By This just confirms what I have been saying all along about the Major Hasan case:
In late December 2004, one of the officers overseeing Army Maj. Nidal Hasan’s medical training praised him in an official evaluation as a qualified and caring doctor who would be an asset in any post.
But less than a week later, a committee at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center that oversees student performance met behind closed doors to discuss serious concerns about Hasan’s questionable behavior, poor judgment and lack of drive.
Disconnects such this were a familiar pattern throughout Hasan’s lengthy medical education in the Washington area, according to information gathered during an internal Pentagon review of the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, and obtained by The Associated Press.
The review has not been publicly released, but the emerging picture is one of supervisors who failed to heed their own warnings about an officer ill-suited to be an Army psychiatrist, according to the information.
As Hasan’s training progressed, his strident views on Islam became more pronounced as did worries about his competence as a medical professional. Yet his superiors continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving through the ranks and led to his eventual assignment at Fort Hood.
Hasan, 39, is accused of murdering 13 people on Nov. 5 at Fort Hood, the worst killing spree on a U.S. military base. [Associated Press]
Read the rest at the link, but what I find interesting is that this Pentagon review of the Hasan case is not investigating his ties with radical Islamic Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who he corresponded with before the attack. Awlaki some may remember was linked to the Underwear Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who try to blow up a US airplane on Christmas Day.
Supposedly a Justice Department investigation is looking into this and not the Pentagon. I wonder if those findings will ever be released because it would be interesting to see if this guy and the Underwear Bomber were both sent to conduct attacks as part of a coordinated Islamic extremist effort from Yemen.
8:19 pm on January 13th, 2010 1
I for one would like to see the notes or recommendations from the “Committee”. Who was on the committee and what were there qualifications.
I think the “committee” whitewashed the situation so as not to upset the status quo. There must have been at least a chairperson.
Knowing how higher ups often behave in a situation like this, there must be an awful lot of ass covering.
Reply
8:25 pm on January 13th, 2010 2
Political Correctness chalks up a few more bodies.
Reply
10:42 pm on January 13th, 2010 3
I’ve been out of the service a long, long time, but I wonder how the young professionals are now reacting to this change in “political correctness.” The White House grabbed the Fort Hood massacre investigation to try to head off “terrorist talk” and the type of innuendoes that GI Korea is mentioning about a “conspiracy.”
The point is that being “politically correct” in the military may end up costing you your life. The rating of officers/enlisted should theoretically have nothing to do with race, creed, color or religion. HOWEVER, it does. Major Hassan is a prime example. First, he was given a break because of his specialty that was short in numbers…better to have an incompetent than no man at all. Second, his superiors were “sensitized” to NOT rate him on the basis of his religious beliefs — Allah forbid — because it might appear that they were bigotted.
In other words, Major Hassan’s raters had been brain-washed to the point that being “politically-correct” outweighed their responsibility to rate Hassan as compared to his peers. If he had been rated as the regs stipulate, he would have never been promoted to major — and he would have been scheduled for a fitness board.
What I’m saying is that the entire military needs to look at themselves — and their peers. The ideas of liberal “political correctness” need to be trash-canned. I’m not saying return to the days of bigots, but I’m saying return to sanity and look at the man/woman in uniform as a soldier/sailor/marine/airman — and how they can do the job without regard for the color of his/her skin color or religion. This has always been the ideal, but somehow “political correctness” has somehow subverted it.
Follow the standards and throw out the extra weight comments: “He is an active member of his Mosque/Church/Synagogue”. They have nothing to do with how well he/she can upload a missile under stress conditions. The criteria is how well he can do the job.
Instead of “moral judgements” just see how well he/she maintains the “core values” of the service they represent. The standards are well-publicized. Simply follow them. If Major Hassan’s evaluators had done so, the massacre may have been averted.
But there also should be a more important block of how well the individual integrates as a member of the unit. Major Hassan fits the description as an anti-social misfit. However, I also read stories in the Stars and Stripes about US Army and USAF black gang members and wonder how could these individuals have slipped by the rating system. Perhaps the “politically correct” rating of not demeaning blacks detered them from the rating. I read about Muslim nuts who kill their fellow soldiers and I wonder how they slipped by the evaluation process.
I personally believe “political correctness” has affected how people are recruited — racial quotas, etc. I believe that the military has lowered its standards to allow some misfits to slip through. Statistics prove that the military does NOT need to do so. The people coming into the service now are highly qualified and educated by statistics. Don’t lower the standards to fill the quotas.
