OBAMA’S “CHALLENGER MOMENT” AT FORT HOOD
Some of you may know that I am an aficionado of American political rhetoric. There was a time in this country where speeches actually made a difference in politics and policy, and the great orators were known to sway voters, members of Congress, prince, potentate, and history itself with their thundering orations.
Think Patrick Henry. Think Lincoln at Gettysburg, or Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech that catapulted him to the Democratic nomination for president. Think of FDR throwing down the gauntlet of war to the mighty Japanese empire. Think of a smallish man addressing half a million souls in front of the Great Emancipator’s statue, and demanding that his dream of racial equality become a reality.
Those days are gone now. Reagan briefly revived the spoken word as a powerful weapon for the presidency. But his successors have been decidedly lacking in the consistent application of political rhetoric to dramatically alter the status quo. It’s not their fault. None were of a political tradition that prized the spoken word over the soundbite culture of political communication that arose in the last quarter of the 20th century.
Except in times of national tragedy. Here, where man, moment, and the spoken word all combined to lift us up, to assuage our grief, and to restore the American spirit, each of Reagan’s successor’s rose to the occasion in their own way, performing magnificently on the largest of stages.
Clinton’s speech at Oklahoma City was agonizingly good - a personal, elevated remembrance and national pep talk all in one. Bush at Washington Cathedral and in front of a joint session of Congress after 9/11 (I liked his Cathedral speech a lot better), overcame his limitations as a communicator and achieved heights of rhetorical and stylistic splendor he was never to reach again.
President Obama’s magnificently delivered, marvelously written, heartfelt speech at Fort Hood yesterday was, to my mind, the best piece of American political rhetoric since Reagan’s Challenger address in the aftermath of that tragedy. It was by far and away the best speech he’s given as president, and it bests two other superior efforts of his that preceded his election; his keynote address to the 2004 Democratic convention, and his speech on race in Philadelphia during the campaign.
Technically, the speech was extremely well crafted. Reading it, you are struck by its humble simplicity, it’s logical progression, its smooth, effortless transitions, and soaring peroration. We don’t know enough about the president to see his imprint on the written words. But by the way he imbued the speech with his living spirit, you could tell that even if he didn’t have much of a hand in writing it, he was feeling it intensely.
There has been much criticism on the right for it’s tone of “political correctness” in not mentioning the word “terrorism” or “jihad.” I understand where my fellow righties are coming from, but I think they are a little off base. This was not a time for a call to action; it was a time to grieve. The president walked right up to saying the “T” word and, while he didn’t say it, everyone knew what he was talking about:
It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.
These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.
We had a discussion on the debate over how to define Hasan’s act last night on my radio show. Yes, I believe the government is overly sensitive to offending Muslim sensitivities, and it is possible that the military paid for this walking on eggshells attitude when they ignored Hasan’s obvious radicalism.
But calling the shooter a “terrorist” animated by radical Islam to carry out jihad against those who he perceived to be an enemy wouldn’t have helped the families in their grief nor would it have said anything profound to the nation. Obama rightly said that there was no justification - religious or otherwise - for the shooting. In this venue, it was exactly the right thing to say and I believe it a little bit of a stretch to criticize him for not going farther. There may be a time for criticism as more becomes known about what our government knew about this killer and why they did nothing to deal with him. But that time was not yesterday.
Not discussed very much as far as I can tell is the overall theme of the president’s address; that this generation is second to none as it relates to self-sacrificing service to our country. The president expertly connected each of the dead - reading their names and giving a short snippet of personality to go along with the identification of the fallen - to this idea that these were among the best of their generation:
As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.
We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm’s way.
Again and again, the president returns to this theme, and connects those who served in the past with our present day heroes:
For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us - every single American - must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.
We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.
This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations - all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.
Absolutely translucent rhetoric, delivered in Obama’s inimical, well modulated voice with expert phrasing.
Many a good speech has crashed on the shoals of a bad peroration. It is said that Edward Everett’s 2 hour memorial speech that preceded Lincoln’s at Gettysburg suffered from a weak, and forgettable climax. I don’t see it myself and it’s hard for us who are unfamiliar with 19th century rhetoric to critique such things intelligently. But when Obama reached his own high point yesterday, you heard echoes of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King:
Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.
Long after they are laid to rest - when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today’s servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown - it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.
So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.
It doesn’t beat, “…slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God,” but then, those weren’t Reagan’s words anyway. Nevertheless, the same “mystic chords of memory” are elicited in both speeches.
It wasn’t until I both saw and read the speech that it hit me; it is the first major address that Obama has given where he did not try to cycle the moment back to himself with the use of personal pronouns - a rather jarring habit of Obama’s that subtracts from what he is trying to say.
In total, this was a triumph for the president. The moment, the venue, and the words all came together in what will certainly be remembered as the best speech of this young century.
Ooooooooh…. Rick Moran… you’re gonna get it now.
Don’t you know that the meme on the right is that Obama doesn’t/didn’t give a shit about the victims?
C’mon. Get with the program.
Comment by JerryS — 11/11/2009 @ 10:11 am
Yes, it was a magnificent speech. And all the more so because Obama resisted the temptation to advance policy agendas and preach political correctness. And, as you said, cycle back to himself.
I doubt that many pols would have had the clarity and guts to deliver a speech that focused exclusively on the Fort Hood fallen. There are 364 other days in the year to bloviate about the other stuff.
Comment by Shaun — 11/11/2009 @ 11:02 am
It’s like you have battered-blogger syndrome. You just keep coming back for more.
It’s a good thing you didnt post this over at PJM.
Oh, and also, nice piece.
I don’t get it. I don’t agree with 98% of what Obama is trying to do and because I think he rose magnificently to a state occasion and gave a great speech that makes me…what?
I mean, I used to read grudgingly good reviews of Reagan’s speeches back in the day from the left. The Challenger speech especially was universally well received. Why should I have to walk on pins and needles because on this one occasion, I think the president did a good job?
Anyone who would take me to task for this has some serious problems.
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 11/11/2009 @ 11:54 am
He read a speech. Big deal. The teleprompter helped get him elected. All talk, no action and certainly no personal belief in what his rhetoric suggested. And you have the balls to put him in the class of the great orators of history who actually meant and created the words they spoke. Gosh, what drives you?
Reason and logic. “No personal belief in what his rhetoric suggested?” Where the hell did that come from? How do you know?
Gosh…what drives YOU?
ed.
Comment by SmartyMarty — 11/11/2009 @ 11:56 am
The speech may have been “technically well crafted, etc.”, but it was read from a teleprompter and was devoid of heart-felt emotion. Give me Reagan or GWB who, with emotion, could speak from the heart…and you knew he meant it!
Comment by Lila — 11/11/2009 @ 12:11 pm
for some people even giving credit to where credit is due is already too much. A president’s job includes giving staged performances (a telepromter, so what?). What goes on in anyone’s heart I frankly don’t know (have difficulty interpreting my own at times).
Comment by funny man — 11/11/2009 @ 12:27 pm
Mr. ed:
Reason and logic. “No personal belief in what his rhetoric suggested?” Where the hell did that come from? How do you know?
Gosh…what drives YOU?
I am driven by a desire to see our Country survive in the face of those who wish to create a system anathema to all our traditions, heritage, institutions (not limited to freedom and liberty). Actions speak louder than words and, while a cliche, we merely have to look what “the won” says (extemporaneously)and does thoughtfully (he probably thinks - Marxists and thugs can be very smart), from indecision, appointments, flip-flops (lies), apologies to the world… oh, so many more define “where the hell… (I)know.”
So,RM, what drives you?
Comment by SmartyMarty — 11/11/2009 @ 12:30 pm
I am driven by a desire to see our Country survive in the face of those who wish to create a system anathema to all our traditions, heritage, institutions (not limited to freedom and liberty). Actions speak louder than words and, while a cliche, we merely have to look what “the won” says (extemporaneously)and does thoughtfully (he probably thinks - Marxists and thugs can be very smart), from indecision, appointments, flip-flops (lies), apologies to the world… oh, so many more define “where the hell… (I)know.”
So,RM, what
Comment by SmartyMarty — 11/11/2009 @ 12:31 pm
It was a great speech delivered by a mediocre human being with a magnificent gift of oratory. Far better than I expected from a president who has well demonstrated his disdain for his country and the military that keeps us free. But he resisted his normally overwhelming impulse to make the speech all about him and his agenda and for that I applaud him. As my good friend Elizabeth Scalia (”The Anchoress”) has been wont to opine - sometimes the office truly does make the man. I wish I could take this one example as being indicative of that and I truly do want to. His success is OUR success after all. I will pray for him.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 11/11/2009 @ 1:00 pm
Rush Limbaugh induced, Sean Hannity stoked, Glenn beck reinforced psychosis that says only Republicans love their country and Democrats are evil traitors who can never legitimately be elected to office.
