General Casey's Diverse Army

I am missing something here.  After the attack and murder of 13 innocent people by an apparent imbedded radical Jihadist in the US Army, General Casey said on Meet The Press, "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength.  And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

I have some questions for any military officer who swore an oath on several occasions to support and defend the Constitution.  How many innocent Americans have to be murdered by someone who displayed every single modus operandi of the 9/11 attackers in order for freedom and defense of the Constitution to trump diversity?  Will fourteen do it?  How about a few hundred?

I took the oath of office a few times in my military career and for the life of me I don't ever remember the word "diversity" being in it.  Nonetheless, let's take the General at his word, shall we?  Is the Army or the nation for that matter, strong from "diversity" by celebrating someone who makes it very clear for years that he does not like the fact that Muslim Americans in uniform are fighting other Muslims who want Americans to die?

Color me a bitter Bible and gun clinger, but I thought our strength was in our freedom and the defense of our freedom by blood spilled on battlefields.  I also thought that freedom allows diversity to flourish, not the other way around.

If an Army officer, superior to another Hasan-like soldier recognizes similar aspects displayed by Hasan and tries to thwart another similar attack, will General Casey admonish that officer because of insensitivity to "diversity?"  It sure sounds like it to me.  In fact, in a National Public Radio segment comments were made by some of Hasan's superiors questioning whether or not they should do anything about his anti-American rhetoric (not to mention Hasan's Power Point presentation).

They decided they should not because of their concern that it would not look good if the first Muslim psychiatrist were given an early discharge from the Army. 

Even after the "tragedy," General Casey still thinks that's perfectly okay.

So, "as horrific as the tragedy was," if the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force do anything at all that might cause "diversity to become a casualty," no matter how many innocent Americans are murdered, especially murdered by military personnel; losing "diversity" would be worse?  Really, General?  Did you swear an oath to the Constitution or to a liberal professor's PowerPoint presentation at Command and Staff College?  Again, I would ask, how many innocent Americans have to be murdered before freedom and the defense of freedom trumps diversity?
I am missing something here.  After the attack and murder of 13 innocent people by an apparent imbedded radical Jihadist in the US Army, General Casey said on Meet The Press, "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength.  And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

I have some questions for any military officer who swore an oath on several occasions to support and defend the Constitution.  How many innocent Americans have to be murdered by someone who displayed every single modus operandi of the 9/11 attackers in order for freedom and defense of the Constitution to trump diversity?  Will fourteen do it?  How about a few hundred?

I took the oath of office a few times in my military career and for the life of me I don't ever remember the word "diversity" being in it.  Nonetheless, let's take the General at his word, shall we?  Is the Army or the nation for that matter, strong from "diversity" by celebrating someone who makes it very clear for years that he does not like the fact that Muslim Americans in uniform are fighting other Muslims who want Americans to die?

Color me a bitter Bible and gun clinger, but I thought our strength was in our freedom and the defense of our freedom by blood spilled on battlefields.  I also thought that freedom allows diversity to flourish, not the other way around.

If an Army officer, superior to another Hasan-like soldier recognizes similar aspects displayed by Hasan and tries to thwart another similar attack, will General Casey admonish that officer because of insensitivity to "diversity?"  It sure sounds like it to me.  In fact, in a National Public Radio segment comments were made by some of Hasan's superiors questioning whether or not they should do anything about his anti-American rhetoric (not to mention Hasan's Power Point presentation).

They decided they should not because of their concern that it would not look good if the first Muslim psychiatrist were given an early discharge from the Army. 

Even after the "tragedy," General Casey still thinks that's perfectly okay.

So, "as horrific as the tragedy was," if the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force do anything at all that might cause "diversity to become a casualty," no matter how many innocent Americans are murdered, especially murdered by military personnel; losing "diversity" would be worse?  Really, General?  Did you swear an oath to the Constitution or to a liberal professor's PowerPoint presentation at Command and Staff College?  Again, I would ask, how many innocent Americans have to be murdered before freedom and the defense of freedom trumps diversity?