informed when listening/reading/watching so many of the strongly and loudly opinionated?  

Sigh.

We lament the loss of what any one of us views as fair news coverage these days.  

So how do we determine the zeitgeist of our own era here in the US?  Or in the West?  How do we fairly assess the future to be?  The slow incremental changes I've seen in a lifetime cause me to fret for what our society is becoming on many levels.  But that is par for the aging course.  I just get this sneaking suspicion that I lived through the most golden of golden ages and that it is now in its twilight stages.  Or maybe that's just me who's in that stage.

More later.  I've got to make a plate full of deviled eggs for tonight's wine/cheese/appetizer Neighborhood Watch meeting where we'll discuss why there's no crime on our street!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Deviled eggs complete.  A few minutes to go.  This article sizes up the space between those who would lean toward describing the murders as merely a 'sick act' and those who see it as terrorism. Of course there's as much risk  in invoking Dr. Phil as there is in a Rush Limbaugh link but at least this is from the WSJ. 

The writer may be a tad unfair with the army because we have to wait to see how they proceed in prosecuting him.  I am very interested in seeing if Hasan maintains the fervent zealotry it took to carry out his murderous spree when he is on trial.  Will he wimp out and let a defense liar lawyer make excuses for him?

By Dorothy Rabinowitz 

It can by now come as no surprise that the Fort Hood massacre yielded an instant flow of exculpatory media meditations on the stresses that must have weighed on the killer who mowed down 13 Americans and wounded 29 others. Still, the intense drive to wrap this clear case in a fog of mystery is eminently worthy of notice.

The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."

What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.

What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.

One of the first outbreaks of these fevers, the night of the shootings, featured television's star psychologist, Dr. Phil, who was outraged when fellow panelist and former JAG officer Tom Kenniff observed that he had been listening to a lot of psychobabble and evasions about Maj. Hasan's motives.

A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic identity, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?

It was the same case to be presented, in varying forms, by guest psychologists, the media, and a representative or two from the military, for days on end.

The quality and thrust of this argument was best captured by the impassioned Dr. Phil, who asked us to consider, "how far out of touch with reality do you have to be to kill your fellow Americans . . . this is not a well act." And how far out of touch with reality is such a question, one asks in return—not only of Dr. Phil, but of the legions of commentators like him immersed in the labyrinths of motive hunting even as the details of Maj. Hasan's proclivities became ever clearer and more ominous.

To kill your fellow Americans—as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of circumstances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred—the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind.

As the meditations on Maj. Hasan's motives rolled on, "fear of deployment" has served as a major theme—one announced as fact in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." The authority for this intelligence? The perpetrator's cousin. No story could have better suited that newspaper's ongoing preoccupation with the theme of madness in our fighting men, and the deadly horrors of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, than this story of a victim of war pressures gone berserk. The one fly in the ointment—Maj. Hasan had of course seen no war, and no combat.

Still, with a bit of stretching, adherents of Maj. Hasan-as-war-victim theme found a substitute of sorts—namely the fears allegedly provoked in him by his exposure, as an army psychiatrist, to the stories of men who had been deployed. The thesis then: Maj. Hasan's mental stress, provoked by the suffering of Americans who had been in combat, caused him to go out and butcher as many of these soldiers as he could. Let's try putting that one before a jury.

By Sunday morning, Gen. George Casey Jr., Army chief of staff, confronted questions put to him by ABC's George Stephanopolous—among them the matter of the complaints about Maj. Hasan's anti-American tirades that were made by fellow students in military classes, as well as other danger signs ignored by officials when they were reported, apparently for fear of offense to a Muslim member of the military.

These were speculations, Gen. Casey repeatedly cautioned. We need to be very careful, he explained, "We are a very diverse army." Mr. Stephanopolous then helpfully summarized matters: This case then was either a case of premeditated terror—or the man just snapped.

The general was not about to address such questions. He was there to recite the required pieties, and describe the military priorities . . . which are, it appears, a concern above all for the sensitivities of a diverse army, a concern so great as to render even the mention of salient facts out of order, as "speculation.'" "This terrible event," Gen. Casey noted, "would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."

To hear this, and numerous other such pronouncements of recent days, was to be reminded of all those witnesses to the suspicious behavior of the 9/11 hijackers who held their tongues for fear of being charged with discrimination. It has taken Maj. Hasan, and the fantastic efforts to explain away his act of bloody hatred, to bring home how much less capable we are of recognizing the dangers confronting us than we were even before September 11.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

probably opening myself up to being blasted as a naive so-and-so here, but for the sake of discussion:

 1) While the first reaction for many people, and official Military line at the moment, are that the killer's personal problems were responsible for the killing, the links to the radical imam/VA mosque are pretty much everywhere and not just in righty-land.  So to say that "everyone in the MSM has their eyes closed" is not correct from my observation (i.e. I learned about them on huffpo, msnbc have strongly featured AP articles discussing this info as well). I haven't known any government, and particularly the military, to ever be speedy in admitting they are wrong.

2) It seems pretty clear to me that these extremest ties shaped this killer's thoughts and eventual disasterous murder spree. I think it is pretty shortsighted to say "he was a terrorist, end of story". There may be other lessons to take out of this, including possibly, that things like ridicule based on religion, mental problems, etc are real issues that we should be worried about, especially in a job where people have access to lots of guns. It makes me sad how much people laud/support the military until, whoops, they might need some kind of care that is inconvenient, or some reality about the limits of these brave men and women comes to light. It's all well and good to dismiss sensitivity to mental health issues as PC bulls***, but in my opinion, this is doing a real disservice. We may never know to what extent mental problems finally drove this guy over the edge, but not considering them seems almost as blind as not considering his ties to a hate-preaching cleric.

Just a minor response to R_Flagg.

Limbaugh is not the news media. He is a something else to me- beyond a commentator , more of a rabble rouser. Rabble is not the term really-all those who listen to Linbaugh are by no means rabble, but you know what i mean.

I disagree and think the Limbaugh age has had a huge impact on the current news media. I think his so called tongue in cheek remarks just make him look like a hypocrite. This type of partisan reporting and analysis guarantees news networks the most profits. When the rare instances I watch FOX, CNN, MSNBC, with Beck, Maddow, Dobbs, Hanity, and all the rest it really represents what mainstream media has become in this day and age. All the media networks are trying to capitalize on the success of the Limbaugh age of partisan bickering. I personally know people who watch FOX news all day long because it's entertaining for them. At the end of the day it's about which side wins and not about what is really going on in the world. Millions of Americans get their daily news from listening to only these commentators. Does anyone read newspapers anymore? Why when Rush can tell you what to think every morning?

I just hate when they exploit tragedies as reality TV entertainment and such. With the fort Hood tragedy I know people who watched it all day long as if some great new crime show just premiered. I fear for the mental state of Americans these days.

My girlfriend turned me on to "Sunday Morning" on CBS which reports current events with a more light approach without the political partisan rhetoric. It makes me start the week off with a much more positive outlook on life. If I sit and watch FOX or CNN for more than an hour I feel as if I need to take a long shower to get the ugly stench off me. In fact I have removed the news channels from my channel guide to avoid temptation :)

R_Flagg