```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dec. 11, 2014 7:00 p.m. ET
There
has finally been a significant upturn in the case of the 2009 Fort Hood
terror attack in Texas that took the lives of 13 Americans—a saga
drenched, since its inception, in official lies and evasions. Not to
mention the Defense Department’s studious indifference to the fate of
the more than two-dozen survivors, many suffering serious wounds, but
who discovered themselves ineligible for the Purple Heart and medical
benefits given to military personnel injured in combat. Thanks to strong
bipartisan support, the House agreed last week to an amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2015 that would provide
such benefits for Fort Hood’s and other military victims of terror
attacks on American soil.
The
provision is now given a good chance of passing the Senate. The
question remains whether President Obama will veto it as he has, in the
past, threatened to do with any such bill.
In the repeated pronouncements of the Defense Department and the office of the president, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan ’s
shooting spree at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center—while
shouting “Allahu Akbar!”—could not be categorized as a terror attack.
Therefore the surviving servicemen and women could not be said to have
suffered combat-related wounds.
Army
spokesmen declared that Hasan’s assault should be considered a
“criminal act” by a single individual. Or, in the classification soon to
become famous, a case of “workplace violence”—an infuriating
description that would stick, burning, in the throats of Americans with a
memory of that day every time they heard it.
Every
time they heard it, that is, applied to the bloodbath carried out by
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who carried a card identifying him as a
“Soldier of Islam,” and whose jihadist sympathies were unconcealed
throughout his Army and medical-school training. Who had delivered
lectures to fellow medical students that were so awash in sympathy for
the 9/11 terror attacks, and for Osama bin Laden and
suicide bombers, that his angered audience left the room. Hasan, who
had left a trail of email contacts with jihadist luminaries like al
Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki and who—despite his rants against the
U.S. military, his incendiary speeches, his distinctly undistinguished
record, which put him in the lowest 25% of his class—was pushed ahead by
supervisors at Walter Reed who managed to discover in him the makings
of “a star officer” and one of “unique talents.”
At
Fort Hood, this star officer and psychiatrist was known for berating
soldiers—patients sent to him for treatment after return from their
deployment—as war criminals. Hasan was convicted and sentenced to death
in 2013.
Despite
last week’s promising House vote on benefits for the Fort Hood
survivors, there is no indication of any planned change in the
“workplace violence” classification. In the years since the attack, the
official reason has been that there was no evidence of a terrorist
motivation in Hasan’s assault. Further, that for the government to call
it terrorism might leave his prosecution open to charges of prejudice
and thus undermine chances of a conviction.
To
argue for this rationale is to accept that no terrorist who carried out
a plan to murder Americans can be tried for what he clearly did without
risk of tainting his trial. It is to accept, as well, the suppression
of truth as a core requirement of a successful prosecution.
Now
that Hasan has been convicted, there can be no excuse for not changing
the classification and calling terrorism by its name. In April,
then-White House spokesman Jay Carney ,
confronted with questions about the “workplace violence” designation,
explained that, among other things, Hasan had never deployed to Iraq or
Afghanistan and so was “unable to absorb any extremist message.”
In
its detachment from reality, this statement is of a piece with numerous
others that have distinguished this administration, not least those
connected with ObamaCare. Now comes a related twist—the Jonathan Gruber
story, in which this once much-praised, much-cited White House
consultant and favorite agent for the selling of ObamaCare is now
described as someone Mr. Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership
has barely heard of, if at all. Mr. Gruber’s consignment to the status
of unremembered nobody was occasioned by the emergence of videotaped
commentaries in which he confides that Americans were too stupid to
recognize all the evasions and duplicity deliberately built into the
health-care bill to ensure its passing.
The
Obama administration’s propensity for denying reality has been a
conspicuous feature from its beginnings, never more so, perhaps, than in
the White House aversion to making any connection between Islam and
terrorism. Not for nothing was Janet Napolitano, Mr. Obama’s first
Homeland Security head, reduced to telling Der Spiegel in 2009 that
rather than use words like terrorism, she favored “man-made disasters.”
Denial and determined obfuscation created the famous Benghazi talking
points and the false story, sustained for weeks, about a sleazy film
insulting to Islam as the cause of the murderous assault on the U.S.
consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
In
the case of Nidal Hasan, lies and obfuscation driven by a horror of
seeming insufficiently concerned with Muslim sensibilities made it
possible for a raging anti-American Islamist to be promoted with honors
and ultimately put in a position to fulfill his wish to kill American
soldiers.
Every
branch of the military delivered its own exhaustive report on the Fort
Hood assault. In none was there any mention of the taboo topic of
Hasan’s well-known connection with radical Islam.
The
denial of reality that led his politically concerned superiors to
advance Hasan, and give him glowing performance reviews, is of a piece
with the determination to categorize his murderous attack on unarmed
members of the U.S. military as a case of “workplace violence.” Both
perfectly reflect the values and spirit of the administration.
In
the months to come there will be a new candidate for defense secretary.
One of the first questions asked during confirmation hearings ought to
be whether the murder of those Americans at Fort Hood can be called
workplace violence. The answer would tell a lot.
By--- Ms. Dorothy Rabinowitz
Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.