Yeah but, Dobbs, Maddow, beck ,hannity are not and don't claim to be news reporters . they are commentators-spinners-opinion types. The news portions are like Anderson Cooper, or Shep what's his name.

You have news programs -(which unfortunately may sneak in bias)

Then you have commentator programs- opinion talking heads.

Do you folks see political correctness at work on this story?

Were the military/FBI people envolved hesitant of being punished for questioning Hasan's religious behavior ? Did the whole diversity commandment scare off the folks observing Hasan and prevent intervention ?
I mean come on, Hasan's business card read "Soldier of Allah"! 

And then the media has shown PC influence in their covering of the story.

e.g. The AP originally ran a piece titled "Ft. Hood Suspect's Superiors Concerned About His Religious Views"

They then quickly changed the title to" Military Doctors Worried Hasan Was 'Psychotic,' Capable of Killing Fellow Soldiers".

Side thought: Would anyone ready and willing to blow themselves up for the jihad be ipso facto "insane" ?

My conclusion is the PC Movement, well intended I'm sure, is mortally dangerous and a major threat to our very existence.
It has that common thread of so many progressive initiatives. Lost personal freedom and unintended but predictable disasterous consequences.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Right off the bat, I do not blame Obama for the fort hood terrorist attack. Hasan has a history-red flag- going back many years.

However the concept of not using the term terrorism, replaced with " man caused catastrophy' enacted by the Administration is wrong headed. Attorney general Holder's attention to returning U S vets as prime candidates, suspects for these man caused catastrophies is indicative of the arbitrary assignment of the diversity PC program. Who gets a pass, who gets extra attention ?  If you can't mention the name of the group we are at war with that is dangerous and ridiculous.  This General Casey and his apparent prime concern for textbook P C /diversity is not the priority of a warrior. The military is based on the opposite of special consideration for approved religions or other groups. The military should and always has promoted the opposite of diversity. That is why they wear uniforms, cut recruits' hair in the same 'style'. The goal is to have a cohesive force- one classification only. All equal brothers and sisters in arms.

To have a general's priority, and concern on anything besides the vigorous defense of the country from it's enemies is telling. IMO.

The fear caused by this new approach ( which i do attribute to Obama) is a mistake and a truly deadly one. FBI/Military investigators must cover their asses to prevent punishment for being supposedly not P C.? How can they function with their hands tied? Answer, we have seen the result at Fort Hood. Again this military PC stuff goes back to the Bush administration, but Obama has kicked up the problem to a more dangerous level. Radical Islamist Jihadists-there, I said it. The media in general does not. That touches on the lack of factual reportage by the fourth estate which should be their function- a necessary vital function at that.

Stop this madness. The military and in fact our citizens in general are " from many backgrounds to one unified whole." Not a hierarchy of special subgroups. No citizen is special-we are a classless society. 

I still wonder whether people may be overemphasizing the PC aspect of this tragedy. They were already monitoring his emails- treating him differently. This is a case of someone not doing their job well, but I'll need more evidence before I believe that some actual person came to the conclusion that this guy was a real danger but did not act on that because of not wanting to offend him.  "PC" is a big juicy target though...

(to say this clearly- not excusing the missed warnings that were not acted on here)

 I'd also disagree that there is no value to diversity in our military.  Besides the whole "winning their hearts and minds" effort that depends on recognizing that not all muslims are terrorists, we are still in serious need of people who speak arabic in our military. Given that much of what we do now is nation building, this is mission critical. A military with muslim-americans is a more effective military.

About the media's role, I'm all for them being as unsensational as possible, especially before all the facts are known. Not buying that calling someone a murder rather than terrorist is causing any harm. 

Just to put this out there, while PC can be annoying, I'm not sure I'm ready to go back to pre-pc. Would we scrap all anti-discrimination laws? Where does PC begin?

I think that is indeed one problem with PC Bio. Yes, What group is ordained, what ones are not?

Agreed for sure that Arabic language troops/civilians are helpful. But they are all equal citizens without a negative or positive 'ranking' . That is the " from many[backgrounds] one" assumption. One class. The rest is just descriptive adjectives to me.

Have a good one B.

