November 9, 2009

"U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda..."

ABC reports:
It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures....

One senior lawmaker said the CIA had, so far, refused to brief the intelligence committees on what, if any, knowledge they had about Hasan's efforts....

On Sunday, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist.
We are lucky it is Joe Lieberman who is in the position to force this investigation.
Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with a radical mosque leader from Virginia, Anwar al Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.

In a blog posting early Monday titled "Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing," Awlaki calls Hassan a "hero" and a "man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."
In war, traitors are heroes to the other side.  But it is a challenge for us to remember that we are at war. Of those now in power for us, Joe Lieberman manages to remember. Who else? Leon Panetta? Have we heard a peep from him in the past week? Apparently, not.

107 comments:

Chef Mojo said...

Um. Obama? Is it ok to call it "terrorism" yet? Really, I don't want to "jump to conclusions" or anything, so throw us a bone here.

SMGalbraith said...

'Tis the greatest treason to do the right deed for the wrong reason'

Though "right deed" here is wrong since a US soldier infiltrating AQ and killing like this would be denounced.

Florida said...

Liberal Democrats inside the CIA - the same ones who leaked secret war details to the New York Times, are covering up for the traitors in our midst.

It has never been clearer that the enemy is behind our lines. They are inside the country, killing us with our own weapons; killing us with our own intelligence; killing us with our own ammunition; killing us with our own political correctness.

Until we flush these Democrats out of the CIA, they'll continue protecting their friends the terrorists while our Army is destroyed from the inside.

Firehand said...

The CIA 'refuses' to brief them? I can think of several responses to that, and they don't even involve a horsewhip or flagrum.

Though we may get to those.

And some of the people who either fell down on the job, or refused to do it, deserve a whipping post in the town square.

PatCA said...

Leon Panetta is over 70 and has no experience in intelligence.

That's why Obama picked him.

floridaenterprise said...

"Leon Panetta is over 70 and has no experience in intelligence. That's why Obama picked him.

Leon Panetta was hand-picked by Hussein Obama because he is a comrade-in-arms - a fellow traveler.

I bet the shredders are overheating in Langley right about now.

If I was Joe Lieberman, I'd be wearing a bullet-proof vest. The Democrat-controlled CIA - which leaks intelligence to the New York Times in order to warn the overseas brigades - will be out to finish him for this.

former law student said...

" On Sunday, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist."

We are lucky it is Joe Lieberman who is in the position to force this investigation.

Is this meant to be ironic? Surely dozens of investigations will be started. The House still has an Armed Services Committee I believe. Or does the professor fear an Army coverup?

Further, when Panetta took charge of the CIA the commentariat here feared investigation, preferring unconditional acceptance of the CIA, a retrospective blessing and sign-off of whatever they did during the War on Terror. Perhaps a culture of avoiding introspection took hold there.

bearbee said...

If I was Joe Lieberman, I'd be wearing a bullet-proof vest.

Lieberman's Chairmanship Threatened

Maguro said...

Well, well, so it turns out our PTSD-by-proxy victim may have had an Al-Quaeda ID card after all. Do we dare call a spade a spade yet? If not now, when?

c3 said...

I can only say:
What the hell was going on here!?

William said...

It is much easier to stereotype someone suspicious of a Muslim as a bigot than it is to stereotype a suspicious Muslim as a terrorist...We have to prioritize our stereotypes.

AlphaLiberal said...

Army chief of staff General George Casey urges caution in speculating:

As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well. [...] I worry that again that speculation could cause things that we don’t want to see happen. .

Really, is it that important for you to fan the flames, Ann? You've really got precious little here to leap to such conclusions. Anonymouse (cowardly) sources aren't much to hang a hat on.

As far as Leon Panetta, he is CIA Chief. It's not the CIA Chief's job to jump in front of the cameras when there is a domestic shooting.

Ann, you can be pretty irresponsible at times.

lohwoman said...

SMGalbraith: Are you implying that Major. Nidal Hasan was an Al Qaeda soldier who infiltrated the U.S. Army? A U.S. soldier who infiltrated AQ would be an undercover agent and if AQ caught him, he'd be at their mercy.

peter hoh said...

But it is a challenge for us to remember that we are at war.

That's a little too much hyperbole for me.

Kylos said...

Mojo, I wouldn't use the terrorism label yet. Treason is a much more appropriate word. Terrorism is attacking non-military targets in order to create panic in the general populace. While this base was not fortified, it is still a valid military installation. Hasan's action's were traitorous, but not meant to inspire terror amongst the general population

Florida said...

"The House still has an Armed Services Committee I believe. Or does the professor fear an Army coverup?"

The Army was certainly covering up for asan up until he completed his mission of taking 13 of them out and wounding 30.

Why would we not believe that a Democrat-controlled Army wouldn't continue to cover up for him? My bet is that's exactly what they'll do, with New York Times assistance.

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is 77 fucking years old.

