Pollster Glen Bolger (a founding partner at my wife’s firm) looks at the data in the Virginia governor’s race and concludes that Barack Obama hurt Democrat Creigh Deeds.

At the end of tracking, we added some questions paid for by the Republican National Committee specifically to measure the Obama effect.

[...]

The dominant national issue at that time (and still) is health care. Only 44% of likely voters support the Obama plan, while 50% oppose it. Intensity is strongly against — 29% strongly favor/42% strong oppose. The question was worded:

“As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the Democrats’ health care proposal?”

We also asked a message question that was stunning for two reasons. One, it was stunning in its rejection of the notion of the Democratic wave of 2006-08 is any lasting move, and it was stunning for how close it was to the final election margin:

“I’m going to read you two statements, and please tell me which one comes closest to your opinion.

Some/Other people say it is more important to elect a Governor who will help President Barack Obama implement his agenda.

Other/Some people say that it is more important to elect a Governor who will serve as a check and balance to President Barack Obama.”

Voters opted for the check and balance by a 55%-35% margin. Independents (who voted for Obama by one point in 2008 in Virginia) opted for a check and balance by an overwhelming 58%-25% margin. Throughout our tracking, we regularly found open-ended comments from Independent voters saying they wanted to balance the overwhelming power that the Democrats have in Washington. Given the absolute power the Dems have in DC, that is a very strong message for GOPers running in 2010.

We tested the impact of the Obama endorsement — 24% said they were more likely to vote for Deeds, while 32% were less likely. The minus eight increment on that can not be encouraging to the White House.

Finally, we tested a simple agree/disagree: “Creigh Deeds’ policies are too close to the policies of President Barack Obama.” Fully 52% agreed and only 30% disagreed. By intensity, 30% strongly agreed and only 9% strongly disagreed. Revisionists on the left are blaming Deeds for not embracing Obama enough, but Virginia voters did not agree. Among Independents, it was 52% agree/28% disagree.

His bottom line is that Obama’s “policies have put fiscal and economic messages back into play for Republicans.”

Presumably, by 2010, it will be even harder for Democrats to run against George W. Bush or the Republican Congress of 2006.  The degree to which Obama will be an asset or a liability to his party will, of course, depend on intervening events.  If we’re still looking at 10 percent unemployment next November, it’ll almost certainly be the latter.

Bruce Bartlett articulates something that I’ve been wanting to write about for a while about the “read the bill” nonsense, and since he did a better job of it than I would have, I’ll just direct you to him:

The 1,990-page length of the health reform bill is once again bringing forth demands that members of Congress be required to read the legislation before voting on it. While a seemingly reasonable demand, it is, in fact, a waste of time.

The reason becomes obvious the moment one actually reads legislative language.

[...]

For these reasons, reading an actual bill is a completely useless exercise for the vast majority of members of Congress and staff. They rely heavily on committee reports that are supposed to accompany all bills coming up for a floor vote. These reports are written by committee staff and are required to faithfully reflect the bill’s intent. They may contain important details, clarifications, data, citations to hearings, and supporting materials, such as a section-by-section analysis, that allow the legislation to be intelligible to non-lawyers and other non-experts.

In addition, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have organizations that review all bills coming up for a vote, summarize them and offer political perspectives. Here, for example, is the House Republican Conference report on the health bill. If one’s party holds the White House, a member may find the Statement of Administration Policy to be important in understanding a bill and how to vote on it. Here is the SAP on the health bill. The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis may also be important. Here is its report on the health bill.

Read the whole thing, which is quite illuminating. The bottom line is that the language of a bill is generally technical and may have impacts on various pieces of existing law. If you’re a member of Congress who is not on the appropriate committee or not involved in drafting the legislation, it’s not necessary to read it. The legal language is there to ensure that particular policies get enacted. The important thing is that the members understand the policy, not the technical legal language.

Mahmoud Abbas is threatening to resign and disband the Palestinian Authority altogether.

The collapse of the Palestinian Authority, Israel’s negotiating partner, was raised as a possibility on Monday, as several aides to its president, Mahmoud Abbas, said that he intended to resign and forecast that others would follow.

