At least seven killed at Fort Hood

[French Rage]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

and in the end we all have the right to criticize moves by our president. that pesky freedom of speech thing.

That we do, I don't think anyone would say someone shouldn't be allowed to criticize the president for this or anything. But we can argue about how valid we think such criticisms are until the cows come home.

Yes. It's almost as pathetic as the Bushies claiming that W would have scared the little children by immediately getting up and leaving the classroom on 9/11 after he heard the news.

I agree, as I always thought those were stupid criticisms about something that in the whole scheme of that day didn't matter in the least.

and, um, how bout those Yankees?

27!

 

[Patman]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Well, that's what you get when you try to fight a war against a nebulous concept like 'terror.'

Was this a terror attack? I'll bet those being attacked were terrified, yes. Was it a coordinated attack? Doesn't seem like it. What about the kid that shot up VA Tech? If this was a terror attack (based solely on the events), then that must be one, too.

Language matters. We'd all be served well to be specific.

its not politically correct to call Islam bad or to call fundamentalist Islam bad (because CAIR and fellow organizations are fundies)... but its been our habit to label any action of Islamists against civilians as terrorism.

So... were these actions taken on behalf of an organized group towards an end goal. No. Were they actions taken on behalf of an organized group towards some political statement. No. Were they actions taken on by an individual towards some political statement. Probably. Were they an action taken on behalf by individual towards an end goal. Not likely. Were the actions a rouge action against those he believe to be enemies of a distinct group entity. Yes.

You can go on with this for awhile. This incident doesn't really fit within a neat little box. At best this is labeled as "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" along the lines of that freak that ran over a bunch of UNC students with his car. On the other hand certain terrorism definitions fail if you apply them to John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo.

edit: I forgot this was an attack on the military. I take the military to be a legitimate target in a war so I personally believe its impossible to have terrorism taken upon a military target. That doesn't excuse this psycho.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

And to what extent have things been cleared? In the end a presidential visit is more than the president by himself taking a cab there, and in the end I think anyone would agree that making double sure everything else is done is a little more important than an appearance by one person.



So it's ridiculous for me to suggest that concerns for the investigations of one of the worst shootings ever could play any part whatsoever in what day the president makes a visit, and completely reasonable for you to expect it plays no part whatsoever. Note I'm not saying they consulted some complex mathematical formula of when every aspect of the investigation would be finished and made that their absolute only consideration of when the president would visit. But maybe they said "OK, the shooting occurred on Thursday, maybe we should give them through the weekend to straighten things up, and go early in the week" and came upon Tuesday from there. (The preceding was a dramatization as I'm not psychic and thus as non-privy to what went on as anyone else here.) So some random subjectivity from them there choosing Tueday over say, Monday or Wednesday, and in this hypothetical maybe they could have chosen Monday over Tuesday. In the end, it comes down to people thinking the day they felt the president should have visited is so incontravertably correct that anyone who chooses another must have done it for purely personal reasons and without regard for any other considerations. (Why didn't he go on Friday? That's earlier than Saturday! Or would investigators be too busy on Friday but not on Saturday? Is there some magical 36 hour investigation cutoff I'm not aware of? What about Sunday? Would that still be acceptable, or would it be too late and would it mean the president made a mistake? Is so, what is it about Sunday that is so horrible? The fact any of this even becomes a debate is so subjective and pointless. In the end, the president came to a different conclusion than you, one that will make little if any difference in the long run, and neither you or I can be completely sure of what went into that decision, so deal with it.[/QUOTE

Is that the stamping of little feet I hear? My goodness, now you've veered from the ridiculous to the stupid. I'm going to speak very slowly here, try to keep up: to the extent that any relevant location in this investigation is "cleared," it will be the FBI and other investigators who clear it. No one else. "Making double sure every thing else is done?" No one is suggesting a parade here. More important than an "appearance by one person?" Earlier it was a "nice morale booster," now it's an "appearance by one person." If you are truly unable to grasp the implications of a presidential visit under these circumstances, then you are hopeless.

