More comments on Fort Hood massacre and America’s response

There have been so many entries on this subject that to simplify things I’m posting many recent comments together in this entry.

Casey on Ft. Hood

Peter H. writes:

This remarkable statement from General George Casey this weekend on Meet the Press (paraphrased), responding to the possibility that Islam was part of Hasan’s motivation:

“Our diversity is a strength, not only for our military, but for our country. As horrible as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” (my italics)

So even if we can say that Hasan was motivated by Islam, we have to take it, because diversity is more important than trying to make sure things like this don’t happen again. After all, if we restrict diversity, we’ll be weaker. How many such “tragedies” are people like Casey willing to endure? His statement provides no clue.

Thanks for your continued perseverance in these things.

What to do about an anti-American Army Chief of Staff Anna writes:

Re, “Army chief concerned for Muslim troops”, the Army Chief of Staff does not report to civilians (citizens). Where do they get their direction? Promoting one of their own who exhibited blatant anti-American sentiments should be a cause for concern and investigation; not some possible “backlash.”

How can citizens address this?

LA replies:

Yes he does: his superior is the civilian Secretary of the Army, whose superior is the civilian Secretary of Defense, whose superior is the civilian President of the United States. The Secretary of the Army is nominated by the civilian president and approved by the civilian Congress. A popular campaign against Casey, demanding his cashiering, can be imagined. I don’t know that such a thing has ever happened, but it could.

Anna replies:

Thank you. Since a direct communique to the Army Chief of Staff is pointless, you have directed me to have a voice with local representatives to Congress. I appreciate that.

Re: Suicidal liberalism is in charge

Stephen T. writes:

For contrast, it’s interesting to look back at the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and realize how brief was the mainstream media’s head-scratching “no clear motive” phase when it came to Timothy McVeigh; how abbreviated was their groggy, groping “search for understanding” and agonizing over “no simple explanations.”

No, once two early facts emerged—the bomber was a white male who had flirted with militias—all fog and uncertainty lifted and clarity shone through in the editorial offices. The unanswered questions quickly became (1) how many *others* of McVeigh’s ilk were at that moment likely plotting similar acts and (2) what must we do to protect ourselves from these dangerous people?

Ah, those were the days.

LA replies:

And don’t forget the ultimate white male who was responsible for egging on the Oklahoma City bombing: Rush Limbaugh.

Diverse army troops

Tina A. writes:

The United States Army, if it were charged with being defeated in foreign wars against ideological opponents, would receive a medal. Korea essentially a loss, Vietnam a loss, and now Iraq/Afghanistan proving to be a loss.

Tens of thousands of American lives lost; hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.

Victory has eluded the American Army.

Personally I think its prestige, even its stature as an institution, is crumbling. The principle connection it has with the American people, which is the nationality of the troops themselves and the concern the Army hierarchy has for their well-being and safety, is being questioned even as I write.

Mark Jaws writes:

Because the US is embarking on a truly unprecedented demographic road (a non-white majority with an increasingly vehement anti-Christian Democratic Party), we simply do not know what is historical or what is not. Socialized medicine and amnesty for illegals may very well tear America asunder. No one knows. But if the conservative populace stoically accepts its demographic demise and loss of liberty and freedom in some sort of Cuban-style dictatorship, then I must conclude that it was not worth saving at all.

The coming accusation of police brutality?

Morgan writes from England:

I think you’ll appreciate the headline on this link:

Why does one get the feeling it’s only a matter of time … ?

Tomorrow’s Headlines Today: “US Army Major Assassinated by Deranged Female Cop”

Re: The present crisis

Carl Simpson writes:

It’s amazingly awful, that’s for certain. Between Pelosicare, the ongoing flood of Non-Islamic explanations for an act of Islamic jihad, and the final dissolution of European nations’ sovereignty into the evil, treasonous and genocidal EUSSR, it’s a very dark time.

