The Hasan Debacle

Mark Steyn is cutting, as usual, in his discussion of the Hasan trial – he concludes his piece:

…He’s admirably upfront about who and what he is — a “Soldier of Allah,” as he put on his business card. On Tuesday, he admitted he was a traitor who had crossed over from “the bad side” (America’s) to “the good side” (Islam’s). He has renounced his U.S. citizenship and its effete protections such as workplace-violence disability leave. He professes loyalty to America’s enemies. He says, “I am the shooter.” He helpfully informs us that that’s his gun. In this week’s one-minute statement, he spoke more honestly and made more sense than Obama, Gates, Casey, the Armed Forces Court of Appeals, two judges, the prosecution and defense lawyers, and mountains of bureaucratic reports and media coverage put together.

But poor old Hasan can say “Yup, I did it” all he wants; what does he know?

Unlike the Zimmerman trial, Major Hasan’s has not excited the attention of the media. Yet it is far more symbolic of the state of America than the Trayvon Martin case, in which superannuated race hucksters attempted to impose a half-century-old moth-eaten Klan hood on a guy who’s a virtual one-man melting pot. The response to Nidal Hasan helps explain why, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, this war is being lost — because it cannot be won because, increasingly, it cannot even be acknowledged. Which helps explain why it now takes the U.S. military longer to prosecute a case of “workplace violence” than it did to win World War Two.

Steyn is right – Hasan is the admirable person in this trial.  He’s quite clear on who he is, what he did and why.  We, on our side, look like a sick and twisted combination of idiot and coward.  I’m not quite sure what is best in dealing with Hasan – shooting him is logical (I’m opposed to the death penalty in principal but traitors during wartime pretty much ask for their own deaths), but there is something to be said in denying him “martyrdom” and growing old and dying, long since forgotten, in prison.  But whatever we do with him, we’ll still look like cowardly idiots.

In spite of the fact that he’s clearly 100% guilty as charged and there is abundant and indisputable evidence to prove this, it has taken years to bring him to trial.  He should have been tried as soon as he got out of the hospital post-shooting.  There was the beard issue which took a lot of time – a dispute as to whether or not Hasan should have to adhere to Army regulations about beards (the are forbidden).  Tie him down and shave him – though, of course, had we tried him in a rational time frame he wouldn’t have been able to grow such a full beard.  The man, in court, is clearly stating he’s guilty – and yet the trial goes on, rather than the sentencing.  Once he is sentenced, there will probably be years of appeals.  With a little luck, we’ll wrap this up a couple years before Hasan dies of old age – unless we exchange him for someone the Islamists kidnap meanwhile.

In the endless post-mortems of France’s defeat in 1940, one thing which rarely came out in the analysis is the actual reason the Germans were able to conquer France in 6 weeks:  the people of France, with a few shining exceptions, were yellow to the bone.  They were simply afraid to fight.  There are a large variety of reasons the heroic France of 1914 turned in to the cowardly France of 1940, but the fact remains that if they’d had some guts in 1940 the war would have gone very differently.  I worry that we have become like that, too – simply afraid to fight…with our fear stemming from a lack of faith in our cause; we don’t believe that we’re any good any longer, that we have to right to be here…that we’ve never done anything worthwhile and so our enemies are right to attack us.  For crying out loud, we’ve got a traitor who joined the other side and massacred our soldiers here on our soil – and we can’t even swiftly and correctly deal with something as cut and dried as that…small wonder we’re at our wits end with what to do about the larger issues.

We’d better get some courage back, and right quick.  The vultures are circling…

26 thoughts on “The Hasan Debacle

  1. tiredoflibbs August 10, 2013 / 5:47 am

    It took only TWO YEARS to try and convict Tim McVeigh and he was executed FOUR years later.

    It has been FOUR YEARS for Hasan and the trial is just getting started.

    Well we have to remember this was not a terrorist attack – just a workplace violence incident.

    • neocon01 August 10, 2013 / 9:39 am

      He will be barrys next SS or AG after al and the rent a mobs scream for jus us for him, expect a name change to tra von.