He's hardly hardy enough to spearhead a credible investigation unless it's to study Alzheimer's Disease.

garage mahal said...

Yes, as Homeland Security Committee Chairman, thank God we have Joe Lieberman calling for an investigation after mass casualties. Anything to keep his mug in front of the cameras.

Maguro said...

Gen Casey and AlphaLiberal, two politically correct peas in a pod. See no evil, hear no evil.

Florida said...

"And some of the people who either fell down on the job, or refused to do it, deserve a whipping post in the town square."

The liberal Democrats tucked securely inside the CIA behind their "Valerie Plame" covers don't see exposing the terrorists in our midst as their job.

They see informing the New York Times of our secret war strategies as their mission. They see using the Times as their primary communication channel to headquarters back in al Queda-controlled Pakistan as their mission.

These liberal Democrat's inside the CIA are working for the terrorists.

They're high-fiving today.

Mission Accomplished!

John said...

"Really, is it that important for you to fan the flames, Ann? You've really got precious little here to leap to such conclusions. Anonymouse (cowardly) sources aren't much to hang a hat on."

Contrast this with Alpha Liberals' response to the census worker found hanging in Kenntucky with the word "Fed" written accross his chest. We weren't so slow to jump to conclusions there were we AL? Of course that case, in case you didn't know, is now considered a suicide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_census_worker_hanged

As far as Hasan. Let's look at the facts. I think giving a presentation at a medical conference about how the Quaran says that it is okay to behead unbelievers is a pretty good sign. I think posting on websites that suicide bombers are a-ok is another good sign. I think shooting people at the one place on Fort Hood where you knew there would be a gathering of soldiers about to deploy to the middle east, as opposed to shooting your boss or co-workers or someone you know, is another good sign. I think yelling "Allah Akbar" when you do the shooting is another good sign.

So shut the fuck up Alpha. No one wants to hear your dumb ass trying to deny the obvious especially when everyone knows if he hadn't been Muslim and they found a Glen Beck book in his library you would have no problems jumping to conclusions. Insult someone else's intelligence for a change.

AlphaLiberal said...

Joe Lieberman is such a horse's ass:

"We don't know enough to say now, {but I will speculate publicly anyway} but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," Mr. Lieberman added. .

This guy has a destructive and narcissistic impulse to draw attention to himself.

jayne_cobb said...

FLS,

The fear was not of investigations into potential incompetence the fear was of politicized investigations meant to find a scapegoat. The former pushes agents to excel the latter pushes them to not take risks for fear of later being politically inconvenient.

The issue you cite dealt with the fear of an investigation that was meant to do nothing but deflect attention from the current speaker's knowledge of CIA tactics. The agents in question believed they were acting legally; and they were, that is until it became politically inconvenient for the Dems.

To follow your logic is to say that the FBI can't investigate politicians for corruption because it's wrong to investigate them simply because they're in the opposition. The former dissuades them from seeking bribes the latter dissuades them from speaking out.

Florida said...

"Thank God we have Joe Lieberman calling for an investigation after mass casualties. Anything to keep his mug in front of the cameras."

As long as he's exposing the liberal Democrats as traitors in the Congress and secretly in the CIA, I don't mind if he gets a little face-time on Fox News.

That's a small price to pay to expose the Democrats inside the CIA who are providing cover for these terrorists as they defeat us from inside our own wire.

Comrade X said...

is Hasan's imam just the unluckiest man in the world or is he Charles Manson?

EDH said...

...it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.

Perhaps the inability to act upon the presence of a suspected terrorist collaborator amongst the ranks of Muslim soldiers is the greatest threat to that diversity?

John said...

"This guy has a destructive and narcissistic impulse to draw attention to himself."


Because stating the a Muslim who was known have radical views and went bizerk and killed a bunch of soldiers about to deploy to the Middle-east probably committed an act of terrorism is really going out on a limb.

Why do you think this clown did this other than the fact he was nuts? Because he was picked on? Okay, why did he go to the mobilization center rather than to his office and shoot, you know the people who actually picked on him? You are in full retard mode on this.

MadisonMan said...

We are lucky it is Joe Lieberman who is in the position to force this investigation.

As I said elsewhere, what politician isn't going to take the opportunity to give the appearance of doing something when something bad happens?

I know I'm far more cynical than most people here, but does anyone really think that the results of any investigation will be different because Joe Lieberman is in charge?

Florida said...

"There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."

This guy Lieberman has a really good way of drawing attention to the liberal Democrat traitors on Capital Hill and in the White House who are protecting terrorists within our midst.

The White House better throw this terrorist under the bus before they get caught holding his leash.

Time to sniff them all out.

AlphaLiberal said...

John, my comments on that death were caveated that we don't know and basically said it didn't look good.

And, you lie. You said:
Of course that case, in case you didn't know, is now considered a suicide. .

From the very article you link to:

WASHINGTON – Investigators probing the death of a Kentucky census worker found hanging from a tree with the word "fed" scrawled on his chest increasingly doubt he was killed because of his government job and are pursuing the possibility he committed suicide, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press.

Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case, said no final conclusions have been made in the case.
.

Yet you call me a dumb ass. Project much?

garage mahal said...

This guy Lieberman has a really good way of drawing attention to the liberal Democrat traitors on Capital Hill and in the White House who are protecting terrorists within our midst..

By not singly out one Democrat in Congress or in the WH. Brilliant observation as usual.

John said...

"I know I'm far more cynical than most people here, but does anyone really think that the results of any investigation will be different because Joe Lieberman is in charge?"

I don't either. The CIA will stonewall it. The media will cover it up because it would damage the Obamasiah and doesn't fit their narative. Nothing will ever come of this and the people who fucked up will never be held responsible. And worse, nothing will change.

Florida said...

"Ann, you can be pretty irresponsible at times."

Ann, you can be absolutely sure you're on exactly the right track when the paid talking-pointers show up to caution you against being "irresponsible."

AlphaLiberal is their canary in the coal mine. When he shows up to provide "balance" you know you've hit exactly the right nerve.

He only shows up to speak up when you've hit on one of their soft spots.

Florida said...

"By not singly out one Democrat in Congress or in the WH. Brilliant observation as usual.

Is this supposed to be a sentence you fucking moron?

AlphaLiberal said...

I'm glad General Casey is more responsible than Ann Althouse:

"We have to be careful," Casey said, "because we can't jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that have come out." The general added that speculation could "cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers." .

But, hey, who needs voices of calm and reason when people can scream and leap to conclusions?

Cue the "we are at war with Islam" craziness.

John said...

"Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case, said no final conclusions have been made in the case."

No final conclusions but all the evidence points to a suicide. It looks like you and every other leftists were dead wrong about the case. But here, we have to hold back and deny the obvious.

Actually you are not dumb AL, you are just a dishonest hack. You know the truth, but would rather lie than admit it. If you were just stupid, you might have some redeeming qualities.

former law student said...

Actually I would be surprised if investigating US officers was part of the CIA's responsibility. Maintaining security within our borders is the FBI's responsibility. Each branch of the service has its own intelligence agency. The quote does not specify which agency or agencies were aware of Hasan's actions, but Hasan remained within the US at all relevant times.

jayne_cobb said...

MM,

I'd like to think so, but that's because Lieberman is one of the few politicians (on either side) that I think takes national security seriously.

That said I'd hardly be surprised if my faith in a politician turns out to be misplaced.

AlphaLiberal said...

Florida, you are delusional. You think people are paid to post here?

Wait, wait, don't tell me. They are paid by that hook-nosed banker Jew George Soros, right?

Florida said...

"By not singly out one Democrat in Congress or in the WH. Brilliant observation as usual."

Let me single one out for you in the White House: Barack Hussein Obama.

Or does he have to change his name to Barack bin Laden Obama for you to get it?

John said...

"But, hey, who needs voices of calm and reason when people can scream and leap to conclusions?"

Yes because you were so calm and resonable about the Kenntucky case. And so calm and reasonable when someone legally brought a gun to a tea party protest. Really AL, shut the fuck up. No one is buying the crap you have been sent here to spread. You are just wasting your time and insulting everyone's intelligence.

Florida said...

"Florida, you are delusional. You think people are paid to post here?"

Hit the nerve, did I?

Plus, you shouldn't call George Soros a hook-nosed Jew. That's offensive and racist.

John said...

"Actually I would be surprised if investigating US officers was part of the CIA's responsibility. Maintaining security within our borders is the FBI's responsibility. Each branch of the service has its own intelligence agency. The quote does not specify which agency or agencies were aware of Hasan's actions, but Hasan remained within the US at all relevant times."


All true. But they are supposed to share that information. Whoever had it, should have given it to the Army to investigate. That didn't seem to have happened here. Sadly, that is not surprising. Patriot Act or not, we are terrible about sharing information. The intel community just doesn't give up its information like it should.

AlphaLiberal said...

John, you don't know jack:

No final conclusions but all the evidence points to a suicide. .

Have you seen the evidence? Again, what do you have? More anonymous sources breaking rules and laws by leaking to the press.

That's all you need to brush that man's death under a rug.

Hey, at least you're not blaming George Soros for his death.

Florida said...

"... little snippets of information ..."

In the dictionary, they call "little snippets of information" facts.

Yes, General Casey ... we shouldn't let actual, you know, facts, get in the way of our political correctness.

AlphaLiberal said...

I agree with something John wrote:

Patriot Act or not, we are terrible about sharing information. .

Yes. Especially when agencies and bureaucratic turf-guarding and ass-covering are occurring.

However, the Army may have been given the information and then blew the follow-through.

Or maybe Joe Lieberman got the information but was too busy fucking goats to pass it on.

It's all speculation, of course.

garage mahal said...

Let me single one out for you in the White House: Barack Hussein Obama.

So Lieberman didn't single out anyone. Just your paranoid fevered imagination at work again. Thanks for clarifying for us.

