In the New York Times, Robert Wright argues that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq served to radicalize Maj. Nidal Hasan, and that:
The Fort Hood shooting, then, is an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.
By this reckoning, facing down the Soviet Union was a failure because it radicalized Bill Ayers. (Never mind that Hasan was connected to radical imams before the U.S. was involved in either war.)
Wright’s argument shows us the shape of liberal things to come. When the Fort Hood attack first happened, liberals jumped into the breach to declare Hasan a nut job with no religious or political motivation. Within twenty-four hours they were buried with evidence to the contrary. If jihad can’t be painted over with a medical condition, what, then, is a good Lefty to do? Blame the U.S. for jihad, of course.
We’ve come full circle. When 9/11 happened it was our fault because we supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Eight years later, Fort Hood is our fault for fighting the operational offspring of the Mujahadeen.
Wright thinks he’s been terribly clever in managing to hoist us hawks by our own petards. “When the argument is framed like this, don’t be surprised if conservatives, having insisted that we not medicalize Major Hasan’s crime by calling him crazy, start underscoring his craziness.”
No sale. Hasan is not crazy. He is an Islamist terrorist who carried out a plan. Fortunately, our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have killed thousands just like him.
What I don’t understand is why nobody tries to repeat the one debate format that actually worked and made for *interesting* debate – the Charlie Gibson-moderated one where the format was more or less “Here’s an issue, I’ll throw it on the table, you guys talk about it.”
Last night’s “Directed questions plus unlimited answer time” was the worst of both worlds. It discouraged any “cross-talk” more complex than brief interjection, and encouraged insertion of really *long* blobs of stump-speech boilerplate.
At least the “traditional” debate format holds those boilerplate sections down to a sound-bite length….
Oh, I forgot to add… I think I DO know why nobody does the “Gibson format.” It’s the format that least inflates the media’s own sense of self-importance….
Anderson Cooper’s job as moderator was the worst I’ve seen. He did America a great dis-service by allowing McCain and Romney to dominate the evening with their endless bickering, while Huckabee and Paul barely got any time. When Huck and Paul finally got to talk, he was constantly trying to cut them off. He never followed through with his “promise” to Paul that he would have a chance to talk in just 2 questions. And kudos to Huckabee for calling them on the unfairness.
On the last debate before Super Tuesday, all we got was a childish back and forth between the two “front runners”.
Shame on CNN!!… the Clinton News Network.