“I think he is realizing that he came all this way with the peace process in order to create a Palestinian state, but he sees no state coming,” Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian peace negotiator, said in an interview. “So he really doesn’t think there is a need to be president or to have an Authority. This is not about who is going to replace him. This is about our leaving our posts. You think anybody will stay after he leaves?”

Mr. Abbas warned last week that he would not participate in Palestinian elections he called for, to take place in January. But he has threatened several times before to resign, and many viewed this latest step as a ploy by a Hamlet-like leader upset over Israeli and American policy. Many also noted that the vote might not actually be held, given the Palestinian political fracture and the unwillingness of Hamas, which controls Gaza, to participate.

In the days since, however, his colleagues have come to believe that he is not bluffing. If that is the case, they say, the Palestinian Authority, which administers Palestinian affairs in the occupied West Bank and serves as a principal actor in peace negotiations with Israel, could be endangered.

Four top officials made the same point in separate interviews. Mr. Abbas, they say, feels at a total impasse in negotiations with the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has declined to commit to a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem. Mr. Netanyahu favors negotiations without preconditions.

Just like Obama!

Seriously, though, Abbas has a point.  The Palestinian Authority is in some ways the worst of both worlds, having most of the responsibilities of an independent state with none of the independence.  They’re largely powerless in the negotiating process yet treated as if they had control of their borders.  As such, “Palestinian Authority” is about as much of a misnomer as Pakistan’s “Federally Administered Tribal Areas.”

It’s not clear, however, what would replace the PA.  Fatah, Yasir Arafat’s old political wing, is much diminished these days.   And the two sides’ goals are so incompatible that it’s difficult to see how statehood ever becomes a reality.

Jodi Rell, the “Republican” governor of Connecticut, has announced that she will not seek re-election.

In a surprising announcement, Mrs. Rell, 63, did not immediately give a specific reason for her decision, saying only, “At some point, you know inside that it is time to begin a new chapter in life.”

Her announcement came during a news conference at which she first thanked people who had helped in a food drive over the weekend.  “Second, I would like to share with you the news that — after much soul-searching and discussion with my family — I have decided not to seek re-election next year,” Mrs. Rell said. Her family was standing nearby during the announcement, The Hartford Courant reported.

The news left the Republicans without a candidate possessing big statewide name recognition and the Democrats with an opportunity to push for the governorship in 2010.

Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, a Republican, has said that he might run for governor if Mrs. Rell decided not to seek re-election. Other Republicans, including the House minority leader, Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk, and the Senate minority leader, John McKinney of Fairfield, also have expressed interest.

Among the Democrats, Ned Lamont, a businessman who unsuccessfully ran for the United States Senate three years ago, has expressed an interest in being governor.  “I salute the governor for her service to Connecticut, her civility, and her integrity,” Mr. Lamont said in a statement Monday evening. “Now is the time for a fresh start.”

Mrs. Rell, a former lieutenant governor, has been governor since 2004, when Gov. John G. Rowland resigned. He served 10 months in prison after pleading guilty to corruption charges. Mrs. Rell was elected in her own right in 2006.

Mrs. Rell’s job approval numbers have dipped in recent Quinnipiac University polls, mostly because of the state’s budget problems. A Sept. 16 poll showed that 59 percent approved of how she had handled her job, while 34 percent disapproved — the lowest approval rating during her tenure.

Those numbers are sustainable, however — certainly not enough in and of themselves to signal an uphill fight. So, it may well be that she just decided to move on to something else.  She and her husband have also had health problems of late, although she dismissed that explanation when asked.

The state GOP will not miss Rell, even if her decision makes it harder to retain the seat.  She’s not ideologically conservative, of course, but that’s pretty typical of Nutmeg State Republicans.  But she’s not at all popular with insiders, having developed a reputation for putting her own interests above her party’s.

The Second Line Edition OTB Caption Contest^TM is now over.

(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

✰ THE WINNERS ✰

First: physics geek – A band consisting of Chicago area voters gathered for a jam session.

