Obama can't be bothered by Islamic terrorism
jose el fontanero
By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 6:07 AM, November 8, 2009
Posted: 12:29 AM, November 8, 2009
In the wake of the terrorist strike on our soldiers at Fort Hood, one
individual’s still missing in action: Our commander in chief. The
massacre’s 51 casualties, including 13 dead, were insufficient to drag
President Obama away from the White House Happy Hour.
We just saw the worst terror attack on America since 9/11. And Obama
couldn’t adjust his schedule to support our grieving troops.
Instead, we got his subtle defense of the perp: Unwilling to use the
word “terror,” let alone the phrase “Islamist terror,” Obama warned us
not to “rush to judgment.”
A Muslim fanatic, known to the FBI as a fan of suicide bombers and to
colleagues as an opponent of our government, coolly buys weapons,
heads to a military facilityhe knows will be packed with unsuspecting
soldiers, waits for the crowd to thicken, then shouts, “Allah is
great!” and guns down 51 patriots, calmly reloading among the dead and
dying.
But don’t rush to judgment.
Imagine if, instead of Fort Hood, the massacre had gone down at a
mosque in Detroit — carried out by a maddened Christian or Jew. Obama
would’ve been aboard Air Force One before the pilots had time to file
a flight plan and he would’ve been on site before the gun smoke
cleared, hugging and boo-hooing and dispensing stirring rhetoric for
the evening news.
But go out of his way to rally our butchered troops? Not a chance.
It’s not like they’re real human beings with Ivy League degrees. When
Obama got word of the attack, he didn’t even lose his fabled cool.
Obama may be shamed into visiting Ft. Hood at some point, but his
priority since Thursday has remained socializing American medicine.
What happens in Texas, stays in Texas.
Move on? Yes we can!
Of course, this act of Islamist terrorism has been an inconvenience to
a president whose administration insists there’s no such thing. Those
dead and wounded soldiers are such an embarrassment. If only a Baptist
or Lutheran had been the shooter, things would’ve been so much tidier.
What’s next? The White House is going to bring heavy pressure on the
FBI, through Attorney General Eric Holder, to play down investigative
results confirming that Maj. Nidal Hasan was motivated by his Muslim
beliefs.
Instead, we’ll hear even more about the “harassment” Hasan suffered as
the media toe the line laid down by the vile lead editorial in
Saturday’s New York Times and how this calculating terrorist
contracted PTSD from his patients.
Let me kill the harassment myth right now: Political correctness rules
in today’s Army. We even protect our enemies these days. Had any
soldier harassed Hasan because of his Islamist nuttiness, that soldier
would’ve disappeared faster than a Franklin on a Times Square
sidewalk.
Any snarky remarks directed toward Hasan — if there were any —
would’ve come in reaction to his railing against our government, our
military’s mission and the monstrous injustice that, after grabbing an
education in psychiatry worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from
our military, he might have had to do his duty.
Far from being harassed himself, this creep was allowed to harass the
soldiers he treated for stress disorders. According to colleagues,
Hasan not only argued with his patients about our wars, but preached
Islam to those under his care. (Just what troubled vets needed, no
doubt.)
Prejudice? You bet. In this terrorist’s favor. Nobody in Hasan’s chain
of command had the sense of duty to weed this pervert out. Why? Hasan
would’ve accused them of discrimination. And the officer who brought
charges against Hasan would’ve been the one whose career suffered.
Since writing on this travesty in the Post and speaking out on Fox
News, I’ve been deluged with supportive messages — many from soldiers
outraged at the politically correct treatment of this terrorist by the
media, by senior military leaders — and by the president.
How many more Americans have to die, at home and in war, before our
president admits that there is, indeed, such a thing as Islamist
terror? Will he ever admit that it played a role in the tragedy at
Fort Hood?
Not a chance. Islam’s a religion of peace. America’s the problem. And
don’t you forget it.
babeejm
>Obama couldn't even let himself call it a war on terror when he first became
president.
jose el fontanero
By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 12:09 PM, November 8, 2009
Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon."