Every time there's an act of Muslim terror here, left-wing media and politicians seem to hope it's the handiwork of a "homegrown" terrorist. A lone wolf. An angry conservative maybe.
Sometimes they hope openly.
"There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country," MSNBC host Contessa Brewer admitted on the radio.
Why, Contessa? How would that make you feel better?
The bomb-rigged Times Square SUV was barely defused before people such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg surmised it might have been the work of "somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health-care bill or something."
Right. That's the first thing that comes to his mind. Some angry conservative. Hopefully a white guy. We're still waiting for Son of Timothy McVeigh. Never mind the actual trail of Muslim violence and attempted violence across America, from New Jersey to Seattle, and in Bloomberg's city alone stretching back to 1993.
Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano said Sunday, "You know, at this point I have no information that it's anything other than a one-off." Translation: one person, acting alone.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told CNN, "The odds are quite high that this was a lone wolf."
Oops. We hope he didn't take those odds and put money on it. Not only is the arrested man -- Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani native who apparently lied through his teeth to get American citizenship -- quite likely a radical Muslim terrorist, but he may not have been working alone: Pakistani officials say they've arrested alleged co-conspirators of Shahzad's in Karachi.
Still, even if the Times Square bomber had technically "acted alone" in deed, he still would have been connected to his radical colleagues in spirit and intention.
Yet, liberals just refuse to accept the viral nature of Islamic jihad. Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, wrote after the Fort Hood massacre that the case "puts the spotlight back on the lone-wolf offender who sits at the crossroads of crime, terrorism and mental distress."
The only thing mushier than that is oatmeal.
Likewise, some rushed to describe Fort Hood mass murderer Nidal Hasan as, in the words of Time magazine, "another horrific workplace shooting by a nutcase who suddenly snapped," rather than the Muslim terrorist that he quite obviously was.
"In their first response, officials betrayed an eagerness to assume it was" just another guy who snapped, Time wrote. Never mind that Hasan was chanting the radical-Muslim mantra "God is great" as he slaughtered his fellow soldiers.
The "lone wolf" theory was also put forth after the "underwear" bomber was foiled over Detroit -- until we learned he was al-Qaida trained.
We're not suggesting authorities should assume it's a radical Muslim when something blows up or is rigged to. Just the opposite: Don't assume anything. But above all, it makes zero sense to assume it isn't Muslim terrorism. That's going more than a few blocks out of your way to be stupid.
Thank heaven investigators didn't act on Schumer's and Bloomberg's delusional assumptions; if they had, they never would have reached Shahzad's plane after it had taxied from the terminal, and he'd be soaking up the rays in Dubai by now.
Liberal media and politicians -- call them homegrown "errorists" -- are so eager to avoid even the topic of Muslim terrorism that they're routinely giving out potentially dangerous misinformation after terrorist acts. It's not making anyone feel any better, and it shouldn't.
And someday, that kind of suicidal political correctness may lead to a terrorist getting away.