AlphaLiberal said...

Florida:

Yes, General Casey ... we shouldn't let actual, you know, facts, get in the way of our political correctness. .

You're probably in the front of the lynch mob every time.

John said...

That is right AL. Keep trying to find the anti-government killer in Kenntucky and denying that Islam had anything to do with Fort Hood.

You prove my point. You believe anything about your political opponents. But, will deny in the face of all evidence that Hasan acted in the name of Islam. Again, shut the fuck up. No one is buying it. Let FLS talk, he doesn't embarass your side like you do.

MadisonMan said...

In days gone by, this is the kind of story that would win an intrepid journalist a Pulitzer -- government cover-ups, resultant deaths, starting a national dialog about something worthwhile.

It's conceivable that something like that might happen here, but journalists and DC politicians just seem to in cahoots-y for that to occur. And that's unfortunate because such a story would be very worth reading. Wouldn't it be great if a blogger did it -- and won a Pulitzer for it?

former law student said...

But, will deny in the face of all evidence that Hasan acted in the name of Islam.

Things change as the facts come in. To say on Thursday that Hasan acted in the name of Islam was conclusion-jumping -- today it looks like that was indeed his motivation.

Florida said...

"Cue the 'we are at war with Islam' craziness."

I know of nobody who believes or has ever stated that we are at war with Islam. That's a crazed notion and an insane allegation.

However, bin Laden announced on CNN that Islam is at war with us.

PatCA said...

You guys don't get it--AlphaLiberal is parodying the response of the far left. He's not serious!

Is he?

Florida said...

Former Law School Failure said: "Things change as the facts come in."

"Things," as you call them, didn't change. "Things" were always what they were.

However your ability to deny "things" and to provide political cover to your terrorist buddies has changed quite rapidly and predictably.

Florida said...

"AlphaLiberal is parodying the response of the far left. He's not serious! Is he?"

Stick around. His shtick gets predictably funnier the longer he spouts it.

Like most liberal employees, however, he doesn't really take his job all that seriously and usually will take the afternoons off to surf porn instead of comment.

maninthemiddle said...

It is looking as if the smothering breadth of PC has claimed lives.

What more do you need than the statement of fellow officers that they did not want to file official reports because they would be labeled as bigoted - and thus place their career in jeopardy.

I believe it possible that any person who commits a monstrous act might be found to be to be mentally deficient. Perhaps they were subject to this syndrome, or that paranoia - all due to some slight or injury that occurred at the hands of others.

Nonetheless, I humbly feel the introspective hand wringing over what the victims might have done to deserve their fate or create causation has far exceeded its influence over actions that need to be taken.

PC is used by our enemies like a bludgeon - used to intimidate and obfuscate - it has become a pernicious tactic to turn the light shining on their true intent back on the those that would expose them.

Too many are subject to "baby and bath water" mentality. Because there might possibly be an instance where suspicion is unfairly cast, we must consider all suspicion prior to the firing of a gun, bomb or plane as bigoted at its root.

Once again, I find myself as the maninthemiddle. I have long supported truly moderate Muslims in their quest to stem the tide of Wahabi radicalism - but find abhorrent those who turn the proverbial blind eye to those who would destroy us.

Florida said...

AlphaLiberal said: "... maybe Joe Lieberman got the information but was too busy fucking goats to pass it on."

Ahhh, I see now how you think, AlphaLiberal.

Lieberman is a Jew ... so he must fuck goats. Jews are into bestiality, everybody knows that ... is that it? Soros is a "hook-nosed" Jew. Lieberman fucks goats. I see. I see.

I think I understand how your mind operates. Maybe you'd be more comfortable reading the Turner Diaries instead of Althouse.

traditionalguy said...

This whole mess is looking more like George Bush's work by the minute. Somebody knew that Hasan was commited to an insane murder of American Army guys just like the 9/11 plane that a few Muslim men flew into the Pentagon. And we all know Bush is to blame according to Soros/Pelossi/and all of Obama's best friends, for inciting and then permitting that attack.

jayne_cobb said...

So when are we going to hear apologies from the various media outlets that spent the last few days painting American soldiers as being insane?

Yeah, I don't expect one either but one can always hope.

elHombre said...

Predictably and pathetically, the Department of Muslim Security is on the job (a bit late and a lot confused).

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

elHombre said...

Of course from Napolitano's perspective, Hasan just wiped out a bunch of potential domestic terrorists.

Chef Mojo said...

From ABC News:

In his weekly address today, President Obama said the fact that U.S. soldiers were targeted made the attack was particularly heinous. "It is a crime that would have horrified us had its victims been Americans of any background," Obama said. "But it's all the more heartbreaking and all the more despicable because of the place where it occurred and the patriots who were its victims."

The president was a(s) baffled as the rest of the country by the bloody burst of violence.

"We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing," Obama said.


For real?

The president is baffled?