If you’ve not seen it yet, Takuan Seiyo’s Part 13 of the series “From Meccania to Atlantis” is now up at Brussels Journal. There’s a great quote in there that really captures our situation in the USA perfectly:

“The American people can’t do anything about it [the destruction of their country] either, except mailing tea bags to the crooks and loons who govern them. Their only electoral choice is between the party of demented progressives, and the party of progressive dementia.”

Morgan writes from England:

You said:

” It’s simply too extreme to believe.”

Errr … no, we’re talking about Muslims and liberals here, so nothing is too extreme to believe. Perhaps you might like to retract that (said in the nicest possible way)?

Re: Trying to put us to sleep

Steve R. writes:

Yes to your call for civil disobedience. And how about a public vow from those who made over a million dollars last year to only make $999,999.00 so as to make impossible their plan of taxing millionaires to pay for this bill.

Terry Morris writes:

What’s an “unlawful march on Washington?”

LA replies:

A march that involves, at least in part, going to places and doing things not authorized by the police.

WSJ

Ron K. writes:

You ask, “since when is the WSJ published on Saturdays?”

Since September 2005.

Re: Obama will reveal root causes

Laura G. writes:

Obama’s father was Muslim. Obama’s adoptive father was Muslim. Obama was enrolled for years in school in Indonesia as a Muslim. Obama’s sister said that the entire family was Muslim. Obama went to after school instruction for good Muslim children. These are poorly reported but factually correct and supported statements. So, I am wondering if President Obama shares the belief that a good Muslim does not commit any act which would weaken another Muslim. Does Barack Hussein Obama have core beliefs that prevent him from acknowledging that the jihadist murders that Hassan committed were committed in the name of Islam because that would cause our citizens to awaken from their useful slumbers? Just wondering. Am I the only one?

Hasan and Oswald

Roland D. writes:

When Lee Harvey Oswald was in the USMC (he was an enlisted man, not an officer), he read Communist propaganda and spouted anti-American, pro-Communist rhetoric to the point that he was nicknamed ‘Oswaldovich’ by his fellow Marines.

Re: Suicidal liberalism

Mark A. writes:

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Re: Black Miss England

Jake Jacobsen (here is his blog) writes

I also note two other “Historic” black beauty queens who were stripped of their titles, one in Canada for 19 felonies!

More comments on the Fort Hood Massacre, posted 12:30 a.m., November 11, 2009

Daniel R. writes:

Dan M’s comment actually gives what seems like the best possible explanation for why nobody did anything about Hasan sooner. They knew he was a traitor, and were keeping tabs on him. They thought they could use him to get their hands on some high-level Al Qaeda personnel, who would be overjoyed to have a U.S. Army major working for them. They didn’t expect him to fail to get in contact with Al Qaeda and then go on a killing spree. They thought he would bide his time and aim higher.

Stephen T. writes:

What do you think the government really prefers in this case? Michael Medved is looking forward to Hasan’s trial, which he predicts will be “very illuminating.” I predict the LAST thing the Pentagon or the Obama administration wants is to put this guy on trial. I’ll bet they’re dismayed he survived in the first place. The defense no doubt knows they hold an enormous bargaining chip with a government desperate to conceal Hasan’s true nature and motives from the public. It’s not hard to imagine some sort of private understanding that, should Hasan helpfully adopt the persona of a wild-eyed gibberish-blurting lunatic, and back off on quoting the Koran verbatim like a devoted Islamic jihadist, the payoff will be a mental incompetence plea and a deal that (a) bypasses an embarrassing, diversity-threatening trial and (b) spares him the Federal death penalty. Wouldn’t be surprised if, to the Army and the administration’s great relief, Hasan is never called upon to utter a single “illuminating” word in any courtroom.

An Indian living in the West writes:

Your recent posts have focused on the emasculated nature of the U.S. military. I think that at the moment, despite the obvious weaknesses, America remains unchallenged as a military power. But how long will this last?