I’m an old retiree with the deepest respect for our young servicemen who are putting their lives on the line for us. All I’m saying is that we need to return to sanity — and you military folks need to eliminate those that may end up being a risk to yourself and others.
Reply
January 14th, 2010 at 12:46 am
“The rating of officers/enlisted should theoretically have nothing to do with race, creed, color or religion. HOWEVER, it does.”
Yes, minorities get fucked over.
“Major Hassan fits the description as an anti-social misfit.”
The fact he wasn’t bounced out of the military has probably less to do with political-correctness than with wanting to keep someone on staff who has strongly needed qualifications.
Reply
January 14th, 2010 at 12:54 am
The fact he wasn’t bounced out has less to do with “political-correctness” than wanting to keep someone on staff who has much needed qualifications.
But, in any case, I’m all for kicking out the white supremacists/KKK members/and Neo-nazis out of the military. Do I need to remind you that Timothy McVeigh participated in KKK protests when he was in the US military and only received a reprimand for it?
Reply
January 14th, 2010 at 2:25 am
“The fact he wasn’t bounced out has less to do with “political-correctness” than wanting to keep someone on staff who has much needed qualifications.”
What cave have you been hiding in?
Reply
January 15th, 2010 at 9:13 am
The one you’re still in, apparently.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:53 am
Yeah- those KKK guys are ALL OVER the place in the Army. They hang out with their obvious KKK colors, sagging pants, flashing KKK signs, and they were involved in the King Club stabbing incident which caused the Stand Down for Standards we all suffered through.
Oh- wait- I was looking at the negatives…
Reply
January 14th, 2010 at 9:17 am
teadrinker, there is OBVIOUSLY no way that you will EVER understand this situation. Your Blindness is glaring.
It never ceases to amaze me how educated people can blind themselves to obvious truth in favor of tired/old and incorrect rhetoric.
Reply
January 14th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Teadrinker, I served in honduras, korea, bosnia, Fort Campell KY, Fort Hood TX, iraq, kuwait. Many locations. I served with alcoholics, christians, atheist, whoremongers, whores, dikes, whites, blacks, african americans, hispanics, korean americans, russian americans, some outright idiots, some that were so smart they were stupid. introverts and extroverts. Some control freaks and some that just wanted to do a good job. I even knew a warlock or two. But I never met anyone that was a KKK or white supremacist. I did however meet a lot of “african americans” that had a strong anti-white racist agenda. This was accepted by the military.
So teadrinker, keep posting your liberal left propaganda. I need to be reminded from time to time that there are people like you out there.
Reply
January 14th, 2010 at 10:30 am
“Do I need to remind you that Timothy McVeigh participated in KKK protests when he was in the US military and only received a reprimand for it?”
Source?
Reply
January 15th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Google “Timothy McVeigh KKK”.
January 15th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Sloppy sloppy…
January 14th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
teadrinker, thanks for invoking Timothy McVeigh. Because of your action, I looked him up. A good read on Wikipedia!
Military career: He had littlt interest in the bar scene, preferring to read about weapons, tactics or explosives.
He did attend (a) ku klux klan protest against black servicemen who wore what he viewed as “black power” T-shirts around his army camp, for whitch he was reprimanded.
He was a decorated veteran of the Gulf War. He had special lifesaving training, which he used possible saving a fellow soldier from life-threating shrapnel wounds. He received an honorable discharge in 1992.
Under title: Motivations for the bombing
He clamed it was revenbe for “what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
He frequently quoted and alluded to the white supremacist novel (The Turner Diaries.
While McVeigh openly Rejected the book’s racism (a roommate said that McVeigh was not a racist and was basically indifferent to racist matters), he claimed to appreciate its interest in firearms.
As usual teadrinker, like most liberals, you go for the emotional punch and disreguard the facts.
After reading about him (thanks to you) I learned that his mistake was in target selection.
Reply
January 14th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
correction; he clamed it was revenge (not revenbe).
I had surgery on my Right arm yesterday, so using one hand combined with the Hydrocodon makes this somewhat of a challenge.
January 15th, 2010 at 9:17 am
I’m not a liberal, I’m Canadian.
“After reading about him (thanks to you) I learned that his mistake was in target selection.”
You can’t be serious.