Second: FormerHostage – The parade was led by the “Famous Supermodels” marching band.

Third: Wyatt Earp – Sadly, President Obama could not keep all of his skeletons in the closet.

HONORABLE MENTION

elliot – The band playing for the president had run of the White House facilities. After all they had a skeleton key.

Maggie Mama – Make no bones about it the Public Option is dead.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III – Grateful dead playing the White House, with Garcia.

yetanotherjohn – Oh great, we elect the first black president and he has entertainers show up in white face.

FormerHostage – Tragedy struck as a pack of feral wiener dogs attacked and buried the drummer somewhere in the lawn.

G.A.Phillips – Ya sure the new President seems like a likable fellow, but whats with the mummy’s and skeletons popping out of ground every time he yawns and stretches out his arms?

ℛODNEY’S BOTTOM OF THE BARREL

It later became known as the Obam-ho-tep two step.

What’s black and white and dead all over?

The Rolling Stones are really starting to show their age.

Rodney will return November 23rd.

Twenty years ago today, I was leading a rocket artillery platoon in live fire exercises at the Grafenwoehr Training Area in Eastern Bavaria.  Some 400 kilometers to the north, the Berlin Wall was coming down.   Back in my teaching days, I jokingly used this coincidence to illustrate the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I don’t have much in the way of unique insights to offer beyond pointing to Stephen Green’s observation that, “The Berlin Wall didn’t just fall down. It was torn down. It was torn down by the very people it was built to cage.”

Over at New Atlanticist, we’ve been running a series of essays from people who played a slightly larger role than I did in these events: President George H.W. Bush,  Margaret Thatcher,  Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Condoleeza Rice,  and Douglas Hurd. Hillary Clinton, Jim Jones, Josef Ackermann, and Frederick Forsyth offer some interesting observations as well.

You may recall that a couple of months ago, there was a “shocking survey” circulating around which showed that only 23% of Oklahoma students knew that George Washington was the first President of the United States. At the time, my colleague James expressed his extreme skepticism of this result, a skepticism shared by most of the commenters. Well, as it turns out, this skepticism was quite justified, as Nate Silver points out:

[Oklahoma State Representative Ed] Cannaday therefore had little difficulty setting up an experiment: he arranged to have all the seniors in the 10 secondary schools in his district take the Strategic Vision/OCPA survey. Cannaday tried to replicate the Strategic Vision survey to the greatest extent possible. The same exact questions were used, and as in the case of the original survey, the answers were open-ended rather than multiple choice. The survey was administered to a total of 325 seniors, including special education students.

Cannaday’s survey however, found his students doing just fine: They answered an average of 7.8 out of the 10 questions correctly. By comparison, the high school students that were purportedly surveyed by Strategic Vision had gotten just 2.8 out of the items correct. 98 percent of the students on Cannaday’s survey — not 23 percent — knew that George Washington was the first President. 81 percent — not 14 percent — knew that Thomas Jefferson had written the Declaration of Independence. 95 percent — not 43 percent — knew that the Democrats and Republicans are the major political parties. There was just no comparison between the two.

[...]

There is no reason to think, in other words, that the students in House District 15 should have gotten such profoundly superior results to the “students” in Strategic Vision’s survey. Nor could Strategic Vision’s results have been the result of any sort of mathematical or methodological oddity. Consider their claim that literally none of the 1,000 students they surveyed were able to answer more than 7 of the 10 questions correctly — lower than the average score achieved in Cannaday’s test.

There are, rather, only two possibilities. Either the Strategic Vision survey was entirely fabricated — or Cannaday’s was.

I would put every dollar to my name on Cannaday, who has kept the surveys and is happy to show them to them to anyone who comes asking.

So would I. Cannaday’s results appear to have a sounder methodology, and also make more intuitive sense.

Nidal Malik Hasan is a Muslim who killed 14 people. Does that make him a terrorist? Some think so.