Oh, on the media being unsensational, that is fine. The media avoiding phrases or avenues of reportage for PC adherance not so good.

Looks like another group of misunderstood victims will be going to court.

     *                          *                                *                                 *  

 After 8 years, an ordinary district court in N Y will be deliberating on the crimes committed against 9-11 war enemy combatants. Of course the proceedings should obviously have been done at a military tribunal- without every right afforded a U S citizen. And it should not have been staged in Lower Manhattan.

Doing this in the wrong outlet, and the neighborhood of 9-11 survivors and their families, some with post traumatic stress disorder, will put these victims thru the shock of reliving that horror. Sensitivity on show once again. Hey, no shout outs? no photo op flyovers?

The mileage Islamic news agencies ( and western media for that matter) will enjoy from this CIA, Military, Bush bashing exhumation is a Godsend from Allah to the Jihad recruiters. The defense will labor with judgemental hindsight, gasp at, and condemn the methods used on these terrorists. That will be the focus. An issue that was examined and adjudicated 6 years ago by the Justice Department Mr. Holder! Done shortly before current Attorney General Holder was defending another group of catastrophy street artists.

This is how the Admin/Dem Congress accomplishes, backdoor fashion, it's desire to persecute and handcuff the CIA and Military and provide aid and comfort to the 'act of man made catastrophies' crew and their fellow travelers. And in the process telegraph intelligence information to Al Queda.

Thank you so much Obama for that bit of scoresettling brilliance against the country's defenders. Or is it a more direct and sinister tactic than that ? I mean it does beg the question.

Jordan .

One of the better TV programs Sunday mornings is CNN's Reliable Sources.  I do believe Howard Kurtz goes the traditional journalistic route to suss out and evaluate news coverage of each major new item in a fair and neutral manner.  Anyone else watch? 

This week there was the inevitable discussion of the Ft. Hood terrorist attack.  (thereby showing my 'commentator' voice)  The two voices on board agreed that the NYT went overboard to molly coddle the coverage of the Major.  I have both front pages sitting on my desk.  Last Sunday's headline (well, the top story was "Sweeping Health Care Overhaul Passes the House") about the Ft. Hood murders:  

PRELIMINARY FORT HOOD INQUIRY TURNS UP NO LINK TO TERROR PLOT

Right next to that story is one titled:

A MILITARY THERAPIST'S WORLD: LONG HOURS, FILLED WITH PAIN

This Sunday Left front page headline:

TANGLE OF CLUES ABOUT SUSPECT AT FORT HOOD

Some See Social Misfit, a Radical, or Both

This week's article begins with a little story about the perp's new business cards he bought online before moving to Texas in July.  Rather than noting his military rank he has the letters "SoA" denoting "Son of Allah" or (and this is the second of the NYT's suggested meanings) "Soldier of Allah."

Way back in way back time following the September 11, 2001 attacks by some loosely affiliated souls, whom, like the Major, probably also suffered from "emotional problems, ideological and religious pressures" I heard someone describe the future wars with these non-state entities like Mohammed Atta and co. as a War of Disruption rather than a War of Destruction.  No uniformed army.  No particular single geographical zone.  Just random groups of like-minded individuals with a common cause.  The Ummah?  Not exactly, but just that small percentage (1%? .01%????) of the massive Ummah (1,300,000,000 give or take) that know too much about the musings of Mohammed and, well, all the other interesting juxtapositions of societies of hostile men without women and without livelihoods who find themselves a meaningful brotherhood with Greater Purpose. 

Heck, maybe the term 'terrorism' serves no useful function with this new type of international assault.  Drip.  Drip.  Drip.  Now you have to take off your shoes at the airport.  Drip. Drip. Drip.  Now you can't carry a bottle of shampoo in your carry-on bag.  Drip. Drip. Disruptive drip.  Hey, big deal.  It's just routine criminal behavior.  Here.  And there.  And there.  Not a war.  Not terrorism.  

Ugh.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Jordan .

The US gov doesn't even trust their own soldiers with weapons off the field, so this is just like any other shooting situation: a problem caused by asinine gun control laws.

Lives would have been saved if those on the base were permitted to be armed. The shooter would have thought twice about firing on armed or potentially armed people, and he would have been disarmed sooner.

