Obama Stands with Dictators and Muslims

Obama Stands with Dictators and Muslims

Kyle-Anne Shiver

With nearly a year in office, we now know without doubt exactly where our own president stands on vital national security matters.  He has a track record and has shown his true colors over and over again.

In Honduras, he picked the side of the dictator-wannabe without hesitation.  He has used every diplomatic weapon at his disposal to destroy the constitutional democracy in Honduras, even cutting off financial aid and blocking diplomatic visas.  He went the full gamut of meddling there and made no bones about it.

He moved to cancel long-planned missile defense shields for Poland and the Czech Republic, alerting Russia that he is not going to put up a fight to preserve freedom in former Soviet bloc countries.  He even made a point of denying Berliners his presence on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Our president sends clear signals when it comes to wimping out on the friends of liberty.

With our sister state Israel the only functioning democracy in the Middle East and the only non-Islamic country, Barack Obama and our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have been forceful bullies, demanding up-front, dangerous concessions from Israel, while securing no concessions whatsoever from any of its enemies.  While Israel fights for her very existence, President Obama deigns to chit-chat with the Iranian Hitler-act-alike.  What signal could be clearer?

President Obama doesn’t want to be seen as “meddling” in the affairs of another nation if that nation is Muslim.  Hence his reticence in any verbal support for the protesters in Iran.  Yet he meddles both in public and behind the scenes nonstop against Israel.

Now, we come to the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, carried out by a man wearing the uniform of our own team, and the president does not want to “draw conclusions.”  What he seems to mean is that he does not want to “draw conclusions” against a Muslim.  We now have clear reports that the red flags surrounding Hasan, the Ft Hood terrorist, were so clear that it would take a complete ninny wearing earplugs and blinders not to see them.

The U.K. Telegraph reported yesterday:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

It was the latest in a series of “red flags” about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America’s largest military installation, on Thursday.

Do flags get any redder than this?  Are our valiant military men and women to be subjected to terror from within because our president and his cabinet do not wish to offend the delicate sensibilities of Muslims?

Apparently.  When Barack Obama wrote his book, The Audacity of Hope, he laid out clearly where he would stand in his desire to protect Muslim Americans from any sort of profiling that might make them uncomfortable.
 

Being ever the stalwart protector of delicate Muslim feelings, Barack Obama wrote this on page 261:
“In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging.  They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” (emphasis mine)
To Muslims, President Obama is keeping his promise.  He refuses to “draw conclusions” from the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, carried out by a Muslim American who made no secret of his intentions. 
So, how many Americans will die because of President Obama’s utterly misplaced loyalties?  Are human lives not more important than “feelings” and “sensibilities”?  Was the Ft Hood massacre not an act of war carried out by a traitor to the United States of America?

Is President Obama himself betraying his oath to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic?

So, if a school bus driver made the same kinds of threats, would he be allowed to continue driving innocent American children to their classes so as not to offend the feelings of Muslims?  If a worker in a federal or state office building talks incessantly of jihad and promises to become a fighter of the infidels, do his or her needs to “feel a sense of security and belonging” trump the colleagues’ right to live?  From where I’m sitting, it would seem so — in the morally perverse universe of our president.

The right to self-defense is as fundamentally grounded as any could possibly be.  The right to preemptively secure oneself and others from stated threats is solid.  Yet, when it comes to these matters, our president is only sure that he must protect the enemy.  When it comes to protecting us and our allies, he goes all wobbly at the knees and can’t tell where he stands.  

There isn’t much that makes blood boil faster than seeing brave, upstanding defenders of freedom gunned down by one of their own — especially when the killer should have been removed and probably dishonorably discharged at the very least, long, long, long before he callously took innocent life in the cause of Allah. 

Today, blood is boiling all over America, but apparently not at the White House.  Ice water in the president’s veins, perhaps?  Or passion reserved only for our enemies?

This whole conundrum leaves a sane person speechless.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/obama_stands_with_dictators_an.html at November 09, 2009 – 06:14:07 PM EST

Advertisements

GOP takes aim at vulnerable Dems in health war

GOP takes aim at vulnerable Dems in health war
By: Alex Isenstadt
November 9, 2009 04:14 AM EST
Within minutes of Saturday’s historic House vote on health care reform, Republicans pronounced the political death of Rep. Thomas Perriello (D-Va.), pointing to the vulnerable freshman congressman’s vote in favor of the bill.

And in the aftermath of the politically charged vote, Perriello wasn’t the only Democratic congressman whose fortunes were being reassessed. The GOP, which voted nearly in lock step against the measure, began crowing about the demise of various other vulnerable members and seized on the moment as a milestone in the path back to a House majority.

