On Thursday Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot up Fort Hood, killing 12. Though a soldier for 12 years, Hasan apparently demonstrated, out loud, loyalty and affection for global jihad. It's appropriate to ask what such a person was doing in the U.S. Army.
Rightbloggers saw a bigger problem, though: the liberal media. Though
they got nearly all of their information about Hasan from such sources,
they yet accused them of trying to cover up his Muslim roots, and even
of excusing his massacre.
In the aftermath of the shooting, mainstream sources hustled to get the facts quickly, but not quickly enough for the Media Research Council,
which complained, "CBS and NBC Fail to ID Hasan as Muslim," while
celebrating ABC's Charlie Gibson, who "wasn't cowed by political
correctness" and revealed Hasan was "a Muslim convert" -- though Hasan
was apparently born into a Muslim family.
MRC did note with approval
that "all three morning shows on Friday identified the man who killed
12 at an Army base in Texas as a Muslim," but was disturbed that Diane
Sawyer quoted a person who said "I wish his name had been Smith."
Disturbed also was C. Edmund Wright
who, in a 1,100-word peroration on Sawyer's reference, said, "Hasan --
had some decidedly un-Smith like beliefs. ... And that's the real story
here. He was not named Smith. He didn't act like a Smith or talk like a
Smith or have allegiances like a Smith. He was so not-a-Smith that
someone should have noticed." It's an interesting analysis, but to
remain at full combat strength, the Army will probably have to at least
consider allowing soldiers named Jones to serve as well....
Hasan's faith was very well
known by then, and the media began to spool out thousands of words
about the shooter, including at least one astrological analysis and many, many psychological backgrounders, which rightbloggers generally found to be treasonous.
For example, MSNBC included in one of its stories about the case a quote from a neighbor of Hasan: "He was mistreated. He didn't have nobody. He was all alone." PunditPawn's analysis: "MSNBC Getting Jumpstart on Defending Terrorist Hasan."
"Why is the Main Stream Media Painting Hasan as a Victim?" said SamJ Times,
with no quotes -- just the names of major media outlets, which it
apparently considers sufficient. "Obama and his Drive by media will do
their best to spin this into nothing more then a metally Ill victim,"
said Foxmuldar.
Saber Point
was unsurprised: "For many years, liberals have shown great concern for
the perpetrators of crime rather than the victims." "The media can
often be stupid," said The Last Crusade, "but when it censors reporting for political or social engineering reasons, freedom is jeopardized."
Pajamas Media's Phyllis Chesler said "the New York Times
views the jihadist as the victim" because they mentioned the strain of
his work as a possible factor in his derangement. Nonetheless she
admitted that the Times had revealed Hasan to be "a man who
viewed America as the aggressor," which did not let them off the hook,
as in Chesler's view that just means "he sounds like a New York Times reader himself."
Chesler added, "Some may choose to view him as dysfunctional,
psychiatrically challenged ... but that does not justify or excuse his
jihadic crime." She did not explain how or where the Times thus excused him, but revealed that Hasan "self-identifies as a Palestinian" -- something the Times had reported
days earlier -- and went on to state that "The entire world, not just
the American media and American military, have identified Palestinians
as the most noble of victims" -- in fact, "existentially innocent."
Again, no source was provided.
Chesler further informed us that "I am a psychologist, a retired
Professor of Psychology and a psycho-analytically oriented
psychotherapist," and thus qualified to offer a diagnosis: "Hasan did not commit jihadic mass murder because he is 'mentally ill,' but because he is a jihadist."
WorldNetDaily
reported that Hasan "played a homeland security advisory role in
President Barack Obama's transition into the White House." When various
sources showed
that the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy
Institute, sponsor of the May event at which Hasan was a "participant,"
was not an official part of the transition, and that Hasan's
involvement consisted of showing up to meetings as a member of the
audience, WND updated that "the institute's deputy director is quoted
saying he is unable to say if Hasan made any input to the group's final
recommendations."
Some rightbloggers came, though wanly, to WND's defense. "[Liberal
blogger David] Neiwert does have a point that Corsi's headline and what
is said in the story itself appear to be complete opposites," said Real Truth Online,
"but one thing Neiwert does not do is offer any refutation of the fact
that Hasan's name does appear on the Task Force Event Participant
list. ... They were participants, not mere bystanders or observers. If this had happened under Bush ..." etc. Conservative Hideout
accepted that Obama was not directly involved because "I cannot see
Obama surrounding himself with anyone from the military, except in
cases he cannot avoid, such as the Joint Cheifs -- or in the case of a
photo op with returning dead soldiers."
