Rightbloggers Denounce Liberal Media’s Defense of the Fort Hood Massacre


On Thursday Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot up Fort Hood, killing 12. Though a soldier for 12 years, Hasan apparently demonstrated, out loud, loyalty and affection for global jihad. It’s appropriate to ask what such a person was doing in the U.S. Army.

Rightbloggers saw a bigger problem, though: the liberal media. Though they got nearly all of their information about Hasan from such sources, they yet accused them of trying to cover up his Muslim roots, and even of excusing his massacre.

In the aftermath of the shooting, mainstream sources hustled to get the facts quickly, but not quickly enough for the Media Research Council, which complained, “CBS and NBC Fail to ID Hasan as Muslim,” while celebrating ABC’s Charlie Gibson, who “wasn’t cowed by political correctness” and revealed Hasan was “a Muslim convert” — though Hasan was apparently born into a Muslim family.

MRC did note with approval that “all three morning shows on Friday identified the man who killed 12 at an Army base in Texas as a Muslim,” but was disturbed that Diane Sawyer quoted a person who said “I wish his name had been Smith.” Disturbed also was C. Edmund Wright who, in a 1,100-word peroration on Sawyer’s reference, said, “Hasan — had some decidedly un-Smith like beliefs… 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.” It’s an interesting analysis, but to remain at full combat strength, the Army will probably have to at least consider allowing soldiers named Jones to serve as well.

Hasan’s faith was very well known by then, and the media began to spool out thousands of words about the shooter, including at least one astrological analysis and many, many psychological backgrounders, which rightbloggers generally found to be treasonous.

For example, MSNBC included in one of its stories about the case a quote from a neighbor of Hasan: “He was mistreated. He didn’t have nobody. He was all alone.” PunditPawn’s analysis: “MSNBC Getting Jumpstart on Defending Terrorist Hasan.”

“Why is the Main Stream Media Painting Hasan as a Victim?” said SamJ Times, with no quotes — just the names of major media outlets, which it apparently considers sufficient. “Obama and his Drive by media will do their best to spin this into nothing more then a metally Ill victim,” said Foxmuldar.

Saber Point was unsurprised: “For many years, liberals have shown great concern for the perpetrators of crime rather than the victims.” “The media can often be stupid,” said The Last Crusade, “but when it censors reporting for political or social engineering reasons, freedom is jeopardized.”

Pajamas Media’s Phyllis Chesler said “the New York Times views the jihadist as the victim” because they mentioned the strain of his work as a possible factor in his derangement. Nonetheless she admitted that the Times had revealed Hasan to be “a man who viewed America as the aggressor,” which did not let them off the hook, as in Chesler’s view that just means “he sounds like a New York Times reader himself.”

Chesler added, “Some may choose to view him as dysfunctional, psychiatrically challenged… but that does not justify or excuse his jihadic crime.” She did not explain how or where the Times thus excused him, but revealed that Hasan “self-identifies as a Palestinian” — something the Times had reported days earlier — and went on to state that “The entire world, not just the American media and American military, have identified Palestinians as the most noble of victims” — in fact, “existentially innocent.” Again, no source was provided.

Chesler further informed us that “I am a psychologist, a retired Professor of Psychology and a psycho-analytically oriented psychotherapist,” and thus qualified to offer a diagnosis: “Hasan did not commit jihadic mass murder because he is ‘mentally ill,’ but because he is a jihadist.”

WorldNetDaily reported that Hasan “played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama’s transition into the White House.” When various sources showed that the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, sponsor of the May event at which Hasan was a “participant,” was not an official part of the transition, and that Hasan’s involvement consisted of showing up to meetings as a member of the audience, WND updated that “the institute’s deputy director is quoted saying he is unable to say if Hasan made any input to the group’s final recommendations.”

Some rightbloggers came, though wanly, to WND’s defense. “[Liberal blogger David] Neiwert does have a point that Corsi’s headline and what is said in the story itself appear to be complete opposites,” said Real Truth Online, “but one thing Neiwert does not do is offer any refutation of the fact that Hasan’s name does appear on the Task Force Event Participant list… They were participants, not mere bystanders or observers. If this had happened under Bush…” etc. Conservative Hideout accepted that Obama was not directly involved because “I cannot see Obama surrounding himself with anyone from the military, except in cases he cannot avoid, such as the Joint Cheifs — or in the case of a photo op with returning dead soldiers.”

