Saturday, January 23, 2010

Ft. Hood report – Nothing here, move along!

The DOD is dangerously inept and the anticipated report on the Ft. Hood terror incident proves it. First, let me begin by stating that the report (86 pages in all) describes Hasan as “the alleged perpetrator”. In addition when I did a “word search” on the document the following did not appear anywhere in the report:



Al Qaida


Alawi (al-Qaida leader in Yemen that Hasan e-mailed numerous times)

How can we fight, or even provide the most basic protection against radical islamic terror when those in charge of that defense are so hog-tied by political correctness to the point of suicide? The same DOD that is charged with the front line fight endorses islamic muslim religious activities within their ranks, yet investigate and discipline rank and file service members who follow the Christian faith! They allow islamic radical infiltration to teach sensitivity to military members while firing qualified analysts that understand who we are fighting. The Ft. Hood terror incident was the first sucessful terror plot perpetrated on our soil since 9/11 and by luck foiled another with the Christmas Day plot. If we cannot expect honest assessment from the DOD, what hope do we have with the upcoming assessment of the DOJ regarding the Christmas day plot?

In the weeks since the Christmas day attempt we have not had a single word about how the State Department, under Clinton allowed this guy to obtain a visa at all. It all began and ends with the visa.

As Michelle Malkin puts it – “No visa, no plane ticket. No ticket, no passage to airline jihad.

Even absent the intelligence we had on this al-Qaida-trained operative before his fateful trip, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was required to know better than to issue a coveted entrance pass to a globe-trotting, Nigerian-born nomad. Under federal law (section 214(b) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act to be precise), State Department consular officials must determine that foreigners applying for temporary visas (students, tourists and business people) will in fact return to their home countries as required and will not abuse their visa privileges.

This means making sure that the temporary visa applicant has strong ties to his native land. It’s supposed to be a tough burden to overcome. Yet, Abdulmutallab showed no such propensities at the time he applied for his temporary visa at the U.S. Embassy in London in June 2008. He was a 20-something student who had flitted from Nigeria to Yemen to Togo to England without a family or job. He was, in other words, a textbook itinerant waving more red flags than a bullfighter.”

The Report

According to Powerline

“The report attributes the fact that the military did not identify the threat posed by the Nidal Hasan -- it calls him "the alleged perpetrator" -- to bureaucratic shortcomings in the acquisition and sharing of information.

As to accumulating information, the report finds that "current definition for prohibited activities [by members of the armed forces] is incomplete and does not provide adequate guidance for commanders and supervisors to act on potential threats to security."

In addition, "there is no well-integrated means to gather, evaluate, and disseminate the side range of behavioral indicators which could help our commanders better anticipate and internal threat."

It is embarrassing for me to even type these words. As Peters notes, the signs that Hasan was a radical Islamist who might well be a danger were abundantly clear, nor were they not missed by his associates.

And the fact that his associates did not share this information was not due to poor bureaucratic "architecture" or turf protection. The information was not shared because, given Hasan's status as "the Army's sole Palestinian-American psychiatrist," his "superiors feared -- correctly -- that any attempt to call attention to his radicalism or to prevent his promotion would backfire on them, destroying their careers, not his."

In the second paragraph, the author states the report findings:

"current definition for prohibited activities [by members of the armed forces] is incomplete and does not provide adequate guidance for commanders and supervisors to act on potential threats to security."

While this may be true for a service member who is Muslim, it is quite clear that service members that align themselves with Christian activities are treated harshly by the DOD where full investigations are held. For instance, in August 2007, USA Today:

“The Army and Air Force are considering disciplinary action against seven officers -- including four generals -- who violated ethics rules by assisting a Christian group in the production of a fundraising video.

The report recommended that senior military leaders consider "appropriate corrective action" against the officers.

Lt. Col. Linda Haseloff, an Air Force spokeswoman, said Monday the service is still studying the report "and no additional information can be provided at this time."

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said the report is being reviewed by legal staff and no decisions would be made until they are done.

According to the group's Web site, Christian Embassy is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization that "seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement."

Christian Embassy holds prayer meetings each Wednesday morning at the Pentagon.

The inspector general's report reveals a "long and deep collusion with a fundamentalist, religious missionary organization," Michael Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said in a statement.

Weinstein wants Congress to hold oversight hearings over the Defense Department's failure to separate "church and state.

Among the officers cited in the report are Army Brig. Gens. Vincent Brooks, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, and Robert Caslen, commandant of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy.

Air Force Maj. Gens. Peter Sutton and John Catton also appeared in the video.

Here we have the Deputy Commanding General (of Ft. Hood, Texas base no less) under DOD investigation for ties to an organization described as a “fundamentalist, religious missionary organization” yet it has an office in the Pentagon.

In a comparable item, the Pentatgon, DOD and the White House have endorsed the Muslim faith through Iftar functions, Ramadan and various other official functions ties to that faith.

In 2001 (just two weeks after 9/11) the Deputy Secretary of Defense was the guest speaker at the DOD Iftar dinner:

The Deputy SECDEF out ranks any General yet it was the Christian faith that was investigated vigorously for service member participation.

What should the report have said? Here, I defer to Bennett:

An Islamic terrorist was raised in the United States and given a pass throughout his professional career in the United States military. His allegiance was not to his country but to his radical religion. He told his colleagues of this again and again. He didn't set off signals, he set off sirens. And nothing was done. The military leadership didn't take his words seriously, even as we were at war with people saying the exact same things he was saying. And the culture of the Army that coddled him was too well-represented by the Army chief of staff who, after the rampage, said "As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

It was this thinking that led to us keeping Major Hasan in the Army and that diminished force protection. It was this culture that allowed a terrorist into the Army. It was this political correctness that led to the deaths of 14 innocents. And if you want to prevent another tragedy like this, you must end this infection of the mindset.

So the Pentagon has targeted the Christian faith while giving Islam a pass. The Pentagon and the US Government bends over backward to endorse the religion of death while persecuting those who are Christians. What is wrong with this picture?

No comments:

Post a Comment