In short, the modern Sarah Palin-ized GOP.
Moose & Squirrel/2012
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/11/2009 @ 1:08 pm
Obama’s Job yesterday to comfort grieving families and a grieving nation. It was not to define the crime or the criminal…it wasn’t even to make sense of it all.
To that end the POTUS did a good job, he honored the sacrifice of the killed and injured, did not make any “shout-outs” and unlike his usual speech it was not narcissistic.
Comment by Sammy Benoit — 11/11/2009 @ 1:12 pm
Rick said:
I know I’m an asshole, but I swear, every time I read the PJM comments on your posts I get all defensive and start ranting at my monitor, “Nobody talks to Rick Moran like that!”
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 11/11/2009 @ 1:29 pm
Oh nuts. how you do go on….
Comment by robin brown — 11/11/2009 @ 1:50 pm
I agree it was a great speech. It could have been delivered as well–or better–by any journeyman actor. But an actor would have taken the time to memorize the whole thing so as to more effectively portray his sincerity.
Comment by Nik M — 11/11/2009 @ 2:48 pm
I have to admit that Obama surprised me. Unlike virtually every speech he has ever given, he did not dwell on the only topic for which he has great experience - himself. I think it is disingenuous to critisize him for having not “taken the time to memorize the whole thing” or because it “was read from a teleprompter.” He did a good job in providing comfort to the grieving and for that I thank him.
Comment by SShiell — 11/11/2009 @ 3:04 pm
The obsession with the TelePrompter could not be more idiotic. It is not necessary — nor is it important or even preferable in all cases — to memorize a speech.
A president gives hundreds of speeches. If it takes him, say, 3 hours to get off-book you’re talking about hundreds if not thousands of hours a year spent in rote memorization.
Further, as a writer who cares about words, I’d far rather have a speech read as written rather than imperfectly memorized and perhaps mangled.
Incidentally, if I’m giving a canned speech I read it. I extemporize in other circumstances but I’ll read an actual speech. It makes sense.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/11/2009 @ 3:17 pm
How Reagan (and others) were scorned for their supposed lack of brains until the discovery of RR’s ideas in his own handwriting. Poor leftists with nothing about him to bash. It is not what or how or where from B. Hussein speaks. So many lies so many contradictory action and the left and people like RM and others just criticize the right without ever showing where Rush or Beck et al have not shown the facts
Sorry - but you really have to learn to be coherent if you want people to respond to you. As it is, I don’t have a clue what you just wrote above.
ed
Comment by SmartyMarty — 11/11/2009 @ 3:37 pm
I just took the time to watch Ronald Reagan’s response to the Challenger disaster and his speech commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion. They are still very moving after all of this time. If one cannot appreciate the orations presented (both content and delivery components), you are letting ideology overwhelm your cognitive processes.
Holy baby Jesus on a pogo stick. You don’t have to agree with a President to appreciate their abilities. And FYI, the Challenger speech was read from a Teleprompter and the “Boys of Pointe du Hoc” speech was read from (gasp!) sheets of paper! And still magnificent.
Comment by still liberal — 11/11/2009 @ 6:23 pm
“But calling the shooter a “terrorist” animated by radical Islam to carry out jihad against those who he perceived to be an enemy wouldn’t have helped the families in their grief nor would it have said anything profound to the nation.”
It would have communicated something very simple and profound: Obama gets it (finally). Everyone in this country is putting two and two together and knows it was an act of terrorism, but not the President. Hiss ‘cracking under stress’ was clueless. The failure to use that “T” word or acknowledge that it was malice aforethought, animated by Jihadist sentiments, that led Hasan to commit terroristic murders shows that Obama doesnt get it. Are we even fighting a ‘war on terror’ still or is it now ‘an international action against man-made disasters’ or some such euphemism?
“It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. ”
The cynical retort would be - not to someone who’s read the 9th surah of the Quran and actually paid attention to what the radical Imams and Bin Ladens have been saying. It is quite easy to understand the evil intent generated by radical Islam against the West.
As for the speech, except for euphemizing terrorism, it was good enough that it rose to the level of GWB speeches that were given under similar situations. Does David Frum have a secret employer?
