Is The Army Trying To Give The Media The Runaround On Ft. Hood?


20091111-tows-mark-kimberly-290x218More confusion has arisen surrounding the events at Fort Hood last Thursday. Today the NYT is running an A-1 story about an eyewitness account that throws into question Sgt. Kimberly Munley’s role in taking down shooter Nadil Hasan during last week’s deadly rampage:

The witness, who asked not to be identified because it could damage his military career, has been interviewed by the Defense Criminal Investigative Division. He said Major Hasan wheeled on Sergeant Munley as she rounded the corner of a building and shot her, putting her on the ground. Then Major Hasan turned his back on her and started putting another magazine into his semiautomatic pistol. It was at that moment that Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, a veteran police officer, rounded another corner of the building, found Major Hasan fumbling with his weapon and shot him.

Without question there was a great deal of chaos surrounding the unprecedented events that took place at Fort Hood last Thursday afternoon. It was also reported for many hours that shooter Nadil Hasan was dead, when in fact he was at the hospital in stable condition. Also the result of the chaos? It’s entirely possible. However the Army does not have a great track record with the media when it comes to accuracy.

The case of Pat Tillman has recently returned to the headlines — Tillman was killed in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan in 2004, though the Army (and the White House) initially tried to turn death into a propoganda win by telling people he had died under enemy attack.

The current confusion also brings to mind Jessica Lynch: “When the Army initially reported Private Lynch had been captured in Iraq after a Rambo-like performance in which she emptied her weapon and was wounded in battle. It was later learned she had been badly hurt in a vehicle accident during an ambush and was being well cared for by the Iraqis.”

Obviously, the full story, including Nadil Hasan’s testimony, has yet to come to light, and currently the Army is refusing to provide further details and yesterday on Oprah neither Sgt. Todd nor Sgt. Munley offered up any (possibly because they are not allowed yet to discuss it in public). However, under the harsh media spotlight currently trained on Fort Hood — which will only increase should this be determined an act of terrorism — one suspects the Army won’t be able to keep the details of the events to themselves for much longer.

EmailTwitterFacebookDiggRedditStumble UponYahoo BuzzLinkedInTumblrDelicious


7 comments

  • ImNotBlue ImNotBlue says:

    Ah yes… good. As long as we’re focusing on what’s REALLY important in this case. Who is the “actual” hero… not how could a tragedy like this happen, and what can we do to prevent it in the future? Those questions, clearly not as important…

    *Sigh*

  • Vidiot Vidiot says:

    um, the Times can do more than one story at a time. Who’s saying they’re NOT focusing on how a tragedy like that could happen, and preventing future tragedies? This story, for one.

  • Trochilus Trochilus says:

    Clearly, there are many, many folks in the media, and in the current Administration, and even some Republicans, who would very much like the army to be the boogeyman in this matter. But the army is socially what they have made of it.

    Many of the politically correct denisons are the same people who have been screaming bloody murder every time real evidence pointed to radical Muslim involvement in deadly attacks on American society and it’s institutions. They preferred instead to attack the processes and the institutions by which the evidence came to light.

    When this story was breaking, Diane Sawyer of ABC wistfully mused about why it could not have been someone named, “Smith.” What an appalling gafffe! But she is in line to be the new anchor at ABC when the current one leaves. Why? Groupthink? And not to be outflanked in the ranks of those exhibiting sheer stupidity, Evan Thomas of Newsweek has openly lamented that it was a Muslim, apparently upset that this would somehow embolden conservatives!

    Utterly unwilling to say the truth, they all quickly point fingers at an institution that cannot openly defend itself, and that must bend to civilian authority. It’s the oldest trick in the book. Nancy tried it with the CIA. Never mind that the political correctness that has been imposed on the armed services is really the product of a massive and willing case of denial of what has been going on right in front of our eyes for years!

    Another example: It is now being reported today that Mayor Bloomberg of New York just had a “meet and greet” in his offices regarding the response to the Ft. Hood tragedy, and his office invited, among others:

    Siraj Wahhaj [who] has called the FBI and CIA the ‘real terrorists,’ defended the convicted World Trade Center attack plotters and said his hope is that all Americans will become Muslim.

    Well, now isn’t that special! What was his first excuse? That they wanted to be “inclusive!”

    Lindsay Graham almost instantly and confidently proclaimed that Hasan’s religion had nothing to do with his actions. He actually out-did Chris Matthews, who was only deeply skeptical about the possibility when he decided to mutter something stupid about it.

    Big Sis warns Americans not to form any conclusions, but neglects to give even one hint that her Department did anything to protect us from this terrorist here in the Homeland. That may be because they were too busy looking for ways to tag old-fashioned political adversaries with a terrorist moniker.

    Finally, I would point out that this gal Kimberly Munley was no Jessica Lynch, no matter what anyone says. She courageously ran into harms way and confronted Hasan. At a minimum, she surely saved some lives by engaging him in an exchange of gunfire. Whether she shot the guy at all is really beside the point. She put her life right on the line to protect our folks, and no one can ever take that away from her.

    Jessica Lynch was almost immediately knocked unconscious when the vehicle she was riding in crashed at the onset of the attack on her convoy.

  • ImNotBlue ImNotBlue says:

    Vidiot says:
    November 12, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    It’s a distraction, pure and simple. It’s meaningless at this moment… and the fact that some folks would rather talk about this, than about the actual issue at hand, shows their unwillingness to confront terrorism and violence.

  • Vidiot Vidiot says:

    but as that link I provided pointed out, the Times is also focusing on the actual issue at hand, contrary to your complaints.

  • ImNotBlue ImNotBlue says:

    And I continue to think it’s a waste of time. There are more pressing stories to focus on than this.

  • tedneb tedneb says:

    .

    I second ImNotBlue’s comments. Page A1? Not if this had happened a year ago.

    If this act of terrorism had occurred on Bush’s watch, you can damned well bet that the NYT would be crawling up the administration’s butt with a microscope trying to assign blame (and you know who they’d be assigning it to!). And you can damned well bet there wouldn’t be any hesitation in calling this an act of preventable terrorism.

  • If you would like to comment, please login or register:

    » Login » Register

    » Or connect with your Facebook account:

    Shuster: ‘Fox Is Far More Conservative Overall Than MSNBC Could Ever Be Liberal’

    video

    We've seen today what many in the media world (and even Press Secretary Robert Gibbs) thought of the highly-rated Bret Baier exclusive interview with Pres. Obama. There's one more from earlier in the day - MSNBC's David Shuster. He also had some general thoughts on his network and Baier's.

    Scott Brown On House Health Care Bill: “The Biggest Problem…Is Its Lack Of Transparency”

    video

    Last night when Chris Matthews discussed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's idea of a "Deem and Pass" to get the health reform bill pushed through Congress, his main concern was that it would open up Democrats to criticism of using evasive tactics. And he wasn't wrong: Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was on The Situation Room tonight, already chomping at the bit to discuss the "backroom deals....political chicanery and parliamentary maneuvers" that the House majority was using to "ram this bill through."



    © 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | Dan Abrams, Founder | Hosting by Datagram | RSS