January 15th, 2010 at 9:50 am
teadrinker
I know your Canadian. Reading your comments tells me a Canadian and a Liberal make the same sound. Being the one does not exclude being the other. As you demonstrate so well.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“Political correctness” in this case seems to be common sense telling people that all was not well with the Major, not only with the quality of his work, but his extremist views as well. Put together, they could have been enough to throw him out.
The correctness is that in tieing both those attributes together would be discrimination and illegal. Quality of work is one thing, his extremist views are not in the reviewers perview as they should have been.
I suspect the reviewers in trying to keep anyone in his specialty, outweighed his performance reviews, while his “extremist views were ‘unmentionables’”.
Reply
January 15th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
No no no! Teadrinker gets it. All we have to do is round up the white guys who don’t think much of multiculturalism, white guilt, the propaganda surrounding The Half Blood Prince in charge now, and throw them all in jail.
Their views don’t reflect the mainstream- THEY are the threat.
Once they are in Guantanamo, and the stinkies are released to go about their business pumping goats and young boys, slapping their wives, and killing infidels, we’ll have gumdrop skies and cotton candy clouds and chocolate rivers.
11:38 pm on January 13th, 2010 4
The problem is that even the mention, the accusation of a white leader being racist and/or sexist is a career end-er in most cases. A LT or CPT might recover from an unfounded accusation on their record but for a MAJ or LTC its game over, they’ll never be promoted. Because of this these guys must go through some very tightrope style wordplay so that nothing they every say can be misinterpreted as racist / sexist by someone who didn’t get what they wanted. I believe in this case his superiors were afraid of him complaining that an unfavorable evaluation report was based on his religion. Even if the complaint was found to be “unfounded” the investigation report would still stick on the rating officers record.
This is the same for UCMJ, even if your found innocent, or its turned over, your military record will still show that you went to trial. Or even domestic violence complaints. If your spouse makes a complaint about domestic violence your toast. Even if its “unfounded” it still sticks on your record and will ensure your career gets screwed.
Because of this I believe the US Military should omit from all records anything found to be “unfounded” or innocent. No MOR’s mentioning the event should be present, it should be like it never happened. That would fix quite a bit that is wrong in the military.
Reply
January 14th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
I think you are right and eliminating such MORs from a persons record would help set the record straight. But then again if aquitted of the first account what happens if convicted the second time around. Who would keep track of offenses and a record perhaps showing a trend?
Reply
8:58 am on January 14th, 2010 5
I don’t like seeing his picture.
Reply
January 14th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
I agree. Even his picture has that ‘I’m not all there look’.
Reply
2:16 pm on January 14th, 2010 6
A little off topic, but I think it relates.
In the mid-90’s, I had a guy working for me I thought was weird. He might have been completely harmless, but to me, he seemed to spend too much time in a strangle fantasy world.
He entertained himself in a group called the Society for Creative Anachronism. These were adults (he was about 25) who role played as knights and maidens of the middle-ages, and engaged in mock battles with swords.
Sure, maybe that is harmless fun for some, but the more I learned about him made me more uncomfortable. In the office, he spent a lot of time trying to engage others with his fascination with combat and hunting knives. He would bring in such magazines and boast about his collection. He claimed to have over 20. The bigger, the better. His favorite was a huge Bowie knife.
Even when he was out of duty uniform, he had a penchant for wearing a personal dress uniform. His civilian attire was always all black, with black combat boots. He even showed up at unit Christmas parties dressed that way. Sure, maybe innocent enough again, but I was getting unspoken communication from my fellow senior NCO’s when they looked at me with that, “What’s up with your kid?” look.
One day he told me he planned to marry his girlfriend. I said congratulations, until he went on to tell me she was the 17 year old high school daughter of an officer on base. I asked if her parents knew he was seeing her. He said yes, so I left it alone.
Yet, besides all that, I had to write his Enlisted Performance Report. He wasn’t the greatest at his job, but he was competent and there really was little to demerit him on. He was promotable. I couldn’t send him in for a psych-eval, but to me and others, he was strange.
I tried to play it off as me projecting too much on him. Maybe it was too soon after Jeffrey Dahmer and others, but I kept telling myself I will be reading about this guy in the papers one day.
Maybe he is a well adjusted successful person now. Or, maybe he is a deviant serial killer who just hasn’t been caught yet. If the later, would I feel responsibility or guilt? I don’t know. I went over these same thoughts after the Virginia Tech mass shooting. What were the teachers and counselors allowed or supposed to do under their existing rules and policies?