Comment by Travis Monitor — 11/11/2009 @ 9:38 pm
Travis:
“Terrorism” is a word that has a specific definition. You do not yet have proof that this was terrorism.
A central element of terrorism is that it is an attack on non-combatants for the express purpose of causing terror in a civilian population and effect political changes that benefit a particular ideology.
This was not an attack on civilians, it was an attack on soldiers. That alone makes the “T” word questionable. One could argue that since these soldiers were Stateside and not in combat that they were, in effect, non-combatants. But that’s stretching the definition.
If Nidal had driven to the local mall and shot shoppers then yes, it would probably be terrorism. Although we would still need some understanding of Nidal’s ideology and motivation.
“Muslim shoots people” is not enough to make this terrorism. It doesn’t fit the definition. And we should use words accurately.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/11/2009 @ 10:22 pm
“The obsession with the TelePrompter could not be more idiotic.”
Even the most casual observor of Obama will admit his performances with and without the telepromtor are striking. So, while it may be “idiotic” to you, it is an comment-worthy phenomenon for most of the rest of us.
“A central element of terrorism is that it is an attack on non-combatants for the express purpose of causing terror in a civilian population and effect political changes that benefit a particular ideology.”
It does not have to be an attack on non-combatants for there to be a terror attack. The definition of terrorism, according to dictionary.com is:
“The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.”
Your placing a futher caviot in the definition for non-combatants is your own addition. The Palestinians claim that since Israel drafts all into military service, a suicide attack on a bus full of people is not terrorism, but war. Their rationale, all could become military members so all are legitimate combat targets.
Your logic comes up short in the same manner. The use of force or violence in order to coerce is not limited to non-military targets for it to be a terror act.
That does not mean the Fort Hood action was a terror act. If Nadal intended to coerce - what was his aim? His agenda? What direction did he want the country to go as a result of his action? There could be reason to determine his attack may merit the term terrorism, but not without more investigation. At the same time there is not enough evidence to discount the possibility.
Comment by SShiell — 11/12/2009 @ 1:36 am
The level of silly from the Right is has been on of the most enjoyable part of Obama’s first year. Barrack Obama manages a vote on health care reform, something that no president in a century has been able to manage and the Teabagger’s Department of Silly Walks is fixated on whether the man reads his speeches or memorizes them.
However they are delivered he displays a facility with thought that the mental stuttering of George Bush cannot begin to compare to. Obama will shred Palin like Cheddar in a cheese grater when it comes to debates in three years or so.
Moose & Squirrel/2012
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 1:55 am
““The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.”
Your placing a futher caviot in the definition for non-combatants is your own addition.”
Some sort of caveat is necessary because otherwise the repeated threats of force against Iraq, and indeed, the use of force in both Gulf Wars would fit the above definition and could therefore be described as terrorism.
I’d say that an addition of two definitions, (1) For non-state actors engaging in violence for political ends, and (2) Non-state actors enacting violence against a civilian population not of that state for political pourpose at the behest of a state.
Comment by Drongo — 11/12/2009 @ 7:57 am
I think you need to stop equating leadership with political rhetoric. I have never been impressed with a politicians words just their history and actions. Leadership would be telling the American people “look this health care bill is good for you and the country therefor I will not sign it unless there are no exemptions i.e. congress, federal employees, union members, etc. That would be leadership by both word (and he could say it in a stumbling, stuttering manner)deed. Fat chance.
I examined the speech from the standpoint of history and political rhetoric. I made no judgment regarding Obama’s leadership abilities which, if you read this blog on a regular basis, you would know I find wanting.
I make it plain right at the top how I am examining the speech. Did you miss that part?
ed.
Comment by Appalachian Driftwood — 11/12/2009 @ 8:30 am
“Some of you may know that I am an aficionado of American political rhetoric. There was a time in this country where speeches actually made a difference in politics and policy, and the great orators were known to sway voters, members of Congress, prince, potentate, and history itself with their thundering orations.”
I read the above (”the top”) and assumed you were a fan of American political rhetoric because it was a tool of great leaders.
You were wrong to make that assumption. My interest in political rhetoric is historical in nature, having to do with studying how the spoken word has played a role in our history.
ed.
Comment by Appalachian Driftwood — 11/12/2009 @ 8:50 am
SS:
Your placing a futher caviot in the definition for non-combatants is your own addition.
