President Barack Obama described the recent Fort Hood massacre as "a horrific outburst of violence."  That it was.  He cautioned against "jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." I suspect that he has learned a few things since his own improvident comments concerning the Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. affair at Harvard. If you will remember, Mr. Obama criticized the actions of the Cambridge police before he had sufficient facts to formulate an informed opinion.

The Fort Hood matter is distinguishable from the Gates affair.  Consider some of the facts we now possess:

(1) The violent perpetrator, Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan, pictured above, is a licensed Army psychiatrist and a devout Muslim;

(2) He was in the process of being deployed to Afghanistan, and did not desire to serve in that theater;

(3) He had argued with wounded veterans under his care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center about the morality of the Afghan war;

(4) In possession of two pistols which were not military issue, he walked into a crowded area of Fort Hood and opened fire, killing 13 people and wounding over 30 others, while screaming "Allahu Akbar" ("God is the greatest").

Based upon this core of facts, the Fort Hood massacre appears to have been a premeditated act of Islamic terror.  "Oh, but how can you make such a statement," insist the critics, "when you are unaware whether Dr. Hasan was insane during this orgy of death?"  Let me ask: since when did insanity and Muslim terrorism become disjunctive notions?  When was the last time that you read about a Muslim who actually executed an act of terrorism and was not crazy?

When all the facts are before Mr. Obama, and he feels thoroughly equipped to pronounce upon this matter, please do not expect anything other than illogical, politically correct bromides.  I can already hear some of them: "Dr. Hasan, who had seen the horrors of the Afghan war day after day in the eyes of countless veterans, was overwhelmed by the dark reality of the war, and he simply snapped."  Or "there is a lesson in all this for us as United States policymakers – we must extricate the nation from this nightmarish war."

Based upon Mr. Obama's celebrated Cairo address, it is incumbent upon us to believe that Muslims are a thoroughly noble lot, who have not only advanced civilization by leaps and bounds, but have also had much to offer the world.  This is why it is best not to characterize any corner of Islam as "terrorist."  We must refer to actions, such as Dr. Hasan's, as "criminal."

I think there is little doubt that what happened at Fort Hood was Islamic terror.  By this, I mean that there seems to have been a starkly vital link between the religious faith of the perpetrator and his murderous acts.  What is more, the event was the most egregious instance of Islamic terror on American soil since the horrors of 9-11.

True, most Muslim soldiers in American military uniform are not terrorists. They have served this country honorably and well.  But the United States, including the current occupant of the Oval Office, would do well to wise up about there being a specific animal among us called "an Islamic terrorist."  You bet there is!  Unless we face up to the stubborn facts of the matter, and stop the "politically correct" nonsense, we are sure to face similar events in the future, and probably even worse than those we have already experienced.

November 8, 2009