  2. neocon01 August 10, 2013 / 9:36 am

    Murder, treason, HANG HIM!!

  3. Amazona August 10, 2013 / 12:05 pm

    OT but relevant to this thread if we view it as an example of the degeneration of American outrage at the outrageous.

    That peevish little possum, Harry Reid, has gotten a complete pass by the Complicit Agenda Media regarding his radio interview in which he said he just hopes that opposition to the President is not based upon the fact that he is African American, and identified conservatives as being like anarchists who strive to bring down government.

    The Complicit Agenda Media have a lot to answer for, and this includes their determined staring off into the distance while outrageous lying rabble-rousing is going on right under their noses. Every time a national figure with the power of the government behind him or her is allowed to get away with blatant rabble-rousing, extravagant lies, and overt attempts to turn some Americans against other Americans by identifying them as enemies, and the various media look the other way and let it pass, they become more and more complicit in the degeneration of this country.

    • Amazona August 10, 2013 / 12:16 pm

      Sorry—-I forgot to include the link to the above comment. (emphasis mine)

      Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he hopes Republicans who oppose the president do so “based on substance and not the fact that he’s an African American.”

      The comment came during a wide-ranging interview Friday with Las Vegas-based National Public Radio affiliate KNPR, in which Reid, a Nevada Democrat, lamented Republican filibusters and claimed opponents do everything they can to make Obama fail.

      Reid’s comments went unchallenged by the program’s moderator, but not by Newsmax contributor and conservative African-American columnist Clarence V. McKee, who said there was no reason for Reid to raise the race issue during the interview.

      “It’s been typical for the last 3½ years — Obama supporters, black and white — whenever he’s criticized the first thing they yell is ‘race or racism,’” said McKee, who held several positions in the Reagan administration as well as the Reagan presidential campaigns. “For the Senate majority leader to stoop that low and go into the racial gutter is disgusting.”

      McKee blamed Reid’s comments and similar ones for the apparent deterioration of race relations since the election of President Obama in 2008.

      “He’s just race baiting and the president should disavow it as should other Democrats, but they’re all part of a race-bait chorus,” according to McKee, citing a recent Wall Street Journal poll, which found that attitudes on race relations have plummeted under the president. “They’re doing more to hurt race relations than the Zimmerman verdict will ever do.”

      He said Reid’s comments were tantamount to “liberal, elitist, racism.”

      McConnell’s office referred a request for comment to Sen. Tim Scott, a black Republican from South Carolina, who said Reid’s remarks were offensive and asked for an apology.

      In 2010, Reid apologized for comments he made about the president’s race during the 2008 presidential campaign.

      Reid described then-Sen. Obama as “light skinned’’ and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’’

      In his apology, Reid attributed his private description of Obama to a “poor choice” of words.

      “I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” he said at the time. “I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.’’

      In his radio interview, Reid also criticized members of the tea party, comparing them to anarchists who helped spark World War I. He said that while modern anarchists don’t resort to violence, they do not believe in government and rejoice in its troubles.

      “They have the same philosophy as the early anarchists,” he said. “They don’t believe in government. Anytime anything bad happens to the government, that’s a victory for them. It makes it very difficult to get things done.”


      “For the Senate majority leader to stoop that low and go into the racial gutter is disgusting.” Not to the Left, who are only disgusted by things such as the expression on a former President’s face, or commitment to the Constitution as the only legal form of government for our country.

      Lying, race-baiting, striving to create hatred and suspicion among different demographics of Americans to gain political power, none of these antics are considered “disgusting”. In fact, they are supported and cheered by the hatemongers who form an increasingly larger proportion of the Democrat Party.

      • Cluster August 10, 2013 / 2:24 pm

        Funny but I don’t remember the criticism against Bush being qualified in any way. In fact Harry called President Bush a loser in front of elementary kids at one point, so was that critique based on policy?