“Maj. Hasan as Anita Hill and Ft. Hood as Virginia Tech?” headlined RedState’s Mike Gamecock DeVine. He predicted that Hasan would offer a “not guilty by reason of insanity or ‘fighting words’ defense” based on “his traumatizing endurance of racial epithets beginning soon after September 11, 2009.” DeVine’s fantasy reminded DeVine “of Anita Hill’s last hour allegations of actionable ‘sexual harassment’ against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomasduring his nomination hearing.” Also, neither the Virginia Tech shooting victims in 2007 nor the Fort Hood victims were holding weapons, leading DeVine to ask, “Has the same kind of political correctness that controls the ObamaDems of the Democratic Party, now disarm our Armed Forces from protecting themselves?” — though the lack of loaded weapons among Fort Hood soldiers is a long-standing practice that predates the reign of the ObamaDems. “Serious questions,” DeVine understandably added.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was blamed for not catching Hasan. “While DHS was busy putting tea parties and anyone who dares fly the official military Gadsen flag on the domestic terrorist watch list,” said Dana Loesch, “a real terrorist was spouting off online, glorifying suicide bombings and our mission in Iraq.” “Yeah, Napolitano, et al. seem to have had their priorities misplaced,” said Instapundit. In case you might be led to assume that et al. referred to other relevant government officials in power during Hasan’s 12 years of military service, the remainder of the Instapundit post is about government persecution of Tea Party people.

The inevitable what-ifs were floated. “If investigators had discovered that Hasan had recorded a Glenn Beck segment on his TiVo,” claimed Tom Maguire, “the Times would be fretting about a rising tide of right wing extremism.” “On the upside, at least this psychopath wasn’t a wild-eyed conservative teabagger,” said Jammie Wearing Fool. “Then Obama and the left might be spurred into action.”

Oh, right, Obama. What does it have to do with him? Plenty, said rightbloggers. Some just went for funsies (“Barack Hasan Obama” “DID NIDAL MALIK HASAN VOTE FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?“). Some went with the discredited WND report (“perhaps, he’s having to try to figure out how to keep people from finding out that the terrorist who attacked our Soldiers at Ft. Hood was a member of Obama’s transition team”).

Commentary‘s Linda Chavez found it shameful that Obama, attending a Native American affairs conference, gave a “shout out” to its participants before getting to his remarks about the shooting. “I wonder how many media outlets will compare Obama’s performance to President Bush’s ‘Pet Goat’ moment on 9/11,” said Chavez.

If she meant to include rightbloggers among the media outlets, she can’t have been disappointed. “PBO’s ‘My Pet Goat’ Moment,” said Moonbattery. “Barack Obama has now had his own ‘My Pet Goat’ moment,” said Conservative New Media. “Obama ‘Reads My Pet Goat’ After Ft. Hood Shooting,” said Associated Press Check. “WAS IT HIS MY PET GOAT MOMENT?” said Big Dogs House. “Obama’s “My Pet Goat” Moment,” said HolyCoast. “Our President had a ‘Pet Goat’ moment,” said State of the Nation. “Michael Moore railed on President Bush for reading with the children ‘My Pet Goat’ as the news of 9/11 unfolded. Well, now we’ll see if Moore and other extreme Obama supporters will recognize this President’s ‘Pet Goat Moment.'” Etc.

In a rare break with rightblogger received wisdom, National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg dissented: “I always thought Bush’s response was fine… this example works in Bush’s favor and against Obama. And it makes a lot of Bush’s critics look even worse for politicizing that moment on 9/11.”

Some ranged further afield — “The more I hear about this Major Nidal Malik Hasan character,” said The Snooper Report, “the more I believe that amabO deliberately sent this cretin to Texas knowing what was to take place.” But this, of course, is (at least at the moment) a fringe opinion, whereas the notion that the press is trying to defend Hasan’s rampage to its readers is, for rightbloggers, mainstream.