Other than Perriello — who was the target of 12 consecutive postvote GOP e-mails accusing him of breaking his promises — a handful of members immediately stood out for casting especially tough votes.

Three of them are junior legislators from highly competitive Ohio districts: first-term Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy and Steve Driehaus, and Rep. Zack Space, a second-term Democrat from a district that backed GOP presidential candidate John McCain in 2008.

Kilroy, who is facing a 2010 rematch against the Republican she narrowly defeated by 2,300 votes last year, took to the House floor Saturday morning to declare her support for the bill.

“This is a moral issue,” Kilroy said, in a speech that noted her own trials with multiple sclerosis.

Driehaus, like Kilroy a freshman Democrat who is facing a rematch with his 2008 opponent, former GOP Rep. Steve Chabot, voted for the health care bill only after it was stripped of funding for abortion.

“This isn’t about politics,” Driehaus told POLITICO before stepping into the chamber to cast his vote. “It’s about doing what’s right for the American people. I haven’t thought a minute politically what this might mean. This is about doing the right thing.”

For Perriello, Kilroy, Driehaus and Space, the health care bill represented their second exceptionally tough vote this year — the other was on the cap-and-trade bill — meaning they’ve essentially doubled down on the ambitious national Democratic agenda.

New York Democratic Rep. Bill Owens, who was sworn into office earlier this week after winning a closely watched special election, may also find that he sinks or swims with the national party next year.

Winning narrowly in what was originally a three-way contest, Owens voted for Saturday’s bill after holding an ambiguous position regarding a public option. It didn’t take the National Republican Congressional Committee long to pounce, saying his vote “could be the quickest broken promise in the history of Congress.”

On the whole, however, many Democrats sitting in politically marginal seats took the path of least resistance. Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the $1.2 trillion package, 31 hail from districts McCain won in 2008. And seven of the 10 Democrats rated as most endangered by The Cook Political Report also voted “no.”

 

Rep. Frank Kratovil Jr., a freshman Democrat from a Maryland district that McCain won with 58 percent of the vote and who is facing a prospective rematch with the GOP opponent he narrowly defeated, announced Friday that the legislation did not sufficiently rein in costs and that he wasn’t satisfied it was a “sustainable solution.”

Rep. Walt Minnick, a first-term Democrat from an Idaho district where McCain won 62 percent, said Friday he opposed the bill because it didn’t do enough to limit health care costs.

Alabama Rep. Bobby Bright, whose Montgomery-based district McCain won with 63 percent of the vote, said before the vote that he couldn’t support the bill because of cost concerns and a government-run public option.

“I’m voting for what the majority of what my constituents want,” Bright told POLITICO Saturday before stepping into the chamber to vote. “I consider myself a spokesman for my district.”

The lone Republican to vote for the bill, Louisiana Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, also had a compelling reason to break ranks — the freshman represents a heavily African-American, solidly Democratic district. The six House Democrats running for statewide office had their own unique political calculus to consider. For Reps. Neil Abercrombie, seeking the Hawaii governorship, and Joe Sestak, running for Senate in Pennsylvania, the votes were relatively painless — Abercrombie is running in a heavily Democratic state, and Sestak is challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in a Democratic primary where he is running to Specter’s left.

The four others split on the vote. For Rep. Charlie Melancon, a conservative Blue Dog Democrat running for Senate in Louisiana — where the national Democratic Party is no asset at the moment — a “no” vote was probably the price of admission for running statewide. Rep. Artur Davis, who is running for governor in conservative Alabama, found himself in a similar situation. As his Democratic colleagues whooped and hollered in celebration after passage, Davis was seen crossing his arms, his face expressionless.

In New Hampshire, Rep. Paul Hodes, the likely Democratic nominee for the open Senate seat, came down in favor of the vote — no easy decision, since he has come under fire on the issue after allegedly ducking town hall meetings this summer.

In Florida, Rep. Kendrick Meek, like Hodes the likely Democratic nominee in an open Senate contest next year, also voted “yes.”

Republicans made clear that Saturday’s vote would be a centerpiece issue in 2010.

“There will be a price to pay,” NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions of Texas told POLITICO before heading to the floor to vote. “This will be a gift that keeps on giving.”

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, didn’t seem worried.

“Their constituents voted for them to make big decisions for the country,” Van Hollen said after the vote.

The Job Con

The Job Con

November 9th, 2009

National Review Editors

The unemployment rate has hit 10.2 percent. All those laid-off Americans must be wondering why Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein still have jobs.

