Skip to comments.Memo to ABC: There's a Reason He's Not Called Smith
Posted on 11/08/2009 12:34:54 AM PST by kralcmot
Memo to ABC: There's a Reason He's Not Called Smith
By C. Edmund Wright Diane Sawyer - either espousing her editorial fantasy or a quoting a third hand comment from an anonymous "military wife" -- was dreadfully upset that the mass murderer from Fort Hood was not named Smith. One can only imagine how thrilled she'd have been had he been named something like, oh I don't know, Palin.
From what I can deduce, had his name been Smith it would be much easier for the Diane Sawyers of the Jurassic media to cover up what they fear really went on here. (In perhaps a related story, none of the 9-11 attackers were in the Smith family either.) And what appears to have gone wrong is that a poster child for every wrong headed politically correct liberal program our great military has been forced to accept blew a gasket and took 13 un-armed American soldiers out. Predictably blew a gasket I might add.
While many facts are yet to be determined, what we do know is that a man not named Smith -- but named Hasan -- had some decidedly un-Smith like beliefs and he was rather adamant about espousing them. That is to say, this well paid U.S. Army Major held some beliefs strangely coincident with the very people that most U.S. Army Majors are fighting against. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the idea that sympathy with the enemy is called "treason" rather than the modern touchy feely idea that it is simply a "healthy diversity."
Such diversity wasn't too damned healthy for about 45 soldiers, now was it? According to the coroner's report, many are even beyond sensitivity training at this point. Where is George Patton to slap some sense into someone when you need him?
We also know that a major who happens to be a devout follower of Islam -- the well documented religion of peace -- strode into one of the principal gathering points at Fort Hood and shot 40 some unarmed military personnel. Among them was a pregnant woman.
We also know that Major Hasan, quite consistent with many who follow Islam -- that well documented religion of peace -- was quite taken with the idea of the Middle Eastern homicide bombers. He is known to have compared them with valiant U.S. soldiers throwing themselves on a grenade to save buddies. Now I hate to quibble, but isn't a suicide bomber actually the opposite of those diving on a grenade?
And while we're on the subject of Islam -- that well documented religion of peace -- Hasan apparently agreed with Bin Laden's PR department that what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is occupation. Further, the U.S. military is just a bunch of infidels. Hasan has indicated he was in favor of our losing the wars in both theatres.
Now in a country that would not stand for the idea of Derek Jeter switching to Philly red in the middle of the World Series, what sense does it make to have Major Hasan in our military? For crying out loud, "don't ask don't tell" should not apply to the notion of whose side you are on!
In reality though, this was not even a case of don't ask don't tell. No one had to ask Major Hasan to get him to tell people what he believed. He was against the war in Iraq, against the war in Afghanistan and allegedly verbally pro-Allah as he was gunning down unarmed American soldiers.
Imagine in World War II if an American officer had shouted "Heil Hitler" as he was killing un-armed soldiers. Would there be any soul-searching debate about "PRE-traumatic stress syndrome" and other gobbledy goop? And if his name were Schmidt -- oddly close to Smith actually -- would Diane Sawyer be in a snit?
Of course, this would never have happened in WW2. Things are different today. Somehow our military remains the best in the world while accommodating all kinds of fast track programs for psychiatrist officers whose name sounds a lot like those on the roster at Gitmo while ignoring the detail that he might be anti-American.
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. Or more to the point, our military should not be so eaten up with political correctness that the many who did notice were forced to shut up about it. This was so utterly predictable, which is to say utterly preventable.
That's not to say folks named Hasan should not be in the military. It just might be a good idea if they held onto some mudane Smith type attitudes, like perhaps being pro-American. This is not discrimination. ALL soldiers, regardless of their name, should be pro-American at a minimum. Surely this is logical.
Of course, what else is predictable is how the media is covering it. In the words of an NPR report: "we know he took his faith seriously, but we can't say for sure that was a factor." Right. That's exactly what they say about anyone who bombs an abortion clinic, as we know. Finding out that Hasan is a follower of Islam is harder to discover in most reports as was the fact that Eliot Spitzer was a Democrat.
Equally predictable is our President -- who is also not named Smith by the way. Barack Hussein Obama was giving "shout-outs" to folks at a speech related to native Americans at the Department of the Interior shortly after the news of the Fort Hood tragedy broke. This is not George Bush rapidly finishing a two-minute story to the school kids he was already in front of after hearing the horrific news of 9-11 whispered into his ear. No. This was a President who had time to delay, cancel or at least, reprogram a very non-crucial photo op in light of the news.
The only thing missing was Jeremiah Wright hootin and hollerin about "America's chickens" and high fiving and so on. I mean, God bleep America, we deserved it, didn't we? At the very least, Obama's reaction can charitably be characterized as cold. And not cool at all.
Now all we can hope is that the Army and the FBI will have the courage to look into the reasons his name was not Smith, and what light that might shed on what happened. Like many, I suspect that there is a relationship there. We can only hope that the FBI will reverse their decision to not even "discuss" the idea that terrorism was involved.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/memo_to_abc_theres_a_reason_he.html at November 08, 2009 - 03:32:10 AM EST
Ask the Army
13 dead cannot speak
Great read and right on the money!
I would laugh at this, if I weren't already feeling so nauseous at what is going on currently
Hasan apparently agreed with Bin Laden's PR department that what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is occupation.
