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."