The reason why the president is going on Tuesday is that's the day of the memorial service (I'm quite certain the white house was consulted on presidential availability) so your continued insistence that Tuesday was selected because in some unspecified way the investigation will have progressed to the point that it can no longer be hampered is balderdash.

You meander into an argument about why he "didn't go on Friday," and "would investigators have been too busy on Friday but not Saturday." Evidently in addition to not paying any attention to my posts, you don't pay any attention to your own: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS MADE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATORS' TIME MANAGEMENT, NOT ME. I'm the guy who thinks the investigation can proceed quite nicely, whether the president is on post or not.

We can certainly agree that in the end it doesn't make any difference what you or I think.

 

[Kepler]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

and in the end we all have the right to criticize moves by our president. that pesky freedom of speech thing.

We do. We have come a long way back from the brief but nasty time when criticizing the president was called "emboldening the terrorists."

 

[Patman]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

We do. We have come a long way back from the brief but nasty time when criticizing the president was called "emboldening the terrorists."

It wasn't the disagreeing... its the implication that we should restrict ourselves in a manner that appears weak to protect some naive sensibility of how the world should work vs. how it actually works.

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

We do. We have come a long way back from the brief but nasty time when criticizing the president was called "emboldening the terrorists."

That's true. Now its just called being a "hateful racist".

 

[French Rage]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Is that the stamping of little feet I hear? My goodness, now you've veered from the ridiculous to the stupid. I'm going to speak very slowly here, try to keep up: to the extent that any relevant location in this investigation is "cleared," it will be the FBI and other investigators who clear it. No one else. "Making double sure every thing else is done?" No one is suggesting a parade here. More important than an "appearance by one person?" Earlier it was a "nice morale booster," now it's an "appearance by one person." If you are truly unable to grasp the implications of a presidential visit under these circumstances, then you are truly hopeless.

The reason why the president is going on Tuesday is that's the day of the memorial service (I'm quite certain the white house was consulted on presidential availability) so your continued insistence that Tuesday was selected because in some unspecified way the investigation will have progressed to the point that it can no longer be hampered is balderdash.

And do you know, for sure, if things were cleared by yesterday? I'm not saying I do, but is it possible that perhaps they were told to hold on coming over the weekend, as such choosing Tuesday over other days to combine the visit and the memorial service seemed like the reasonable choice? Again, who knows, but why is the possibility of that having entered into the decision such a hard thing to believe?

You meander into an argument about why he "didn't go on Friday," and "would investigators have been too busy on Friday but not Saturday." Evidently in addition to not paying any attention to my posts, you don't pay any attention to your own: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS MADE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATORS' TIME MANAGEMENT, NOT ME. I'm the guy who thinks the investigation can proceed quite nicely, whether the president is on post or not.

My point there was you seemed so adamant that he must arrive on Saturday, for no other reason than that was what you picked. What makes your decision of that day any different than someone else saying it should have been Friday, or Sunday, etc? There must be some specific reason why Saturday was so the right day that a choice of any other day must have been must have been done without any possible consideration of any important factors.

Don't try to portray this as some belief on my part about the inabilities or incompetence of those involved. If they've determined they've done what they needed to, I have all the confidence in the world that they know what they are talking about, and that any visit can proceed. But if that isn't the case, I also know it's much more important for things to complete before anyone tries to force their way into a visit hoping that they won't interfere with what is going on. If you know that the White House was given full green light then by all means let me know, as it needless to say will change things.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

That's true. Now its just called being a "hateful racist".

And we have it on good authority that racism is responsible for the "vast proportion" of the criticism. Who could doubt Jimmy?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

And do you know, for sure, if things were cleared by yesterday? I'm not saying I do, but is it possible that perhaps they were told to hold on coming over the weekend, as such choosing Tuesday over other days to combine the visit and the memorial service seemed like the reasonable choice? Again, who knows, but why is the possibility of that having entered into the decision such a hard thing to believe?



My point there was you seemed so adamant that he must arrive on Saturday, for no other reason than that was what you picked. What makes your decision of that day any different than someone else saying it should have been Friday, or Sunday, etc? There must be some specific reason why Saturday was so the right day that a choice of any other day must have been must have been done without any possible consideration of any important factors.