As a conservative, I don't actually see anything wrong with the concept of "occupation" in this context.
PC has been imposed on our military for a long time. And that has been bad for our nation’s security. It undermines our ability to eliminate threats.
For example, in 1961, General Edwin Walker was relieved of command by Secretary MacNamara (Walker subsequently resigned) because he was teaching his men about the evils of communism. General Walker was, at the time, commander of the 24th Infrantry Division in Germany, staring down the Soviets.
PC is imposed on all of us
its not just for the military
Hasan was sent to Ft Hood when it was noticed at Walter Reed that he was a little off target
Sawyer will become the anchor of ABC World News after Charles Gibson steps down from the broadcast in January 2010.
From that perch she can preside over the discussion of why Smith might be a terrorist
There is no liking Islam anymore. I hold suspicious all who claim to believe in it as peaceful yet teach the very things this man did as well as so many other have done in its name.
For all you horrific liberals who rage against all things Christian can you show me one thing that compares? Or do you, like always have to go back to the 1600’s or the “crusades” (and lie about its facts) to conjure up how “evil” Christianity is for our Christian nation?
It doesn’t matter what his name is if he’s a Muslim. That trumps everything else.
That she's more concerned with the PR of Muslims--something I've never, ever seen any reporter worry about any other group in this kind of circumstance--only reveals her as the celebrity retard she truly is.
it needs to be said again and again
“Peace” means different things to different cultures
in Islam, “peace” means that Islam is in total control of all the Earth. then, there is “peace.”
the left has always had a fascination for enemies. they really want to assimilate them....bring them into the new secular hedonistic culture they enjoy so much....
communism, having failed to conquer the capitalistic west, has been replaced by Islam
we are going to give them spectacular opportunities to cause great destruction to show how superior we are
we might even get to take a nuclear explosion in Washington, D.C.
that would be the ultimate proof of our superior tolerance.
Life Magazine attacked Senator McCarthy on April 10, 1950 for his anti-communism speech given in West Virginia. This was the beginning. From that point forward, promotion of marxist ideology became the raison d’être of popoular media.
So, indeed, you are correct. It is not just the military.
But I’d would like to offer a message of hope for you, fellow FReeper.
The Diane Sawyers, along with Barak Obama and all of the leftists today, are on the wrong side of history. Before it is all done, before the history is written, people will remember folks like that the way they remember members of the American Nazi Party of the 1930s.
This is historical inevitability. George W. Bush will be recorded as far ahead of his time, and the first to take a stand against the evils of jihadist fascism that all decent civilization must eventually confront.
People will spit when they say Obama’s name, remembering him as an appeaser at best, traitor at worst. His best case would be a Neville Chamberlin, Benedict Arnold is more likely.
You are correct, although, being a mass murderer as Mao, is moral equivalence to the founding fathers according to pop-culture and identity politics; for they do not know their history. While buying into every scam that does not require forethought or critical thinking, as espoused by Government Political Corruption. Remember, they are willing to have the free lunch. Yet the question is never asked, who is paying for the ride? The answer is always, of course you are, we are stealing from the other guy and passing the savings on to you Now get back to work to pay tribute to your masters.
i don’t give a Shiite about history
what i am interested in is now.
history will be for someone when i am long gone
now is for me
thanks for the message of hope....
but its not what i need
how many could have been saved if Chamberlain had any sense?
“When Stanley Baldwin retired in May 1937, Chamberlain took his place as Prime Minister. His premiership was dominated by the question of policy towards the increasingly aggressive Germany, and his actions at Munich were wildly popular among Britons.” Wikipedia
I read “the Last Lion” an account of the years between WWI and WWII and Winston Churchill’s life during that time. The similarities to our situation today are frightening.
Liberal appeasers were in control...the press, the government...all of it. The economy was in shambles, and was ample justification for refusal to take notice of the coming disaster.
Europe was destroyed. Only America and Russia were saved....and Russia, just barely....and, for what? for Stalin and the 50 year Cold War.
History is witness to the stupidity of Chamberlain, yes. But at what cost?
And, of course, the question is before us now...what price will be paid for this lunacy?
-- Winston Churchill, 10/29/41
Interesting question by author: "Imagine in World War II if an American officer had shouted 'Heil Hitler: as he was killing un-armed soldiers."
Even more interesting question by OP: "we are going to give them spectacular opportunities to cause great destruction to show how superior we are...we might even get to take a nuclear explosion in Washington, D.C....that would be the ultimate proof of our superior tolerance."
Contrasting the two statements is nothing short of stunning. That we'd even need to surely a very bad sign not of things to come, but of to an end.
I was actually already thinking Bozo . . .
The Diane Sawyers of the media have to follow the rules laid out by their big bosses. Gee, I wonder who owns most of our media.
As long as we buy into egalitarianism & multiculturalism there is absolutely no difference between Smith, Hasan, Valdez or the Man in the Moon. We are in all ways and in all situations equal. The Marxist have won the minds in this battle and all “conservatives” can do is tilt at windmills. Animal Farm is here.
Liberals have hatred and contempt for their own society. Therefore they cannot help feeling sympathy for any group that opposes it, regardless of how little sympathy they have for the group’s actual doctrines.
While they can’t really be in favor of Islam, as they were of Communism, they also can’t really oppose it, as that would require defending the society they despise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.