Let's see. We have a major terror attack on this country's largest military installation: 13 killed, 31 wounded.

The man identified as responsible for the mayhem is hospitalized. We're told he's in a coma; some reports say he's paralyzed.

The ramifications of the situation are enormous. When the shooting stopped, we knew what happened but didn't know if it was a single incident or part of a plot. We didn't know the details about the person pulling the triggers.

But we did know that in the midst of a military installation, where one would think security would be tightest, something went radically wrong.

In light of that, what are we to make of the man who is president of the United States, the man who is commander in chief of the U.S. military, the man whose press office alerted media that he would be making a statement concerning the massacre? As the cameras cut to him, he ignored the massacre for almost three minutes, during which he gives a "shout-out" to a Native American, thanks staff for a meeting on Indian affairs and promises more progress making things right for tribes.

Huh?

Then, and only then, almost as an aside, he refers to an event that perhaps these people didn't know about. He told what happened at Fort Hood and expressed concern for the loss of life and injuries. Cool, calm, collected and remote.

What about "first things first"? What about priorities? Why not speak of the massacre first? That affected everyone there and the millions worldwide awaiting his statement on TV. Virtually every broadcast outlet had a camera or microphone pointed at him for his reaction to this attack on the U.S. Army, in fact, an attack on the United States.

What does he do? He fails the test, again. It's second on his list of important things to say.

I saw it live and couldn't believe my eyes and ears. I still don't, but I'm not surprised.

It was pure chance I was watching TV Thursday. I was waiting for a car repair in the mechanic's lounge watching CNN's coverage of the shootings.

They constantly alerted viewers that the president would be making a statement any moment now, and they'd carry it live.

At one point, they even cut to the podium, showing people hurriedly setting up desks, chairs and flags.

Then, "here he is" – cut to the president, live!

I thought they'd run a tape by mistake.

(Column continues below)

What I saw was no mistake, but what Obama did was a mistake: He made no reference to the shootings but proceeded with his light-hearted remarks of thanks to meeting attendees.

What are we to think of this? Is he so cold and calculating that he thinks stoking favor from Native Americans is more important than supporting our military?

Or perhaps, those words were first on the teleprompter and he had to read them before it rolled through to the "regrets for the killings" part of the script.

I don't know who should be fired first: the president or the person who loaded the words in the prompter.

But even if the prompter was wrong, couldn't a Harvard graduate elected as president be able to ad-lib condolences and concern?

We now know the man who opened fire on 300+ unarmed military was Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major, a military psychiatrist. He's an American-born Muslim, son of Pakistani immigrants. Hasan was in uniform as he fired off more than 100 rounds, using two handguns that were not military issue.

Witnesses say that as he opened fire, Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar," the Islamic phrase praising Allah's supremacy – the phrase that uncounted terrorists have used before carrying out their acts of jihad, killing the infidel without mercy.

The Army is dealing with the shooting on several levels – investigation, security, troop morale, support for the victims and their families, and the logistics of dealing with the medical needs of the injured and the funeral needs for those killed.

Local police are involved, as is the FBI. It's a massively detailed situation complicated by the tentacles of political correctness enveloping it all.

We have a problem here. The Obama administration told us months ago that we're not to use the term "terrorism." The proper term is "man-caused disaster."

That ensures we avoid mentioning Islam, Muslims, jihad, fatwas, honor killings and every other word that's part of the war against terrorism, which involves the people involved with any and all of those terms.

But, unfortunately, things don't go away by silence or avoiding certain words.

And unfortunately, when Hasan's name was announced, the fact it was a Muslim name didn't surprise a lot of people. Those people don't play politically correct games with the security and future of this country.

They're not like Barack Obama, who, when he spoke on Friday from the Rose Garden, urged that people not be "jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

We have a lot: Hasan had been disciplined for attempting to recruit soldiers to Islam, that he didn't want to be deployed and hired a lawyer to help him. He was opposed to the war and against killing Muslims. He claimed at a mosque he was a Palestinian, and he recently gave away his belongings and Qurans. He claimed anti-Muslim persecution and wrote on blogs praising jihad and suicide bombers.

What should we conclude?

But Obama has other plans. No, not a trip to Fort Hood.

He hasn't visited the injured or the families of the dead. He missed the Friday vigil on post. His office announced he'll go there when a formal memorial is held.

His plans? After his Saturday pitch for health care, he's off to Camp David with the family for the weekend.

Being president is such a burden.