President Obama And His Hasan Problem–UPDATED
November 6, 2009 / 12:56 pm • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierHow does a man weened on politically correct thought, race grievance, and collective versus individual responsibility deal with this:
American born
Muslim man
Soldier
Psychiatrist
Murderer
Terrorist
Here was the President’s response:
President Obama gave a shout out before his statements about the rampage at Ft. Hood. Does that seem dissonant to you? Bookworm calls it “frightening insensitivity“.
Robert George of NBC in Chicago writes:
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That’s the least that should occur.
As more uncomfortable information comes out, information President Obama probably knew even yesterday, it will raise more questions. For example, the killer yelled “Allahu Akbar” while he shot his fellow soldiers. In addition, Hasan gave a weird presentation on the Koran during Grand Rounds. Jimmie Bise of Sundries Shack, said on Twitter:
It is this simple: 12 people were murdered yesterday by a man who holds political views the MSM has guaranteed us aren’t dangerous.
And when Jake Tapper just asked Robert Gibbs when an attack becomes a terrorist attack, the response, according to David Almacy also reporting on Twitter was this:
In an answer to @jaketapper, Robert Gibbs just said that he doesn’t have the theoretical background to define “terrorist attack.” Wow.
When faced with the uncomfortable facts, President Obama and his administration are having a collective psychic break. Reality is not conforming to the fantasy they’ve built.
So far, it seems that this killing spree, this terrorist attack, could have been prevented. This man’s radical Islamist views were widely known. He did not hide them. He did not hide that he didn’t want to go to Iraq. He did not hide that he disagreed with America’s wars. He did not hide his frustration about President Obama. He even praised evil–beheadings and terrorism.
Since it’s politically incorrect to “profile” for terrorists or look for threats proactively, how is one to prevent such events? President Obama’s answer has been to pretend. If he ignores threats, they will go away. But they’re not going away. Neither individual or group or State-sponsoring terrorists are going away. And pretending they don’t exist or aren’t serious and deadly is liable to get a man killed. Or many men.
And so, President Obama’s decision to make light of the Ft. Hood killings by burying the story into a pre-planned press-conference makes sense. This act of terrorism revealed all the lies liberals tell themselves and tell others. There are two choices in this situation, then: One, admit the lie and speak the truth. Or two, continue the delusion.
President Obama has chosen to continue the delusion. If he can, and the mainstream media continues to aid and abet him, he’ll reframe this “unfortunate incident” as the actions of one “troubled individual” who should have “received help sooner.” And it looks like he’ll get help in that regard.
But for normal people, this attack was a terrorist attack by a Muslim man schooled in hate-filled ideology. Hasan would have rather killed his fellow soldiers rather than go to an Islamic nation and help his own country find justice there. That is, Hasan was a Muslim first, and a radical one at that, and a countryman second. And because no one can name Islamism evil, because that might make someone uncomfortable, what is there to say?
So the President and his press people fumble around, trying to find some politically correct verbiage to describe evil. And they can’t. What this man did was wrong and heinous. There are no excuses. He was an individual and he’s responsible. He was an educated doctor, a psychiatrist, and enlightenment did not prevent the taint of radical ideology. And he was also a murderer who intended not just to kill, but terrorize.
He is everything President Obama wants to pretend doesn’t exist. Well. America can’t afford to indulge President Obama and his liberal minions their p.c. fantasies. It gets citizens killed. The Ft. Hood massacre was a reality-check.
Updated:
Michelle Malkin reports that Hasan had “extra weapons training”.
Michael Goldfarb on Obama searching for the “real cause” of the massacre.
Updated:
Shrinkwrapped discusses the psychology:
When the immediate reaction of Islamic spokesmen is to warn everyone of Islamophobia, they too are supporting the projection and externalization that is the hallmark of radical Islam and the “lone, psychiatrically deranged” paranoid.
Every effort should be made to resolutely maintain a posture that specifically and emphatically denies the use of projection and externalization to the radical Islamists. Groups like CAIR should be confronted by our MSM and government on a regular basis to expose their use of such psychological processes for all to see. Whenever a “lone, psychiatrically deranged” individual commits an atrocity, we must be alert to attempts to shift the psychological impetus for the attack from the attacker to the surround. It is an unhappy reality that confronting a paranoid’s projection and externalization does not work in a therapeutic context. It either convinces the paranoid that you are part of the persecutory conspiracy or, if accepted and internalized, leads to significant depression. However, we cannot treat terror as a therapeutic situation. When Muslims support, in their speech and writing, convictions that reflect the use of projection and externalization, they must be considered potential dangers to the community. This requires a form of “racial profiling” but the alternative is to wait for an atrocity of such significant proportions that “lone, psychiatrically deranged” non-Muslims begin to take things into their own hands.