Sen. Joe Lieberman called the Fort Hood massacre an act of “Islamist extremism” – even as top Army brass warned Sunday against guessing at a motive, fearing backlash against Muslim soldiers. “There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act,” Lieberman (I-Conn) told Fox News on Sunday.  “If the reports that we’re receiving of various statements he made, acts he took are valid, he had turned to Islamist extremism.”

Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential candidate, chairs the Senate Homeland Security committee.

Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30 more on Thursday, reportedly expressed moral concerns about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lieberman’s comments were in stark contrast to U.S. Army chief of staff George Casey, who told CNN he’s deeply worried “that the speculation could cause something that we don’t want to see happen.” “It would be a shame – as great a tragedy as this was – it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well,” Casey said.

The fact that outrage over Hasan’s villainy could spark a backlash against innocents has no bearing on this question.  It’s a separate issue entirely.

Whether Hasan is a “terrorist” depends entirely on his motivation.   To qualify as “terrorism,” the act has to be committed to instill fear for the purpose of achieving political goals.   If he’s just an angry Muslim who went nuts and started shooting people, he’s a psychopath and a killer but not a terrorist.  Even if he was trying to send an “I’ll show them” message, he’s no more a terrorist than the Columbine killers, the lunatic who shot up Virginia Tech, or one of those postal workers who go on a rampage.

Now, evidence is still pouring in. Hasan reportedly “once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats” and actually “was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda.” That, combined with various Internet postings and other rants, at very least makes him a terrorist sympathizer.  And Jim Lindgren sees some matchup of Hasan with the typical psychology of a terrorist.

But even if Hasan was an al Qaeda wannabe who was trying to restore the Caliphate with his evil deeds, I’m not sure that he’s a “terrorist” in any sense that really matters.  If he’s just a lone fanatic rather than part of an organized group, the difference between him and any other mass murderer is academic.  Indeed, Charles Manson was politically motivated and actually had a group of followers but he’s never referred to as a “terrorist.”

UPDATE:  Some commenters are apparently under the impression that, unless we call Hasan a “terrorist,” we’re somehow excusing his crimes.  My argument is not that he’s merely some poor soul who needs help and deserves our compassion.  Or that there’s no such thing as Islamist terrorism.

Rather clearly, Hasan willfully committed criminal acts that were at least partly motivated by radical Islamist ideology.  I simply think “terrorism” is more than that.

UPDATE II:  A commenter points to the case of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, who was almost universally judged a terrorist, a label with which I would concur.  Like Hasan, McVeigh was ideologically motivated.  So, what’s the difference?  Aside from the fact that McVeigh formed a criminal conspiracy with a likeminded group and carefully plotted his attack for months, he was clearly trying to send a political message to his government.   It’s not clear what Hasan’s intent was at this juncture.

The recently passed health care “reform” noted by James below is going to have another impact some have noted, but many have not given much thought too. It will, in effect, make labor more expensive. When something becomes more expensive for firms then tend to use less of it. They will substitute away from it if possible, or failing that hire fewer workers, and in some cases simply shut down. Other firms might relocate to other countries. The bottom line effect is to make employing labor more costly. Not exactly a brilliant move when the unemployment rate has just hit 10.2%.

This will also have a further adverse impact on the fiscal situation. To the extent that the labor market takes longer to recover because of this legislation tax revenues will be lower, and thus the deficit higher and the public debt will grow faster. This kind of effect is probably not included in the CBO’s $1.1 trillion dollar cost of health care “reform”.

The House passed a trillion dollar bill that will force Americans to buy health insurance, force even small businesses to provide health coverage, and require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.  (The last, as I have previously argued, makes it something other than “insurance.”)

Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray for WaPo:

Hours after President Obama exhorted Democratic lawmakers to “answer the call of history,” the House hit an unprecedented milestone on the path to health-care reform, approving a trillion-dollar package late Saturday that seeks to overhaul private insurance practices and guarantee comprehensive and affordable coverage to almost every American.

After months of acrimonious partisanship, Democrats closed ranks on a 220-215 vote that included 39 defections, mostly from the party’s conservative ranks. But the bill attracted a surprise Republican convert: Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana, who represents the Democratic-leaning district of New Orleans and had been the target of a last-minute White House lobbying campaign. GOP House leaders had predicted their members would unanimously oppose the bill.