I really don't think the rest of the country is "baffled." I think the rest of the country understands that Hasan is an evil fucking traitor motivated by his religion to kill his comrades in arms. He was practically reading the AQ handbook all They understand exactly what happened. I imagine that there are very few people left in this country that don't understand, and a few of them are commenting here like the lefty automatons they are. Hasan has thrown them for some serious cognitive dissonance.

That the president claims bafflement labels him as a liar or an idiot.

MadisonMan said...

traditionalguy, it only shows that it's very hard to change the mindset of a bureaucracy.

Florida said...

"PC is used by our enemies like a bludgeon - used to intimidate and obfuscate - it has become a pernicious tactic to turn the light shining on their true intent back on the those that would expose them."

The Democrats who invented political correctness cheer when our military is struck.

To them, if you sign up for the military, you are a murderer plain and simple. Anything that happens to you is your own fault, they believe.

Democrats use political correctness to help de-fund our military. Their leader, Barack Hussein Obama, is dithering on Afghanistan in order to allow the enemy (the people he shares a name with) to regain his footing and to regroup and rearm.

Hussein Obama is ensuring them a respite from the fight so they can get stronger. So they can push on to final victory.

Democrats don't mind if one of their fellow terrorists kill 13 people on a military base. Democrats see this as "instant justice." You'll not notice any condemnations from Code Pink. None from MoveOn.org.

Democrats see what Hasan did as "capital punishment" for the "murderers" who signed up to join our military in the first place.

Democrats are on the other side.

Florida said...

"Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims.

This is fairly predictable.

Napolitano want to reassure her Muslim friends that she's working to protect against any backlash against their embeds.

Note too where she is saying this from - not Washington, but Abu Dhabi.

She's meeting with the enemy and providing as much comfort to them as possible so as to avoid any harsh "backlash."

Cedarford said...

elHombre said...
Of course from Napolitano's perspective, Hasan just wiped out a bunch of potential domestic terrorists.

OUCH!

Darcy said...

Yes, our President is "baffled". I fully believe that. And liberals are screaming not to jump to conclusions.

We are truly screwed. We just are. I don't believe these people are ever going to change, and they're in charge. And now, with the giant power grab of national health care, they're cementing their presence in our daily lives forever.

Elections have consequences.

Florida said...

"Of course from Napolitano's perspective, Hasan just wiped out a bunch of potential domestic terrorists."

Of course. She's not concerned about Islamic terrorists because she's on their side.

She's worried more about people who might take up arms to protect the Constitution and the United States. She's paid by her Abu Dhabi masters to root them out and defeat them.

And to protect their embeds against any "backlash."

The Drill SGT said...

In war, traitors are heroes to the other side.

Actually no. Neither side trusts a traitor.

Andrea said...

Aha, I can see where this is going. Since it's become more and more unlikely that they'll be able to sell the "he was just a crazy guy who went crazy it's nothing to do with Islam oh no no no" theory, they're going to blame it all on the Army. "What on earth was the Army thinking not throwing him in jail the minute it was clear he supported the enemy! See? We told you! Military bad!" Never mind that today's military is effectively hamstrung by the politically correct demand for multicultural "diversity" -- which translates into "be nice to Muslims especially and let them do whatever they want." And now they're the scapegoat for the fact that multiculturalism isn't working.

Florida said...

"Actually no. Neither side trusts a traitor."

That's why they encourage theirs to be kamakaze... er, suicide bombers.

We need the same solution to Islamic terrorists that ended The Kamakaze terrorists.

Nuke the site from orbit.

Only way to be sure.

Pastafarian said...

AlphaLiberal: Here's the actual quote from the transcript of an interview with General Casey:

"GEN. CASEY: Yeah. I think those concerns are real and I, and I will tell you, David, that they're, they're fueled partially, at least, by the speculation about--based on anecdotal evidence that people are presenting. I think we have to be very careful with that. Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

So General Casey thinks that if our diversity becomes a casualty, then that's WORSE than 12 deaths.

At this point, I'd say we can completely disregard anything else that this imbecile has to say on this issue.

Clyde said...

Does "diversity" do a damn thing to help us win wars? Or does it just make us feel good about ourselves? All I know is that General Patton would kick General Casey's ass around the parade ground for such politically correct twaddle. Patton wouldn't let any kind of stupidity get in the way of accomplishing the mission, which was kicking the enemy's ass.

"You don't win wars by being diverse for your country..."

elHombre said...

It's just another oddity from the left isn't it?

Instead of apologizing for her failure to provide "homeland security" for the fallen at Ft. Hood and projecting improvement in the future, Janet reassures us that "her agency is working ... to deflect any backlash against American Muslims."

Through the Looking Glass with the Obama Administration.


WV "notom" = All that is necessary for those without juevos.

Florida said...

"Instead of apologizing for her failure to provide 'homeland security' for the fallen at Ft. Hood and projecting improvement in the future, Janet reassures us that 'her agency is working ... to deflect any backlash against American Muslims.'"

