If you watched the Sunday news shows this weekend, you saw an endless parade of left-wing talking heads, all making the same claim -  The Fort Hood shootings were nothing more than the product of one man, Major Nadal Malik Hasan, whose mind had somehow snapped.

You were also treated to a statement from our Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who was visiting the United Arab Emirates.  She’s deeply concerned that the Fort Hood killings may create an anti-Muslim backlash in the United States.  Keep in mind that this is a woman who, during her first few months in office, issued a report labeling every U.S. Christian, conservative, and returning soldier as possible terrorist threats.  She later defended the report claiming that its findings were ”not accusations, they’re assessments.”

Now, of course, she’s extremely worried about stereotyping.

So, in deference to Ms. Napolitano, and President Obama, we’re not going to do that.  We’re just going to make an “assessment” based on the facts.

1. In 2001 Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was a spiritual adviser to three of the 9/11 hijackers.  At the time, two of the future hijackers were in attendance.  After the shootings, a fellow Ft. Hood Muslim said that Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned al-Awlaki’s teachings.  Link HERE
2. An Army Psychiatrist at Walter Reed, Hasan was once ordered to give a “grand round” medical lecture.  Instead, he began preaching to the assembled doctors, trying to frighten them into joining Islam with the following claims:   ”If you don’t believe, you are condemned to hell - If you don’t believe, your head is cut off - If you don’t believe, you’re set on fire – If you don’t believe, burning oil is burned down your throat.”  NPR
3. Early in his military career, at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Hasan was reprimanded for proselytizing to patients about his Muslim faith. NPR
4. Hasan regularly described the U.S. War on Terror as the “War on Islam.”  Bloomberg
5. Colonel Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at Ft. Hood, claims that, only six months ago, Hasan Made “Outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and even once claimed that Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  – FoxNews
6. In internet postings, Hasan expressed his respect for suicide bombers, comparing them to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades.  “To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate,” Hasan wrote. ”It’s 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.”    -AP via Star Tribune
7. US Officials knew, MONTHS AGO, that Hasan was attempting to contact Al Qaeda.  It’s not yet known to what degree he was successful.   - ABC News
8. In the weeks leading up to the attack, Hasan had begun wearing Muslim garb.  KDH News
9. The morning before the attack, he was again out proselytizing and handed out Qurans to his neighbors KDH News
10. As he began firing, Hasan shouted “Allah Akbar!”  Arabic for “God is great!”
11. Hasan’s recently discovered business card bore the acronym SOA (SWT) -  SOA stands for “Soldier Of Allah,” while SWT is used by many Muslims to abbreviate “Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala” - “Glory to Him, the Exalted” -  see the card at Atlas Shrugs

So, while evidence that Islamic extremism was central to the Ft. Hood attack piles up, left wing politicians, news organizations, and the always idiotic Lindsey Graham do their best to minimize its impact.

1. President Obama said, despite the ongoing investigation, that “We cannot fully know” Hasan’s motives. – Washington Examiner
2. Lindsey Graham (despite Barack’s claim that there’s no way to know) has apparently figured it out.  He said “At the end of the day this is not about his religion — the fact that this man was a Muslim.”   – Sunday Morning on Face The Nation
3. NPR was there to jump on the lone-crazy bandwagon, saying ”This Muslim terrorist narrative won’t convince everyone.”   They think it’s possible that  “Perhaps soldiers in the mayhem of the moment only imagined Hasan said “Allahu Akbar.”
4. On Saturday, The New York Times ignored the fact that the investigation was still in progress and ran a story claiming that there is “Little Evidence of Terror Plot in Base Killings.”  They cited only anonymous sources (dubious, given the Times history of story fabrication) who allegedly said that the investigators had found nothing linking Hasan to terrorism.  Shortly thereafter we got word that intelligence officials knew Hasan was trying to contact Al Qaeda.
5. CNN ran a story which asserts that Hasan’s religion was a factor, but tries its best to make the claim that Hasan’s attack was predicated on the notion that he felt “disrespected” by the U.S. military.  They quote Hasan’s cousin as saying “”If he had killed one or two, I could say that he was defending himself.  But for one to kill 13 people and injured more than 30, I personally don’t think that it was because someone was bothering him. There is a bigger reason that this happened and no one knows it besides Nidal.”  So, according to Hasan’s cousin, one or two murders would have been acceptable?

Examples of the decision to portray Hasan as a depressed, frightened man who just snapped are everywhere.  With that in mind, it’s time to ask the following questions of the media, the government, and the military:

1. Why was Hasan not brought under scrutiny sooner, if Intelligence knew that he was trying to contact Al Qaeda?   This is especially problematic when you realize that together, he and two of the 9/11 hijackers attended a mosque lead by a radical Imam.
2. Why, if he was shirking his medical duties to proselytize radical Islam to an assembly of doctors was he not dealt with beyond a minimal reprimand?
3. Why did those at Ft. Hood who were disturbed by his comments not investigate them?
4. Since everyone is focusing on the fact that he acted alone, how many men need to be involved before an act like this is considered a terrorist attack?
5. Why are you so unwilling to face the facts of this matter?

No one is making the argument that every Muslim is some evil terrorist-in-waiting.  Nobody wants to live in an Orwellian world where our religious choices are dictated to us by an oppressive government.  Freedom of religion is one of the main reasons this country exists in the first place.  There is no reason to change that. 

More and more, though, it’s beginning to look like Hasan was repeatedly given a pass because no one wanted to anger the Muslim community.  The people who allowed this attack to occur did so by ignoring the warning signs in order to avoid the appearance of being anti-Islamic.  They should be ashamed of themselves.   If we’ve become so beholden to political correctness that we can no longer identify those who would harm us due to a fear of offending others of the same faith, we may as well throw in the towel right now. 

If you don’t think that’s happening here, ask yourself this: 

If Hasan had been a member of an extremist Christian sect who constantly tried to convert his co-workers while attempting to get in touch with members of the neo-Nazi movement, would the left be bending over backwards to argue that his religious affiliations had nothing to do with the attack?

You know the answer.  Are you brave enough to admit it?

- Robert Laurie