      • neocon01 August 10, 2013 / 2:47 pm

        In his radio interview, Reid also criticized members of the tea party, comparing them to anarchists who helped spark World War I. He said that while modern anarchists don’t resort to violence, they do not believe in government and rejoice in its troubles.

        Sorry DIRTY harry, IF that were true half the donk politicians would be swinging from Oak trees.
        Count your lucky stars the TAXED ENOUGH PARTY are law abiding, hard WORKING American patriots unlike the commie party you and yours has become.

  4. seniorwoman August 10, 2013 / 5:18 pm

    I sent an email to Harry Reid asking…okay demanding he apologize to me. I have attended a few Tea Party rallies. I never once destroyed, raped, or murdered anyone like the OWs. I am so “pure” that I have never even been in a car accident or had a ticket, but I am an Anarchist. This all from some guy who built his political career on dirty dealings.

    We have set the bar so low for Democrats that slugs crawl over it.

    • M. Noonan August 10, 2013 / 5:45 pm

      Good response – more of us need to take the time to do that.

  5. bardolf2 August 12, 2013 / 10:55 am

    ” the people of France, with a few shining exceptions, were yellow to the bone. ” – Mark

    If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
    Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
    And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
    His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
    To children ardent for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
    Pro patria mori.

    Wilfred Owen

    The French army which engaged the Nazi blitzkrieg did so with inferior arms and strategy. They suffered over 100,000 casualties, their armies outflanked and the Nazis were already in their rear supply areas with nothing to stop the Nazis from occupying the entire country as the French army was cut off from supplies and sitting ducks to slaughter as soon as they were encircled.

    It’s fun to make jokes about the French army, but armchair warriors like Mark Noonan would have gotten many millions of young French killed for nothing. World War 1 is a haze for the pro-war crowd but it wasn’t for the French in 1940.

    • M. Noonan August 12, 2013 / 11:43 am


      Actually, the Anglo-French armies were at least as large as the German, and may have been in a slight numerical superiority. French tanks and artillery were superior to German tanks and artillery. While French planes were inferior, British were a match – and the Anglo-French were only slightly outnumbered in the air. Here is a key fact: the French finished the 1940 campaign with more front-line planes than they started with.

      The reason the Anglo-French armies were cut off was because French troops running away in panic from the battlefront – DeGaulle witnesses this himself…as he was moving up with his armored division he saw masses of French soldiers, disarmed, shuffling shamefaced to the rear. The system rotted from the head, of course – General Huntzinger fleeing from Sedan all the way to Verdun to keep distance between himself and the Germans was an epic act of cowardice – but all up and down the line, the French just didn’t want to fight. There were instances of officers being shot by their men for no other reason than ordering them to fight.

      In 1914 Gallieni proposed to fight in Paris house by house if the Germans came that way. In 1918, in the final crisis, Clemenceau said he would fight in Paris. In 1940? The French declared Paris an open town.

      To be sure, given the initial deployment of the allied and German armies, the Germans were going to score a major victory in the week starting May 10th, 1940 – the Anglo-French had, just as in 1914, put their main armies precisely where they shouldn’t have been (oddly enough, the 1914 position of the Anglo-French armies would have been perfect for 1940, and vice versa). But had everyone been energetically doing their duty – especially at Sedan – then the Germans would have been held up long enough for major Anglo-French forces to arrive from north and south of the main German attack to at least allow a very firm front to be established along the Somme. Maybe the Germans would have got through that, too – but intact Anglo-French armies in June of 1940 would have given the Germans far more of a fight, while a bit of courage in France, if faced with the loss of metropolitan France, would still have organized a massive withdrawal of military force to North Africa, as DeGaulle and a few other Frenchmen with courage wished…to continue the war from there with British and American aid. The Germans still might have defeated the French – but it wouldn’t have been the disgraceful route that it was…nor would the French have been such willing pawns of Hitler’s New Order as they were (the Resistance didn’t get going in any serious way for a long time in France…and it had to be stimulated from the outside).

