Freedom of BLEEP

It’s sickening how many liberals attempt to elicit sympathy for terrorists. Under the guise of compassion, they prevaricate the facts, discount the innocent that have been murdered, and even make excuses for these cold-blooded killers. Why?

Nidal Malik Hasan is a case in point. This is a man who equated terrorist suicide bombers with a US soldier that threw himself on a grenade to save his colleagues. He said that terrorists have a noble cause. He attempted to contact al Qaeda on multiple occasions. He yelled “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire and taking innocent lives, connoting his support for the extremists who wage “holy war” against the US.

Still, liberals want to make sure that Hasan is not tried as a terrorist. The liberal news-spin site Drudge Retort ran a headline saying “FBI: Hasan Not Involved in Terrorism” linking to an article in the Houston Chronicle.

But this is not at all what the article reports. The FBI actually said “he was not involved in terrorist activities when a joint terrorism task force crossed paths with him last year. [...] The investigation to date has not identified a motive, and a number of possibilities remain under consideration.”

After examining commentary like this, it might be easier to understand why some liberals think Hasan isn’t a terrorist: they have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader. If Hasan thinks terrorists have a “noble cause,” doesn’t this indicate a motive? If he attempted to contact al Qaeda on multiple occasions, doesn’t this indicate premeditation? If he yelled “Allah is greatest” while killing innocent people, can we reasonably believe this was anything other than an act of terrorism? Whether or not Hasan had direct contact with al Qaeda, Bin Laden himself has encouraged lone acts of terrorism. So does it really matter that Hasan acted alone?

With the facts heavily stacked against them, liberals have tried to excuse Hasan as simply being insane. But this position implies that some terrorists are actually sane. Do liberals think that killing thousands of innocent people is the behavior of a perfectly sane person?

Instead of sweeping this under the rug, we need to treat the Fort Hood incident for what it really is - an act of terrorism. Let’s not forget that there were plenty of warning signs; denying the problem allowed the Fort Hood Massacre to happen.

With a smug grin on his face, President Obama walked up to the podium at the Tribal Nations Conference to address the nation about the massacre at Fort Hood. He opened with a lighthearted “shout out” to Joe Medicine Crow. After using almost three minutes to talk about how he is working to improve conditions for Native Americans, he finally mentions Fort Hood.

Obama giving a shout-out before Fort Hood speech

Talk about a real class act. He spent so much time paying lip service to a slice of his electorate that many viewers thought the wrong clip was playing. Where’s Michael Moore and his stopwatch now?

Even NBC described Obama’s behavior as a display of “frightening insensitivity.” When the President finally did begin to address the Fort Hood tragedy, he still had to read his comments. Seemingly no heartfelt emotions; only the disingenuous teleprompter.