Romer and Bernstein, economic advisers to the Obama administration, warned back in January that, unless Congress enacted the $787 billion stimulus package, the unemployment rate would hit 9 percent by 2010. The stimulus would prevent this disaster, they promised, causing the unemployment to level off at 8 percent and then fall.

This can’t be simple incompetence; Romer and Bernstein are too smart. Nor was the extent of the crisis unknowable at the time. None other than stimulus-worshipper Paul Krugman called the team’s predictions “kind of optimistic.” That leaves fabrication: The administration sold the stimulus to the public on false pretenses.

The odds that the stimulus package would “create or save” millions of jobs, per the administration’s promises, were never good. The government is borrowing enormous amounts of money to pay for the stimulus. That money should be funding job creation in the private sector. Instead, it is going to shore up insolvent spendthrift state governments, to expand Medicaid and unemployment benefits, and to lay the groundwork for an aid-dependent green-energy sector that is going to drain the nation’s resources for years to come.

Read More:

The true cost of ObamaCare

The true cost of ObamaCare

November 9th, 2009

By James Simpson, American Thinker

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 10 year (2010-2019) cost of the House Democrats’ bill at $1.055 trillion. As usual, there is so much budget gimmickry in these estimates as to make them virtually meaningless.

The Democrats are dishonest on so many levels about this healthcare “reform” it is almost impossible to untangle all their lies. Let’s start by clarifying some basic truths.

First, who pays for healthcare right now? That’s right, the taxpayers who foot the bill not only for their own healthcare, but for illegal immigrants, the poor and seniors as well. (Some seniors continue to pay a premium for Medicare but it still doesn’t cover all the costs).

Who is feeling the pain of the rapid annual growth in healthcare costs that the Democrats claim so desperately to want to fix? Right, these same taxpayers.

Some will argue that employers pick up most of the tab. That is true when employers offer healthcare policies to their employees, but it is an illusion. Businesses must make a profit to remain alive, so every cost they pick up is passed on to the consumer in higher prices. So, in reality, we pay.

Read More:

Jihad and America: The Land that Cried Sheep

Jihad and America: The Land that Cried Sheep

By Selwyn Duke

People were shocked when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan brutally targeted fellow servicemen at Texas’ Fort Hood with pistol fire, murdering 12 and wounding 31. Yet there is an aspect of this story that is far more shocking — or at least, one that would be considered so in a sane society.

