After evidence has accumulated for several days, you have to stick your head in the sand pretty deep to say the Fort Hood massacre wasn’t a guerrilla attack on America’s military by an Islamist extremist.

Numerous signs point to Maj. Nidal Hasan’s jihadist motives in premeditatedly gunning down 42 people, killing 13—and more are emerging by the hour. His attendance at a mosque with a jihadist hate preacher—Anwar al-Awlaki, the same “spiritual adviser” to three of the 9/11 terrorists. His labeling of the war on terror a “war on Islam.” His identifying his nationality not as American, but Palestinian. His being reprimanded during his postgraduate work for inappropriately proselytizing for Islam. His efforts, noted by U.S. intelligence officials, to contact members of al Qaeda. His evident approval of a Muslim terrorist killing an Army recruiter in Arkansas this past summer. His statements (according to colleague Col. Terry Lee), that Muslims had the right to attack Americans, and that “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.” His lecture to doctors at Walter Reed in d.c. where he warned that “adverse events” could occur if the military didn’t release Muslim soldiers as conscientious objectors. His statement, in the same presentation, calling non-Muslims (in the words of the Sunday Telegraph) “infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire,” and saying they “should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.” His statement to a neighbor the morning of the attack, as he gave her a Koran with his business card, “I’m going to do good work for God.” His shout of “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is great) before he mowed down his victims.

Nevertheless, don’t expect many retractions from those over the past week who have insisted people not assume Hasan’s religion had any bearing on his motive in the attack. That is because they cherish some things more than the truth.

To hold fast the imagined virtues of diversity and political correctness, they have closed their eyes.

Washington, the military and the mainstream press knew enough to conscientiously downplay or bury the jihadist connection from the moment the tragedy happened. They ascribed the attack to Hasan’s supposed mental imbalances, or stress from counseling traumatized soldiers, or harassment he endured for being Muslim.

Gen. George Casey, the U.S. Army chief of staff, said it’s important not to speculate about the role his Muslim faith played in the outburst. His concern is to prevent a backlash against Muslims in the military; he instructed his commanders to watch out for that reaction at Fort Hood.

President Obama said on Friday, “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” Remember—this is the same man who, before knowing all the facts, glibly judged that the Cambridge police’s actions against Henry Louis Gates fit a pattern of racial profiling in America.

The president did make an oblique inference to the jihadist nature of the attack in his speech at the memorial yesterday. But in the end, these 13 murders will do nothing to change the culture of political correctness strangling our nation’s politics, military and press. The stubborn, unshakable conviction among those in charge is that the best way to fight Islamist terrorism is to avoid offense.

Their attitude is as Isaiah prophesied: “[W]e have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves.”

The most egregious example of just how impervious to all truth this thinking is came courtesy of General Casey on Meet the Press this past Sunday. “Our diversity—not only in our Army but in our country—is a strength,” he said, reciting the multiculturalist mantra that has become military policy. Then, this: “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse” (emphasis mine).

A departure from the commitment to diversity would beworse—more horrific—than a jihadist shooting up several dozen people on an American military base.

Think about that. It’s tragic that it took 13 deaths to expose this thinking so starkly, but there it is. The general’s statement gives you a window into precisely the muddled, minority-privilege, criminal-as-victim rationalization that enabled Major Hasan to reach such heights within the Army.

During Hasan’s six years at Walter Reed, those around him could see trouble. His proselytizing for Islam and anti-American statements riled people. His superiors suppressed repeated complaints from his co-workers and subordinates. Even his work habits were lousy. His record would have easily cost most people their job. But even with all the disturbing red flags, Hasan was shuttled up the Army ranks—not in spite of his being Muslim, but because he is Muslim.

“Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone,” wrote Lt. Col. Ralph Peters. “But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.” Peters says Army promotion boards, shamefully, secretly have quotas for minority officers. “It’s almost impossible for the Army’s politically correct system to pass over a Muslim physician,” he wrote.

Is that policy going to change? The general’s comment is pretty solid proof that not even 13 murders are enough to jolt the military into reconsidering its blind devotion to diversity.

The media’s look-the-other-way response shows that they’re going to keep pretending the greatest danger in the war on terror is increased discrimination against peaceful American Muslims.

The president’s actions show that he will continue to prioritize “sending the right message” to the Islamic world over dealing with the truth. It’s the same problem that plagues his administration’s policies with Israel—and with Iran.

The Prophet Moses warned that the end-time nations of Israel, of which the U.S. is one, would suffer. Among their punishments: “The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.” And why? “For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them” (Deuteronomy 32:25, 28).

A nation void of counsel, bereft of understanding. Pretty apt description of a government making lies their refuge, cherishing political correctness more than the truth—valuing diversity over life itself.