When I took shooting classes with Jeff Cooper back in the 80's he dismissively referred to female LEO's as "copchicks." Today, many look at the women who serve in harm's way in the military and police forces questioning their ability to perform in extremis.
Well, we've written about female soldiers in combat before, but today's news brings us this:
(photo: New York Daily News)
The hero cop who ended the bloody rampage at Fort Hood by pumping four bullets into the crazed gunman even though she was wounded is known for her toughness, friends say.The story's not all in, and we're a long way from the facts, but if she did stop the shooting by dropping Maj. Hasan, she's my hero. And if she didn't stop him and just entered the building and went to the sound of the guns, well ... she's my hero, too.
...
"She was born and bred to be a police officer. If you were ever to be in a fight, she'd be the first person to stand up next to you and back you up. She's a tough cookie."
Munley's toughness and grace under pressure were on display Thursday when she and her partner responded within three minutes of reported gunfire, said Army Lt. Gen. Bob Cone.
Munley, who had been trained in active-response tactics, rushed into the building and confronted the shooter as he was turning a corner, Cone said.
"It was an amazing and an aggressive performance by this police officer," Cone said.
Munley was only a few feet from Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan when she opened fire.
Wounded in the exchange of bullets, the 34-year-old Munley was reported in stable condition at a local hospital.
-
That's a heroine.
Science hasn't shown beneficial effects from praying for others' health, but we shouldn't let that stop us.
Also, remember Sgt. Mark Todd. He doesn't need prayers, but he should get respect. (link)
Fort Hood shooter tried to contact Al Qaeda before terror attack.
Yes, and we know that because The Daily Telegraph broke the story. Thank God they still have a free press in Britain.
Glen,
Where do you see that the Telegraph broke this story? I can't find a word about it on their website? Or am I missing the sarcasm?
mark -
I should have said the Telegraph, not the Daily Telegraph. Here is the story, which is acknowledged in the ABC story that Tim Oren linked.
Telegraph:"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html"
Suspect awake and talking
If this guy starts spewing extremist AQ rhetoric, there are going to be a lot of people with even more egg on their face. This is looking to be an object lesson in political correctness run amuck. Everyone involved with this guy was apparently afraid to deal with him for fear of being called a muslim basher. The media jumps on the story with both boots claiming (with no facts) that the man was a victim of anti-muslim hazing and mentally disturbed in fear of going to Iraq. Janet Napolitano is out trying to preempt yet more phantom muslim backlash, assumedly instead of looking for actual extremists like Hasan.
At the end of the day, this is tragic. I understand the impulse here to avoid attaching stigma to the Muslim community at virtually any cost- but are we actually doing them any favors in the long run? It would be one thing if there wasnt a nasty thread of extremism, but there is. The longer the community itself can be allowed to ignore it, the more it can spread it evil. Look at something like the KKK- it didnt whither until polite society put a stop to it. The Klan flourished when the rest of the south turned its eyes, and began to die when they refused to do so any more. The American Muslim community is the only thing that can stomp out this extremism peacefully and fairly. If it gets too much worse, the remedies will be much worse. The apologists are doing no favors.
Thanks, Glen. I'm not trying to be finicky here, just trying to sort it out. The Telegraph story that you linked to itself sources Fox News and refers only to Hasan's recent anti-war sentiments/statements, not attempts to contact Al Qaeda.
There is a second Telegraph story linking Hasan's former Iman to Sept 11 hijackers.
But the story that Tim Oren linked to, the one claiming that in recent months Hasan tried to contact Al Qaeda--and US intellegence knew about these attempts-- seems to be coming from ABC News.
The first para of the ABC story seems to make it clear that they were themselves sourcing the AQ contact story, from 'officials briefed on classified material'.
My speculation only: One or more agencies had some serious information on Hasan and had passed it up the line. They are now leaking to make sure both that the information can't be suppressed and that it's clear decision makers did have relevant information in hand before the attack. IOW, don't blame us. There could easily be some sources & methods disclosure issues as well.
NY Times now has the story - cites unnamed 'government officials'.
"...federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages warranted no further action, government officials said on Monday."
Yup, CYA time.
Mark,
Everyone involved with this guy was apparently afraid to deal with him for fear of being called a muslim basher. The media jumps on the story with both boots claiming (with no facts) that the man was a victim of anti-muslim hazing and mentally disturbed in fear of going to Iraq.
Speaking of no facts, Mark. Where do you come up with the first sentence? How do you know that everyone involved with the guy was afraid of being called a muslim basher? That's pure speculation (I want to say wishful thinking) on your part, isn't it?
The media never claimed he was a victim of anti-muslim hazing; the media was attributing the claim to his cousin. There's a very big and very important difference.
"Speaking of no facts, Mark. Where do you come up with the first sentence? "How do you know that everyone involved with the guy was afraid of being called a muslim basher? That's pure speculation (I want to say wishful thinking) on your part, isn't it?"
No, not really
"Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."
One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.
Another, Dr Val Finnell, who took a course with him in 2007 at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, did complain about Hasan's "anti-American rants." He said: "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do. He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out. I really questioned his loyalty."
Framing Munley as a "diversity" show pony is exactly wrong.
"Diversity" has become a pseudo-holy goal that's worth allowing the betrayal and death of soldiers. It's become a shield of jihad, as well as a reason to dismiss and marginalize people who don't have the "diversity" halo. I agree with Diana West (link):
Kimberly Munley is a heroine: bright, shiny and golden, and worthy of all prayers, support, help and rewards.
But that is entirely to her credit. She's a heroine because of her choices, her acts, her character, her competence.
In itself, the "diversity" halo equally belongs to Nidal Malik Hasan, SoA (SWT).
Mark B.
So one unidentified army doctor claiming that fellow officers failed to file claims amounts to "everyone involved with the guy?" C'mon.
The other quotes were irrelevant to your claim that everyone who was involved kept quiet for fear of being accused as a muslim-basher.
There's no evidence that "political correctness" was the culprit here. Why jump to that sort of speculative conclusion?
What sort of evidence do we need in order to reach conclusions about Hasan, or are we forbidden from forming conclusions? If we are not allowed to reach conclusions that some people find uncomfortable, then political correctness is to blame right now.
The White House certainly reached some conclusions. They didn't have to jump to them, of course, because they have them permanently impacted in their brains. Obama exhorted the Congress to honor the dead by standing up to extremists - not Islamist extremists, Heaven forfend, but "anti-government teabag people".
Napolitano's crew is fanning out to protect Muslims from extremist backlash, perhaps by shielding Mosques with a wall of government-fed cellulite.
The shit-for-brains media is having no trouble reaching conclusions, so long as those conclusions point at dangerous right wingers.
Hasan completed an MD in Psychiatry while in uniform, and was trained as a counselor for battle-scarred troops. I find it impossible to believe that nobody noticed that the guy was freaking insane. Somebody certainly noticed, since he was given a devastating POOR rating for his work at Walter Reed, where many people - not just one - saw him antagonizing the troops he was supposed to be helping.
Whoever let this guy slide past all of this deserves to be court martialed alongside of him, as does whoever decided to deploy him overseas. Unconscionable. Inexcusable.
Give me a plausible reason why they did it. We know why Hasan did what he did.
Glen,
Firstly, I was referring specifically to the conclusion that everyone involved with Hasan was inhibited by political correctness, not to conclusions about Hasan's motive(s).
And, no, conclusions are not forbidden, just not very wise without information. I can't give you a plausible reason, and that's just the point. I don't yet know enough. I doubt that anyone does yet except perhaps a handful of investigators.
We all have our belief systems. That's unavoidable. What is avoidable, however, is grabbing up selected pieces of information, pruning them, twisting them and then shoving them into a framework to support those systems.
Let's find out what happened before reaching conclusions, especially ones that fit neatly into our worldview.