Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Washington Times Editorials rip into Obama's killing the economy and his $59 billion giveaway to unions | Main | Scott Brown win will require voter bomb »

January 18, 2010

Pentagon's report on Ft. Hood - a whitewash, or worse?

Topics: Political News and commentaries, Understanding Islam, War on Terror

Calling the Pentagon's 80-plus page report on the Fort Hood killings by an Arab Islamic terrorist a "whitewash" seems to me to be a huge understatement; after all, the report clearly amounts to willful blindness and absurd political correctness run-amuck - to the detriment of the security of the United States. Perhaps, the words "gutless" and "shameful" are far more appropriate.

As Bill Bennett points out, the report titled, "Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood," mentions the words "Islam" and "Muslim" not once, not one single time. It actually refers to the Islamic terrorist, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 14 people while shouting "Allahu Akbar" as a "gunman."

You can read that "low self-esteem, depression, and anger are tied to many different types of violence" in the report. You can read about "workplace violence" and "disgruntled employees" in the report. You can read about "Motivations for domestic terrorism" such as "animal rights, "white supremacy," and "religious intolerance" thrown in on equal par among other factors that simply were not in play here in the report. And you can read the grand conclusion that "Religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor; most fundamentalist groups are not violent, and religious-based violence is not confined to members of fundamentalist groups."

But you would be reading a complete and total whitewash. You'd be reading a lie of a report. But that is what the Pentagon has produced.

Here was a situation where an Islamist reached out to Islamist imams like Anwar Awlaki who has worked with other terrorists, including 9/11 hijackers. Where he had a business card that read "Soldier of Allah," Where he yelled "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire on fellow soldiers and Americans. Where he delivered a lecture and said "non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire." Where he told his neighbor the morning he set off on his rampage that "I'm going to do good work for God." Where he said his allegiance was "to sharia law" not "American law" when asked by his colleagues. Where his classmates said "no one would...have trusted him with anything."

And yet he was made a major. And yet he was educated by the U.S. military. And yet he was kept in the U.S. military. And he then went to war with the United States.

Read it all ...

Ralph Peters is less kind to the Pentagon, and gets right to the point:

* It's not about what happened at Fort Hood.

* It avoids entirely the issue of why it happened.

Rarely in the course of human events has a report issued by any government agency been so cowardly and delusional. It's so inept, it doesn't even rise to cover-up level.
"Protecting the Force: Lessons From Fort Hood" never mentions Islamist terror. Its 86 mind-numbing pages treat "the alleged perpetrator," Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, as just another workplace shooter (guess they're still looking for the pickup truck with the gun rack).

The report is so politically correct that its authors don't even realize the extent of their political correctness -- they're body-and-soul creatures of the PC culture that murdered 12 soldiers and one Army civilian.

[...]
The report is so politically correct that its authors don't even realize the extent of their political correctness -- they're body-and-soul creatures of the PC culture that murdered 12 soldiers and one Army civilian.

Read it all...

So, is the report a "whitewash"? No, far worse. It is, as Peters suggests, gutless and shameful, cowardly and delusional, and so inept, it doesn't even rise to cover-up level. Our military, under the guidance of the Obama administration, has covered-up the slaughter of our own troops on our own soil by an Islamic terrorist, and is refusing to even admit that we are at war with an ideology that is clearly at war with us. And as long as this political correctness continues, we can expect our casualties to only increase, and our enemy's strategy to become more daring.

Posted by Richard at January 18, 2010 7:57 AM



Articles Related to Political News and commentaries, Understanding Islam, War on Terror: