Casey's 'concern' (updated)

Clarice Feldman
Echoing my thoughts and I believe the thoughts of many Americans, Contentions' Jennifer Rubin responds to Army Chief of Staff General George Casey's "concern" about a "backlash" against Moslems in the U.S. military as a result of the Fort Hood massacre:

Casey should be concerned if his organization was asleep at the switch and fell victim to a political correctness that clouded common sense. We should be concerned that the head of the Army now seems nervous about candidly discussing what occurred.

To be clear: it is the ultimate red herring, a straw man of gargantuan proportions, to suggest that those pointing to Hasan's motives and announced intentions ("I am going to do good work for God") are suggesting that Muslim soldiers as a group are untrustworthy or suspect. No, there is no "backlash" in the works. What there is, and what elite opinion makers should recognize before the public's fury builds, is that ignoring signs of  Islamic-fundamentalist-inspired animus toward America will get people killed. It has. And it will again unless and until we stop tip-toeing around the obvious link between a murderous ideology and murder.

I suppose that given who is  the Commander in Chief, hewing to this politically correct red herring will assure his position is safe. But it shouldn't in my book. It's apparent to me that he cares more about himself and his career than he does for the men and women under his care.

 
Update:


Mark Steyn sees it as Jennifer and I do:
So who's nuttier?

The guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats?

Or the guys who say "Hey, let's have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel?

Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death?

Or the Secretary of Homeland Security who warns that the principal threat we face now is an outbreak of Islamophobia?

Or the president who says we cannot "fully know" why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further?

Or the columnist who, when a man hands out copies of the Koran before gunning down his victims while yelling "Allahu akbar," says you're racist if you bring up his religion?

Or his media colleagues who put Americans in the same position as East Germans twenty years ago of having to get hold of a foreign newspaper to find out what's going on?
Echoing my thoughts and I believe the thoughts of many Americans, Contentions' Jennifer Rubin responds to Army Chief of Staff General George Casey's "concern" about a "backlash" against Moslems in the U.S. military as a result of the Fort Hood massacre:

Casey should be concerned if his organization was asleep at the switch and fell victim to a political correctness that clouded common sense. We should be concerned that the head of the Army now seems nervous about candidly discussing what occurred.

To be clear: it is the ultimate red herring, a straw man of gargantuan proportions, to suggest that those pointing to Hasan's motives and announced intentions ("I am going to do good work for God") are suggesting that Muslim soldiers as a group are untrustworthy or suspect. No, there is no "backlash" in the works. What there is, and what elite opinion makers should recognize before the public's fury builds, is that ignoring signs of  Islamic-fundamentalist-inspired animus toward America will get people killed. It has. And it will again unless and until we stop tip-toeing around the obvious link between a murderous ideology and murder.

I suppose that given who is  the Commander in Chief, hewing to this politically correct red herring will assure his position is safe. But it shouldn't in my book. It's apparent to me that he cares more about himself and his career than he does for the men and women under his care.

 
Update:


Mark Steyn sees it as Jennifer and I do:
So who's nuttier?

The guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats?

Or the guys who say "Hey, let's have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel?

Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death?

Or the Secretary of Homeland Security who warns that the principal threat we face now is an outbreak of Islamophobia?

Or the president who says we cannot "fully know" why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further?

Or the columnist who, when a man hands out copies of the Koran before gunning down his victims while yelling "Allahu akbar," says you're racist if you bring up his religion?

Or his media colleagues who put Americans in the same position as East Germans twenty years ago of having to get hold of a foreign newspaper to find out what's going on?