timesheader2
 
 Web  TheCypressTimes  
IT QUACKED LIKE A DUCK

What has two orange webbed feet, one set of feathered wings, a bill, a tail, feathers, waddles and swims, and honks? A duck right? What has four wheels on the ground, a steering wheel inside, at least two doors, an engine requiring a key for ignition, and drives on the streets when operated by a driver? A car right? What is round, orange, tangy to the taste buds, grows from a tree, you can eat it or drink it, and is known to grown in Florida? An orange right? Okay then, what hides behind religion, is a radical in their beliefs, instills fear in others, and is willing and often times carries out acts of evil on others, such as suicide bombings or shooting sprees on a group of unarmed comrades who have trusted them with their life? A terrorist right? Look at the following definitions:

Terror: Noun-To frighten, tremble,to fear. A state of intense fear. One that inspires fear. An appalling person or thing. A frightening aspect or invasion. Reign of terror. Violent or destructive acts.

Terrorism: Noun-The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Terrorist: Adjective or Noun: A radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often using religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

When the Cambridge incident happened, President Obama hastily reacted with the infamous quote, “He acted stupidly”. He openly admitted that he did not have all of the details nor did he know the entire story, but was willing to state publicly that the officer had acted stupidly. Here, we have a radical Muslim in the United States Army who had opened fire on over 50 of his unarmed comrades as they were preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. It had already been on record that Maj. Hasan opposed this war, opposed his deployment, and opposed the western culture. Yet, President Obama and many others I might add, wanted to play the waiting game and be politically correct. They wanted to play it safe. They wanted to protect those who may feel offended that we were calling something that was quacking loudly, a duck. For those who are Muslim and are not radical Muslims or are not terrorists, they were quick to come out and denounce Maj. Hasan's actions. I have a feeling they would not have been offended by anyone calling it what it was. The title of his actions do not change his actions. His actions were indeed a terrorist act. Why there is anyone in this current administration who does not want to call it what it is, is beyond me. It again, appears weak, fearful, and misinformed. It is so obvious to the rest of the populous and yet you have a select few who seem to be tripping on a word, a definition, a name, an ego. Even the other terrorists are calling it a terrorist act and praising him for it. Let's call it what it is. Terrorism. Maj. Nadal Hasan committed an act of terrorism on the men and women that he served with, that trusted him.

The thing that some may not even be thinking of is how does this affect the military families across the nation and world. For many, you go about your every day lives forgetting that we are even still at war with rogue nations. Many of you forget that we have loved ones abroad that are fighting in combat day and night against these very forces of evil that will stop at nothing to end a culture, a religion, and a people that they despise. For their family members back home, life is always in alert mode. We are always watchful and listening to the news and to current world events. We get phone calls and updates that you do not. We get information about injuries and fatalities of loved ones and friends. This has been the reality of our lives now for over six years. For many, it has been much longer. Now, since the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, this has added a new sense of heightened awareness. Many of you may be unaware of the fact that all military bases heightened security levels. I would imagine that the families who live at Ft. Hood are somewhat on guard when they go about their business on base. I imagine they are looking at everyone and wondering if they are safe, whether they are in uniform or not. Before, we could feel somewhat safer being on the military base. I wonder now, how this makes the soldiers feel who are on the battle field. They already worry about the safety of their family back home. Now, in a place where their family should be the most safe, they are finding that is not so. Yet, we have a group of politicians who are more worried about offending the radical Muslims than protecting the soldiers and their loved ones. There is a time when political correctness needs to be thrown out the door. There is a time when loyalty should step up to the plate. There is a time when honor and integrity should be evident. Where is the love of country and loyalty to your fellow man?

Now, President Obama has decided to try 9/11-mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators in federal court in New York City. Rudy Guiliani and Sarah Palin blasted the administration for the decision. I am thankful for that and proud of them. This decision, in the wake of Ft. Hood is much like a slap in the face. This is an outrage friends. These terrorists do not need to be tried on American soil. What has happened to the patriotism and the loyalty of America? What has happened to the strength of America? I realize that Bush had his faults and made his mistakes. So did Clinton. But frankly, I am missing both right now. We have many politicians who are outraged by this decision. I hope they will stand up against it and speak out. I hope the American people will. I hope that the investigations into the Ft. Hood attack shed light onto the real origin of the problem and provide some rapid solutions. I am certainly thankful for Joe Lieberman who has sparked these investigations. The problem seems to be much broader than anyone has imagined. I believe the time for political correctness and tolerance is no more. I believe the time for truth is now.

