CONTRAST: MEDIA AFTER FORT HOOD VS. MEDIA AFTER SAFEWAY MASSACRE

Byron York at the Washington Examiner delivers another haymaker to leftwing logic, exposing bias so blatant that the liberal hacks might actually have to put a stop to their irresponsible narrative that the Tea Party in general and Sarah Palin in particular are the source of Jared Loughner's homicidal rage. York's point is very well taken. In a few short hours after the Fort Hood shooting, we had far more facts available about Nidal Malik Hasan's motives than we do about Loughner. Yet, the narrative from the left about Hasan was not to jump to conclusions. Now? Pile onto conservatives.

Via Washington Examiner:

On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going "to do good work for God." There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan's motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

"The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

"We cannot jump to conclusions," said CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. "We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever."

Ralph Peters did an exceptional job of explaining the absurdity in the days after the Fort Hood massacre.



Read it all.