The official report hasn’t been published in the Hasan case. I suspect some of what we are reading is anecdote and innuendo. I would like to start by knowing what the Army’s standing policies and procedures stated at the time. I imagine, that because of recruiting and retention issues, which were marked by increased approvals of moral waivers, the ’system’ was strongly discouraging dismal or demotion of such individuals.
Reply
3:40 am on January 15th, 2010 7
Dear JoeC,
Thanks for an interesting and nuanced comment!
The appalling leadership failure to yank Major Hasan long before this, was due more to Pentagon pressure to retain scarce medical resources than political correctness. It is no secret that the Army has had a tremendous challenge in retaining officers in most specialties. News reports for several years have suggested that the Army’s mental health system is virtually broken; very hard in this climate, for a CO to can such a valuable resource, but is should have been done with Major Hasan.
Reply
January 15th, 2010 at 4:00 am
Gents, political correctness has already been identified by the Pentagon as being part of the reason of why his superiors did not try to remove this guy from the ranks:
Reply
January 15th, 2010 at 4:25 am
But, it seems that that expressing extremist views is not cause for adverse or disciplinary action.
If you believe what is being reported on Fox News, and I suspect some here do, the Army is preparing to punish officers in Hasan’s chain of command, NOT because they didn’t act on his extremist views, but because they advanced him despite poor physical and professional performance.
Reply
January 15th, 2010 at 4:32 am
Sorry for the double post. I’m using a new browser and it’s screwy. The second post has the Fox News story link. The first post does not.
Reply
January 15th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I don’t get television any more as I was PO’d at spending $60 a month to watch Emeril Live.
Apparently you pay close attention to what FOX news says. Could you enlighten me/us as to what they say?
I bet your’re PO’d as well because they didn’t hang some general as well.
Perhaps the CIC could be implicated if the news media would just do its job? Oops, that wouldn’t be good because thats who you voted for.
JOEC, Your’re not interested in what happened or the truth, you want political correctness to take its natural course.
January 15th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
??? Gerry,
I not quite such what you are saying here. Fox News is not just available on television. They have a website. The referenced link was to their website. Check it out yourself.
As far as:
I assure you, I am as interested in truth as anyone else. But, I don’t allow preconceived notions to filter it. I keep an open mind and allow for any reasonable possibility.
Let the facts fall where they may.
January 16th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
After I posted my comment, I knew I was wrong in doing so, and knew your reply would be forthcomming.
On the other hand I guess I would say what does ‘Fox News’ have to do with preconcieved notions? I am aware of what “Fox News” reports as well as CNN, and a few of the others. On occasion I read whats news on the BBC (they are on the internet as well) and RIA a Russian English news report.
It is easy to point fingers at “Rush Limbaugh” (no I don’t follow him) just as easy as it is to point fingers at “Kieth Olberman, (no I don’t follow him) the LA Times as well as the NY times”. I have heard and read them all at various times.
You make it sound as if people who listen to “Fox News” don’t understand whats going on in the world, while people who watch “Fox news” but not “CNN” think you don’t know whats going on.
I don’t condemn any of them, although I do agee or disagree with with all of them on occasion.
Keep an open mind?
January 16th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
The Fox New comment and preconceived notion comments were from two different post and I was making two different points but I can tie them together. 7ub6yvc.
January 16th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Still having browser issues.
Continued:
I highlighted Fox News to make the point that while they generally report from a conservative viewpoint, their article supports that reacting to Hasan’s extremist views may not have been an option for his reporting officers. (see the report I reference in another post further down)
The preconceived notion point was that just because officers were negligent in their performance evaluations, it doesn’t all have to boil down to a fear of being politically incorrect. People get inflated evaluations all the time without that being the excuse. And, who will deny the institutional pressures to retain people in his field irregardless of race, sex, or religion?
January 16th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Jon,
The Army official report was released after your comment. Read Ralph Peters’ rant “Hood massacre report gutless and shameful” and the Army’s FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AS A FACTOR.
NY Post
But Peter’s also goes on to say the Top Secret report (that we can’t see) on Hassan may be more comprehensive.
Reply
10:48 pm on January 15th, 2010 8
Latest news: 15 Jan. Eight U.S. Army Officers Could Face Rebuke in Ft. Hood Shooting
My problem with the following article release is that the Army is going to POSSIBLY “rebuke” eight officers for not blowing the whistle on Hassan. The article focuses on the officers failure to report the missed clues of his erratic behavior and lack of competence. NOTHING IS MENTIONED ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS BEING A FACTOR.
