The Missing Link From Killeen to Kabul

New York Times by Frank Rich | Nov. 15, 2009 (Opinion)

THE dead at Fort Hood had not even been laid to rest when their massacre became yet another political battle cry for the self-proclaimed patriots of the American right. Their verdict was unambiguous: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born psychiatrist of Palestinian parentage who sent e-mail to a radical imam, was a terrorist. Full Story »

Posted by Tanya J. Maurer - via OneRiot, New York Times (Most Emailed), New York Times (Opinion), AllTop, Opinion Source

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: World, Politics, Religion
Topics: Afghanistan, Islam, Republican Party
Member Tags: afghanistan war (2001- ), fort hood (tex), united states defense and military forces, nidal hasan, muslim-americans
Stats Help
# Diggs: 11 (as of 2009-11-14)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Tanya J. Maurer - Nov 14, 2009 - 7:39 PM PST
Reviewed by: Tanya J. Maurer (review), Patricia L'Herrou (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Tanya J. Maurer - Nov 15, 2009 - 1:07 AM PST
Like | | | Comments

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Related Comments: Afghanistan (5)

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
P1000885-2_thumb
4.3
 by Patricia L'Herrou - Nov. 16, 2009

mr. rich has thoughtfully laid out the case for finding another strategy in afghanistan by pointing out the connection between that war and the shooting in fort hood, as it relates to the views of so many 'hawks' who claim that major hasan's act was clearly terrorism, and who also had been calling to escalate with troops in afghanistan. he does so thoughtfully, using many facts and sources to back up his conclusion.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Tanya_maurer_thumb
4.7
 by Tanya J. Maurer - Nov. 15, 2009
Tanya posted this story.
See Full Review » (11 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.4

not enough reviews
from 1 review (28% confidence)
Quality
4.5
Information
4.0
Insight
4.5
Style
5.0
Context
4.5
Expertise
4.0
Originality
4.5
Relevance
5.0
Responsibility
4.5
Popularity
4.2
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!