      If you want to have a country you have to be willing to fight for it – fight hard and take losses. You have to see your enemy for what he is and strike at him with all your might. The French were unwilling to do that – they preferred life under a Nazi boot to death in defense of their homes. It took years for the French to recover their honor – mostly because the Germans, being German, finally goaded them in to fighting. I worry that we don’t have the real courage to fight – that is my concern.

      • bardolf2 August 12, 2013 / 1:33 pm


        You talk a lot about make/mine/build which I agree with 100%. You’ve also said you work long hours pushing paper for some finance type company. Would you say you aren’t really fighting for your vision and that you are a coward for not giving up your air conditioned office?

        The typical Frenchman gave up 4 years of freedom under the occupation and lived 70 years apart from that, how many years have you given up on your vision?

      • M. Noonan August 12, 2013 / 2:22 pm


        I hardly think that the situations are the same. At all events, I’m merely pointing out why the French lost. This is indisputable based on the facts and is confirmed by DeGaulle’s eventually successful Free French movement. You’re trying to make it about me, personally – which is absurd when I am discussion long term trends in society.

        I urge you to get past making things personal.

      • Amazona August 12, 2013 / 2:13 pm

        Gee, dolf, you seem to have gotten up on the nasty side of the bed this morning. Is it really necessary to call Mark a “coward”?

        So you have a thing for the French and fret when their courage in WW II is called into question. But really, is it necessary to call someone else names? Can’t you just offer an alternative view of what happened in France?

      • neocon01 August 12, 2013 / 4:14 pm

        Gee, dolf, you seem to have gotten up on the nasty side of the bed this morning. Is it really necessary to call Mark a “coward”?
        His hanging out at the cesspool of trolls and vulgarity at site B is showing, the toxic poison from liver boy and the rest of the mutants must be rubbing off.

        Say it aint so baldork

      • neocon01 August 12, 2013 / 4:15 pm

        The Maginot line did the french in, no forward thinking stuck in a rut (literally) so to say!

      • M. Noonan August 13, 2013 / 12:56 am


        The Maginot Line was symbolic of France’s growing cowardice between the wars – and it was stupid, too, even under a theory that armored forces would not be able to operate independently (this was French army doctrine in 1940). For goodness sakes, what French general was really thinking in 1940 that if the Germans came again, they’d come through Metz? The terrain itself is highly defensible and there is plenty of room for dilatory retirement in the face of an invasion.

      • bardolf2 August 13, 2013 / 12:59 pm

        You have labeled an entire group of people, the French in 1940 with the worst of pejoratives. You’ve said by and large they were cowards. That’s a word that should be used with extreme caution, especially for our country which fights wars from the perspective of ‘Overwhelming Force’. I believe in this doctrine, no reason to play fair in a war. On the other hand, most peoples of the world think it’s a cowardly doctrine. A country whose army has been completely outmaneuvered and surrenders is not a country of cowards. I’m not sure why you are so quick to quote the anti-American Charles de Gaulle, a man who claimed that Paris had liberated itself with some help.

        I didn’t mean to get personal, I was bringing up an example where an observer might see that you yourself have exchanged freedom and a pursuit of nobler visions for comfort. The reference I am thinking to is “And why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye? ” matthew 7:3


        The big difference between the French and any of us, is that the US hasn’t had a war on its own soil since forever. I quoted the war poet Wilfred Owen for a reason, he actually saw war face to face. As for cowardice, World War 1 brought out the worst in so-called patriotic women calling men cowards in England, France and elsewhere. The white-feather ladies who ‘urged’ men to fight were no favorites of the fighting soldiers. There was a certain Private Ernest Atkins who was on leave from the Western Front. He was riding a tram when he was presented with a white feather by a girl sitting behind him. He smacked her across the face with his pay book saying: “Certainly I’ll take your feather back to the boys at Passchendaele. I’m in civvies because people think my uniform might be lousy, but if I had it on I wouldn’t be half as lousy as you.” That pretty much sums up my wariness of calling people cowards.