May God bless you and may God bless America. May God bring peace and healing to the families of Ft. Hood.

Related Articles
Post A Comment
* Indicates required information
Comment Title:
* Comments:
Nickname:
* Validation:
Comments 6 comments for this article
Page:   <<  <   1   >  >>
Added: November 19, 2009. 01:05 PM CST
Here's an updated article, from the same source.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/11/fort_hood_hearing_focuses_on_h.html#more

The classified briefing on the Fort Hood killings happened this morning.

The administration's stated concern is that the congressional investigation not jeopardize the prosecution of Hasan, by tainting witnesses.

Could there be a cover-up of something else, like an over-sensitivity to Muslims that led the military to overlook real signs of instability in Hasan? Possibly. As historians say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The Fort Hood massacre actually reminds me very much of the 2003 Kuwait massacre committed by Hasan Akbar - anyone remember that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Akbar_case

It would seem to be a rather extravagant conclusion to decide just from Fort Hood that some change in policy from Bush to Obama made such massacres more likely, when a very similar, if smaller, massacre in the military did happen six years ago. Hasan Akbar was tried by a military court and executed.

On Obama's thinking about Afghanistan - what would be the death toll if he decided wrongly?
Zander
Added: November 17, 2009. 10:00 PM CST
What is Wrong With Our President
As he tours the forbidden cit in China - like a tourist - he is supposedly pondering what to do in Afghanistan...what's the death toll since he commenced to ponderin'?

Now this, reported today:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/11/fort_hood_hearing_wont_include.html


White House won't provide witnesses for Fort Hood hearing

By Ben Pershing

The first public congressional hearing on the Fort Hood attack will not include testimony from any current federal law enforcement, military or intelligence officials because the Obama administration "declined to provide any" such witnesses, according to a Senate committee source.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has released the witness list for its hearing "The Fort Hood Attack: A Preliminary Assessment," scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m. ET. The list includes four experts on terrorism and intelligence issues: retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former U.S. Army vice chief of staff; Brian Jenkins, a senior advisor at the Rand Corp.; Mitchell Silber, the director of analysis for the New York City Police Department's Intelligence Division; and Juan Zarate, a senior advisor for the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

But the list does not include anyone actively involved in investigating the Fort Hood attack, or anyone who might have been responsible for decisions made by various government agencies before the attack about whether to investigate the shooting suspect, Nidal Hasan. The Senate committee source said HSGAC Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) had hoped to have witnesses from the FBI and the U.S. Army, but was rebuffed in his requests.

Asked for comment Monday, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said: "Tomorrow morning, an inter-agency briefing team will go to the Hill to brief House and Senate leaders and committee chairs and ranking members. This is the latest in a series of engagements with the Hill since the horrific events at Fort Hood, and further evidence of the Administration's commitment to appropriately inform Congress without interfering in the prosecution of this case."

Vietor did not address the specific question of why witnesses would not be provided for Thursday's hearing.

President Obama has already ordered a federal review of the circumstances that led up to the Fort Hood attack, and how government agencies handled intelligence related to Hasan. But in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama urged caution on Capitol Hill.

"I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should," Obama said. "But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high."

While most lawmakers have said they will wait for the results of the Fort Hood criminal investigation and Obama's announced review before rendering judgment, some have already been critical of the Obama administration's handling of both the prelude to the attack and its aftermath. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has been particularly sharp in his criticism.

Lieberman, for his part, has said the Fort Hood attack appeared to be the work of a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist," and he and Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the panel's top Republican, have vowed to cooperate with the administration if it returns the favor.

"To carry out our investigation, Congress will require the prompt and full cooperation of the Executive Branch -- cooperation that must start as soon as possible," Lieberman and Collins said Saturday. "We totally agree with the President that this inquiry must not turn into 'political theater' and it will not."