Democrats have sought for decades to provide universal health care, but not since the 1965 passage of Medicare and Medicaid has a chamber of Congress approved such a vast expansion of coverage. Action now shifts to the Senate, which could spend the rest of the year debating its version of the health-care overhaul. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to bring a measure to the floor before Thanksgiving, but legislation may not reach Obama’s desk before the new year.

[...]

The House legislation would for the first time require every individual to obtain insurance, and would require all but the smallest employers to provide coverage to their workers. It would vastly expand Medicaid and create a new marketplace where people could obtain federal subsidies to buy insurance from private companies or from a new government-run insurance plan.

Though some people would receive no benefits — including about 6 million illegal immigrants, according to congressional estimates — the bill would virtually close the coverage gap for people who do not have access to health-care coverage through their jobs.

Carl Hulse and Robert Pear for NYT:

Handing President Obama a hard-fought victory, the House narrowly approved a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system on Saturday night, advancing legislation that Democrats said could stand as their defining social policy achievement.

[...]

Democrats were forced to make major concessions on insurance coverage for abortions to attract the final votes to secure passage, a wrenching compromise for the numerous abortion-rights advocates in their ranks.

Many of them hope to make changes to the amendment during negotiations with the Senate, which will now become the main battleground in the health care fight as Democrats there ready their own bill for what is likely to be extensive floor debate.

Democrats say the House measure — paid for through new fees and taxes, along with cuts in Medicare — would extend coverage to 36 million people now without insurance while creating a government health insurance program. It would end insurance company practices like not covering pre-existing conditions or dropping people when they become ill.

[...]

Some Democrats said they voted for the legislation so they could seek improvements in it. “This bill will get better in the Senate,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat who has been outspoken in his criticism of some provisions of the bill but decided to support it. “If we kill it here, it won’t have a chance to get better.”

[...]

The House legislation, running almost 2,000 pages, would require most Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties — an approach Republicans compared to government oppression.  Most employers would have to provide coverage or pay a tax penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll. The bill would significantly expand Medicaid and would offer subsidies to help moderate-income people buy insurance from private companies or from a government insurance plan. It would also set up a national insurance exchange where people could shop for coverage.

This measure barely passed the House, where Democrats enjoy a solid majority in which most Members are Gerrymandered into uncompetitive seats.  And there are many Jim Coopers among the Yeas: People who would have voted Nay if they were not so confident the Senate would produce a much less radical bill, ensuring any measure that reaches the president’s desk will be less mild.  I’m pretty sure they’re right.

Still, this is a rather staggering measure passed by the House.  If this became law, the poor would be significantly poorer and small businesses would be even less competitive with the big box stores.  During a very weak economy with an unemployment at ten percent, no less.  Oh, and insurance rates will go up for the rest of us, too, as companies amortize the cost of absorbing people who have costly illnesses — who will by definition be a net drain on the pool from Day 1 — by passing it on to the rest of us.

Presumably, the rationale behind these moves is to wreck the current system entirely, making a government system the only alternative.  Certainly, it’s not a good faith measure to improve the current system.

I get that the status quo is far from perfect.  Young, healthy people often can’t afford health insurance.  (I went without during my graduate school days, for example, unable to justify spending $250 a month out of a $750 stipend to cover the incredibly unlikely event of getting seriously sick.)  The poor clog up our emergency rooms.  People are stuck at their job because they’d lose coverage at an otherwise preferable job.  Dealing with insurance companies can be a nightmare.

This bill helps address some of those problems, at least at the margins.  But it exacerbates others.

Moreover, this plan does nothing to address the fundamental problem with the status quo:  The unsustainable skyrocketing in health care costs.    If the Senate were to somehow pass the identical bill, we’d cover more people — a good thing in and of itself — but at a higher per unit cost.  That means an even greater share of GDP would go to health care from the beginning with no additional constraints on the escalation of costs.

