By Jennifer Burke
Callous. Insulting. Cowardly. Selfish. These are the words that come to mind when I look back at how the Obama Administration has handled three highly controversial events during his tenure as President in which Americans were killed. The incidents in question are the 2009 Fort Hood Massacre, during which 13 soldiers were killed; Operation Fast and Furious, an untracked gun walking fiasco that resulted in the death Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010 as well as many Mexican citizens; and the recent attack of the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 during which 4 Americans were killed with the U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens also being raped prior to his murder.
Every single American should have serious concerns about not just the incidents themselves, but the manner in which the Obama Administration has handled them. News, analysis, questions, and concerns about the terrorist attack in Benghazi have been flooding the airwaves ever since it took place. Many have stated that this does not bode well for Obama ahead of the final Presidential debate on Monday, October 22nd, with the focus of the debate being foreign policy. The more we learn about the reality of the attack on Benghazi and the weeks leading up to it, the worse it gets for the Obama campaign as it gets more and more tangled in the web of lies and finger pointing of blame. With the recent release of the video “He said Allahu Akbar – The Attack on Fort Hood”, we are reminded that the handling of the terrorist attack at Benghazi demonstrates two things: a.) a pattern of denial by President Obama with greater concern for self image and poll numbers over accepting responsibility and b.) an unwillingness to call out terrorism when it is obvious.
Obama’s failure to stand as the Commander-in-Chief and call out these terroristic acts as such is both cowardly and insulting.
Back in November 2009, I was so outraged at the Obama Administration’s handling of the gunning down of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood Army Base by Major Nidal Malik Hassan that I wrote an article about it. Long before the cowardly and inaccurate classification of this massacre as “workplace violence”, the media played cover for Obama by trying to come up with a reason behind the shooting as being anything but radical, Muslim extremist terrorism.
In that 2009 article, I wrote the following:
Immediately after the shootings occurred, many in the media used the incident to push the agenda against the Iraq war by reporting that Hasan suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. They continued to say that this shooting is a clear indication that our soldiers are not receiving the medical treatment that they need in order to deal with what they experience in combat.
There is, however, one simple problem with that theory. Major Nidal Malik Hasan was never deployed overseas and never once experienced combat firsthand. Now, there are some that might attempt to argue that he was stressed over his pending deployment to Afghanistan. However, they were not arguing for Pending Traumatic Stress Disorder or Future Traumatic Stress Disorder. The immediate argument was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in which the keyword is POST or AFTER the fact. The Mayo Clinic definition of PTSD is “Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a type of anxiety disorder that’s triggered by a traumatic event. You can develop post-traumatic stress disorder when you experience or witness an event that causes intense fear, helplessness or horror.” Having never been deployed, Hasan never experienced or witnessed combat in a time of war.
To add further callous insult to the mortal injuries suffered by the 13 soldiers and the many who were shot, but survived, the Obama Administration had a response similar to how they have handled the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and the resulting deaths of 4 Americans. That evening, on the same day of the Fort Hood Massacre, rather than opening his remarks with something respectful such as a moment of silence for those killed and wounded in the shooting, President Obama spent two minutes giving a shout out to people in attendance and pushing the idea of ObamaCare. Obama also said, “We don’t know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”
When I heard him make that statement, I was infuriated. This was much different than how he handled a different situation involving the Cambridge police and a friend of his. Here is what I wrote about that back then.
By the time the president made this speech, the majority of what has been stated above was known. Speculation that this was not the act of a breakdown, but was rather an act of terrorism could be backed with multiple facts. His call for us to “not jump to conclusions until we have all the facts” in regards to the domestic terrorist Major Nidal Malik Hasan is even more ludicrous when you consider a statement that Obama himself made just a few short months ago.
President Obama, when asked about the incident in which Professor Gates, a personal friend and professor at Harvard University, was arrested at his own home responded that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. These words were uttered quickly, without much thought, and without Obama fully knowing the facts…any facts, other than the fact that his black friend had been arrested by a white police officer in Cambridge….. thereby exposing the real Obama that presents himself when not prepped.
Here we are, three years later. More facts surrounding the life and military career of Hasan are known. We know about his communication with known Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki. We know that Hasan wrote this in one of his many emails to Al-Awlaki, this particular one of May 27th, 2009.
I would assume that suicide bomber whose aim is to kill enemy soldiers or their helpers, but also kill innocents in the process, is acceptable.
There were also blog posts submitted by Hasan that equated a Muslim suicide bomber who sacrifices his life for his faith to a soldier who falls on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers.
“There was a grenade thrown amongs (sic) a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally (sic) took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees (sic) in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.”
Other facts known when Obama gave the insensitive beginning to his speech also overwhelmingly spoke to the truth of the Fort Hood massacre being a terrorist attack. This again is from the article that I wrote back then.
On Thursday morning, November 5th, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim originally from Virginia, but stationed at Fort Hood, woke up and proceeded sometime thereafter to give away his belongings. He called a few friends and said thanks and/or goodbyes. He got dressed, not in his military issued uniform, but in the customary Muslim garb. He carried with him two handguns. He then went to the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, the place where soldiers soon leaving for or returning from their tour go for medical processing, and opened fire.
According to multiple witnesses, as Hasan opened fire on his fellow soldiers, he shouted ‘ALLAH AKBAR’ which is Arabic for “God is Good”. This is also the statement typically uttered by Islamic Jihadists as they perpetrate a terrorist attack.
Here is what we know about Hasan prior to the massacre of his fellow soldiers. He was a licensed psychiatrist whose entire medical education was funded by the US Army. As we all know, a benefit offered by the Armed Forces is funding for education in exchange for your service. One thing that many, Hasan obviously included, do not understand or accept is that you can’t pick and choose what that service will look like. As a member of the Armed Forces, sometimes that service may include being within a combat area.
As a resident at Walter Reed, Hasan was reprimanded for proselytizing his Muslim faith to co-workers and patients. Oh, and lest I forget, this from a man who checked “No Religion” when filling out his forms to join the Army. This despite the fact that his family says he was not a Muslim convert, but had been a Muslim his entire life.
To this very day, that attack is still classified as workplace violence. Being labeled as such, neither those killed, nor those injured are eligible for a Purple Heart. In addition, by not classifying the massacre as a terrorist attack, it is not seen as happening in a combat zone. So, the medical benefits are not what they should be. To this day, there remains an attempt to shield Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder from responsibility in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry with their gun walking fiasco Operation Fast and Furious. And now, we have the Obama Administration shifting blame, denying knowledge, and flip flopping their story with what was known and when with regards to the terrorist attack on Benghazi. A similar excuse was given as with Fort Hood…..we are investigating. Note, the “investigation” of Fort Hood has been occurring for almost 3 years with victims hanging in the balance.
“It’s not my fault” is not the response of a strong leader. It shows weakness, selfishness, and brings into question the ability to lead. “I’ll get back to you on that”, or in his case “We are investigating”, is not an appropriate response when overwhelming evidence points to the obvious of terrorism. It is insulting to the American people and to those whose lives were lost. The Commander-in-Chief should lead with the great responsibility that has been bestowed upon him to this country, its citizens, and the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect it and the freedom that we all too often take for granted. He should not lead with a mindset wrapped around what kind of negative hit his campaign or poll numbers will sustain by taking responsibility and/or calling out terrorism when it happens. The American people deserve better.