Hannity links Obama to Fort Hood

Conservative elites continue to exploit the misperception that President Obama is a Muslim. The latest offender is Fox's Sean Hannity, who suggested Monday night that President Obama was somehow responsible for the Fort Hood shooting:

This Fort Hood situation is really beginning to disturb me and should disturb everybody. And that is that there is a chance our government knew all about this guy Hasan and did nothing because nobody wanted to be called an Islamophobe. We're not talking about Islam, we're talking about radical Islam. You know, this guy going in there, god is great, etc., etc., and all the things he's saying. But everybody hat worked with him, Bob, knew ahead of time, our government apparently knew and did nothing. Now, this is a terrorist act, if in fact this was motivated in such a way. What does it say about Barack Obama and our government?

By stating that "our government apparently knew and did nothing" about "a terrorist act" and then asking "What does it say about Barack Obama and our government?," Hannity implies that Obama is sympathetic to Islamic terrorism.

Other, more fringe figures also tried to link Obama to the Fort Hood massacre:

-Leading birther Orly Taitz nonsensically invoked the shooting as a rationale for her groundless lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility for office.

-Jerome Corsi falsely claimed the alleged Fort Hood shooter advised the Obama presidential transition in a World Net Daily article.

These are only the latest in a long series of attacks on Obama that capitalize on false perceptions about his religious beliefs (building on a related series of attacks during the campaign):

-Hannity misconstrued the statements of a member of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships as a claim that Americans support Sharia law in Muslim countries.

-A New York Post op-ed and other sources previously made the unsupported claim that President Obama's nominee to serve as legal advisor to the State Department wants to institute Sharia law in this country's courts.

-Conservative pundit Frank Gaffney has claimed "there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself," suggested that Obama's apparent bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was "code" telling "our Muslim enemies that you are willing to submit to them," and said Obama is "pursuing [an agenda] that is indistinguishable in important respects from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission ladies and gentlemen... is to quote to destroy Western civilization from within by its own miserable hand."

-On the Lou Dobbs radio show, substitute host Tom Marr said "I have to believe that there is still an inner Muslim within this man that has some sense of sympathy towards the number one enemy of freedom and democracy in the world today, and that is Islamic terrorism."

-Former Washington Times editor Wes Pruden wrote that Obama's speech in Cairo was a "revelation of his 'inner Muslim'..."

-Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich alleged that there is a "weird pattern" in which Obama administration officials were "prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists" and claimed that the Obama administration's "highest priority" is to "find some way to defend terrorists."

-Senator James Inhofe called Obama's Cairo speech "un-American" and said "I just don't know whose side he's on."

I've added several of these quotes to my timeline of smears against Obama's loyalty.

Comments

[Rob]

Mounting evidence suggests that political correctness and fear of being labelled Islamophobic prevented Army officers and FBI personnel from acting on statements and actions by Hasan. Hannity, like many other commentators, points this out and mentions Obama, who has been head of state during these oversights, by name. And Brendan infers that by naming Obama Hannity is accusing Obama of being a Muslim. Crazy, ridiculous, absurd.

Brendan's been doing his best to insulate Obama from legitimate criticism for years. Add this post to the timeline of Brendan's attacks on dissent.

[David]

By stating that "our government apparently knew and did nothing" about "a terrorist act" and then asking "What does it say about Barack Obama and our government?," Hannity implies that Obama is sympathetic to Islamic terrorism.

Nonsense. It implies that Obama is governing in such a way as to discourage government employees from aggressively following up on people whose behavior suggests that they might be jihadists. I think the accusation is fair, not only as applies to Obama but also to Bush. These two Presidents gave so much focus to discouraging Islamophobia that I think they inadvertantly discouraged following up on suspicious comments or actions.

These two Presidents aren't the only ones. The Flying Imams case will also encourage airlines and other to overlook suspicious behavior.

[David]

...made the unsupported claim that President Obama's nominee to serve as legal advisor to the State Department wants to institute Sharia law in this country's courts.

This claim is not unsupported, although it may be inadequately supported. Following the links, the New York Post wrote, "A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

Brendan's April 3 post mentions that the claim was supported by a witness. I believe the word "unsupported" was just a careless error.

Did Koh make this comment? It's not implausible that someone in academia might have said that Sharia law could be used in certain "appropriate cases." Ontario, Canada came close to introducing Sharia Law for cases between Muslims. AFAIK neither Koh nor any other attendant at that 2007 meeting has come forward to dispute Stein's memory.

[pete]

this is like "six degrees from Kevin Bacon". president Obama is black, many blacks describe themselves as being from the hood, what happened at fort hood is Obamas' fault. see only three steps.

makes more sense than anything hannity or oily teats has ever said.

[rone]

Sorry, Brendan, but i'm actually agreeing with Rob and David. You're really stretching the implications here.

[daniel rotter]

It's not implausible that someone in academia might have said that Sharia law could be used in certain "appropriate cases."

I didn't know that there was a big pro-Sharia-law movement in academia these days. The things you learn from reading David's posts.

Ontario, Canada came close to introducing Sharia law for cases between Muslims.

So what? That somehow gives credence to the claim that Koh supports such law? How?

AFAIK neither Koh nor any other attendant at that 2007 meeting has come forward to dispute Stein's memory.

That doesn't automatically mean that Stein's memory isn't faulty (or, worse, that he isn't outright lying), it just might mean that Koh and the other attendants aren't aware of the contents of the New York Post. By the way, David, have any attendants at the 2007 Yale Club meeting come forward to BACK UP Stein's memory?

[daniel rotter]

These two Presidents gave so much focus to discourage Islamophobia that I think they inadvertently discouraged following up on suspicious comments or actions.

This is stupid. If said comments or actions truly are "suspicious," then the person/people responsible for investigating them shouldn't worry about accusations of Islamophobia, because such accusations would be meritless. By partially laying the blame on presidents Bush and Obama, David implies that inactivity of such a person or people to investigate suspicious behavior is defensible and it isn't.

[David]

If said comments or actions truly are "suspicious," then the person/people responsible for investigating them shouldn't worry about accusations of Islamophobia, because such accusations would be meritless.

daniel, I wish this were the case that a meritless accusation could do no harm. Unfortunately, in a number of venues, getting on the wrong side of certain victim groups can be disastrous. E.g., a liberal friend of mine, a Professor at Northwestern University, told me that on his campus anyone accused of offending a black person will be found guilty of racism regardless of the facts. Lawrence H. Summers, the brilliant president of Harvard University, was forced to resign on account of a single comment that offended feminists. The reasonableness of his comment was no defense.

It now seems clear that a number of people in the military failed to follow up on evidence that Hassan might be a problem. I think they might have been concerned -- and rightfully so -- that offending a Muslim could harm their careers.

[daniel rotter]

daniel, I wish this were the case that a meritless accusation could do no harm. Unfortunately, in a number of venues, getting on the wrong side of certain victim groups can be disastrous.

So "getting on the wrong side of certain victim groups" ALWAYS involves a meritless accusation? Am I stretching here? I don't think so, David, because I don't see how your second sentence logically follows from your first.

The reasonableness of his comment was no defense.

The "reasonableness" of his comment was no defense because his comment wasn't "reasonable." It was sexist pseudo-science.

It now seems clear that a number of people in the military failed to follow up on evidence that Hassan might be a problem. I think they might have been concerned--and rightfully so--that offending a Muslim could harm their careers.

I seriously doubt that if such evidence truly existed, that presenting it would "harm their careers." At least on matters such as these, you don't seem to have much faith in the military, David.