Remember my article about the right-wing seeming to worship terrorists? I want you to keep that in mind while you read this.
President Obama’s decision to avoid labeling the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism has caused quite a bit of contention amongst his opponents, who have decided to take action. Specifically, they’re proposing legislation that would declare Fort Hood a “combat zone” during the attacks, which is purportedly in order to give the victims better protection but would really declare the act a terrorist attack.
What has led many in Congress and elsewhere to declare this an act of terrorism are, among other things, the increasingly open and radical religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who has been charged with 13 counts of murder in the case, as well as his ties to Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamic cleric in Yemen sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Yes, Hasan had ties to a cleric in Yemen, but that is a long, long way away from ties to terrorists or being a terrorist oneself. It would be like if I was friends with a guy who supports those animal-rights nutjobs and suddenly I got declared a potential environmentalist terrorist. No no.
What’s happening is that these lawmakers want this to count as a terrorist attack for one simple reason: it would prove Obama’s soft stance is a failure. Like children on the playground playing dodgeball saying if the ball hits a girl’s ponytail it means she’s out, they’ve become so desperate for something to vindicate their frenzy about terrorism that they’re actively rooting for terrorism. This is, so far, all they’ve got.
Ironically, what they’re declaring as “soft” in Obama’s policies is great strength. In an age of rabid fear that manifests as rage, standing up to the men with pitchforks is incredibly courageous. Like a man stopping the mob as they chased Frankenstein’s monster. The president’s refusal to cave into the pressure from the right shows that his positions are borne of strength, which is damn impressive.
