Fort Hood Jihad Victims Won’t Be Getting Purple Hearts As Long as Obama is in Office

ft_s640x427

Senate Democrats have apparently decided to stop fighting a measure that would allow the American servicemembers wounded and killed by Fort Hood Muslim Jihadist Nidal Hassan.

Congress is set to make victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings eligible for Purple Hearts and combat injury benefits after the Obama administration has denied them the status for the past five years.

House Republicans, working with the Democratic-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee, added a provision to the defense authorization bill that would give battlefield recognition for the victims of the deadliest attack on a domestic military installation in U.S. history. It passed on a voice vote with strong bipartisan support.

The measure, which is expected to pass Congress next week, also would end a five-year effort by Texas GOP Reps. John Carter, Michael Conaway and Roger Williams to give the victims the status, the Military Times first reported. Texas GOP Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn introduced the bill in the Senate.

The victims have long asked the Pentagon to label the attack terrorism so they would be eligible for the Purple Hearts and added combat-related benefits. But Defense Secretaries Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel have stuck to the original assessment that the attack by Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan was an act of workplace violence.

And Ashton Carter will go on sticking to it. Obama won’t veto over this, though he has made threats in the past, but there’s no way that he is going to allow Hassan to be viewed as an enemy terrorist. Neither will the Pentagon bureaucracy which has gone to great lengths to prevent even Hassan’s stated motive from becoming a factor.

The idea of it is so dangerous to the Jihad Denial establishment because it recognizes that “domestic terrorist attacks” are not domestic or civilian, but the work of a foreign enemy. We’re at war. And that’s something liberals have desperately tried to cover up.

The unfortunate truth is that even if Romney had won in 2012, there would be a great deal of resistance to this from within.

The latest authorization draft stipulates that Purple Heart medals will be awarded to “members of the armed forces killed or wounded in domestic attacks inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.”

The new measure would make Purple Hearts available to those injured or killed by attackers who had been “in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack” and whose actions were “inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization.”

Pentagon officials for years have said the shooting victims are not eligible for the Purple Heart and certain combat-injury compensation. Families of the victims have said they’ve faced thousands of dollars in uncovered medical expenses that would have been covered if the same injuries occurred in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The new Purple Heart regulations would change that, allowing defense officials to review the cases and award both the medal and the benefits to the Fort Hood victims as well as victims of similar domestic attacks.

You can guess how that will work out. This was never an issue of the letter of the law. The letter of the law doesn’t exist under Obama except when it comes to blocking something he doesn’t want anyway on a technicality. Removing the technicality removes the excuse, it doesn’t get it done.

The problems though go beyond Obama. The military has been infected with a culture that says that covering up Islamic terrorism is the only way to defeat it and that therefore granting Purple Hearts and treating Fort Hood as an enemy attack would actually be a victory for Al Qaeda.

It’s utterly perverse thinking that is frighteningly commonplace in the military and law enforcement.

  • BS77

    I guess by this logic 9/11 was workplace violence

    • PI by Nature

      9/11 occurred against civilian targets first. Even with the Pentagon attack, it was still started on civilians. Not the same thing.

      • andrewwhitehead

        Really? So the bombs dropped by the Germans on London during WWII were “workplace violence”? That would certainly surprise Herman Goering.
        Tell me, what do you consider an act of war? I consider it an act of war when a foreign power, state sponsored or not, says they want to kill me or my fellow citizens.

        I guess I’m old school, but I do not understand your post at all.

      • BS77

        You are splitting non existent hairs….

  • Texas Patriot

    DG: We’re at war. And that’s something liberals have desperately tried to cover up.

    There has never been a time when Islam has not been at war with non-Muslims. According to the teachings of Muhammad and his followers, Muslims are to regard themselves as being in a state of war with non-Muslims until the entire world submits to Islam and agrees to be governed by Sharia Law, and Islam’s war against non-Muslims has raged intermittently throughout the 1400 years since the death of Muhammad.

    Subsequent to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the dismantlement of the worldwide Islamic Caliphate in the aftermath of WWI, the forces of Islamic Jihad seemed to go underground and for the most part remained hidden there until September 5, 1972. On that day, in full view of the world press corps and an audience of millions of Olympic fans around the world, Islamic radicals attacked and assassinated Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village of the Munich Summer Olympics. There was no declaration of war against non-Muslims. Rather, it was simply a continuation of Islam’s ancient war against non-Muslims. Why announce a new war when the old one never ended?

    Since that fateful day, there has been an unbroken series of attacks by Islamic radicals against non-Muslims throughout the world, and the attack by Major Nadal Hasan at Fort Hood is but one of thousands of similar attacks made in the name of Islam. Daniel Greenfield is correct, we are at war with the forces of Islamic Jihad, and so is all of the rest of the non-Muslim world; and it is pure and unmitigated fantasy to pretend otherwise.

  • EileenRight

    They would have to acknowledge that they ignored the red flags if they were to call this an act of terrorism. Optics are far more important to these people than doing the right thing is.

  • PAthena

    President Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim manqué, so he is an apologist for Major Nidal Hasan’s attack on American troops at Fort Hood. He covers this up by using the Orwellian term “workplace violence.” All violence occurs somewhere, whether in the workplace or in a home, or on the street. Obama will not allow government manuals to list Islamic terrorism as a source or terrorism.

  • andrewwhitehead

    May the Lord God protect us from Obama(PBUH). Our country is in need of a real leader, a person who can inspire us to greatness, who understands our problems and wants to get out of the way so they can be fixed…instead we get a “man” who’s never held a real job in his life (including the presidency).
    Praise God that this “man” will be gone in 2016. Perhaps we’ll see a national renewal under a president who fears God and stands with the people, not against them.
    One can pray.

  • Daniel

    These are the kind of stories that make Greenfield the best conservative commentator on the Internet.
    The title could have just as easily been called…..”No decent thing will ever see the light of day as long as Obama’s in office.”

    • Texas Patriot

      Daniel: These are the kind of stories that make Greenfield the best conservative commentator on the Internet.

      I agree with that. Perhaps he has some idea how we could be under relentless attack by Islamic Jihadists for forty-two years without realizing it! And exactly who was it that came up with this “religion of peace” concept? That has to be the biggest joke of all time. Not even Muslims think that.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcy6UmL89ZI