Separately, a closed-door Senate Armed Services Committee briefing on the status of the Fort Hood investigation has been postponed, after initially being scheduled for Monday afternoon. That session was scheduled to feature top officials, including Army Secretary John McHugh and Arrny Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey. Committee aides aid the session was postponed only to assure that everyone Senators wanted to hear from could attend, and would likely be rescheduled for later this week.

I'm beginning to think isn't so much bowing to the leaders of other countries as he is just "mooning" the people of this country. This is a bad, bad man.
Bill Jacoby
Added: November 17, 2009. 02:18 PM CST
I believe in the harder, and higher, road.
To be a combatant under the Geneva Conventions, you have to be a member of the armed forces of a participating country, who has not been injured in such a way that prevents them from carrying out their duties as a member of the armed forces. You don't have to be engaged at that very second in an active battle zone.

It is in that sense that I call the people at Fort Hood "combatants".

The US military, for purposes of pay and benefits, may make a distinction between combatants on active deployment and combatants not on active deployment, but that distinction does not make the soldiers of Fort Hood noncombatants. In fact, it appears from the description of the actual measures in the Congressman's bill you supplied that a more precise description of what he's doing is not awarding "combatant status" to Fort Hood soldiers who wouldn't have it, but classifying them as "combat zone military casualties" - which completely undermines your point. Under the law, there's no doubt about whether they are combatants at all.

I call Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest of the Guantanamo prisoners "prisoners of war". I do not call them "unlawful enemy combatants", because that's a term devised by the Bush administration to maintain the fiction that they are not prisoners of war. They may well be guilty of many other crimes (in the case of Mohammed, of planning 9/11). But I do not use the term "combatant" inconsistently, which is what you're accusing me of.

U.S. citizens, and those in this country LEGALLY (even you) deserve the full protection afforded by the U.S. Constitution.

What, like Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, two US citizens detained without trial after 9/11? Did you support trials and due process for them?

I am so sick of you, and your genuflecting president, and all the rest of you America hating Liberals always - always - taking the side of the killer - without regard for the victim. You always stand up loudly and proudly for what is vile, and disgusting, and hateful and horrific in society. You consistently defend the defenseless and are willing to toss babies into garbage cans while falling to knees to beg for the safety of terrorists who have killed thousands and would willing, happily kill thousands more if given the chance.

If you really believe in a principle, like, say, freedom of speech, then you have to hold that principle even for people whose speech you dislike (like in the case where the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to hold a rally).

Likewise, if you really believe that everyone is entitled to due process, then that has to include everyone, including people accused of horrific crimes. That's just the way it goes.

You're taking the easy way out: trying to award rights to people you approve of, and deny them to people you don't approve of.

There is no end once you start doing that. Why have fair trials for anyone at all, if you deny it to these people?

You're right that I don't tend to post about the right to a fair trial of rich, privileged, Christian American men. Why? Because generally speaking, the rights of people like that are already scrupulously respected by all. John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban", went straight to trial. These folks didn't. I would love to have it easy like you do, and pretend that we can make the law a respecter of persons; but I believe in a harder and higher road where it is not.

It's the rights of the people we consider alien and unacceptable that are most likely to be threatened, irrespective of whether they're guilty, as the whole sorry tale of Guantanamo shows.

I am a proud liberal. I view rights as a source of strength, not of weakness. I don't see removing people's rights as honoring their victims.

One last point: I have never, ever tossed a baby in a garbage can, nor defended others who have; I have two babies myself. So back the hell off!
Zander
Added: November 17, 2009. 01:33 PM CST
Zander -
KSM was taken prisoner, as a POW, by military personnel on foreign soil as an "enemey combatant".

You are so quick to call U.S. Military personnel on U.S. soil - not on active deployment- Combatants, but won't extend the same designation to KSM and the others at Gitmo who were involved with a massive, pre-meditated attack on U.S. civilians. Them you consider civilian criminals who warrant the rights and protections of a U.S. citizen accused of a civilian crime. What a hypocrite.

Can you explain why the U.S. Military doesn't consider or classify the dead and attacked at Fort Hood as combatants? Did the Federal Government or the U.S. Military actually have the oversight to consult you and your multiple U.S. law degrees?