Though some may say the failure of his superiors was NOT a result of “political correctness” but rather pressure to maintain an officer — regardless of his competence — because of his essential skills. I do NOT agree and counter that being an officer is NOT like an enlisted man. Officers lead — have moral and ethical qualifications and must live with standards well above the rest. To say he was only a specialist who was well-paid, does NOT make him an officer. Yes, his specialty was understaffed. That he “met the standard” for his specialty would assure him promotion — though in some other specialty the same rating would have burned their career to bits. However, again I repeat that being an officer is much more than simple professional competence. In all the other areas, Hassan was not fit to be promoted to Major — yet he was.
Thus my response to all (including the Army) who try to pass this off as individuals not rating him correctly to preserve manning, I say they are wrong. What stilled their marking pens when they had to check the boxes? I feel it has been the same pressures that have been brought to bear over blacks, women, reverse-discrimination concerns, etc. by many in the military past and present. It is political correctness that plays a lead role…and a wrong stroke in the wrong command structure can bring claims of discrimination — and end your career. This is fact.
Now the Army is out to “cover their asses” but at the same time sweep the “political correctness” issue under the carpet.
It is time to call Major Hassan what he was — a MUSLIM FANATIC who was a TERRORIST. He was not a mentally disturbed young man who was not understood by his superiors who failed to hold his hand and guide him to the light. He didn’t start out as a terrorist, but grew to be one right under the noses of his superiors. If political correctness as MANDATED by the Army had not limited their actions, he might have been stopped.
——————
Eight U.S. Army Officers Could Face Rebuke in Ft. Hood Shooting
Friday, January 15, 2010
By Anne Gearan, Associated Press
Washington (AP) – As many as eight Army officers could face punishment for failing to do anything when the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood rampage displayed erratic behavior early in his military career, a U.S. official says.
The officers supervised the suspect when he was a medical student and during his work as an Army psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates was expected to refer findings on the officers to the Army for further inquiry and possible punishment. The report on what went wrong in the case of Army Maj. Nidal Hasan is expected to be released Friday.
The official said Thursday that a Pentagon inquiry finds fault with five to eight supervisors who knew or should have known about the shortcomings and erratic behavior of Hasan, who’s accused of killing 13 people at the Texas Army base on Nov. 5.
The official described the confidential report on condition of anonymity because it has not been made public.
According to information gathered during the internal Pentagon review and obtained by The Associated Press last week, Hasan’s strident views on Islam became more pronounced as his training progressed. Worries about his competence also grew, yet his superiors continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving through the ranks. That led to his eventual assignment at Fort Hood.
Recent statistics show the Army rarely blocks junior officers from promotion, especially in the medical corps.
Hasan showed no signs of being violent or a threat. But parallels have been drawn between the missed signals in his case and those preceding the failed Christmas Day attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner. President Barack Obama and his top national security aides have acknowledged they had intelligence about the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, but failed to connect the dots.
The Pentagon review is not intended to delve into allegations Hasan corresponded by e-mail with Yemen-based radical cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, before the Fort Hood shootings. Those issues are part of a separate criminal investigation by U.S. law enforcement officials.
Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. Authorities have not said whether they plan to seek the death penalty.
After the Fort Hood shootings, Gates appointed two former senior defense officials to examine the procedures and policies for identifying threats within the military services. The review was led by former Army Secretary Togo West and retired Navy Adm. Vernon Clark.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59863
Reply
January 16th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Wonder what good this type of thinking would have done when “William Calley” killed 130 or so at My Lai. Perhaps those who trained and gave him his commission should have been repremanded.
Reply
January 16th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
The ones he took the fall for should.
There you go again, thinking a lowly LT was calling the shots.
The popular view of the time was that he had been set up to take the blame by those above him.
Don’t make me dig up their names again.
Calley Haunts you Gerry. I wonder why. “Feeling guilty?”
In any case, this is not related in any way.
You SHOULD know that. You bring shame on the victims of both by comparing the DIFFERENT acts.
Calley PAIDED for what he was found guilty of. If you think that it was too light for the crime, then you should ask “why”. Which takes us back to him taking the blame for his Commanders actions.
You wouldn’t except the facts before, no reason to think you are more reasonable now.
Reply
January 17th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
My comment was only an analogy.
However I do believe Cally was calling the shots. Calley does not “haunt” me. Why? Because at the time I was too young (22-23yrs old) to understand or informed to know what had happened. I have since read up on the history and along with what I have seen in the military have made my judgement.