In hindsight, it appears that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the mass murderer who killed 14 (one of the soldiers killed, Francheska Velez, was six weeks pregnant) and wounded another 30 at Fort Hood, had long made it known that he sympathized with the enemy. Bloomberg’s Justin Blum:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of a shooting spree that killed 13 people at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, called the war on terrorism “a war against Islam,” said a doctor who was in a graduate program with him.

While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate. “He was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second,” said Finnell, 41, a preventive medicine doctor in Los Angeles, in an interview yesterday. “He was always concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted.”

[...]

Finnell said he remembered Hasan “vividly” and said of the shooting: “I’m not surprised, based on the things he said in the past. I’m shocked that it happened, but not surprised.”

In conversations, students challenged Hasan on his statements and he would become “visibly upset, sweaty, nervous,” Finnell said. Toward the end of the program, in 2008, Hasan gave a presentation that was billed as a survey of the climate for Muslims who serve in the U.S. military, Finnell said. “It wasn’t really very objective,” Finnell said. “It was like he was trying to prove a point.”

One witness claims Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before he began shooting.  Another witness says, “He didn’t say a word.”

Clearly, Hasan was unstable and, at very least, not fit to serve as an Army officer, much less an Army psychiatrist treating returning veterans from a war he hated.  So, why was he still serving?

As NPR’s Tom Gjelten reports,

The vital facts of Hasan’s life do not suggest a man determined to kill dozens of his fellows as they sat unarmed in a crowded waiting room. He was born in Arlington, Va. His parents were immigrants, but so are millions of other Americans. His heritage was Palestinian, but he didn’t even speak Arabic. He went to Virginia Tech and in 1997 joined the Army. It was through the Army that he got his medical training. He was due to be deployed to Afghanistan.

Those who look for a ready explanation for the murderous rampage at Fort Hood can choose between two broad narratives: Maybe it had to do with the travails of an Army psychiatrist, dealing with soldiers who had been traumatized, even disfigured, by their war experience; or maybe it had to do with being Muslim.

[...]

The portrait of Hasan as a Muslim radical doesn’t entirely make sense to those who knew him well. Imam Faisal Khan, whose D.C.-area mosque Hasan attended over a 10-year period, never got the idea he was ashamed of his Army service.

“He would come in his uniforms many times,” Khan said. “He would come in his uniform and pray. And then I knew he was in the Army. He liked his job. That’s what he was trained for, you know, to serve in the military.”

His psychological evaluations were apparently well within normal range, with “No signs of physical or mental problems in examinations as recently as September,”  according to Army records obtained by WaPo.

And yet there were strong signs that things were not right.   His alleged comments while away at a civilian* school would likely have escaped military attention.  But other officers noticed troubling behavior, too.

Col Terry Lee, a retired officer who worked with him at the military base in Texas, alleged Maj Hasan had angry confrontations with other officers over his views.

[...]

“He was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans,” Col Lee told Fox News. “He said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place.” He said that Maj Hasan said he was “happy” when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June. An American convert to Islam was accused of the shootings.

Col Lee alleged that other officers had told him that Maj Hasan had said “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square” in New York.

He claimed he was aware that the major had been subject to “name calling” during heated arguments with other officers.

Federal law enforcement officials have said Maj Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. The officials said the postings appeared to have been made by Maj Hasan but they were still trying to confirm that he was the author.

He was a daily attendee of a radical, Wahhabi mosque and there are numerous reports that Hasan was harassed because of his views.

Hasan, 39, told relatives he’d been harassed by other soldiers for his faith. Last month, soldier John Van de Walker, 30, was arrested for scratching Hasan’s Honda with a key, police said.

The manager of the Killeen, Tex., apartment complex where Hasan lived said the vandal had returned from Iraq and targeted Hasan because he of a Muslim bumper sticker. “No one should have to deal with that kind of hate. Maybe he snapped,” said Alice Thompson, 53.

One hesitates to psychoanalyze crazies but, rather clearly, Hasan harbored rage years before his car was keyed.  And the Army took appropriate action in response to that incident.

