Jim Geraghty writes an astonishingly foolish piece on the Fort Hood shooting, tying it to the Obama administration as though this was akin to Bush's "Katrina moment." The National Review Online does the anti-Obama dance daily, so it is no surprise that they have yet another column up on how Obama's administration is responsible for yet another catastrophe that of course Obama has no connection to whatsoever. But even for the NRO, this is sleazy beyond even their standards of decency. Here is what Geraghty writes:
"The White House's response to the Fort Hood shooting isn’t quite that screw-up. There were many great passages in Obama’s remarks at the memorial service. But two days later, two passages jump out — Obama’s declarations that these Americans being killed on American soil was “incomprehensible” and that “it may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.”
With each passing day, the details about the Fort Hood shooter get clearer — repeated communication between Hasan and an extremist figure in Yemen, web postings that appeared to justify suicide bombings, strange behavior at Walter Reed, and now perhaps financial transfers to someone in Pakistan. Increasingly it seems Nidal Malik Hasan wasn’t afraid to fight a war; he just wanted to fight for the other side.
Pres. George W. Bush had his troubles throughout his second term, but his approval rating really dropped after Hurricane Katrina and his infamous “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” utterance. Before that date, a lot of Americans who were troubled by Iraq had been willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt because the government seemed to be handling its duties well — no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, etc. Once that perception of basic competence eroded, Bush’s poll numbers plummeted and never recovered."
The comparison is ugly because it is based not on facts, but on pure hatred of Obama and using the lives of so many as political porn.
Let's look at the comparison in reality. Bush had direct briefings on the situation in New Orleans BEFORE Katrina hit, and went on vacation anyway. Later, he lied (and Fox News helped him) about having any direct warnings that the levees would not hold. Moreover, Bush stayed on vacation for days while NOLA drowned and FEMA was MIA - only reemerging to praise the head of FEMA, despite the epic failure of the agency.
Obama, on the other hand, was not briefed on Hasan. No such allegations have been reported. No such claims are being made by any agency whatsoever. Obama was not told about an investigation into Hasan, which incidentally was conducted during Bush's tenure. In addition, the investigators found nothing of concern in Hasan's activities and dropped their probe - rightly or wrongly. Regardless of what the investigators found or did not find, there is still no connection to Obama. Not rushing to call this Islamic terrorism is wise, because of the equally extreme nationalistic views of some, which may lead to more violence as retribution.
(more below the fold)
If this shooting was indeed an act of Islamic terrorism by a sane and sober mind, it will still be next week and the week after. If it is not Islamic terrorism, however, rushing to judgment won't help bring us closer to understanding the true motives for the shooting. Why this rush to declare the shooting Islamic terrorism, even state sponsored, and possibly involving multiple plotters? What is the problem with being cautious until all the facts are in?
In any case, directly after the shooting, the current POTUS addressed the nation and visited the wounded.
Bush's decision to do nothing, despite being briefed on the levee problems, contributed to the massive loss of life in and around NOLA. Obama in no way contributed to what Hasan did and the loss of life at Fort Hood.
Bush's refusal to address the crisis in NOLA as thousands were shown on TV, wall-to-wall, on every news outlet, 24/7 for FOUR DAYS contributed to the tragic loss of human life in and around NOLA. Obama addressed the shooting immediately, in any case, the lone shooter was already in custody and the wounded were already being treated.
When Bush finally decided to address the tragedy in and around NOLA, he did so as a PR stunt, praising his FEMA head, while his political hands, religious conservatives who supported him, and Fox friends blamed the Democrats and the victims of NOLA, attempting damage control to Bush's image, rather than to the dying city of New Orleans and surrounding areas as well as the victims who had lost everything, some even their lives.
Obama approached the Fort Hood shooting cautiously, trying to control panic while an investigation was being launched. He did not blame the GOP for a war of aggression in Iraq that may have contributed to Hasan's psyche breaking open. True or not, he could have played this card the way Bush and his surrogates had done in dealing with the Katrina tragedy by blaming Democrats and liberals. But he did not. He also did not blame the victims of the shooting. He addressed the violence with respect and calm, no pomp, no political propaganda.
Tell me then, how can anyone possibly have such disregard for the victims of both Katrina and the Fort Hood shooting that they can so easily trample on facts to score political points?
By all means criticize Obama on legitimate issues using sound arguments. But a straw-man built on the dead bodies of two American tragedies is not legitimate criticism. It is political porn and it is ugly. Worse still, watch as the right-wing extremists catapult this ugly talking point, with little regard for the victims of either tragedy.
What we know about Hasan, the investigation into him, the motive for the shooting, and what - if any - help Hasan had in the attack from foreign elements (or domestic assets) is very little. We don't know enough about any of this yet. We know that religious extremism played some role, but what that role was is still sketchy. We also know that Hasan was communicating with an extremist cleric, but the nature of those communications are said to have been of little concern to federal authorities. Beyond that, much else that has been reported has been pure speculation or hearsay.
This may have been an act of Islamic terrorism. This may have not been an act of Islamic terrorism. This may have been a state sponsored attack, this may not have been a state sponsored attack. This may have been the work of a lone soldier gone insane, or not. We simply don't yet know enough to conclude anything other than the few, solid, pieces of information that have been confirmed - which does not really answer any of these questions yet.
We can, however, be certain that this was not Obama's "heck of a job moment" because it has nothing to do with him whatsoever.