But that's exactly the point, isn't it. And even better, she's not even saying it in the homeland. She's saying it in Abu Fucking Dhabi.

What clearer evidence do you need that she's working for the other side?

She doesn't protect us. After all, we're laying about bullet-ridden and bleeding.

Yet, her main focus is to protect them. Against some mythical "backlash" that has never occurred, ever in the past 50 years of Muslim attacks against us.

She's pre-emptively protecting their embeds while our women and children lay in puddles of their own blood.

Wake. The. Fuck. Up. People.

We lost.

As their leader Hussein Obama said: "We won."

elHombre said...

Actually no. Neither side trusts a traitor.

I was thinking something like that, but it occurred to me that "traitor" is another of those words that has been deconstructed by the left to further the agenda.

You know, Cheney is a traitor. Kerry is not.

Darcy said...

It's like talking to a wall, Florida. There is nothing that penetrates this fog, for the most part. The things that cause the gut-wrenching for much the left are things like "jumping to conclusions". I don't believe their stomachs turn over the massacre of our soldiers. I just don't believe it anymore. I think the visceral response is to something else. I can't wrap my mind around it, and I'm glad that I can't. Awful, but that's what they're displaying.

And our President is one of them.

Roger J. said...

Looks like a good post to keep out of other than note, in my experience in the service and especially the pentagon, any time intel pukes start leaking anonymously to the media, my inclination is to suspect some major ass covering is taking place somewhere.

Alex said...

Nice to have our resident lefties remind us "not to jump to conclusions" and "we're not at war".

edutcher said...

Those who point to Casey for justification tread on thin ice. To be COS of the Army, you have to be acceptable to Congress.

Anybody honestly think Petraeus or McChrystal will ever get the job?

There was a time in this country when the brass looked out for the guys on the line.

Sherman.

Marshall.

MacArthur.

Anybody think any of them could be COS today?

k*thy said...

MM - I was thinking it'd make for a good Ludlum book.

Freder Frederson said...

Marshall.

MacArthur.


You mean the Marshall who insisted on rebuilding Germany?

And MacArthur who protected the Japanese emperor from prosecution for war crimes and was fired by Truman?

You need better examples.

Freder Frederson said...

Nice to have our resident lefties remind us "not to jump to conclusions" and "we're not at war".

I was called a traitor for criticizing George Bush a lot less harshly than some of the people on this very thread.

Look how quickly you are willing to throw out the "it is wrong to criticize the president during war" meme.

former law student said...

your ability to deny "things" and to provide political cover to your terrorist buddies has changed quite rapidly and predictably.

Tragically, along with relaxing enlistment requirements and extending enlistments through stop-loss orders, keeping Islamic extremists from leaving the service appears to be yet another way to conserve personnel, made necessary by Bush's stretching the Army to the limit with six years of war and the "surge." Yet no conservative will ever criticize Bush for his weakening of our military.

Shanna said...

Yes, as Homeland Security Committee Chairman, thank God we have Joe Lieberman calling for an investigation after mass casualties.

Well, I tend to agree that it’s not all that courageous to take steps after a tragedy, but given the statements made by some folks, and the furious attempts in some quarters to label this as some sort of pre-PTSD, perhaps it’s not surprising that some people are grateful that SOMEONE is willing to call a spade a spade here.

Apparently we need periodic reminders that it is dangerous to ignore people who are intent on killing you.

Bruce Hayden said...

I would, again, surprisingly, agree with Freder as to the examples of generals looking out for the guys on the line. I think a better WWII example would have been Bradley. Least of the 5 star generals I think would have been Ike, Marshall, and MacArthur. Ike often had his green eye shades on (somewhat akin to what Westmoreland did in Vietnam), and MacArthur was willing to do pretty much what it took to keep his picture before his adoring fans back home.

Florida said...

"Yet no conservative will ever criticize Bush for his weakening of our military."

I will. It was a massive mistake to ever let an avowed Muslim into our military ... just like it would be a mistake to let an avowed KKK into our military.

Islam is a religious cult. Its members have no business being anywhere our military. And George W. Bush was mistaken not to purge them completely.

Obama is compounding that mistake by protecting the terrorists in our military.

Florida said...

"Yet no conservative will ever criticize Bush for his weakening of our military."

You guys can debate General's all you like.

What this country really needs is a Harry Truman - willing to do what's necessary to ensure the long-term survival and dominance of the United States of America.

Willing to use all of the weapons in our arsenal to achieve the protection of the Constitution their oath requires.

Instead, we have a metrosexual mama's boy for president.

And we wonder why we're losing?

Bruce Hayden said...

Yes, there are other committees in Congress that may jump into this, but they are run by Democrats beholden to Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the lunatic left. About all that they can do to Lieberman is to take his committee chair away (the committee chairmanship that keeps him caucusing with the Democrats). A bunch of his "buddies" in the Democratic side of the Senate actively supported and campaigned for his opponent in his last election. So, while Lieberman is a Democrat at heart, he is not overly dependent upon or enamored with the Democrats in the Senate.