It is in fact not a given that the Fort Hood soldiers were "Combatants" as the local area Congressman for the Fort Hood/Killeen, Texas area is trying now to have them re-classified as "Combatants" in order that their grieving families will be entitled to benefits due a combatant - which is higher than it is for those not on active combat duty.

See info: http://carter.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=40§iontree=6,40&itemid=1081

When a solider is yet to be deployed to a theater of war, they are not on active combat duty. They are not armed. They are not combatants, and they do not live their daily lives under the expectation of entering into combat.

I am so sick of you, and your genuflecting president, and all the rest of you America hating Liberals always - always - taking the side of the killer - without regard for the victim.

You always stand up loudly and proudly for what is vile, and disgusting, and hateful and horrific in society. You consistently defend the defenseless and are willing to toss babies into garbage cans while falling to knees to beg for the safety of terrorists who have killed thousands and would willing, happily kill thousands more if given the chance.

U.S. citizens, and those in this country LEGALLY (even you) deserve the full protection afforded by the U.S. Constitution. "ENEMY COMBATANTS" taken prisoner on foreign soil do not.

You're wrong. Your President is wrong.

KSM and his ilk do not deserve the same rights as a U.S. citizen. They deserve the same rights afforded to Nazi's captured in WWII.

Even OBAMA - when he was a Senator wanted them to stand trial in Military Tribunals - which by the way offer rights and protections, as well, but are designed for times of war and for dealing with active combatants.

Bill Jacoby
Added: November 17, 2009. 12:44 PM CST
Yeah, this "law" stuff is for pussies.
Yes, why bother with those pansy definitions and charges and trials and evidence and stuff? We're Americans, and we know we're right, so the rest is just window dressing!

Laws, not the dictionary you happen to be using, define who can and cannot be charged with terrorism. The US Law Code defines terrorism as, premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d).

Listen. My initial reaction to the Hasan attacks was that of course this was an act of terrorism. Then I looked up the definition that is actually used in US law. And by that definition, it's not. It frustrates me and you, but that's the truth. Which kind of undermines your attempt to blame the president's reaction on political correctness, doesn't it?

Hasan's targets were combatants. There's no evidence so far that he acted as part of a "subnational group" or was a "clandestine agent" of any kind. That doesn't make what he did anything other than a horrific massacre of people who had not done anything to him. But it does, unfortunately, make it not terrorism under this thing called the law.

Now for the trials in New York City. You say that putting them on trial is wrong and unpatriotic, but you don't say why. I fail to see why finally bringing to trial the men alive who are most responsible for 9/11 will do anything else than to honor the American tradition of universal human rights, endowed to each person by their Creator, and not removable by any government. Not trying them has brought great shame on America.

Perhaps you don't say why because the real reason is this. It's to be expected that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will defend himself by arguing that evidence against him should be thrown out on the ground that he was tortured over 180 times while in US custody that we know about, which the US government acknowledges did happen. Trying him will publicize that fact, and reflect poorly on America. Is that why you don't want it to happen?

Tough luck. It's not like the world isn't well aware of it already. It's discussed in foreign countries with great vehemence. The rest of the world is not deceived, but rather inflamed, at the perceived hypocrisy of a nation that proclaims its attachment to freedom while torturing its prisoners. We need to deal with this, now, or it will fatally and permanently damage our moral authority.

I pray that the credible evidence will still allow Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to still be convicted for what he did, and punished appropriately as any other mass-murdering terrorist would be. But it does not serve American interests to not make such conduct public.

One last question. Since you dislike these pansy "trials" so much, what do you think of the Nuremberg trials? Should we simply have done what Stalin wanted to do, and shoot the leading Nazis out of hand? Or should we have done what we did, which was to try them, find most of them guilty, and execute them with due process of law? Is it not a glory that we did that? And doesn't it furnish a great lesson in the difference between totalitarianism and democracy?
Zander
Added: November 17, 2009. 08:48 AM CST
Amen
I love it you write with such heart and tenacity!
Stacy
USMC 02-07
& my husband is still in
Anonymous
Page:   <<  <   1   >  >>
Reader Login
Username:
Password:
 Save Login?
Free Sign-up
Forgot Password?
Reader Control Panel
Our Newest Articles