In hindsight, it’s pretty clear that the Army didn’t do the same with regard to the signs that Hasan was unfit.  But it’s not at all inconceivable that “the Army” had no idea.  The fact that several of his colleagues had heard him say highly inflammatory things doesn’t mean that these things were reported up through the chain of command.  Further, it’s not entirely clear what his superiors could have done with these reports, aside from confronting and counseling him.

While highly constrained in terms of time, place, and manner, military officers are allowed to disagree with official government policy in casual conversation with one another.  Plenty of officers, including those currently deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, have no doubt expressed bitterness at missions they don’t believe in.  Lord knows, a large number of them did so about the various deployments ordered by Bill Clinton in the 1990s.  And, while it may not have made Hasan a popular guy on base, one doesn’t have to be a Muslim or want Americans killed to hold the view that citizens have a right to “rise up” against an invading force.

Beyond that, there’s a natural reluctance to be overly aggressive in challenging a Muslim soldier as an enemy sympathizer.  Being accused of racial profiling can be damaging to one’s career.  Further, it can feed natural resentments against Muslim soldiers, almost all of whom are just as loyal to the country, the uniform, and their fellow soldiers as the next guy.

I’m of course reminded of Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who went into a religious-inspired rage and murdered two 101st Airborne Division officers in 2003.   But, as Spencer Ackerman reminds us, Sergeant John Russell, who killed five soldiers in a shooting spree at Camp Liberty back in May, was not a Muslim.  So, outlandish claims that “the enemy is infiltrating our military” are unhelpful.

We have a natural desire to want to make sense of tragedy.  Unfortunately, we seem to have lone psychopaths going on shooting sprees and committing mass mayhem every now and again.  And we only see the “obvious” clues in hindsight.

*UPDATE:  A more recent AP report points out that the graduate school where Hasan made the comments was run by the military and adds further fuel to the fire that his seniors should have been aware of that they had a problem.

“I told him, `There’s something wrong with you,’” Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, told The Associated Press on Saturday. “I didn’t get the feeling he was talking for himself, but something just didn’t seem right.” Danquah assumed the military’s chain of command knew about Hasan’s doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates in a graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.

“The system is not doing what it’s supposed to do,” said Dr. Val Finnell, who studied with Hasan from 2007-2008 in the master’s program in public health at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. “He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out.”

[...]

Danquah said he was so disturbed by Hasan’s persistent questioning that he recommended the mosque reject Hasan’s request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood. But he never saw a need to tell anyone at the sprawling Army post about the talks, because Hasan never expressed anger toward the Army or indicated any plans for violence.  “If I had an inkling that he had this type of inclination or intentions, definitely I would have brought it to their attention,” he said.

Finnell said he did just that during a year of study in which Hasan made a presentation “that justified suicide bombing” and spewed “anti-American propaganda” as he argued the war on terror was “a war against Islam.” Finnell said he and at least one other student complained about Hasan, surprised that someone with “this type of vile ideology” would be allowed to wear an officer’s uniform.   But Finnell said no one filed a formal, written complaint about Hasan’s comments out of fear of appearing discriminatory.  “In retrospect, I’m not surprised he did it,” Finnell said. “I had real questions about what his priorities were, what his beliefs were.”

Hasan received a poor performance evaluation while at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly. And while he was an intern at the suburban Washington hospital, Hasan had some “difficulties” that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time.

Hasan was promoted from captain to major in 2008, the same year he graduated from the master’s program. Bernard Rostker, a military personnel expert at the Rand Corp., said Hasan’s advancement was all but certain absent a serious blemish on his record, such as a DUI or a drug charge. “We’re short of officers, particularly at the major and lieutenant colonel level because of the war, and we’re short of psychiatrists,” said Rostker, who served as under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness during the Clinton administration. “There would have had to be something very detrimental in his record before there would have been a banner that would have said, ‘No, we don’t want to promote him.’”

If senior military leaders knowingly kept quiet about Hasan’s incompatibility for service in order to meet personnel quotas, they’ve aided and abetted the murder of thirteen soldiers.

Weekend Caption Jam Linkfest. . .