This is a long way of saying that we are lucky that he is where he is right now, because he is the one committee chair who takes this seriously and is going to try to get answers.

garage mahal said...

And we wonder why we're losing?

Why you're losing? Easy. You.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Yet no conservative will ever criticize Bush for his weakening of our military."

I would be interested in hearing your justification for this statement, since you are essentially claiming that our military was in worse shape when Bush left office than when he inherited a very dispirited military after eight years of management by the Clintonistas. And, indeed, my understanding is that many of those who were in the military through that time feel fairly strongly that Bush was by far the better Commander in Chief as compared to Clinton, and that despite being at war through most of Bush's two terms in office, Obama inherited a much better honed military than did Bush.

But, that is really irrelevant, since Bush is no longer Commander in Chief, and never will be again. This happened on Obama's watch, and it is his responsibility to address. And, so far, he appears to be doing a substandard job at it.

Why do I say that? The problem is that PC is rampant in the military, and, esp. when it comes to Moslems. And, no we can't run our military without them, not when we are fighting in Moslem countries.

What we need is a culture where threats like this are taken seriously and acted on in a timely manner. Not like here, where the solution was to give the guy a bad review, knowing that that would keep him from advancing, and ultimately, in a couple of years, force him out. That is the bureaucratic solution, and that bureaucratic solution cost better than a dozen American soldiers their lives.

What the Commander in Chief needs to do is let his troops know that that sort of slow motion bureaucratic PC solution to danger to our troops is intolerable.

And that is precisely what the ditherer in chief is not going to do.

traditionalguy said...

Florida...You are arguing very well today. You are demonstrating the power of truth boldly stated to wipe away years of carefully constructed illusions.My sincere congratulations. And please remember not to "ride high" and give the enemy an easy reversal like a powerful truth speaker from Wisconsin did by going after everybody. You have friends.

LarsPorsena said...

"Tragically, along with relaxing enlistment requirements and extending enlistments through stop-loss orders, keeping Islamic extremists from leaving the service appears to be yet another way to conserve personnel, made necessary by Bush's stretching the Army to the limit with six years of war and the "surge." Yet no conservative will ever criticize Bush for his weakening of our military."

So, excluding more potential men from recruitment, discharging critically needed personnel, profiling Muslims, and quitting the battlefield would have 'strengthened' the Army?

edutcher said...

Freder Frederson said...

You mean the Marshall who insisted on rebuilding Germany?

Yes, Montagne. So it couldn't be subverted by the Soviets

And MacArthur who protected the Japanese emperor from prosecution for war crimes and was fired by Truman?

MacArthur understood to hold Japan, you needed the Emperor. I don't recall anybody objecting at the time. In any case, historians have debated Hirohito's role in decision-making.

As for Truman, he disobeyed a direct order and should have been relieved, but, on the issue of should we fight wars we don't intend to win, history has proven him right.

You need better examples

No, you need to stop spouting commie talking points.

Bruce Hayden said...

I would, again, surprisingly, agree with Freder as to the examples of generals looking out for the guys on the line. I think a better WWII example would have been Bradley. Least of the 5 star generals I think would have been Ike, Marshall, and MacArthur. Ike often had his green eye shades on (somewhat akin to what Westmoreland did in Vietnam), and MacArthur was willing to do pretty much what it took to keep his picture before his adoring fans back home.

Never mentioned Ike, and Bradley wasn 't on that level. Green eye shades are a part of modern war, right, wrong, or indifferent. Eisenhower's problem was that he was no tactician.

MacArthur lost fewer men retaking the Solomons, New Guinea, and the Philippines than Nimitz in the Central Pacific or Eisenhower. He laid it on the line when said, in front of Nimitz, "Only your mediocre commander turns in heavy losses". That was Ike's, Bradley's, and Nimitz' problem.

elHombre said...

fls wrote: Yet no conservative will ever criticize Bush for his weakening of our military.

Right. So Bush "weakened" the military by asking them to fight, while the left strengthened the military by disparaging them and their efforts, picketing recruit centers, threatening to cut off funds, etc.

And, of course, the implication is that Bush's "weakening" of the military made it necessary to keep Hasan, ergo, Bush caused the Ft. Hood massacre.

It's no surprise that the most predictable of the dimwitted leftist trolls that infest this blog would offer up this kind of drivel.

How was it that Victor Davis Hansen closed his 11/8 column?

What we are enduring is surreal—have we lost our collective minds?

former law student said...

I would be interested in hearing your justification for this statement, since you are essentially claiming that our military was in worse shape when Bush left office than when he inherited a very dispirited military after eight years of management by the Clintonistas.

Suicides are way up; PTSD now affects 15-20% of the troops, and about the same number take prescribed anti-depressants and/or sleeping pills. Multiple deployments have taken their toll.

Der Hahn said...

From an Obama-approved news organization...