Here’s a foretaste of what America will one day be up against.

One could dismiss the Chinese military today as not a serious threat to the United States. But in spirit they are clearly already superior (and to that I would add: in national spirit and pride). What happens when they catch up technologically?

Here’s another demonstration:

Michael S. writes:

Apropos of the recent commentary on the incompetent General Casey, I thought you might be interested in the comments of this West Point grad.

The “U.S. military’s marathon, 30-year, single-elimination, suck-up tournament” OR “How America selects its generals”

His other military articles.

His comments on headline news.

Daniel S. writes:

An interesting quote from Mark Steyn:

“Anwar al-Awlaki [Hasan’s former imam who praised the Fort Hood jihad attack] and his chums have bet that such a society is too sick to survive. Watch the nothing-to-see-here media driveling on about pre-post-traumatic stress disorder like gibbering lunatics in a padded cell, and then think whether you’d really want to take that bet.”

The question to be asked is whether al-Awlaki is right in his expectations or not. Unfortunately vultures like al-Awlaki understand the destructive end results of liberalism, indeed much better then even conservatives like Mark Steyn (who cannot even bring himself to offer the most obvious solutions to counter the cultural jihad against the West). The response of every political figure from B. Hussein Obama to Gen. George “Diversity” Casey would indicate that al-Awlaki and other jihad-minded Muslims will obtain a rather large return for their fairly meager bet.

Daniel S. writes:

According to ABC News US intelligence agencies knew quite some time ago that Nidal Malik Hasan had been seeking out contacts with al-Qaeda associated individuals.

So with everything we know now, it is certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Army and the FBI knew what Hasan was all about, yet did nothing to remove him from his position. This man not only openly sympathized with al-Qaeda, but sought them out and the government knew this! This goes well beyond Hasan. Those treasonous individuals in the Army and the intelligence agencies that knew what Hasan was up to must be brought up on charges of at least criminal negligence, if not something more serious. But, like 9/11, those who facilitated Hasan with their liberal cowardice and dhimmi political correctness will claim that there was nothing they could have done to stop the jihad killing of 13 people and certainly nothing meaningful will be done to prevent the next Nidal Hasan.

TT writes:

If the military can’t even deal straight with the issue of Islam as in the case of the Fort Hood shooter, a single individual, how in the world are they ever going to deal with the issue of Islam and how it affects any solution or analysis of the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq?

LA replies

Excellent point.

They bifurcate it in their mind. When they’re fighting Muslim extremists “out there,” that’s one thing. But any Muslim extremists “in here” must be denied, as that threatens the highest good, diversity. So externally we fight against Muslim extremists, while internally we practice non-discrimination against Muslim extremists.

Tim W. writes:

Want to see a liberal’s head explode? Ask him to name a place where there are conflicts or divisiveness due to a lack of diversity.

Gintas writes:

It reminds me of Roosevelt’s speech to Congress December 8, 1941, where he warned America not to give in to an anti-Japanese backlash.

A reader writes:

Greetings Mr Auster:

As you may recall, amidst your thousands of emails, I have had the occasional disagreement with you. So let me say this now.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the nature of liberalism (the contemporary thing that travels under that name). It is not liberalism as I understand the term: free trade, personal responsibility, parliamentary representative government. No, this thing is a mutating cancer of self abnegation before every form of barbarism.

I find your analysis of Fort Hood, General Casey, and media reaction to same to be entirely congruent with my own. But you are out there in public waging this fight and I am on different sidelines, waging different and much more specialized battles.

I have plenty of conservative bloggers bookmarked. I keep turning to yours because it is a benchmark, the gold standard, of a kind of thought that we all need to read and consider deeply. Often heed and act upon, to the extent we can.

As I am a public official in a somewhat conspicuous position, I have to ask you to keep my identity confidential.

Keep it up, please.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 09, 2009 05:16 PM | Send