• Rodney has all that jazz.
• Wizbang really knows how to clear a room.
• Wyatt Earp feels a disturbance in the force.
• Cowboy Blob is goin’ to the dogs.
• RT’s Ponderings is just bidin’ time
• Blonde Sagacity doesn’t think Bill is a little prick.
• Military Times is keepin’ his head above water.

Other Humor:
Icanhascheezburger welcomes you to the kitteh cult.
V the K always has the best pictures at Caption This!

I’ve been running the OTB Caption Contest since November 2004. So this month marks the 5th year of purveying moronic humor. With the exception of a few weeks each summer OTB has run two contests a week. I’m going to take a couple of more weeks off this month, not because of the not so onerous burden of running the caption contest, but my grandson, and first grandchild, was born this morning, and I’ll be traveling across country to visit my daughter for a few weeks. I’ll return around the week of Thanksgiving. — rodney

To join in, start a Caption Contest at your blog, edit it to add a link to this post, and then send a TrackBack. If your blog doesn’t automatically generate one, use the Send TrackBack feature below. For more information, see this post.

The editors of the Washington Post articulate a position similar to the one that I took yesterday:

The Obama administration and European governments have set the end of the year as a deadline for the transfer of the uranium out of Iran and for progress in the overall negotiations. But the administration must consider whether it makes sense to grant the regime two more months of grace. On Tuesday, after all, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly rejected the overtures he said he had received from President Obama, declaring that negotiating with the United States was “naive and perverted.” On Wednesday, the opposition protesters chanted: “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them, or with us.” Sooner rather than later, Mr. Obama ought to respond to those messages.

Sometimes “No” is, in fact, the answer and it certainly seems to me that it’s the answer that the Iranian regime has given to President Obama’s overtures.

The picture that is emerging of Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the American-born Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people and wounded dozens of others at Fort Hood yesterday is of a deeply troubled and conflicted individual:

As authorities scrambled to figure out what happened at Fort Hood, a hazy and contradictory picture emerged of this son of Palestinian immigrants, a man who received his medical training from the military and spent his career in the Army, yet allegedly turned so violently against his uniformed colleagues.

Hasan was born in Arlington and grew up in the Roanoke Valley of southwestern Virginia, a bookish young man who, his father hoped, would go on to significant professional achievement. He spent nearly all of his Army medical career at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District, caring for the victims of trauma, yet he spoke openly of his deep opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[…]

A longtime Walter Reed colleague who referred patients to psychiatrists said co-workers avoided sending service members to Hasan because of his unusual manner and solitary work habits.

[…]

Hasan “did not make many friends” and “did not make friends fast,” his aunt said. He had no girlfriend and was not married. “He would tell us the military was his life,” she said.

The psychiatrist once said that “Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor” and that the United States shouldn’t be fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, according to an interview with Col. Terry Lee, a co-worker, on Fox News.

Press releases today indicate that Maj. Hasan was shot four times, was initially believed to be dead, but is now in stable condition.

Army Col. Steven Braverman said during a morning news briefing that the alleged shooter, military psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, hadn’t been a disciplinary issue since recently being transferred to Fort Hood from Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington. Col. Braverman declined to elaborate on the man at the center of the rampage, noting that a detailed probe was ongoing.

“We had no problems with job performance while he was working with us,” said Col. Braverman, one of Maj. Hasan’s superiors.

Army Col. John Rossi called Thursday’s shooting a “tragic incident” and said that investigators had spent the night carefully interviewing witnesses. Officials disclosed that one of the 13 killed in the shooting was a civilian, while the rest were members of the military.

As Col. Rossi noted, this was clearly a tragic incident all around. I certainly hope that the military takes steps to identify and head off potentially deadly problem situations such as this lonely, conflicted, probably terrified and angry man obviously (in hindsight) presented. I make no excuses for the perpetrator. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and, if convicted, pay the price whether being committed to a mental institution, a prison sentence for the rest of his life, or greater. As the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, potentially, elsewhere stretch on the strains on individuals and families will become greater rather than less and special care will need to be taken to prevent repeats of this tragedy.