19 Responses to “President Obama And His Hasan Problem–UPDATED”
November 6 2009 / 3:13 pm
Reply
Ironic that the liberals complain about Rush Limbaugh calling Obama a “Man-Child” and then given a terrorist attack on American soil, Obama acts like a 14 year old and gives “shout outs”.
What a complete and utter embarrassment. Add it to his tab (which includes bowing to the Saudi King.)
2012 can’t get here soon enough.
November 6 2009 / 7:06 pm
Reply
Sad that there’s nothing that you find too somber to froth over.
Very sad indeed.
November 6 2009 / 7:46 pm
Reply
DR. M,
Hey every time I read the comments section on your blog and the ‘fuster’ troll comments, directly below his/her or its post is “Comments that are inappropriate, rude, completely stupid, or obviously meant to bait others into a flame war may be deleted.” The above comment by fuster once again does not address the subject, it merely attacks commenters with phony indignation. Anyway, in order to respond to this vapid leftist, I first must get past your ‘before you say say that…’but since it’s your blog and not mine, I will leave it at this.
November 6 2009 / 8:10 pm
Reply
I’m pretty far from indignant. I merely think that it’s sad to connect this thing with the usual political game.
November 7 2009 / 7:56 am
Reply
fussy – you don’t merely think it’s sad to connect this to anything political – YOU think it’s sad to have to face the FACT that it’s YOUR guy – TEO BoBo – that’s dropping the ball on all of this. He can’t do the standard “It’s Bushes Fault©®™!!!” for all this.
But don’t worry, it’s coming, and then that will make fussy happy.
November 7 2009 / 11:15 am
Reply
No Daver, I don;t think that what happened had much of anything to do with Obama or Bush.
I think blaming you or me or Clouthier for this make about as much sense.
As much as it would be comforting to find a rational reason and a way to avert anything similar in future, it’s not that simple. Whatever happened to this guy happened mostly inside his head.
November 7 2009 / 12:50 pm
Reply
No fussy, it has to do with the continued Political Correctness that YOU LIBERALS keep foisting on us. If this murder would have been just about any OTHER Religion except Muslim – he would have PROPERLY been drummed out of the Military YEARS ago for what he’s pulled.
I know it’s not O’s fault that DID it – but the attitude since it’s happened IS all him and his lack of experience. You, like the rest of your side, can’t see that the Emperor has no clothes.
November 7 2009 / 2:31 pm
Reply
Dave, please no more of this about this. Your argument is really with the Bill of Rights.
November 7 2009 / 3:06 pm
Reply
Exactly like a Lib – try to CHANGE the subject. Doesn’t work here Fussyone.
November 8 2009 / 2:05 pm
Reply
No, Daver, I’m not changing the subject. I’m responding to your idea that somehow what you call liberal political correctness is responsible for the Major’s continued military service.
This idea, beside being idiotically counterfactual as the guy was trying to resign his commission and was not allowed to do so, runs into the further point that there wasn’t any Constitutionally allowable reason for forcing him out.
Can you back up your claim with some factual and legal ground for expelling him prior to his flipping out?
November 8 2009 / 3:00 pm
Reply
And it’s clear fuster that you have NO idea what it means when you sign up for the military – enlisted OR officer. It’s a LEGALLY binding contract that you VOLUNTEER for. But the Military leadership, because of the ACLU, is AFRAID to uphold the UCMJ and enforce it because of the continued THREAT of lawsuits – whether those lawsuits are baseless or not. That’s the Liberal PC ideas infecting even the military. I saw it back in the 80’s when I was in.
And since YOU keep calling for it, you go first. Facts to back up YOUR claims?
November 8 2009 / 4:23 pm
Reply
No, Daver, what did the guy do that was in violation of either law or his obligation that should have caused his expulsion?
It’s not up to me to say anything unless you can offer something that that remotely shows that political correctness prevented his expulsion.
You’re being ridiculous in insisting that a contract that was and remains voidable by agreement prevented his leaving the military while holding that he should have been cashiered.
What did he do, Dave, or don’t you have anything solid?
November 8 2009 / 4:35 pm
Reply
You still can’t understand fussy – and it’s because you don’t want to.