Don't try to portray this as some belief on my part about the inabilities or incompetence of those involved. If they've determined they've done what they needed to, I have all the confidence in the world that they know what they are talking about, and that any visit can proceed. But if that isn't the case, I also know it's much more important for things to complete before anyone tries to force their way into a visit hoping that they won't interfere with what is going on. If you know that the White House was given full green light then by all means let me know, as it needless to say will change things.

You remind me a little of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxL11RIEb5Q



I'll take one last stab at this one. This is a huge, international investigation. Because while it's important to know exactly what "Dr." Hasan did, it's also important to know if the attack was concieved or authorized by Muslim terrorists elsewhere. First there is the crime scene itself. Then "Dr." Hasan's residence. Then his family, friends and associates. Then the identity of the person who showed up at his apartment the morning of the shooting. There's the gun dealer. His mosque. His prior professional activities at Walter Reed. His internet postings. His finances. And on and on.

So this magical "clearance" you keep referencing is actually a series of determinations. The processing center where the crimes occurred needs to be cleared immediately because it's an important part of what Fort Hood does. However, the center is the only actual crime scene involved here. Possibly the theatre next door.

And where "don't try to portray this as some belief on my part about the abilities or incompetence of those involved" came from is utterly beyond me. You have suggested, repeatedly, that these folks would be unable to conduct their investigation if the president were to be on post before Tuesday. I have suggested, repeatedly, that they can carry out their duties quite effectively whether he's there or not. The question of incompetence never entered my posts nor my mind. Strawman.

And presidents of the United States don't "force their way into visits" on military installations. He's the commander in chief. He can come and go as he pleases.

First it was "a nice morale booster," then a visit by "one person" and now "forcing their way" onto the base. You really haven't got a clue, have you?

There are probably several reasons why Tuesday was chosen as the day for the memorial service, and progress in the on base portion of the investigation could easily have been part of the calculation. I have merely suggested (again) that since he spent the weekend in Camp David he could have taken a couple of hours to show up and comfort the wounded. If it turns out he wanted to come before Tuesday and was talked out of it, I'll apologize to him and you both.

 

[French Rage]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

I'll take one last stab at this one. This is a huge, international investigation. Because while it's important to know exactly what "Dr." Hasan did, it's also important to know if the attack was concieved or authorized by Muslim terrorists elsewhere. First there is the crime scene itself. Then "Dr." Hasan's residence. Then his family, friends and associates. Then the identity of the person who showed up at his apartment the morning of the shooting. There's the gun dealer. His mosque. His prior professional activities at Walter Reed. His internet postings. His finances. And on and on.

So this magical "clearance" you keep referencing is actually a series of determinations. The processing center where the crimes occurred needs to be cleared immediately because it's an important part of what Fort Hood does. However, the center is the only actual crime scene involved here. Possibly the theatre next door.

OK, all very good. Magical clearance or series of determinations, those investigating should be able to determine they have completed before the president gets the greenlight to come, and their opinion that everything that needs to be done should be all we need. We appear to be in agreement on that.

And where "don't try to portray this as some belief on my part about the abilities or incompetence of those involved" came from is utterly beyond me. You have suggested, repeatedly, that these folks would be unable to conduct their investigation if the president were to be on post before Tuesday. I have suggested, repeatedly, that they can carry out their duties quite effectively whether he's there or not. The question of incompetence never entered my posts nor my mind. Strawman.

Yes, as dedicated professionals I know those involved can go about their jobs focused and determined regardless of distractions if such situations every were to arrive. However, people are still human and it is possible, despite all of that, for situations to arise from a visit that might unnecessarily comprimise what they are trying to do (I can't give specific examples here, but then that's why I would defer to those in charge who know what they are doing). Thus, we should give them all the deference they need to do the job right, and only then should the president visit so to not comprimise anything. If that was Saturday, he has the greenlight then; if not, he should wait for it.

And presidents of the United States don't "force their way into visits" on military installations. He's the commander in chief. He can come and go as he pleases.

Yes, that is correct, as commander in chief he's the one who can make the decision whether he goes there or not. That doesn't mean he should make the decision without any thought towards whether his visit might adversely affect the situation.

There are probably several reasons why Tuesday was chosen as the day for the memorial service, and progress in the on base portion of the investigation could easily have been part of the calculation. I have merely suggested (again) that since he spent the weekend in Camp David he could have taken a couple of hours to show up and comfort the wounded. If it turns out he wanted to come before Tuesday and was talked out of it, I'll apologize to him and you both.

Well, ultimately neither of us really know, do we? OK, are we done? I'm hungry, anyone up for Tex-Mex?

 

[brianvf]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

On the other hand, I'm betting old stupid and smug would know the difference between a medal of freedom and a medal of honor.

You sure about that?

"Fool me once..."

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

OK, all very good. Magical clearance or series of determinations, those investigating should be able to determine they have completed before the president gets the greenlight to come, and their opinion that everything that needs to be done should be all we need. We appear to be in agreement on that.



Yes, as dedicated professionals I know those involved can go about their jobs focused and determined regardless of distractions if such situations every were to arrive. However, people are still human and it is possible, despite all of that, for situations to arise from a visit that might unnecessarily comprimise what they are trying to do (I can't give specific examples here, but then that's why I would defer to those in charge who know what they are doing). Thus, we should give them all the deference they need to do the job right, and only then should the president visit so to not comprimise anything. If that was Saturday, he has the greenlight then; if not, he should wait for it.



Yes, that is correct, as commander in chief he's the one who can make the decision whether he goes there or not. That doesn't mean he should make the decision without any thought towards whether his visit might adversely affect the situation.



Well, ultimately neither of us really know, do we? OK, are we done? I'm hungry, anyone up for Tex-Mex?

Colonel Travis would have loved having you at the Alamo. NOBODY GIVES
THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF "THE GREEN LIGHT" to come to a military base. The
president decides. You figure Obama needs permission from some FBI types?
Are you daft? We are NOT in agreement, and evidentlly never will be, that there is some authority out there which grants permission for the commander in chief to come to a US military installation. They might suggest, he might ask, but at the end of the day it's his call, period. This is not a matter of interpretation or nuance, it's the Constitutional order of things.

You are so dedicated to this ridiculous argument that you aren't even able to be consistent, one paragraph to the next. In one graph you talk about "before the president gets the green light to come," and in the next you agree that "as commander in chief he's the one who can make the decision whether he goes there or not." Well, which is it?

Of course you can't give specific examples of what you're talking about. You don't KNOW what you're talking about. "Adversly affect the situation," my left ear lobe. Yeah, the guy analyzing the blood in the FBI lab's gonna screw up because the president's on base. I believe we've already established that you don't pay attention to what you post--and this last effort proves it.

Over and out, Captain Whimsical.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

You sure about that?

"Fool me once..."

Positive.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

We do. We have come a long way back from the brief but nasty time when criticizing the president was called "emboldening the terrorists."

...but only by those on the right.

That's true. Now its just called being a "hateful racist".

...but only by those on the right.

 

[French Rage]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

You figure Obama needs permission from some FBI types?
Are you daft? We are NOT in agreement, and evidentlly never will be, that there is some authority out there which grants permission for the commander in chief to come to a US military installation. They might suggest, he might ask, but at the end of the day it's his call, period. This is not a matter of interpretation or nuance, it's the Constitutional order of things.

You are so dedicated to this ridiculous argument that you aren't even able to be consistent, one paragraph to the next. In one graph you talk about "before the president gets the green light to come," and in the next you agree that "as commander in chief he's the one who can make the decision whether he goes there or not." Well, which is it?

Wow, I cannot make this any clearer. Yes, in the end it is the President's decision to make and his alone. He's the one in charge and what he says goes. However, if he has any leadership abilities whatsoever he doesn't make these decisions in a vacuum without any input at all from the experts in the situation. So if he has half a brain, before he would visit he would ask those in charge of the investigation if his visit would hinder things in any way. Now, if he still wants to go but they say no, what he says goes and there's really nothing they can do about it. So "green light" or "permission" isn't the correct wording, I will concede that, becuase even if it is isn't given doesn't mean he can't come if he doesn't want to, but if he wants to avoid screwing things up, he should at the very least give their opinions a moment's consideration.