        Are you a moderator here on B4V? LOL

      • M. Noonan August 13, 2013 / 1:23 pm


        When armies run away from an enemy that is cowardice. The French were just as badly outmaneuvered in WWI and yet rallied and fought back. Being outmaneuvered is no excuse for not fighting – often it is an opportunity to take advantage of the enemy who, to outmaneuver, almost certainly has to leave some other area exposed (for France in 1940, it was the southern flank of the armored breakthrough which was covered by not much more than an infantry regiment for about 24 hours…with several French divisions, including one armored, in close proximity; a Foch or even a Joffre would have made the Germans pay a high forfeit for that). You want to know the difference – look at the Poles. They were genuinely outnumbered and outgunned…and they went down fighting…because if you want to have a country, you have to fight for it. Because the enemy is the enemy. Because freedom and honor are sweeter than living. Because to live one must take a detached view of life; one must, at times, live only by risking one’s life. And while the Poles were fighting a losing battle against hopeless odds, the French remained immobile. The Germans had not a tank or a single combat plane on the Western Front on September 3rd, 1939 when France declared war – France was mobilized and had overwhelming superiority on the ground and in the air. They could have crashed through what was no more than a German covering force and been across the Rhine in just a few days, which would have been checkmate. They didn’t. And the Germans were sure they weren’t – because they had measured up the French nation and rated it too afraid to fight. France was committed by iron-clad treaty obligations with the Poles to engage in offensive operations with the overwhelming bulk of their forces…they did nothing of the kind; just a little stroll across the border for a few kilometers and then beat a hasty retreat once Poland was crushed.

        Was this the French army? Not alone. The French government could have ordered a fight. It didn’t. The French people could have demanded an offensive. They didn’t. It might be harsh to characterize France as shot through with cowardice but that is the only way to describe it.

        And I know of the tales of those who fought in wars. I know my own father and uncle, who also fought (when asked, my uncle stated he earned his VA benefits at a little ridge called “Heartbreak” in Korea). I do pray that no one ever knows the hell where youth and laughter go. But with all that, some times a people has to fight.

      • neocon01 August 14, 2013 / 7:27 am

        Are you a moderator here on B4V? LOL
        but I do have the bragging rights of being one of the MOST moderated 🙂
        is that the same??

  6. dbschmidt August 13, 2013 / 9:03 pm


    Just a simple “Yes” or “No” question for you to help me put things into perspective.
    Have you ever signed the ultimate check (up to an including your life) for your country?
    That is all I am asking. Not about anyone else here or others you may know or have read about–you.

    • neocon01 August 14, 2013 / 7:32 am

      Dr. B.
      I believe the point Mark is making is look at the French, then look at the Russians especially Stalingrad……same scenario, different results. One army collapsed and ran by the tens of thousands, One army stood and fought.

      • M. Noonan August 14, 2013 / 12:01 pm

        It was also a bit more than that – Bardolf points out that in the 1940 campaign, the French suffered an estimated 100,000 dead, which is a terrible toll of lives. But that wasn’t the half of it – or even the 20% of it. Total French deaths in WWII were 567,600, or about 40% of the French death total of WWI but the difference is that the French only fought for about 6 weeks in WWII and for more than four years in WWII. France’s quick surrender didn’t really save all that many lives – especially when you compare it to the British who were engaged from start to finish and suffered the lower total of 450,700 deaths. By fighting harder the British lost fewer. And here’s the real kicker – if the French had shown some courage and attacked in September of 1939 they might have suffered ten or twenty thousand deaths getting across the Rhine…but that would have been it for the whole war…but even if it had cost 250,000 French lives to get across the Rhine (supposing the thin German military screen fought like mad man to the bitter end and managed to kill 3 or 4 to 1), it still would have been less costly.

        Cowardice always pays a higher price than bravery.

      • tiredoflibbs August 14, 2013 / 5:40 pm

        Have the French taken over the Republican party?

        When they have the upper hand in the debate, they still try to appease or run from the fight.

  7. neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 7:58 am

    perfect analogy…

    • neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 7:59 am

      I believe the term for the GOP is surrender monkeys.

Comments are closed.