We now know that Major Hasan did not hide his true loyalties and often expressed Islamist sentiments. For example, the Telegraph quotes former Hasan colleague Col. Terry Lee as saying, “[Hasan] was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans”; that Hasan admitted to being “happy” upon learning of the Muslim who killed a soldier at an Arkansas military recruitment center; and that he once said, “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square.” Chron.com reports that Hasan had created “Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats,” and that “one of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates suicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.” 
Given this, was it really shocking when Hasan walked among the “aggressors” and yelled Allahu Akbar before punctuating his story with a burst of violence?
It wasn’t to me. You see, I knew the rough details of the event as soon as I heard about the shooting. I knew that there are jihadists among us; I knew the perpetrator was likely one of them; and I knew that a three-little-monkeys society, blinded, deafened, and dumbed down by political correctness, is allowing this fifth column to operate unfettered. I knew it not because I’m a genius but because I’m willing to profile — also known as seeing reality as it is, not as fashions dictate it must be. And this brings us to what is most shocking.
Why was an obvious jihadist in our military in the first place, let alone promoted to major?
Well, the question has already been answered.  We have become a sick society, where fantasies are favored and reality is called “racist.” If there were an officer of Japanese descent in our military during WWII, he wouldn’t have lasted til the next day’s rising sun if he had expressed pro-Imperial Japanese sentiments. But that was then, when America was America, before she was sacrificed on the altar of the leftist dystopia in utopian clothing.
Furthermore, only a sick society would tolerate a far more dangerous fifth column: those traitors who, as Cicero said 2,000 years ago, appear not as traitors, who speak in accents familiar to their victims, who wear their victims’ face and use their arguments. I speak of those who wasted no time painting Hasan as a victim: writers such as Kenyon Wallace, who only emphasized the claim that the major was “harassed” by colleagues and theorized that post-traumatic stress disorder might have influenced this man who never saw a firefight until he started one at Fort Hood.
What bunk. Sure, Hasan got into heated arguments with fellow officers and was called names. But that’s not called harassment. Harassment is not when you disgorge the enemy’s rhetoric with a violent tongue. It’s called a defense of God, country, and culture. It’s called pushing back when pushed.
Yet however much some individuals push, we are a society of three little monkeys, content with their self-imposed handicaps. Is it noteworthy that Islamists perpetrated 9/11, that we are at war with them, and that they have spread their creed primarily by the sword ever since Islam’s inception nigh on 1,400 years ago? Is it noteworthy that they perpetrated the aforementioned Arkansas murder; that Sgt. Asan Akbar attacked members of his own American unit in Kuwait with grenades and a gun in 2003; and that, as WorldNetDaily.com reports citing a recent book, “jihadists fill ‘every branch'” of the U.S. military? Is it noteworthy that virtually all of today’s terrorism is Islamist handiwork, from New York to Nigeria, France to the Philippines, India to Israel? Is this not a pattern? 
Yet the powers that be still pretend that fitting an obvious, consistently demonstrated profile is meaningless and trumped by facile propositions such as “He is a soldier sworn to duty,” “He is an ‘American’ with freedom of speech and religion,” and the worn-out “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Most Muslims are good people.” And their attitude much reminds me of an old Mad Magazine cartoon I read as a boy. It was a depiction of two men observing a huge, octopus-like monster holding a colleague in one tentacle, a fork and knife in two others and dangling salt and pepper shakers over the man’s head with another two. One of the men then asks the other (I’m paraphrasing), “What makes you think this creature intends to eat Dr. Toms?” 
Ah, the beauty of tolerance and open-mindedness. Pay no attention to the turbaned man behind the curtain. It’s them thar racists clingin’ to guns and religion (other than Islam) you’ve got to worry about.
I could leave it there, but this issue warrants a deeper treatment.  So let’s examine the last two propositions I mentioned.
Religion isn’t peaceful by definition any more than is ideology. For much of history, for instance, most religions prescribed human sacrifice; the norm was not “Love thy neighbor” but more likely “Eat thy neighbor.” Of course, such values are no longer the stuff of mainstream religion, but values in general still are. And that is the point.
Having lost their faith and sound philosophical foundation, modern people love embracing religious-equivalency doctrine (a cousin of multiculturalism), which states that all religions are morally equal.  But since different religions espouse different values, not all religions can be morally equal unless all values are so (which is moral relativism). And unless we’re willing to cast a critical eye upon a faith’s values, we can’t know if it’s peaceful or not.
Also note that the relativism at the heart of religious-equivalency doctrine renders it self-defeating. After all, the doctrine is designed to yield tolerance and peaceful coexistence. But if all values are equal, how could tolerance be better than intolerance?  How could peacefulness be better than barbarity? 
Then there is the statement that most Muslims are good people, that it’s the radicals who have hijacked Islam. But while I won’t deny that they’re good people practically speaking, I will ask if they’re Muslims theologically speaking. Remember that many in the West practice their faith in only a nominal fashion, and such cafeteria religionists are much more likely to reflect the values of the wider society than those of what their ostensible faith. Only true believers “reject this world” — for good or for ill.
This brings us to the question: Who has hijacked what? As an example, most American Catholics accept artificial birth control, but this doesn’t mean their view is Church teaching, no matter how much the secular world calls them “moderate.” Radicals may be wrong or right  — Karl Marx was a radical, as was the first abolitionist — and they may be bad or good. But whatever they are, they are often the ones who truly represent their creed. 
Of course, I haven’t demonstrated here that Islam is or isn’t peaceful. This is because my message is more basic: We must wake up, open our eyes, dispense with childish relativism, and judge all men’s beliefs — not just ideology but also culture and religion — under the light of Truth. Then we’ll know the difference between friend and foe. 
And our biggest threat is those shepherds who make us easy prey, who speak in familiar accents and who wear our face and our arguments and say, “Go back to sleep, baby, that wolf was just a bad dream. All creatures are sheep, don’t you know?”
America, how many tears must we shed before we stop crying sheep?


Contact Selwyn Duke

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/jihad_and_america_the_land_tha.html at November 09, 2009 – 11:31:18 AM EST

Bush or Obama: The Quiz

Bush or Obama: The Quiz

By Randall Hoven

1. President Bush was famous for lacking “intellectual curiosity,” while President Obama has been called “the smartest guy ever to become President.” Who reads more books: Bush or Obama?

