Following President Obama’s appalling speech addressing the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, one has to wonder how much political correctness is really embedded in our military. As a side note, Obama urged people not to ‘jump to conclusions’ concerning Nidal Malik Hasan, yet had no problem jumping to conclusions himself with the Cambridge Police incident.

The fact that a radicalized Muslim is even allowed to be in our military, yet alone an officer, is quite frightening. What if such people worked in a specialty that allowed them access to nuclear weapons? Granted the security clearances are much greater than an Army psychiatrist would possess. But how are we to know that security screening hasn’t been compromised with political correctness as well?

More and more information has surfaced about Nidal Malik Hasan from his links to the 9/11 highjackers, to his yelling “ALLAHU AKBAR” during his killing spree. Yet what does the media do but downplay his Muslim background and try to present him as someone who went crazy. There is nothing to suggest he went insane, but instead is a person who carefully planned and considered his acts for some time, then carried them out according to the teachings of his religion. The fact his terrorist actions were fueled by his Islamic beliefs should therefore be the main aspect raised with all reports of this tragedy. As one author notes:

The Fort Hood shooter had previously said that Muslims should rise up against the military, “repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers,” was pleased by the terrorist murder of an army recruiter, and publicly called for the beheading or burning of non-Muslims, talking “about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire.”  But thanks to a politically-correct double standard, nothing was done to remove him from a position where he could harm others.

However, how did the mainstream media cover this, besides not even calling it by its proper name? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews defends Hasan’s attempt to contact al Qaeda by asking, “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?” CBS host Bob Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton, “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?” CNN’s Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?” But Hasan was never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. ABC’s Diane Sawyer and ABC’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, wishes the Muslim shooter’s “name was Smith,” although that would make little difference because it’s not his name that directed his murderous actions, but his faith. The New York Times warns Muslims of persecution (yet the Times never protected other religious groups like Christians), and Newsweek blames the military first.

As reported by NewsBusters:

• Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
• ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
• Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

It’s bad enough that the people have been systematically deceived by the media and academia concerning the religion of Islam, but our military seems to be compromised as well. Only by presenting an honest appraisal of what the West faces will we have a chance of successfully combating radical Islam. But one thing is certain; we cannot defend against the very thing we are trying to defeat by incorporating it into our military.