Airplanes!

« Best Healthcare System Ever. | Main | TO BILL, A MOCKING WORD : A VETERAN'S DAY SALUTE »

November 11, 2009

Very Serious Question

If the Fort Hood attack was an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil -- to be somehow blamed on President Obama, then wouldn't the Beltway Snipers also qualify as an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil?

And if so, wouldn't that completely contradict the Republican boast that Bush "kept us safe" since 9/11? The Beltway Sniper shootings happened in 2002, about a year after 9/11.


Filed under: Michelle Malkin || No Attacks Mythology || Rush Limbaugh || Terrorism || Very Serious Question

Digg This Post  Reddit This  Share on Facebook  Add to del.icio.us  Add to Stumble Upon

Posted By Bob Cesca | November 11, 2009 9:43 AM

Comments

(I'm not clicking on the Malkin link.)

Hannity was also saying something to the effect of, "What does this say about Barack Obama?" The answer of course is, "Nothing."

There is still an investigation going on so there is only speculation. I heard secondhand that the FBI investigated Hasan over a year ago when he had emailed a Muslim cleric in Yemen who had ties to Al Qaeda, but that the emails revealed nothing suspicious.

Over a year ago. If we're going to be stupid enough to play the blame game, can someone remind me who was president a year ago again? I seemed to have blocked it out.

Posted by: Broadway Carl [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2009 10:19 AM

At least Hassan hit a military target. The beltway sniper was going after civilians, which smells a lot more like terrorism in my book.

Posted by: Spike [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2009 10:24 AM

You also forgot the Anthrax letters Bob. Those were mailed by a white guy though so Im sure they dont count.

Posted by: J M Ashby [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2009 10:26 AM

What's most offensive is that you can already see the right trying to blame this on Obama and what's with this "policitcal correctness" bullshit meme, that this is why no one reported it? I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone refer to the Bush administration as being interested in political correctness. While the right is more concerned with casting blame on this president, a lot more red flags were raised as early as 2004 when he consulted a lawyer to get out of the Army. As emptywheel of firedoglake put it:

"Ultimately, of the dots we currently know of, the ones that might have been connected were some details of his 2007 presentation, the comment defending suicide missions, and the purchase of the gun. Now perhaps Crazy Pete Hoekstra knows of something more, or perhaps he would advocate that everyone with known contacts with one extremist should have their IP address permanently tracked (in which case I assume he’s willing to undergo such scrutiny, given his ties to Manucher Ghorbanifar). But otherwise the data that didn’t get shared appears to be from the brick and mortar world, not the telecom world."

While many are painting him as a terrorist, it would appear that he deceided to do this after unsuccessfully attempting to get out. While he held the views that he did for many years, he only did this when he did because he wasn't allowed to leave. Not a justification, just a chronology of the events.

Posted by: roxsteady [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2009 10:55 AM

Don't get me wrong! His religion is clearly tied to this but, he only chose to murder these innocent people once his deployment date was clear.

Posted by: roxsteady [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2009 11:00 AM

It's not a terrorist attack if the targets/victims were military. A terrorist attack is on civilians.

Posted by: cynicalgirl [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2009 12:18 PM



pixel.jpg
rogue_blogging_logo.jpg

Buy my book!