2. Bush was often considered to be in the grip of Big Oil. In contrast, Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer. Which industry contributed more than five times as much as the other to politicians: the oil & gas industry, or lawyers/law firms?
3. Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity, and he was considered to be in the grip of the “religious right,” while Obama is considered more open-minded. In fact, Obama has said, “my faith is one that admits some doubt.” Which one refers to Jesus more in public speeches?
4. Bush was criticized for excessive federal spending and running up huge deficits.  Bush’s deficit in 2008 was the largest in history.  In fact, President Obama said,
It’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they’ve presided over a doubling of the national debt … What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place.
Whose deficit was more than triple the size of the other’s: Bush’s in 2008 or Obama’s in 2009?
5. While Obama criticized Bush for “a doubling of the national debt,” the federal debt held by the public went from 35.1% of GDP in 2000 to 40.8% of GDP in 2008 — an increase of 16% as of fraction of GDP. What is it expected to be in 2016 under Obama’s budget plan? 
6.  Obama criticized Bush for Guantanamo, military tribunals, wiretaps, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and “signing statements.” Which one of these Bush practices has Obama ended?
Answers:
1. Bush. Obama started reading a book in April and had not finished it by June, putting him on a pace of no more than ten books per year. Bush read forty to ninety-five books a year while President, not counting a new and complete reading of the Bible every year. Bush scored 1206 on his SAT, putting his IQ in the 125-130 range, smarter than 95% of the population and in the company of Lincoln, Rousseau, and Thackeray. He graduated from Yale and earned an MBA from Harvard. Obama earned a law degree from Harvard, but has not released any of his academic records. Despite what you might have heard, we know nothing of his IQ, test scores, or grades from any of the schools he attended.
2. Law firms. In the 2010 cycle so far, Lawyers/Law Firms have contributed $33,779,866 (81% to Democrats), and the Oil & Gas industry has contributed $6,293,631 (34% to Democrats). In the 2008 cycle, the numbers were $233,499,989 (76% to Dems) from lawyers and $35,564,322 (23% to Dems). In all, lawyers contributed about six times more to politicians than the Oil & Gas industry.
3. Obama. Per Eamon Javers at Politico, “As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings.”
4. Obama’s 2009 deficit, the largest in U.S. history. It was more than three times that of Bush’s record 2008 deficit. Per the Congressional Budget Office, the 2008 deficit was $455 B, and the 2009 deficit was $1,417 B. As a fraction of GDP, it was the largest deficit since 1945.
5.  The CBO expects the debt held by the public to be 77.1% of GDP in 2016 under Obama’s plan, or an increase of 89% as a fraction of GDP, and the highest level since 1950. 
6. None.
  • Guantanamo is still open and probably will be into 2010, maybe longer.
  • Obama is keeping military tribunals and clandestine wiretapping programs.
  • Obama plans to keep most troops in Iraq until the summer of 2010.  Even then, he is talking of keeping about 50,000 troops there (compared to about 124,000 now). The number of US troops in Afghanistan increased from 37,000 in January 2009 to 62,000 by August 2009, and Obama is expected to send over 30,000 more. Total number of US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan has increased under Obama so far (from about 184,000 in January to 186,000 in September).
  • Obama has used signing statements himself.
Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or  via his web site, randallhoven.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/bush_or_obama_the_quiz.html at November 09, 2009 – 11:23:13 AM EST

Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda

Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda

Army Major in Fort Hood Massacre Used ‘Electronic Means’ to Connect with Terrorists

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS

Nov. 9, 2009 —

 

 

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

 

It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.

 

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) said the CIA had, so far, refused to brief the intelligence committees on what, if any, knowledge they had about Hasan’s efforts.

 

CIA director Leon Panetta and the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, have been asked by Congress “to preserve” all documents and intelligence files that relate to Hasan, according to the lawmaker.

 

Hoekstra said he is “absolutely furious” that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan’s attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News.

 

Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with a radical mosque leader from Virginia, Anwar al Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.

 

In a blog posting early Monday titled “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing,” Awlaki calls Hasan a “hero” and a “man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”

 

According to his site, Awlaki served as an imam in Denver, San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.

 

The Associated Press reported Sunday that Major Hasan attended the Falls Church mosque when Awlaki was there.

 

 

 

The Telegraph of London reported that Awlaki had made contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers when he was in San Diego.

 

He denied any knowledge of the hijacking plot and was never charged with any crime. After an intensive investigation by the FBI, Awlaki moved to Yemen.

 

People who knew or worked with Hasan say he seemed to have gradually become more radical in his disapproval of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

On Sunday, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist.

 

“If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have a zero tolerance,” Lieberman told Fox News Sunday.

 

 

Army Chief of Staff

A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, “We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.”

 

Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan’s statements.

 

“And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office&be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict,” Finell told ABC News.

 

The Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, raised concerns over the weekend that innocent Muslim soldiers could suffer as a result of the shooting at Fort Hood.

 

“I think the speculation (on Hasan’s Islamic roots) could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”