February 5, 2013
Aaron Goldstein 2.5.13
Why in his litany of recent massacres does he continue to omit the shootings at Fort Hood?
From The American Spectator
The first reason is that, to this very day, the Obama Administration does not recognize the massacre at Fort Hood for what it was — a terrorist attack. They deemed it an act of “workplace violence” despite the fact that Hasan screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he slaughtered his fellow soldiers. They deemed it an act of “workplace violence” though he carried business cards bearing the inscription, “S of A — Soldier of Allah.” They deemed it an act of “workplace violence” despite his contact with al Qaeda in Yemen’s representative Anwar al-Awlaki; a man the Obama Administration saw fit to kill with a drone nearly two years after the Fort Hood massacre.
If Fort Hood was an act of “workplace violence,” then the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 was the biggest act of workplace violence in American history. Yet to characterize 9/11 as an act of “workplace violence” is to utterly miss the point. So long as Obama insists that the Fort Hood massacre was nothing more than an act of “workplace violence,” he sullies the memory of those who died on November 5, 2009.
Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the death toll at Fort Hood could have been much, much higher if not for two Killeen police officers who shot and paralyzed Hasan. This brings me to the second reason Obama does not mention Fort Hood. Unlike Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown, the assailant was subdued by people carrying guns. Although police officers were responsible for stopping Hasan, Obama sees guns as the problem, not part of the solution. Thus it isn’t in his interest to mention Fort Hood when discussing gun violence.
Read it all at the link.