"Maj. Hasan as Anita Hill and Ft. Hood as Virginia Tech?" headlined RedState's Mike gamecock DeVine.
He predicted that Hasan will offer a "not guilty by reason of insanity
or 'fighting words' defense" based on "his traumatizing endurance of
racial epithets beginning soon after September 11, 2009." DeVine's
fantasy reminded DeVine "of Anita Hill's last hour allegations of
actionable 'sexual harassment' against Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas during his nomination hearing." Also, neither the Virginia Tech
shooting victims in 2007 nor the Fort Hood victims were holding
weapons, leading DeVine to ask, "Has the same kind of political
correctness that controls the ObamaDems of the Democratic Party, now
disarm our Armed Forces from protecting themselves?" -- though the lack
of loaded weapons among Fort Hood soldiers is a long-standing practice that predates the reign of the ObamaDems. "Serious questions," DeVine understandably added.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was blamed for not
catching Hasan. "While DHS was busy putting tea parties and anyone who
dares fly the official military Gadsen flag on the domestic terrorist
watch list," said Dana Loesch, "a real terrorist was spouting off online, glorifying suicide bombings and our mission in Iraq." "Yeah, Napolitano, et al. seem to have had their priorities misplaced," said Instapundit. In case you might be led to assume that et al.
referred to other relevant government officials in power during Hasan's
12 years of military service, the remainder of the Instapundit post is
about government persecution of Tea Party people.
The inevitable what-ifs were floated. "If investigators had
discovered that Hasan had recorded a Glenn Beck segment on his TiVo,"
claimed Tom Maguire, "the Times
would be fretting about a rising tide of right wing extremism." "On the
upside, at least this psychopath wasn't a wild-eyed conservative
teabagger," said Jammie Wearing Fool. "Then Obama and the left might be spurred into action."
Oh, right, Obama. What does it have to do with him? Plenty, said rightbloggers. Some just went for funsies ("Barack Hasan Obama" "DID NIDAL MALIK HASAN VOTE FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?"). Some went with the discredited WND report
("perhaps, he's having to try to figure out how to keep people from
finding out that the terrorist who attacked our Soldiers at Ft. Hood
was a member of Obama's transition team").
Commentary's Linda Chavez found it shameful that Obama,
attending a Native American affairs conference, gave a "shout out" to
its participants before getting to his remarks about the shooting. "I
wonder how many media outlets will compare Obama's performance to
President Bush's 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11," said Chavez.
If she meant to include rightbloggers among the media outlets, she
can't have been disappointed. "PBO's 'My Pet Goat' Moment," said Moonbattery. "Barack Obama has now had his own 'My Pet Goat' moment," said Conservative New Media. "Obama 'Reads My Pet Goat' After Ft. Hood Shooting," said Associated Press Check. "WAS IT HIS MY PET GOAT MOMENT?" said Big Dogs House. "Obama's "My Pet Goat" Moment," said HolyCoast. "Our President had a 'Pet Goat' moment," said State of the Nation.
"Michael Moore railed on President Bush for reading with the children
'My Pet Goat' as the news of 9/11 unfolded. Well, now we'll see if
Moore and other extreme Obama supporters will recognize this
President's 'Pet Goat Moment.'" Etc.
In a rare break with rightblogger received wisdom, National Review's Jonah Goldberg dissented: " I always thought Bush's response was fine ... this example
works in Bush's favor and against Obama. And it makes a lot of Bush's
critics look even worse for politicizing that moment on 9/11."
Some ranged further afield -- "The more I hear about this Major Nidal Malik Hasan character," said The Snooper Report,
"the more I believe that amabO deliberately sent this cretin to Texas
knowing what was to take place." But this, of course, is (at least at
the moment) a fringe opinion, whereas the notion that the press is
trying to defend Hasan's rampage to its readers is, for rightbloggers,
mainstream.
Roy Edroso's Rightbloggers: Exploring the right Wing Blogosphere appears courtesy of our sister paper in New York City, Village Voice.
like
dislike