So score again for the 2nd Amendment supporters. Time and time again, you see that we can't keep the guns out of the hands of "bad guys" with laws, but we can take them out of the hands of the good guys (you and me.)

And the Left will wring their hands uselessly about hindsight whenever this happens, as usual not seeing the forest for the trees.

The term terrorist verses the milktoast "man made incident" or whatever misleading and obfuscating language the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil nimrods want us to use, while basic and germaine here, does indeed violate the 1st Amendment !

Control of speech--rejecting ' Islamic terrorist ' hits at the heart of free speech. Ist Amendment violation.

BUT as not noted until above the unconstitutional  Limit on the right to bear arms  at an Army Base no less!! The two step attack on the 1st and 2nd Amendment !!  That tired, wimpy one two bitch slap at the Constitution.

Shut that crap down !

Spoken like someone who has never been in the military. I served my time in the Marines after high school and there is no way in hell you want young soldiers carrying arms around base. It has nothing to do with gun control laws and besides the military falls under completely different law than civilians for very good reason. Trust me, ask any NCO, sergeant, staff sergeant, or officers and they will tell you they would never allow their soldiers to be armed on base for fear of their own and their families safety. There are many violent young kids who are taught kill, kill, kill from day one of service. I remember all the crazy bar fights, fights in the barracks, etc. I could not imagine if these soldiers or even myself back then were armed. It would be a total disaster.

I remember every time we would leave the firing range we would be searched with metal detectors to ensure no live rounds were in our pockets, etc. These decisions are made by the military command so go ahead and blame Gov, liberals and Obama or whatever makes you feel better but you should understand military training and law first and why these rules are in place. I'm not exactly sure what happened in Fort Hood but the military police and security personnel on duty do carry arms. There was obviously a security breakdown somewhere.

R_Flagg

That military law is following civilian law means nothing, other than that the people we expect to protect OUR freedom we now don't want to protect themselves (!!!)

R-Flagg- what you are saying, as someone who was in the Marines, is the same thing civilians who are scared of guns say. "Oh, but this will increase crimes of passion. These laws are in place to protect people!" while totally neglecting the basic principle stated above-- that even insane morons will hesitate to shoot on those they know are armed! The laws are flawed, obviously. If they worked, there would not be mass shootings.

Why do anyone, especially soldiers, want so badly to believe they are victims who can't protect themselves, yet somehow are ok with the protection of the invisible law that says "Don't Bring Guns Here?"

Sorry, this just makes me sorry for civilization. ("Civilized" meaning can't take care of one's own needs, including killing food- we go to the grocery store- and self defense- we call the cops.)

I trust my fellow man to help me as much as I mistrust my fellow man who wants to hurt me.

Let's throw more legislation at it. This has always been such an effective solution. (snark)

That's isn't really what I am saying. First there are completely different laws that govern the military, see the UCMJ. Second, the rules that don't allow soldiers to be armed on base have nothing to do with civilian gun control laws. These rules and regulations are imposed by the military command not gun control laws. It's not appropriate to be armed on base. I would be like allowing students to be armed on college campus, or employees to be armed in the workplace. It would be a very bad idea. You can choose to live or stay off base where you can sleep with your gun and cuddle with it if you wish.

So just throwing regulation at gun control is not effective, fair enough and in some instances I agree. But throwing guns into the hands of all Americans and saying go shoot the other guy before he shoots you will certainly cause more problems. Especially in this compulsive over reactionary society.

I have a beretta 9mm that I keep at home. I was trained with this weapon and am a responsible gun owner. It ensures that I can protect my family in the case of a break in. I have no fear at this point that government regulation will ever take that right away from me. In my life outside my home I make sensible decisions and feel pretty safe as one can in this world. I live in New Mexico where the law allows you to carry a gun in your vehicle but I do not feel the need to do so. I'm 37 years old and nobody has ever taken a shot at me. But what do I know? I'm liberal scum who is simply trying to take your rights away. Our problems are certainly caused by all the liberals and irresponsible gun owners should bare no blame or be subjected to regulation?

R_Flagg 

Hey R, I'm in the 9mm Beretta club too! A group of my friends, women, blacks, hispanics all have legal weapons. We half joke about our group reporting for duty should things really get dangerous.