No, it’s an element in many scholarly definitions of terrorism.
The definition of terrorism is controversial because some want to exclude national liberation movements and some want to include them. The definitional fight is typically over the Maquis, the IRA and the Palestinians.
I prefer a rigorous interpretation that allows us to use different terms to define national liberation or legitimate resistance movements.
Some examples:
Tamar Meisels (2008): advocates a consistent and strict definition of terrorism, which she defines as “the intentional random murder of defenseless non-combatants, with the intent of instilling fear of mortal danger amidst a civilian population as a strategy designed to advance political ends.”
Carsten Bockstette (2008): “Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.”
Daniel D. Novotny (2007): “An act is terrorist if and only if (1) it is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without the legitimate authority of a recognized state; (2) it is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants; (3) the goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant; (4) this goal is pursued by means of fear-provoking violence.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/12/2009 @ 9:22 am
“No, it’s an element in many scholarly definitions of terrorism.”
And according to Wikipedia, “A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.”
The General Assembly resolution 49/60 titled “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism,” adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism without mention of combatant status: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
But On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”
Maybe another way to differentiate would be the actions of the victims, especially if they are military. Are they in a combat zone? Are their actions consistent with combatant status? Or are they targets for terror, regardless of their status?
I am just saying that it is disengenuous to eliminate the possibility of terrorism just because the victims were military. Maybe a better characterization is whether the victims of the act were innocents. But that could very well start another discussion.
Comment by SShiell — 11/12/2009 @ 11:27 am
With all due respect, Mr Moran, Obama’s speech was ear candy, speaking well to some important emotional values, but somehow unsatisfying from the perspective of leadership and yes, history.
I prefer the draft Wretchard produced:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/11/a-writing-exercise/
There is a speech which respects duty and responsibility, which history has looked upon with favor.
Comment by Dan D — 11/12/2009 @ 1:24 pm
#20: “A central element of terrorism is that it is an attack on non-combatants for the express purpose of causing terror in a civilian population and effect political changes that benefit a particular ideology.”
We have no plenty of evidence for the political/jihadist motivations.
we know now of Hasan’s strange and angry outbursts to others in the military, his contacts and conversations with Al Qaeda members (!) and radical Imams, etc.
As for the ‘civilian’ caveat, it’s invalid -
MR REYNOLDS: ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE 9/11 ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON WAS NOT TERRORISM?!?
After all, every person killed there was military.
#27 “I am just saying that it is disengenuous to eliminate the possibility of terrorism just because the victims were military.”
Absolutely correct. This domestic Army base required members of the military (except MPs) to be unarmed. They are certainly ‘non-combatants’ when it comes to their relationship with a *fellow officer*. There was zero expectation of any ‘enemy’.
And if 9/11 attack on Pentagon was terrorism, what’s the difference with Major Hasan in terms of targets? ? If Major Hasan flew a Piper cub into the Fort Hood cafeteria, killing 12, instead of shooting at people, killing 12, shouting the same words the 9/11 hijackers used in their final moments, would Mr Reynolds admit it was terrorism?
Done Dare Call it Terrorism:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/11/none-dare-call-it-terrorism.html
Terrorism is a specific form of violence that harms innocents in order to attack our wider society and to advance a political agenda. Major Hasan’s murderous rampage is an apparent act of terrorism, based on the evidence we have seen so far.
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 11/12/2009 @ 5:03 pm
Coeection: We have *now* plenty of evidence for the political/jihadist motivations. We know now of Hasan’s strange and angry outbursts to others in the military, his contacts and conversations with Al Qaeda members and radical Imams, etc.
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 11/12/2009 @ 5:05 pm
One more thing - “United States Army Major Nidal Hasan proclaimed himself a “soldier of Allah” on private business cards he obtained over the Internet and kept in a box at his apartment near Fort Hood, Texas.”
… wow, the guy has a Jihadist CALLING CARD fer cryin’ out loud, one has to be blinded by ideology (liberal “hear no terrorism, see no terrorism” ideology) not to see this as an apparently willful act of terrorism.
ABC News - “Many ties to Jihad web sites”
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hasan-multiple-mail-accounts-officials/story?id=9065692&nwltr=blotter_featureMore
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 11/12/2009 @ 5:10 pm
Republicans, always looking out for national security. Or as we like to call them, gigantic a**hats.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/13/2009 @ 3:35 pm