Do you know what I am saying?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Wow, I cannot make this any clearer. Yes, in the end it is the President's decision to make and his alone. He's the one in charge and what he says goes. However, if he has any leadership abilities whatsoever he doesn't make these decisions in a vacuum without any input at all from the experts in the situation. So if he has half a brain, before he would visit he would ask those in charge of the investigation if his visit would hinder things in any way. Now, if he still wants to go but they say no, what he says goes and there's really nothing they can do about it. So "green light" or "permission" isn't the correct wording, I will concede that, becuase even if it is isn't given doesn't mean he can't come if he doesn't want to, but if he wants to avoid screwing things up, he should at the very least give their opinions a moment's consideration.

Do you know what I am saying?

Yes.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Wow, I cannot make this any clearer. Yes, in the end it is the President's decision to make and his alone. He's the one in charge and what he says goes. However, if he has any leadership abilities whatsoever he doesn't make these decisions in a vacuum without any input at all from the experts in the situation. So if he has half a brain, before he would visit he would ask those in charge of the investigation if his visit would hinder things in any way. Now, if he still wants to go but they say no, what he says goes and there's really nothing they can do about it. So "green light" or "permission" isn't the correct wording, I will concede that, becuase even if it is isn't given doesn't mean he can't come if he doesn't want to, but if he wants to avoid screwing things up, he should at the very least give their opinions a moment's consideration.

Do you know what I am saying?

JFC, French Rage. Fort Hood military base covers about 250 square miles. If Obama had wanted to, he could have easily found some location on the base (or off) to meet with the people affected that would have in no way interfered with anything. That is a fact - this option was available to him. You're so hell-bent on defending Obama that you want to deny that he had a choice; therefore, he couldn't have made the wrong one because there wasn't a choice to be made.

But JFC on you, too, Old Pio. Do you think the families really care whether the President extends his condolences on a Friday or a Tuesday? Do you think that 5 years from now, the families of the victims will be thinking, "well, it was a shame we lost our son, but the real tragedy of that time was that we had to wait 3 days to meet the President. If only he'd showed up on Friday, it would have just been so much easier to handle."? Do you really? You're so hell-bent on attacking Obama that you're completely losing sight of what matters in this situation.

Obama had the choice. He chose to come on Tuesday. Big freaking deal.

 

[French Rage]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Fort Hood military base covers about 250 square miles. If Obama had wanted to, he could have easily found some location on the base (or off) to meet with the people affected that would have in no way interfered with anything.

Fair point.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

p

JFC, French Rage. Fort Hood military base covers about 250 square miles. If Obama had wanted to, he could have easily found some location on the base (or off) to meet with the people affected that would have in no way interfered with anything. That is a fact - this option was available to him. You're so hell-bent on defending Obama that you want to deny that he had a choice; therefore, he couldn't have made the wrong one because there wasn't a choice to be made.

But JFC on you, too, Old Pio. Do you think the families really care whether the President extends his condolences on a Friday or a Tuesday? Do you think that 5 years from now, the families of the victims will be thinking, "well, it was a shame we lost our son, but the real tragedy of that time was that we had to wait 3 days to meet the President. If only he'd showed up on Friday, it would have just been so much easier to handle."? Do you really? You're so hell-bent on attacking Obama that you're completely losing sight of what matters in this situation.

Obama had the choice. He chose to come on Tuesday. Big freaking deal.

Of course, 5 years from now it won't matter one bit. Five years from now the vast majority of Americans will have forgotten all about this outrage. I didn't have in mind the expressing of condolances. I had in mind talking to and shaking hands with the survivors. He's the president, etc. etc. The condolances would come at the memorial service.

If I had been a presidential advisor I would have recommended a quick visit to talk to the survivors and perhaps encourage the troops. And I believe other recent presidents would have taken that advice. The fact that the president chose not to go, in the end, is not a huge deal. It's just another missed opportunity.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...s/articles/2009/11/07/obamas_delayed_empathy/


what does JFC stand for?

 

[walrus]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

...but only by those on the right.

Like Jimmy Carter?