My arms training doesn't raise a pimple on your Marine ass. The range in Atlanta when I was a Govt. agent.

All these gun owners are law abiding sane people. They don't sell weapons to the criminals or insane. (So that leaves them to buy on the black market-which does exist! I've seen it up close and personal on a side street in Brooklyn NY.)

May i never have to use my sidearm. But the constitution gives me the right to bear arms and to have Free Speech !

Do you agree?

Afterthought : might not armed citizens at Columbine and Virginia Tech have saved lives? But , of course, those are firearm SAFE zones. Something not lost on the mass murderers.

Don't hunt victims at the shooting range. Go to that ' barrel ' with the unarmed fish within. 

Hi Raymond,

Cool that you have a Beretta and I am sure you are a legal and responsible gun owner. I love my Beretta, very accurate and easy to maintain! Of course we were always taught and trained one shot one kill so I don't need some insane assault weapon. Take the Tec-9 for example which was obviously designed and produced for drug dealers who can't shoot for shit, to simply hit as many people as possible in drive by shootings, etc. Seriously, why are these crappy things even legal?

Of course I agree in the right to bare arms and free speech. Come on, I'm not as evil as you might thing? ;) I am all for responsible gun ownership but some of these gun nuts with vaults full of assault rifles are a little on the scary side.

I disagree about arming "citizens" on campus. Have you been on a high school, college campus or Marine base recently? Sorry, but you will not find an larger amount of immature and irresponsible "citizens" in one area. In these safe zones I think it is important to have the proper security staff and procedures in place to begin with. I know on every single base I've been on there are armed security guards. Again, I don't know where the security policy breakdown was at fort hood but this tragedy should not me blamed on liberals, Obama, or gun control laws. That just seems ridiculous to me.

R_Flagg

" Right off the bat, I do not blame Obama for the fort hood terrorist attack. Hasan has a history-red flag- going back many years." quote of me.

R, I am not one who blames Obama for Ft. HooD. As a matter of fact it was "Right off the bat."

Enjoy my man.

Here's a little bit of newly uncovered info on the Good Doctor.

Fort Hood shooter asked about killing Americans in 2008: report

Dec 23 07:13 PM US/Eastern

Nidal Hasan, the US soldier who killed 13 people at an attack on Fort Hood military base last month, sought advice about murdering US troops in 2008, a Yemeni imam told Al-Jazeera on Wednesday.

Hasan, a Muslim Army psychiatrist, faces 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in connection with the November 5 shooting attack at the Texas military facility.

On Wednesday, Al-Jazeera's Arabic-language website published an interview with US-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who said he and Hasan communicated by email for over a year about the permissibility of killing US soldiers and Israeli civilians.

"The first message I received from Nidal was on 17 December 2008," Aulaqi told the interviewer, adding that Hasan initiated the email communication.

"He asked about killing American soldiers and officers and whether that was legitimate or not," Aulaqi said.

Links between the Muslim cleric and Hasan are already being investigated, but the interview reveals for the first time how long the two men knew each other and communicated, and also offers insight into how early Hasan was thinking about the possibility of attacking fellow servicemembers.

Aulaqi, a US-born preacher, said he met Hasan nine years earlier at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Washington, DC and the pair begin communicating after Aulaqi left the United States for Yemen.

"The first message was on the rules about a Muslim soldier who serves in the American army and kills his fellow (soldiers)," Aulaqi said.

"And in a group of his messages, Nidal explained his view on the killing of Israeli civilians, which he supported," he added.

Aulaqi denied having suggested the attack on Fort Hood, but said he supported Hasan's actions, adding that Hasan was motivated by long-standing grievances against the US military.

"The target that Nidal targeted was a military target inside the United States and not anything else," Aulaqi said.

"I didn't recruit Nidal Hasan and in fact America recruited him with its crimes and injustices and that is something that America does not want to recognize."

Hasan, who is paralyzed from the chest down after being shot by a police officer during the attack, is being held at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio pending trial.

The Pentagon has launched an investigation into the shootings to determine whether warning signs were missed and to prevent such an assault from happening again.

Twelve soldiers and one civilian were killed in the attack. Another 42 people were wounded.

 

 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin