Starting in the spring of 2008, key officials from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences held a series of meetings and conversations, in part about Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens of others last week during a shooting spree at Fort Hood. One of the questions they pondered: Was Hasan psychotic?
“Put it this way,” says one official familiar with the conversations that took place. “Everybody felt that if you were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, you would not want Nidal Hasan in your foxhole.”
Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials’ radar since he started training at Walter Reed, six years earlier. Several officials confirm that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work.
Both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan’s behavior — which they variously called disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid. The officials say he antagonized some students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist Islamic views. His supervisors at Walter Reed had even reprimanded him for telling at least one patient that “Islam can save your soul.”
Participants in the spring meeting and in subsequent conversations about Hasan reportedly included John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed; Robert Ursano, chairman of the Psychiatry Department at USUHS; Charles Engel, assistant chair of the Psychiatry Department and director of Hasan’s psychiatry fellowship; Dr. David Benedek, another assistant chairman of psychiatry at USUHS; psychiatrist Carroll J. Diebold; and Scott Moran, director of the psychiatric residency program at Walter Reed, according to colleagues and other sources who monitor the meetings.
Yep, his brand of crazy was the worst-kept secret in the history of treasonous crazy. And yet, the shame that cannot be named, kept everyone from acting on the obvious: The Army had a psychopathic, Islamofascist nutjob in their midst.
For me, it wasn’t the President’s speech that interested me all that much. The translation of the speech is simple: Appease. What was interesting in Egypt was who wasn’t there. Where was Michelle?
Yesterday, we found out that she was firing staff members while the Eye of Sauron was drawn elsewhere. Not sweet, sweet Michelle!
Feeling churlish today. Anyway, because Michelle stayed home, guess what didn’t happen? This:
Yeah, because you know that in the context of President Obama’s “no one is better than anyone else” speech, it’d be strange and disrespectful, not to mention weak and lame looking to the impotent Muslim men, to not have his woman covered up.
The solution? Partay like an oil lord in Paris, baby! See you there, honey! No one will notice the hypocrisy of carting my family to Western Europe, Paris, the symbol of Western civilization on that side of the pond (forget the jet fuel), while denying the super advanced Muslim civilization being graced by my glorious wife and her dashing Burquini.
No one sees the hypocrisy because the press has their collective noggins veiled in another head covering. Perhaps it will be removed in four years, but I doubt it.
Via InfidelsAreCool who says “evil pure and simple”:
Asked what was different about the victims of the incident, another doctor said: “It was very strange. I have seen so many dead bodies in my life, and was yet traumatised. A bomb blast victim’s body might have been torn apart and could be a very disturbing sight. But the bodies of the victims in this attack bore such signs about the kind of violence of urban warfare that I am still unable to put my thoughts to words,” he said.
Asked specifically if he was talking of torture marks, he said: “It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood,” one doctor said.
The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: “Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,” he said.
Corroborating the doctors’ claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. “During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis,” an IB source said.
What? Terrorists don’t follow the Geneva Conventions? Who woulda thunk it.
When I heard that the U.S. reversed course and had decided to “come to the table” with Iran, I thought, uh oh, this is the last effort before Iran’s nuclear sites get bombed after the Presidential election. If nothing else, the State Department can shrug their shoulders and say, “We tried”, which is essentially what’s happening today. The New York Times Mike Nizza reports:
Last week, the United States’s decision to join those talks directly was seen as a “double policy shift” that could lead to a breakthrough. But a session on Saturday ended in deadlock.
The problem, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saw it this morning, was that Iran was not being serious. From The Associated Press:
“We expected to hear an answer from the Iranians but, as has been the case so many times with the Iranians, what came through was not serious,” Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she flew to the United Arab Emirates. “It’s time for the Iranians to give a serious answer.”
As some readers may have gleaned already, it was a widely expected result. Hard-liners have long warned against negotiating with Iran, saying it was less than serious about resolving the nuclear issue. Others have hinted at the same concern as the talks have dragged on.
As an aside, check out this paragraph:
If Tehran’s professed civilian-only ambitions for their nuclear turned out to be false, as some suspect, the weapons they obtain would drastically upset the balance of power in the Middle East. If Israel decided it had to forcibly prevent that from happening (the widespread talk is of air strikes), that would probably derail the long, meandering talks between Iran and six global powers aimed at halting Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for a package of incentives. [emphasis added, -ed]
Good grief. Is there a person on the planet who believes that Iran has “civilian-only ambitions”? Iran with nukes would “upset the balace of power”? Ya think? I would guess that an obliterated Israel (Iran’s stated objective) would more than change the power, it’d probably change the terrain of the Middle East (literally), too. And, should Israel bomb Iran back to the stone ages, nuclear-wise, I’m guessing that the need for “incentives” would be gone, no? I mean, the problem is the nukes.
So will the pointy-heads be satisfied that enough “negotiation” happened when Iran gets bombed, their nuclear ambitions dashed for another couple decades? Doubtful. They won’t acknowledge Iran’s ambitions because to do so, they’d have to get “serious” about their analysis and policy positions.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News