If his name was Bob Smith and he was a Christian – he would have been processed for Dishonorable discharge after the 2nd write up, especially for what he was written up for. Because he was a professed Muslim with a Muslim sounding name he was shipped off to Ft. Hood instead of Dishonorably Discharged. Because the ever encroaching PC’ing of the Military by the likes of the ACLU and Libs.
You’ll notice if he “really” wanted out, he didn’t run to Canada did he? Because you can’t just “quit” the military, you go to JAIL for that because you’re under a legally bound contract. Being in the Military isn’t like working for IBM or Costco or 7-Eleven, you can’t just say you quit. And because of the PC’ness of the world today, they didn’t discharge him WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE (if he were any other white guy BUT a Muslim).
Do you get it now? Have I used small enough words for you? You’re being a troll, as usual. I know Democrats personally, that are wondering why this guy wasn’t discharge 2+ years ago for what he did, and I have to explain it to them to, and they actually GET IT. That’s what this story is about…./sigh. (And I know YOU get it too, you’re just being a troll)
November 8 2009 / 7:26 pm
Reply
Haven’t seen either a first or second write-up.
If you have seen them, why haven’t you posted a link?
November 8 2009 / 7:39 pm
Reply
“Danquah assumed the military’s chain of command knew about Hasan’s doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates at the Maryland graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint.”
You CLAIM in your posts you know this stuff, but either you are IGNORING this on PURPOSE, or you are just trolling. We’ll let everyone else decide. Switch that Muslim to Christian and he’d have been drummed out YEARS ago. You KNOW this, but keep pretending you don’t.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572986,00.html
November 8 2009 / 8:30 pm
Reply
Dave, I didn’t claim to know that stuff and I don’t troll.I scorn, mock and bust chops, but I argue fairly. I argue with you because I think that you’re wrong.
If at any time you actually know something and convince me of it, I’ll be shocked, but I’ll give you your due.
I’m going off to read your link and I’ll get back to you.
November 8 2009 / 9:06 pm
Reply
Read your link, but didn’t see anything about write-ups. Got anything about that or anything else more substantial.
The link was pretty much a story about a guy who complained about American policy being directed against Muslims. His complaints are a bunch of BS but not anything that sounded like he was more than a fool.
Where’s the stuff that you say made it incumbent on the military to give him the boot?
November 9 2009 / 1:01 am
Reply
> you are IGNORING this on PURPOSE, or you are just trolling.
You forget option ‘c’, “both of the above”.
> but I argue fairly
No you don’t fuster:
a) you get backed into a corner and you change the argument (like that whole “Bill of Rights” crap above, when the UCMJ clearly applies, not the BoR).
b) you make shit up out of whole cloth.
c) you ignore facts readily available when you make claims solely in order to make your opponent waste time refuting your BS, instead of dealing with the real fuzzy or debatable part about the issues (see also the UCMJ-vs-BoR issue for this).
There are other examples of how you don’t argue fairly — with an intention of making an honest case for a point of view — but those three alone are adequately damning.
You’ve probably never argued “fairly” in your entire life. I’ve yet to notice you doing it in comments here.
> If at any time you actually know something and convince me of it, I’ll be shocked
I’ll be shocked, too — downright flabbergasted, in fact — since that would show more open-mindedness than I’ve ever seen you show any sign of.
> Read your link, but didn’t see anything about write-ups. Got anything about that or anything else more substantial.
The link was rather obviously not about the write-ups, it was about the quote made in the same comment. But hey, let’s not try and hide the fact that that’s not relevant to your attempt to make the claim of the write-ups sound false.
A fair argument would have asked where the info about the write-ups could be found, not in an attempt to make them sound false by claiming they were supposed to be a part of that article, when no such claim had been suggested at any point by DaveR.
If you’re going to claim his quote was “a response to your request”, the requirement is that you should have repeated your request and THEN noted that they weren’t there in that link: “I asked you before for a link to information about the write ups. I didn’t see anything in that last link. Please defend your claim.”
Q.E.D. — you don’t argue fairly, and don’t even try.
You definitely understand debate tactics, which many don’t.
“Debate” is not the same as “fair argument”. In debate, you can often get away with outright lying.
In fair argument, getting away with it is in direct violation of the “fair” part, in which you should always work from a position of good faith, and stick to facts and statements you could prove or back up with citations even if you KNOW you won’t get called on them.
> The link was pretty much a story about a guy who complained about American policy being directed against Muslims.
Funny, looked to me like the link was about a fair number of people who saw this coming in terms of his anti-American rhetoric, along with a balance of “he was such a nice guy…” quotes.
November 10 2009 / 3:29 am
Reply
BTW, here’s A link referring to one poor performance eval, it quotes the USA Today with a link.