A Good to the Extreme Becomes a Danger - Example - Political Correctness - Fort Hood's Terrorism!
President Obama seemingly can't use the words "Islamic terrorism", not even "terrorism" alone to spell it out what happened whenever a distraught army (Muslim) psychiatrist went berserk, shot and killed fellow US soldiers randomly - shouting "Allah Achbah". A "tragedy" says the president; "No, it is a travesty" say critics of liberalism's "political correctness" - by causing a reluctance to react to the many signals of extremism this man gave out: a lecture to fellow medics given on Islam and the Koran instead of on surgical procedure; a score of attempts to contact Islamic radicals overseas; political arguments with military patients concerning the justification for war in Iran and Afghanistan; openly proclaiming that Muslim soldiers should not be delivered to war against fellow Muslims; "I'm a Muslim first and an American second!". How many warnings were missed? What excuse can be directed at the grieving groups of the thirteen dead? This first deadly terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 - in an army camp, no less - could have been prevented. Why was it not? The liberal media are filled with explanations in order to avoid the most obvious - blaming the traumatic stress syndrome due to unjust wars - apparently (by apologist view) infecting a good heretofore nonparticipant in those wars by only speaking with the returning wounded. Of course, the "tipping point" to this military officer was his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan or Iraq - and the conflict between his religious beliefs and being forced to war against fellow Muslims. We forget: thousands of American-Germans (and American-Italians, American-Japanese et al), were delivered to war in World War II. What could have been the media reaction if one of them had gone berserk about his anger at being delivered to fight European Germans - and had shouted, "Heil Hitler!" before indiscriminately shooting scores of fellow soldiers? political system