John Hitchcock wrote that he would attack (rhetorically) President Obama every chance he got, but that one particular bit of criticism he saw, from someone else, was unjustified.
Well, here’s another example of something on which I don’t think the President should be criticized. Donald Douglas noted that George and Laura Bush went to Fort Hood Friday evening, to visit the soldiers wounded in the attack by Major Nidal Hasan. The news story Dr Douglas quoted said that the Bushes came and left quietly, and didn’t want any media coverage of their visit. Dr Douglas concluded:
But note this from Reuters, “Obamas to attend Fort Hood memorial Tuesday.” Better late than never, I guess. Or as Pamela suggests, “Obama’s posse has announced he will go to Fort Hood next week. Not because he wants to, but because he was shamed into it. Disgusting.”
I left this brief comment:
Class shows, I suppose. Still, I don’t know that I’d criticize President Obama on this one: he dopes have a full schedule, and the President of the United States can’t always just drop everything.
Dr Douglas respectfully disagreed:
Obama Dishonors Commander-in-Chief Role
My good friend Dana at Common Sense Political Thought left this comment at the blog (regarding the refusal of President Obama to visit the families at Fort Hood):
I don’t know that I’d criticize President Obama on this one: he does have a full schedule, and the President of the United States can’t always just drop everything.
I respect Dana immensely, and I’m proud and thankful of his daughter for her service, but there’s really little debate on this: American soldiers have been killed on home ground in a premediated, religiously-motivated terrorist attack. The president needs to be with the families of the dead and wounded, and he needs to come out more forcefully against what has happened. The shootings have been described as an act of war by retired military personnel. And actually, I probably wouldn’t have posted on the disagreement, but it turns out that Comrade Repsac3 has been trolling the comments this weekend, and he’s piggy-backing on Dana’s comments to attempt a “consensus repudiation” of American Power.
So, with all due respect, let’s go to Flopping Aces:
The priority for the Commander In Chief, IMHO, would be to bypass any planned speech and immediately fly to Austin, Texas, act like a Commander in Chief, go to the site of the shootings, meet with senior staff, assess the situation and events that led to the shootings, speak to the troops, particularly the injured, demonstrate concern and take action based on the findings of your assessment. Such actions should include addressing the families of the fallen and the injured. Assure the American people that their military bases and the security of the bases are not compromised and all possible measures will be taken to tighten what already has been established to safeguard the safety of soldier.
There’s a lot more of Dr Douglas’ article at the link. But I have a couple of points here. First, as I said on American Power:
Our esteemed host quoted Charisse Van Horn:
Though President Obama has made three attempts to speak against the violence that transpired on November 5, 2009, he has yet to do so. In each of his remarks, he discussed the facts, the need for patience, and the grief that victims’ families are undergoing. He has yet to condemn the shooting, nor illustrate ways to prevent this from happening in the future.
On one of my favorite sites, Patterico’s Pontifications, it has become something of a standing joke that people make routine denunciations, sarcastically, of course, to have such denunciations on record so that they can’t be accused of not denouncing some particular thing, and must, therefore, secretly support it.
In one way, we’re seeing that here. The President has noted the grief the victims’ families face, which certainly is appropriate. But in counseling some patience, he’s also doing the right thing: it’s three days later, and we are still searching for facts.
I note that several people have mentioned the incident between the Harvard professor and the police officer: President Obama made some comments before he knew all of the facts, and he seriously fornicated up by doing so.
There’s already a media circus at Fort Hood; the President jumping on Air Force One and heading to Texas on Thursday would not have helped matters, but would have made matters worse. By waiting until Tuesday (I think that’s when he is supposed to be there), he allows time for the facts to be gathered, allows time for family grief, and still shows up, prepared and ready, to pay respect to our fallen soldiers.
There are a lot of things for which I can — and have — criticized President Obama, bit I don’t think that this particular event and his response to it are terribly wrong.
Second, Dr Douglas noted, quoting David Horowitz, that President Bush had been attacked by our friends on the left for continuing to read The Pet Goat to school children when notified of teh first plane striking the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. It was only after information came that this was a terrorist attack, not just a tragic accident, that the President left.
On September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush heard a plane had hit the World Trade Center when he was about to hear elementary kids read a book to him at a school in Florida. Bush had a whisper in his ear from Andrew Card about the plane while he was in front of a group of small children. At that point the complete picture of a full scale terrorist attack was not known. Bush knew something was happening, but he did not know how bad, and he did not want to frighten the kids in front of him.
The book the children read to him was called “The Pet Goat” and that incident has been used to attack Bush by the Left ever since ….
After meeting with the children and getting more information, President Bush gave a short but powerful press conference to the country. It showed great leadership and clarity on what was going on. You can debate if he should have immediately ran out on the kids and then made his speech, but there is no debating the strength of his first public words on the incident.
You know, I think that Dr Douglas has made my own case for me! I didn’t see anything wrong with President Bush’s actions on September 11th, because we, and he, didn’t have the facts. And regarding the killings at Fort Hood, we still don’t have all of the facts. Moreover, it seems as though the Fort Hood shootings were a one-time event, and not some part of a broader terrorist attack. Taking a few days to get what facts can be gathered does not somehow increase our danger.
Finally, I’d note that President Bush made his visit to the World Trade Center following the terrorist attack on Friday, September 14, 2001, three days after the attack. Conditions were certainly different, and the WTC site was physically unsafe, but I don’t remember any criticism of the President for having taken too long to get to New York.
It seems to me that, if criticism of President Bush for his actions on September 11th by our friends on the left was unfair — and it was — then criticism of President Obama for not having visited Fort Hood yet is off target as well. If he chose not to visit, period, I’d respond differently.
There are a lot of things for which I’ve criticized President Obama, and the only way that will cease is if I drop stone-cold graveyard dead. But on this one, I can’t criticize.
Dana: Again, you’re right, and with all due respect, while theres’ little evidence that Hasan’s attack was part of a wider plot, there’s little doubt, though, that he was driven by fanatical jihadist hatred of America. From Ralp Peters:
*****
“On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting “Allahu Akbar!” committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.
What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.
This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.
When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as “Palestinian” in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an “Islamist terrorist.”
But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as “Islamist terrorism” in ObamaWorld.”
*****
I held off judgment — did not jump to conclusions — when the story first broke. But Hasan trained at a mosque with three of the 9/11 terrorists. I could go on mentioning all the other red flags. I’m disgusted by the press’ response, and I was more perturbe by the radical leftists who came to my blog to agree with your comments. I wouldn’t be blogging on this if I didn’t believe it.
So Don, is the difference between a terror attack and a mass murder simply a matter of motive? I mean, that’s all that separates Nidal Hasan and Jason Rodriguez, right?
Yeah, people who attacked Bush for the “My Pet Goat” thing were/are hacks. Really, what’s he supposed to do, put on his Superman suit and fly up into the New York sky and pluck those planes out of mid-air? Same thing with Obama. His going to Fort Hood immediately isn’t going to bring those soldiers back.
Conservatives complain – with good reason – about hasty, ill-considered legislation. Same goes for other hasty, ill-considered actions of the executive.
News Flash: Japs Attack Pearl Harbor, President Obama cautions against jumping to conclusions. Jap leaders may have suffered racial insults while visiting Disneyland.
US Navy ignored warning signs, cites White House political correctness Czar. US unsure of reason for Tokyo celebration. Democrats call for restraint, send consolation message to Japs injured in attack.
I commend George and Laura Bush for what they did.
It is quite obvious, no matter what a President does, Bush, Obama, Clinton, …, there will always be criticism; it comes with the job. The question is always whether or not the criticism sticks, all the way to the ballot box.
This brings to mind a concern expressed by many, I included, that our system of government is being exploited by powerful special interests with their campaign contributions and bribes of our elected officials. The result has been policies that have distributed wealth upwards, such that 5% of the people at the top own 95% of our nations assets. Note how the Wall Street moguls, in spite of all that has gone down with the economy, by their misbehavior, they continue their practices, credit default swaps and questionable derivatives, with taxpayer money no less, make too few loans, and pay exorbitant executive salaries and bonuses. What is a government to do with these people?
This skewed wealth situation is unsustainable, and will lead to chaos in the streets by the vast numbers of disenfranchised, if it continues! Of this I am convinced, based on the historic union uprisings that have marked our history of the working man demanding his/her fair share of the pie based on their productivity on the job. The question is, how much longer will it take for the pot to simmer, then boil. It seems to me, it is already at a simmer.
The Obama campaign showed a way for the little guy to have a voice, but it will take more than this to impact the way Congress does business, therefore we the people need to keep fighting this corrupted system of government that has evolved.
The result of this, over decades, has been to skew the system and the wealth in favor of the wealthiest of us.
I disagree, Dana. President Obama could have flown to Texas yesterday or today for a private meeting with wounded soldiers. He didn’t. Instead, he plans to show up nearly a week after the events. And I’m sure the photographers will be in tow.
…His schedule is so full that he couldn’t skip hitting Camp David with the wife?
…
Yeah. “Tacky” is the nicest thing that can be said about Obama’s response.
W. leaving the room would have done nothing– they still had to set up the route to get him out of the school.
Obama heading to the base, on the other hand, might have implied that he views the deaths of 13 soldiers as more important than hanging around for a vote on something he can’t touch, anyways, then heading off for Camp David.
I’m STILL waiting for him to treat this with some basic respect– oh! Look! Cameras! I give a shout-out, manage to screw THAT up, then mention that my soldiers are dead!
Next day: Oh, I’ve got it this time! I’ll spend a few moments talking about it, then roll into how wonderful I am for getting unemployment extended!
Gah, at least with little kids there’s a reason for them to keep yelling “ME!ME!ME!”
Jeff: So Don, is the difference between a terror attack and a mass murder simply a matter of motive?
Excellent point, Jeff. Although I would have replaced the word ‘motive’ with ‘religion.’
This guy didn’t spend years rising through the ranks in a mastermind plot to run around shooting up an Army base. This was an act of insanity by a broken man, not a terror attack. Shouting ‘God is great’ is a part of his religion. I’m sure lots of Christians pray during gun battles. What was that old saw about atheists and foxholes? Does that mean churches train killers, like mosques train killers?
Actually, I’d be all in favor of abolishing structured religion and letting people continue it at home, but that’s another subject.
No, this isn’t a terror attack any more than Columbine was. Planning for years to fly airplanes into buildings is terrorism. Shooting abortion doctors is terrorism. Screaming end-of-world fears to your listeners to try to get them to pick up guns and start shooting is terrorism (and cowardice.)
One of the problems with the words terrorism and terrorist is that they have gained an implicit meaning, a meaning which many people infer to include conspiracy. If Major Hasan’s attack was a terrorist one, does that mean that he conspired with others, that there is some larger anti-American group with which he was in contact, from which he took orders?
Terrorism is a tactic which implies a goal, something that the terrorist intends as an effect beyond the immediate deaths from his attack. Did Major Hasan intend for his attack to have some impact beyond his (failed) suicide-by-cop and killing several people in the immediate vicinity? That he was an opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been documented; did he think his attack would somehow cause us to abandon those wars? Did he have a goal beyond what a just-plain-deranged Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech killer, had? Maybe we’ll find some sort of notes which indicate that he did; who knows?
One pattern I have seen is that Major Hasan’s associations are being used in a way which we might not like, were the situation different. There are stories all over the place noting that when stationed at Walter Reed, he attended the same mosque as three of the September 11th hijackers. Assuming that story is factually true, does that fact actually imply something more?
Major Hasan is reported to have admired the iman. Does that mean that the Major was following the iman’s instructions?
We can take all sorts of inferences along those lines, but, if we do, then wouldn’t the same logic tell us that the people with whom Scott Roeder, the killer of the notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller, associated are somehow responsible for Mr Roeder’s actions, and that the fact Dr Tiller was murdered means that there is a terrorist conspiracy to kill abortionists. Cristina Page wrote this particularly stupid piece in The Huffington Post claiming that:
There were all sorts of attempts to implicate Randall Terry and Operation rescue in Dr Tiller’s murder. If we agree with the logic that allows the implication to be made that Major Hasan’s rampage was part of a wider jihadist conspiracy, based on circumstance but no hard evidence, then we must concede the logic of those who claimed that Operation Rescue was responsible for the murder of Dr Tiller, or Rush Limbaugh is responsible for threatening calls made against President Obama.
It may turn out that Major Hasan was taking orders from some larger terrorist organization; the investigation is proceeding. But until we get those facts, I refuse to infer that because he is a Muslim, Major Tiller was somehow working at the behest of al Qaeda.
Wow. You guys are actually comparing this to 9/11 and Bush being told, “America is under attack.”
Jeff says, “Really, what’s he supposed to do, put on his Superman suit and fly up into the New York sky and pluck those planes out of mid-air?” Do you guys ever wonder why you have to paint the situation as “He only had two options- sit there like a deer in the headlights, OR GO BATSHIT CRAZY!!!” It’s so patently absurd. Absolutely every one of you knows what would be expected of the President when informed that the country is being attacked. Politely excuse his/herself due to matters of great urgency, and quietly leave the room to be briefed and see to the business of actually defending the nation.
Yet for 8 years it’s been, “What was he supposed to do, RUN AROUND SCREAMING AND WETTING HIS PANTS???” It’s bad enough that every one of you already knows the correct answer, but you’ve also had the question answered over and over again.
Unfortunately, you guys can’t wait to exploit these dead soldiers to make a false comparison to Obama. Bush visited these soldiers? Obama greeted the recents KIAs from Iraq and Afghanistan, something that Bush never did. Did that factor into the calculus here? Of course not.
I’m glad, Dana, that you have the restraint to refrain from attacking Obama here, but to turn it into yet another excuse for the incompetent Dubya is still shameful.
Jeromy makes the silly comparison:
As far as I know, President Bush never went to Dover AFB to see the coffins being unloaded. What President Bush did do was to meet with the families of some of the soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, privately. Different commanders-in-chief, different methods, but both showed respect.
Jeromy, President Bush did the right thing, with the information he had. He’s been out of office for 8½ months now; by now your BDS should be in remission.
I find it amusing that you would be glad that I “have the restraint to refrain from attacking Obama here,” but couldn’t manage to write it without not having the restraint to refrain from attacking President Bush.
Jeromy:
Wow. You guys are actually comparing this to 9/11 and Bush being told, “America is under attack.”
Actually, other folks have– so far, it seems most folks don’t think much of the comparison.
Unfortunately, you guys can’t wait to exploit these dead soldiers to make a false comparison to Obama. Bush visited these soldiers? Obama greeted the recents KIAs from Iraq and Afghanistan, something that Bush never did.
Outstanding example of the difference between the men!
One does one photo-op, when it’s handy for him, using the corpses of our fallen; one did everything he could to meet, privately, with the families of the fallen and frequently annoyed the media by banning them from the meetings.
One, not even in office, secretly went to visit those in mourning; the other couldn’t be bothered to cancel a weekend trip to camp David and will show up for (another photo-op) memorial.
Dana, pointing out that Bush is out of office isn’t exactly relevant when you decided to write a bit of apologia for him.
Please explain anything I said that indicates “derangement.” The information that Bush had was, “America is under attack.” The response he had was inexcusable, and I’m going to keep pointing that out every time you guys try excusing it. Perhaps your accusations would be better directed towards those who rant and rave about Obama’s Hitler/Stalinist conspiracy to turn America into a communist fascist state, which seems to enjoy plenty of airing here.
Dana:“Jeromy, President Bush did the right thing, with the information he had.”
You are serious, right Dana? Knowing now what we know Bush knew then, your contention is not supportable.
Sharon proclaims cynically:“I disagree, Dana. President Obama could have flown to Texas yesterday or today for a private meeting with wounded soldiers. He didn’t. Instead, he plans to show up nearly a week after the events. And I’m sure the photographers will be in tow. “
Like I said, nothing a President says/does goes without criticism, this time on Obama from the far right extreme. Cynicism abounds!
Foxfier: You are aware that it is up to the families whether or not to allow photos, right?
Jeromy locates target. Jeromy aims in at target. Jeromy fires! Jeromy hits target! Another dead empty C-Rat can. Meanwhile…
Dana Pico, why does the President have to wait for confirmation before visiting the wounded? They are still American soldiers, in hospital beds, recovering from gunshot wounds received on an American base. Does the fact that the President didn’t have all the facts make a difference to them in their condition – they were serving their country and attempt to murder them were made – why wouldn’t that in itself be enough for their CiC to visit them?
Also, you mention the President having a very busy schedule and not able to drop everything, and yet he did drop a number of things in order to fit in an overseas trip to Denmark to attempt to get the Olympics. Olympics vs. wounded American soldiers??? Hm….no question which is the no-brainer.
The President exhibited an aloof tin ear again – and this was further confirmed by giving his shout-outs before addressing Ft. Hood at his news conference. Epic fail.
Agh….they were serving their country and attempts to murder them were made
The President can’t carve out the time to visit the wounded but can certainly have the unmitigated gall and crassness to exploit the Ft. Hood horror in an attempt to push through the necessary votes for health care passage last night,
John: Huh?
I cannot fault Obama for choosing not to appear at Fort Hood immediately. His presence would be a distraction in the investigatory process since he would quite properly require heavy security, drawing down the number of personnel available for other, more important matters.
But his after-thought type response in his narcissistic speech? That’s attack-worthy. His use of the horror of the event to push through an anti-American, anti-Constitutional unrelated agenda? That’s also attack-worthy.
But his not going to Fort Hood immediately is not attack-worthy. I am cynical enough to believe he didn’t make his decision for all the right reasons but it was good he did not “drop everything and run off to the scene.”
I remember back in the aftermath of 911, Bush traveled at a later date to the Pentagon. A girl I chatted with in HS chem class on a regular basis was stationed at the Pentagon as a member of the US Army. President Bush shook her hand. Her response? “I’ll never wash this hand again!”
If I were still in uniform and stationed at Fort Hood and President Obama came by, I would salute him but would ignore his outstretched hand. That’s who I am. But I will not fault him for not appearing at Fort Hood this close to the time of the event.
The worst terrorist attack on America since 9/11 happens on Obama’s watch and he can’t be bothered to visit the wounded. He busy making a speech. Heck, he can’t even bring himself to identify the filthy murdering coward as an Islamic terrorist. Why? When it’s dead bang obvious.
Obama has facts, so what explains his dithering? Could the answer be he sides with the Muslim enemies of America?
Jeromy, since you are intentionally dense, you intentionally found a target which was not in the same neighborhood of the point being made and you killed off that target instead of focusing in on the neighborhood of the point being made.
Jeromy is like that PVT on the edge of the squad line defensively concealed in the bush. The enemy is approaching, unaware of the location of the defensive perimeter but fully aware there is a defensive perimeter. A sand flea lands on Jeromy’s ear and starts doing its thang. Jeromy ignores the approaching enemy to swat at the sand flea, thus causing the deaths of his entire squad. But don’t worry, Jeromy got his target: scratch one sand flea.
Dana, that’s a good point about the similarities between Roeder and Hasan. I seem to remember a lot of people on the left calling Roeder – and that Adkisson guy who shot up that Tennessee church, and that guy who shot those policemen in Pittsburgh – “terrorists” and blaming everyone from Terry and Glenn Beck for those acts.
You defined terrorism thusly:
So then my question to you is this: what differentiates terrorism from a garden-variety hate crime? Those who commit hate crime murders are trying to accomplish a goal beyond the death of their victim – namely, the intimidation and subjugation of a certain group of people. Why, when the group of people being targeted are “all Americans,” do we treat hate crimes differently?
Yes, John, that’s your assertion. I understand that you’re claiming I missed a point. Except you got lost in your colorful metaphors and forgot to explain exactly what that point was. Are you going to tell us the tale of, “Jeromy, who couldn’t get his wife pregnant because he kept going in the back door!” or actually present your case?
I think everybody understands Ft. Hood was motivated by the same things that motivate Al Queda. It just seems apparent so far that the man also fit a certain American pattern, that of the lonely disaffected male, and that he acted alone. It’s an act of terrorism, to be certain.
But nice point on hate crimes. Hate crimes are terrorism, but the problem is it’s angry white males who beat up on fags who get arrested for them. When it hits close to home for the GOP base, suddenly it’s “different,” and “thought-crime.”
Pathetic despair to find thing to tear down the Democratic President. It makes clear your oblivion of things GWB did and did not do. When things like this is all you have. It also is in the arena of mentally pathological, that you all go to these extremes.
How about when fags murder little boys, stuff their undies down the boy’s throat and bugger him while he suffocates?
How about when Government controlled media refuses to cover the murder. Could that be some sort of terrorism? I’ll bet the little boy was terrorized, before he was dead that is.
But, when it hits close to home the Left’s base suddenly sees it differently.
I know it’s difficult for you, blu, but do try a little bit of reading comprehension before spouting your inane BDS.
Pathetic despair to find thing to tear down the Democratic President. It makes clear your oblivion of things GWB did and did not do. When things like this is all you have. It also is in the arena of mentally pathological, that you all go to these extremes.
We don’t have to *find* things, blu. He’s giving us plenty of material to work with, all on his own. And you really have got to stop comparing Obama’s actions to Bush’s. It’s past the expiration date, and it alleviates the President from responsibility or accountability for His Own Actions. He’s a grown man, for godsake. I show more respect for him in treating him as an adult rather than you, who infantalize him. Men stand or fall on their own, let’s neither treat President Obama like an infant nor as a deity. Both are unfair and do him great disservice. He deserves more than that, blu.
And, Jeromy, anyone with 3 brain cells can see what Foxfier wrote and your waaaay off-target attack-response to her. You’re almost as bad as Perry in that willful-blindness category. Blu has an excuse, she’s totally off her rocker. What’s yours?
John, it’s the abuse of Crack Koo-Aid, combined with an unnatural attraction to Twinkies.
Jeromy, if you ever get accused of being “totally off your rocker”, among these guys, consider it a compliment. Objectivity will give you that title. No amount of valid material brought to these corporate tool/fools, will phase them. Honest assessment of any given situation, shows the pathetic blather these chumps continue to vomit out. Science, not a consideration.
A Soviet correspondent based 5 years in the United States said: “I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have the best training 8n the world, in the field of advertising, and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency… Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious… I think that the fundamental difference respect to propagandea, is quite wimple. You tend to beleive yours…and we tend to disbelieve ours.”
FAUX is the network that makes it happen.
Sadly, Obama is proving over and over again that he is immature. Shouting out at the conference as he did is something a kid would do. Not doing what is right and going to Ft. Hood before now does not surprise me in the least.
Oh well, I guess the hundreds of thousands of dead that occurred under Bush and all the massive criminality that he was responsible for doesn’t matter. Your priorities are really f*#ked up!
Blubonnet: when will stop using what you perceive as other’s bad behavior to justify President Obama’s bad behavior?
Why won’t you treat him as an adult?
Why don’t you respect him enough to treat him as an adult?
Why do you treat him as something precious and unable to be held accountable for His Own Actions?
His own actions which Have Absolutely Nothing To Do With George Bush.
Keep repeating that disproven “hundreds of thousands of dead” meme. After all, a lie told often enough starts being believed, even by the skeptics.
Blu insanely regurgitated her talking points thusly:
And here’s where you lied out-and-out, straight from the article above. In fact the first two sentences in the article above:
Two articles, written by two different people here, saying Obama does not deserve to be attacked on two different points. Both written with the full knowledge that leftists and people outside the US (see the flag counter in the sidebar) could read them. And yet, you didn’t take the time to read either one before you went on your inane, insane blind rants.
Tell me, blu, when was the last time you defended GWB against insane leftist loonies? Oh, that’s right, leftists have to defend GWB against your abject dishonesty and your abject hysterical insanity and inanity.
Jeromy-
“Sure, Obama exploited the dead for a photo op, but the families could have refused to let pictures be taken!” is not much of a defense.
And Bush showed his usual sense– he knew that if he jumped up then and rushed out of the room, the only result would be that he’d be waiting while they tried to get security set up for the change of schedule.
What is it about this concept that is so hard for the BDS folks understand?
Cassandra boiled it down pretty well: Obama flat out doesn’t grok military.