Nah, I am not shamed, nor do I feel anything like that. As I said it was only an “analogy”.
Calley did not pay the price as he was more a victim of the mood of the nation at that time. He was let off as a result of it. (Thats an entirely different discussion).
I did accept the facts before, thats why I felt he was guilty.
6:07 am on January 16th, 2010 9
Your on target. Welcome.
But the Army will not learn from this. Political Correctness is too heavily ingrained into the Army “mind”.
This is now purely a “cover your a$$” Operation.
Nothing was learned by the Army.
Reply
6:38 am on January 16th, 2010 10
Ive been pondering this for a couple of days. Can’t get anything to really gel, so here are some random thoughts:
1. Understrength Career Field: Nah, I’m not buying this. I once saw an overweight Master Sergeant thrown out even though he was the last person on active duty with the skill set to do his particular job (they hired him back on as a DA civilian). However, the medical branches are notoriously lax with standards. I suspect if Hasan was in a “regular” branch like Infantry, Ordnance, etc., he would have been long gone. But he wasn’t so he got to be rated by people not all that concerned with insane comments.
2. Political Correctness: When I was in (1991-1996) Muslims were treated like the general population. That said, there were “special” people. In my time, that was females. I knew some female officers who would refuse to pull staff duty, go to PT, would avoid field exercises, etc. and nobody would touch them because it was just too dangerous. I think Muslims are now special given the reaction to the Hasan debacle.
3. They Threw Out Nazis and Klansmen!!: That is true. But there is a critical difference here. Nazis and Klansmen are taking an extreme POLITICAL stance. Hasan took an extreme RELIGIOUS stance! The Army has had a long standing reluctance to delve in to religious matters. Also note the Army has not had qualms getting confirmed gang-bangers out of the system.
I’m not saying this to excuse what happened. I just think its important to figure out what exactly went wrong.
4. Scapegoats: I actually feel sorry for Hasan’s supervisors who are likely about to get thumped. Oh, they most definitely did wrong. But it seems to me they were following “Da Rules” of the institution by giving a member of a protected minority slack.
Reply
6:30 pm on January 16th, 2010 11
The DoD report is out.
It’s 85 pages long and I haven’t read it all, but I will list a couple of points of interest.
1.
2.
3.
4.
There is something I find curious about the first and last points, and I have wondered about for some time. Hasan seemed to have been aware that he was “allowed” to say the things he was saying. If the DoD had in -place the procedures that are recommenced here, as military psychiatrist, he would have been fully aware of what behaviors and comments that would have flagged him for reporting and investigation. People who understand the system know just what they can get away with and what they can’t. New policies may cause the next guy to be a lot less obvious.
Reply
January 16th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
They learned nothing.
Untill Political Correctness is addressed (it wasn’t) the Troops are still in danger.
Reply
January 16th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/hood_massacre_report_gutless_and_yaUphSPCoMs8ux4lQdtyGM#ixzz0cmp1aY8S
Ralph Peters in NY Post: Hood massacre report gutless and shameful
Reply
9:55 pm on January 17th, 2010 12
Thank goodness none of the soldiers was armed or someone might have accidentally injured during the shooting spree.
Reply
1:33 pm on February 19th, 2010 13
While political correctness allowed Hasan to get by with everything up-to, and including, the shooting, there are still military leaders who are now looking at reality…
…and the reality is that there are Muslims (not Buddhists, Hindus or Christians) in the military who are looking to cause harm to America.
You heard it here first. Wait for the next news cycle… and beyond.
Reply
5:02 pm on February 19th, 2010 14
“Active Shooter Training” took care of the problem. We’re all safe now.
Reply
5:30 pm on February 19th, 2010 15
This just in dit dit dit de dit…
Look what we have here:
The U.S. Army is investigating allegations that soldiers were attempting to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson in South Carolina.
The ongoing probe began two months ago, Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, told Fox News.
The Army is taking the allegations “extremely seriously,” Grey said, but so far, “there is no credible information to support the allegations.”
Five suspects, detained in December, were part of an Arabic translation program called “09 Lima” and use Arabic as their first language, two sources told Fox News. Another military source said they were Muslim. It wasn’t clear whether they were still being held.
Grey would not confirm or deny the sources’ information.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586721,00.html?test=latestnews
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.
Reply
February 19th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Maybe it was just the ‘pork chops, or ‘bacon’. Better not have been the chipped beef! OMG!
Reply