Monday, November 09, 2009
CIA disinterest in Hasan's al Qaeda contacts coincides with Obama's order to stop investigating Black Muslims
The official story is that Hasan was given a pass because he "gave no indication he was likely to engage in violence." In particular, we did not know that he was actually about to start killing people: "There was no indication that Major Hasan was planning an imminent attack at all, or that he was directed to do anything." All we knew is that he was on the side of al Qaeda. As Chris Matthews asks: "That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?" Actually, it is the only crime defined in the Constitution.
The time frame is right for the Obama order to have chilled the Hasan investigation. According to ABC:
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda.Detected contacts between Hasan and the 9/11 Imam Anwar al-Awlaki go back further:
Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between the military psychiatrist accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings.They were watching him. Then they stopped. If Obama's order is responsible for the decision to leave Hasan free from observation and restraint, let's hope that the actors are not able to hide it from Senator Lieberman, who should include the Little Rock attack in his investigation as well.
UPDATE: Obamatons admit that they shut down Hasan investigation because Hasan's right to contact al Qaeda recruiters is "protected by the First Amendment"
This was clearly a change made by the Obama administration, since Hasan was being investigated until the Obamaton's stopped it, and it fits with Obama's decision to treat terrorism as civilian crime. If Hasan's communication with al Qaeda was not in itself something he could be prosecuted for (protected by the First Amendment, whether or not that is correct), they acted as if there was no legitimate reason to pursue it.
Note that even if our intelligence agencies were ONLY interested in criminal prosecutions, they would still not behave this way. They would want be looking for evidence of criminal behavior, and listening to Americans who are talking to al Qaeda recruiters would be just about the number one place to look for evidence of criminal behavior.
How does this fit with Obama's decision to treat terrorism as civilian crime? It follows the same pattern of finding excuses not fight the war on terror. First, acts of war are treated as civilian crime. Then they find excuses not to effectively prosecute terror even within the limited means that this approach affords.
The consistent theme is opening doors for al Qaeda to attack us, in line with Muhammad Atta's prayer on the eve of 9/11:
Oh God, you who open all doors, please open all doors for me, open all venues for me, open all avenues for me.The objective fact is that Obama is working to answer Muhammad Atta's prayer.
The same thing has occured in the past merely as a product of stupidity, as when Mayor Lindsay of New York thought he was being generous to black people when he decided to be systematically lenient with black criminals, creating a tidal wave of crime that devastated the black community (along with everyone else).
General Casey was being this kind of stupid when he suggested that the benefits of having radical Muslims in the Army outweighed the risks:
Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.No, he didn't acknowledge that Hasan was a radical Muslim, but that is exactly the point. He is unwilling to distinguish the bad from the good in Islam. He is unwilling to even try to understand what distinguishes the bad (adherence to orthodox doctrines, which are radically hostile to American liberty). To scrutinize Muslims for adherence to anti-American ideology would in itself be hostile to Muslims, in the minds of these empty-headed "multiculturalists," the same way that Mayor Lindsay thought that putting black criminals in jail was hostile to blacks.
If we really want to help decent liberty-loving Muslims, we need to interdict those who throw suspicion on all Muslims by continually plotting and committing acts of war against us. People like General Casey claim to be worried about backlash:
I’m concerned that this increased speculation [that the "Allahu Akbar" shouting Major Hasan might have been motivated by Islamic ideology] could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that.But the only reason Casey has occasion to worry about this phantasmagoric "backlash" in the first place is because his command turned a blind eye to overwhelming evidence that Hasan was motivated by Islamic ideology to commit acts of violent jihad against his brothers in arms.
So people CAN be this stupid. There is plenty of precedent. But is Obama this stupid? To me the answer is clearly no. First, many other parts fit the same pattern. Obama, for instance, bars executive departments from even uttering the words "jihadist" or "war on terror." The Bush administration also avoided talking about Islam's responsibility for mass murder, but it was politically correct in the old fashioned sense of maintaining a low profile. The Bushies didn't actually stop looking at Islamic connections.
Obama has actually ordered his people to stop investigating Muslims. That is what enabled the Little Rock murders, and it is apparently what happened in the Fort Hood case. Obama is figuratively and perhaps even literally opening the door for radical jihadists. He is letting them pass into our institutions with LOWERED scrutiny. Dial up a suspicious connection and you will be investigated, UNLESS you are Muslim, in which case the orders are NOT to investigate. This is documented in the case of Black Muslims, and strongly indicated (by the Hasan case) for Muslims in general.
Then there is, as Obama puts it, "my Muslim faith."
Connecting Obama's dots
There is overwhelming evidence that Obama actually IS a Muslim. He denies it, but that is meaningless, given that he has told other blatant lies about his religious background. In 2007 he told ABC that "the only connection I’ve had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from that country," when in fact he was raised in a Muslim household by a Muslim man who he embraced as father and mentor. Obama claims that "I’ve never practiced Islam," but his childhood friends remember very differently.