"The Fort Hood attack is the third instance this year in which American military personnel in the United States have been targeted by people reportedly opposed to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism experts said."

"Overall, U.S. authorities have disclosed at least 10 domestic terrorist cases in the last year -- the most since 2001 -- in what analysts say is a disturbing spike that suggests the likelihood of incidents is growing. The suspects range from unskilled individuals ensnared in FBI stings after trying to obtain guns and explosives to people allegedly trained in Pakistan by al-Qaeda and preparing homemade bombs like those used in terrorist attacks in London and Madrid."

"Terrorism analysts say that the would-be assailants in such plots are not foreign infiltrators, such as the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, but instead are U.S. citizens or residents motivated to violence on their own or by self-initiated contact with al-Qaeda and similar groups."

jr565 said...

Just to engage in some snarkiness. When it became known that the authorities knew some muslims had taken flight lessons but never asked how to land, the libs were all up in arms about how George Bush shoudl have known and is therefore responsible. Were Alpha Liberal and Garage Mahal cautioning their fellow brethren not to apply blame haphazardly and unfairly to George Bush?

Roger J. said...

Seems to me that modern warfare requires different skill sets among its general officers. It should be recalled that George Catlett Marshal was secretary of state when he set forward the marshall plan which, IMO, aided in the rapid recovery of Europe and kept part of Europe out of soviet hands.

MacArthur was an egomaniac and was properly relieved by Truman. Manchester's biography of MacArthur pretty well nails him. Bradly was a soldier first and foremost (and my favorite general). Ike was a manager who had to balance such strong and abrasive personalities as Montgomery, Patton, Churchill DeGaulle and FDR--somehow he managed to cobble together and execute the western front against the axis, and quite successfully.

There is no one size fits all when it comes to generals in modern warfare. As always other's mileage may vary.

Roger J. said...

oops--and please excuse my misspellings of Bradley and Marshall

elHombre said...

fls wrote (re the military): Suicides are way up; PTSD now affects 15-20% of the troops, and about the same number take prescribed anti-depressants and/or sleeping pills. Multiple deployments have taken their toll.

Of course, as a result of the Hasan "diagnosis" by the left, most particularly the NYT, we now "know" that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder no longer requires actual stress. (WTF?) So that factor doesn't play as well.

Beyond that, it should come as no surprise, even to fls, that war takes a greater toll on our troops than peace. However, I doubt that military experts would agree that our now experienced military is "weaker" than in 2000.

The appeasers of the left have made their strategy for strengthening the military clear: Strip the defense budget and use the money to buy votes from the entitlement crowd; offer universal mea culpas at every opportunity; bully the weak (e.g. Fiji, Honduras)and avoid confrontation with the not so weak (e.g., Iran).

Oh yeah, and at home the Dept. of Homeland Security is occupied making sure there is no backlash against Muslims as a result of the massacre at Ft. Hood. We surely need a federal agency for that.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

former law student said...

If elHombre understood cars the way he understands the military he would be able to find the gas cap, but not know where the oil goes in.

holdfast said...

Don't worry, the FBI has it well in [Sharia compliant] hand:

"MSNBC's Rachel Maddow quotes the FBI agent in charge of the inquiry, Ahmed Faisal, as saying, "we are now confident that Hasan's faith played absolutely no role in his state of mind leading up to this tragedy. End of subject.""

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199515.php

edutcher said...

Roger J. said...

MacArthur was an egomaniac and was properly relieved by Truman. Manchester's biography of MacArthur pretty well nails him. Bradly was a soldier first and foremost (and my favorite general). Ike was a manager who had to balance such strong and abrasive personalities as Montgomery, Patton, Churchill DeGaulle and FDR--somehow he managed to cobble together and execute the western front against the axis, and quite successfully.

You must have read a different Manchester biography than I did. Manchester wasn't blind to the man's flaws, but he also understood that MacArthur looked after the men under his command better than anyone else. He wouldn't have tried to take the Shuri Line on Okinawa and his critique of the European campaigns that Ike & company insisted on attacking the enemy's strongpoints (right from the book, I might add) prove this.

If I had a CO who was doing that for me, I don't think I'd care about his ego. Patton, another considerable ego less distasteful to the left, was far more dangerous to his troops.

Jason (the commenter) said...

If this story is true it could mean the death of the Obama administration. He'll be a lame duck from here on out.

Lieberman will have a field day with this. Will he be running for President in 2012? I'd vote for him.

Jason (the commenter) said...

edutcher: You must have read a different Manchester biography than I did.

You guys are arguing about stuff you read in biographies? How can we really know what happened in the past? We can barely agree on what is happening now.

Alex said...

Jason - down the memory hole. Who is Major Nidal? Onto to ReidCare...

PatCA said...

VD Hanson predicts that a "firestorm" of criticism will erupt when the extent of the military's failure and the administration's failure to stop this murderer emerges.

I doubt that. I think Obama's supporters are asleep. I think Obama will paper it over and go back to business as usual.