Who has looked at the history of Afghanistan’s wars? Has anyone ever beat them? Russia? No, not even Russia.
You must want an AfghaniNAM.
Blu, answer the question brought forth. Your evasion of the truth throughout history is well known. Now, stop evading and stay on topic. Unless, of course, you have once again gone off-topic out of your catastrophic defeat yet again, as is a well-worn tactic by those of the left (goal-post shifting). When facts betray you, you either ignore the facts or you shift the goal-posts. Stay on topic this time.
I was responding to the above post of Foxfier. NOT off topic!
I think whether Obama went to Austin, or didn’t go to Austin, you all on the Rightie-tightie-wingnut fringe would be screaming either way.
Actually John NUMEROUS statisticians have done analytical assessments of our wars, and you continually scream “lies”. PROFESSIONAL statisticians, or FAUX nutwork, you always believe the latter.
It’s kind of funny. Mostly you all are just biting at the air. Nothing of substance. Just trying to score touchdowns for the Republicans. Instead though, what you do, is just jump up and down making fools of yourselves.
I see, as the Left buries the Right, in knowledge and commentary, that my “comment awaits moderation”. That seems to happen, kind of like when, FAUX noise, starts cutting off the mike when the Left expresses facts that exposes the Right-wing hyperbolic hot-air which generally holds no weight.
BO can always find time for golf!
I already said Vietnam could’ve been a victory but for the idiot leftists in control of the government (and the press). Our loss in Vietnam rests squarely on the shoulders of the idiot leftist loons that came before you. Yes, I want a replay of Vietnam, but I want it without the idiot leftist defeatist loons having any say in anything. Let the military do what it was trained to do and quit putting it in full-body shackles in its defense work.
And blu, would you quit your extreme paranoia? When was the last time one of your moderated comments ever got thrown out here? When was the first time one of your moderated comments got thrown out here? I have released numerous moderated comments from you, pooter, DNW, and Mr Downs.
The mere fact your comment gets moderated is not an attack against your (false) truth and your (false) education, otherwise DNW and Mr Downs would never get their comments stuck in moderation. And I don’t spend all day long watching the admin side to catch moderated junk. I prefer to read comment and respond.
I will repeat, for your benefit, blu, since you obviously cannot read a lick:
Well, as I’d expect, though bringing the validity of my point, with a link, with numerous links addressing any point makes, but, JH will not look, or will look, and think of something derogatory about it. But, here’s to my attempts at communicating here.
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1537
Hey, blu, how bouts you try to focus on the topic at hand instead of going thru your way out there far left loony toons rants? Like how bouts you actually read what was written directly above your most recent off-topic rant? And then try to say something on topic? I know, that’s something completely alien to you and a totally new idea. But you might actually want to try it out. Who knows? You might actually like it, mikey!
Jeff wrote:
As far as I am concerned, we ought not to have “hate crime” legislation: if you kill a man because he is black, he is neither more nor less dead than if you kill him to steal his wallet. I want to punish the crime itself, not somebody’s interpretation of the motive behind it.
Actually, I think that the things which fall under “hate crimes” categorizations in the US tend to be less well-thought-out than intentional acts of terrorism: the perpetrators are usually morons, whether by birth or through the use of recreational pharmaceuticals, including alcohol.
I wouldn’t put Major Hasan’s act in the same category as a suiciode bomber in an Israeli shopping mall or a baghdad street. Those acts are normally well-planned, with the specific intention of sapping their enemies’ will to resist; Major Hasan’s shooting spree might have had some of that thought behind it, but it was basically — as far as we know — the lone act of a man who was losing his marbles.
And, blu, how bouts that apology for your paranoiac accusation regarding comment moderation? How bouts you give evidence of the last time one of your moderated comments vanished? How bouts you give evidence of the first time one of your moderated comments vanished?
Worthless lieing coward.
The much better looking Dana wrote:
To what purpose, really? President Obama is going on Tuesday, so it’s not like he’s just ignoring the event. If there’s a magic bright line date beyond which his visit is inappropriately delayed, I don’t think such a line has yet been crossed.