Why would Obama lie? Connect the dots. The majority of Obama's longtime confidants, helpmates and mentors are not just Muslim, but are Islamo-fascists (or Islamic supremacists). These include Obama's "cousin" Raila Odinga (who pretends to be an Anglican, but was outed by Kenya's Muslim leadership as as a Muslim intent on imposing sharia law), Bill "Abu Zayd" Ayers, Jeremiah Wright (who earned a masters degree in Islam), Nation of Islam racist Khalid Al-Mansour (who managed Obama's admission to Harvard Law),and PLO terror supporter Rashid Khalidi (who Obama calls his best dinner buddy).
The primary purpose for which Muslims are allowed to lie is to advance the cause of Islamic conquest. (See Koran verse 16:106, and the hadiths of Tabari 8:23 and Sahih Muslim, book 19, 4436.) And wadda ya know: here we have this Muslim-raised person with extensive Islamofascist connections telling documented lies about his religion. The dots connect themselves. We can choose to be stupid, and pretend that generosity to decent Muslims demands that we not connect the dots about indecent Muslims, but well, that would be stupid, and that is what one has to be to pretend that Obama is just being stupid. You have to be really really stupid.
Obviously Obama is using the politically correct stupidity of our left wing elites to keep these elites from questioning and exposing his racist, Communist and Islamic commitments. When Obama sided against democratic institutions and with Hugo Chavez it Honduras, it was not a mistake. It is impossible to side against the rule of law and with Hugo Chavez by mistake. It is not by mistake that Obama is desperate to legitimize the Ahmadinijad-Khameini regime in Iran, or that he wants to cede the Afghan countryside to the Taliban. These are policy positions. They express Obama's goals.
The Fort Hood massacre was policy too. Obama instituted an explicit policy of curtailing investigation of the most threatening al Qaeda contacts, directly enabling jihadist mass murder on American soil. Strata has more.
UPDATE II: Underwear bomber also was given a pass explicitly because he is Muslim
American Spectator has a quote from a State Department employee, talking about State's failure to follow suit when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was banned from Britain (emphasis added):
This employee says that despite statements from the Obama Administration, such information was flagged and given higher priority during the Bush Administration, but that since the changeover "we are encouraged to not create the appearance that we are profiling or targeting Muslims. I think career employees were uncomfortable with the Bush procedures and policies and were relieved to not have to live under them any longer."Blue haired Lutheran grannies get hauled aside for pat down searches, while Muslims are singled out for NON-examination. (Strata connects more dots here.)
After 9/11, Obama told us that if things got ugly he would side with Muslim Americans, but things already were ugly. Orthodox Muslims had just perpetrated a sneak attack on America and American Muslims were almost uniformly unapologetic, expressing only their fears that they might be attacked in retaliation. Criticisms of the orthodox doctrines that motivated the sneak attack were almost unheard, suggesting that what decent Muslims there are in America live in terror of the bad (not entirely surprising, given that the Islamic punishment for questioning established doctrines is death).
True to his word this time, Obama has been siding with the Muslims. He is not on the side of the decent Muslims and against the indecent ones. He admits no distinctions--partof his refusal to scrutinize Muslims--and simply sides with them all. It is bad enough to lumping of the good with the bad. It helps the bad (giving them the cover of the good) and hurts the good (making them share blame and suspicion with the bad). Obama goes even further, giving preferential treatment to these lumped together good and bad Muslims, even in homeland security, actually assistging the bad in getting past our defenses.
If someone actually believed the bromide about Islam being a "religion of peace," they might lump the good Muslims with the bad Mayor Lindsay style: as a pure expression of moral imbecility. Just stupid, stupid, stupid, about matters of value and how to pursue it. But Obama knows full well that the only "peace" envisioned by Islam is the peace of total victory and world domination. He studied the Koran for years as a boy, and the Koran is perfectly clear:
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Koran, verse 9:29)Think Obama might have missed that part? Then why did he spend his entire adult life caballing with Islamofascists?
Fort Hood aftermath: order all soldiers to carry sidearms at all times, except where prohibited by law
"I was confused and just shocked," said Spc. Jerry Richard, 27, who works at the center but was not on duty during the shooting. "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."Does Army Chief of Staff George "ignore the shouts of Allah akbar" Casey know that we are at war? Why in the world were none of the soldiers in the processing center armed? This is policy? To allow congregations of unarmed soldiers?
Soldiers at Fort Hood don't carry weapons unless they are doing training exercises.
None of our on-duty soldiers should ever be without at least a sidearm without good reason, and soldiers on leave should be encourage to carry as well. At least Casey seems conscience-struck by what he and others have wrought and is ordering a review. But who doesn't already know that gun-free zones are a very bad idea? Only anti-gun morons. We have anti-gun morons in charge of our military?
has been the policy for decades. Occasionally, I will see soldiers carrying rifles to and from training areas (ranges), but those rifles are unloaded I'm told. The only time the rifles are loaded is after soldiers have arrived at a range. Nobody is allowed to carry "any kind of weapon" on post, including, I believe, non-firearm weapons such as knives. State concealed carry licenses are not valid. Terrorists and gun-control activists have reviewed these rules (and approve of them).