ABC News reports that American intelligence agencies were aware that Nidal Malik Hasan had been attempting to contact al-Queda prior to carrying out a deadly massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. The FBI was apparently aware of his radical blog postings in defense of suicide bombings, and the Army had received multiple complaints from fellow soldiers about him.
Yet a day after the shooting, the President of the United States jumped to tell Americans not to “jump to conclusions” about the incident. This begs the question: Did President Obama know that Hasan had been under investigation by intelligence agencies prior to his attack? If not, why not? If so, why would he mislead the American people by insinuating that this could be something other than what he would every reason to believe it was?
Regarding the US intelligence work itself, to what degree this information was organized and in a single set of hands, the public does not yet know. What we do know is that signs were abundant, and the Army did not act in response to them.
The public continues to see dishonest news media coverage of this event. It often comes in clever and subtle phrasings from legacy media institutions (whose mechanics are often excellent; and in their deftness they can subtly maneuver into a parsing that may not technically be inaccurate, but is altogether misleading.), like this one from the New York Times:
“Many Muslims have been concerned that their faith will somehow be blamed after an Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who prayed regularly at the Fort Hood mosque, was accused of being the lone gunman in the attack.” (emphasis added)
Somehow? As if it it is some giant leap of logic that Islam had anything whatsoever to do with this killing? Somehow? Islam inspired this massacre, and if that was only an inference that can be drawn early on, it is now all but proven with direct evidence. Unfortunately, this is not surprising, coming from the New York Times.
I’ve seen multiple examples of this in the coverage of this event.