Waiting until Tuesday allows the families some private time, before the media circus which the President’s visit always is occurs. Yeah, I can see where some people might think he’s waiting too long, but that’s really individual judgement; in my judgement, he’s not doing wrong on this one. It would also be a more appropriate time considering that the funerals for the soldiers who were killed would probably begin arouns then.
An argument could be made that the visit should be on Monday (when Veterans’ Day is celebrated) or Wednesday (the real Veterans’ Day), but what of it? He’s going, he’s doing the right thing, and I’m not going to quibble on whether it’s the right enough thing.
ropelight: What a sad attempt at a parallel. Do you have anything whatsoever to back up your truckload of assertions? How do pedophile murderers constitute something “close to home” for the left? How are they granted any degree of leniency? How would hate crimes apply? Such a horrible deed has its own label, which is perfectly fitting.
John: You have this bad habit of putting your conclusions first and forgetting the actual argument. Are you somebody who is used to being obeyed?
Foxfier: Obama gave all families the choice to allow or disallow cameras. He went to visit the incoming KIAs, and one single family had okayed photos of their own accord. Do you have any evidence that Obama only went because he knew one family would okay photos?
It’s rather easy to declare something not to be a defense, and given John Hitchcock’s habit of doing so I can see why you are encouraged, but it’s a little harder to actually support what you say.
Do you enjoy making things up out of thin air? I’m pleading with you guys to show me where the derangement is (and still noting the insane paranoid “Stalinist Obama!” rants that populate this blog), and you respond by making up stories to defend yer favoritest president evah. Bush Derangement Syndrome is certainly real, but it manifests itself among those still trying to pretend that clusterfuck was anything other than a sub-competent buffoon.
Jeromy asked, “How do pedophile murderers constitute something “close to home” for the left? How are they granted any degree of leniency?
You already know.
It’s because when pedophile fags kill little boys and girls the left imposes a PC cone of silence, the crime doesn’t get wide coverage (to make sure people don’t rush to judgment or jump to conclusions), when the issue is raised apologists rush to make excuses (he may have been called names), they try to minimize the responsibility (he must of snapped under the pressure), just like they do when Islamic terrorists kill Americans. Same song and dance.
As for leniency, the history of liberal activist judges letting child molesters off with absurdly little or no punishment occurs with such frequency as to make a mockery of the very concept of justice. We hear all about the problems of the abuser, why he was unhappy with his lot in life, how he may have been abused, how the system has failed him, then some judge appointed by a Democrat gives the guy a slap on the wrist, and sets him free to graduate to murder or to molest more children.
That’s why.
As I explained to Pho recently, this is a prime example of playing Monday Morning Quarterback. It’s really easy to say, years after the fact, that Bush should have reacted differently. Much harder to make the call in real time when the “Game” is being played.
In any event, what possible impact did it have on National security that Bush finished the story instead of rushing out of the room immediately? As far as I can tell, little to none. No reasonable person could have prevented 9/11, and to hang your hats on this minor episode just seems like petty partisanship at its worst.
PS I’d like to know FDR’s reaction when informed of the Pearl Harbor attack. Did he leap immediately into action (to the extent a man in a wheelchair can leap) or did he take a few minutes to digest the information first?
Ropelight:
Again, what the hell are you talking about? You sound completely deluded.
Eric: So you’re wrong, but now it’s not important because looking backward it didn’t result in harm?
You guys base your foreign policy off “24.” I’d love to see seven minutes of the president frozen in fear on that show while CTU is racing against the clock.
Jeromy wrote:
Sounds like you’re the one basing his foreign policy on a TV show.
Eric wrote:
Well, according to the conspiracy theorists, President Roosevelt knew it was going to happen all along, so he already had his “reaction” mapped out and scripted.
Or, Dana, we could admit the obvious, that Bush froze. Despite Eric’s suggestion that it doesn’t really matter, you guys invest just as much energy in trying to paint it otherwise.
Dana, look up “Operation Northwoods”. It’s a public document, declassified many many years later. I believe the “Operation Northwoods” Project was in early 60s. Google it. Find a source you feel comfortable with.
The following is from the Sunday Telegraph
11/08/2009 by Nick Allen
Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut!
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.
Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.