Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama’s response to Fort Hood
President Obama gave his condolences to those at Fort Hood in the wake of the shootings yesterday – but he came under critique for spending several minutes on national television giving a “shout-out” to a Congressional Medal of Honor winner at the conference he was attending and then name-dropping others before finally commenting on the tragedy. It seemed an awkward transition from light-hearted to serious – see what you think.
Topic: Newsworthy, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: fort-hood, President Obama
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top125 Comments to “Obama’s response to Fort Hood”
Presidential Tact.
It just aint taught anymore.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Joe Medicine Crow received the the Presidential Medal of Freedom, not the Congressional Medal of Honor. There is a big difference.
Obama got them mixed up.
Report comment to moderator
Retch. How much more awkward/corny/fake could this possibly be?
Report comment to moderator
Piece I linked on the other thread:
Obama’s Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned.
Report comment to moderator
It was a bit awkward, but remember that people really criticized President Bush’s first response to 9/11 as well. These things aren’t timed to be convenient. The awkwardness could have been avoided by giving the Ft Hood update separately, before this speech, and then perhaps referring to it again briefly in the speech. But these things are awkward by nature, I think, and I’m not inclined to be too hard on him for this….Now the economy and healthcare, that’s another matter.
Report comment to moderator
He segued into his remarks with a “…but…”! I was less than disappointed as I remarked last night, after praying that Wisdom would inform his statement.
This man is not a leader. I doubt that any amount of on-the-job-training will magically transform him into one.
Report comment to moderator
Since I did not hear him speake so it is hard to make a comment. But my understand was that he seem out of place speaking on the issue. There may have been many reason for this. So I will give him this time the benfit of beening under stress
Report comment to moderator
I agree with DJ in general, and I do think he could have handled this better, which is well put in my link above:
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks.
He is the commander in chief. All military families, our entire nation, looks to him. I don’t think he gets that because I don’t think he gets the military.
It’s ironic how his medal confusion, which I’m sure was just an honest mistake, seems to confirm this in an almost Freudian way.
Report comment to moderator
FOlks, if the report is correct that the Gov. Knew about this man 6 months ago and did nothing. Then Obama does have a problem.
Report comment to moderator
DJ, you can’t be serious. 0bama was briefed and scripted beforehand. Bush was told WHILE he was sitting in front of a class of 2nd graders. Think about it.
Report comment to moderator
Nana – I agree that the Bush comparison misses the mark, but the inherent awkwardness must be acknowledged.
There’s more here, from a more hostile source, where I found out about the medal confusion:
http://www.newsmax.com/frank_gaffney/Fort_Hood_Obama/2009/11/06/282652.html
Report comment to moderator
Oh phuuulease,
That he addressed the conference and those there was polite and expected. Then his comments on the Fort Hood incident were measured, but necessary. It was all unfolding. I did not find it insensitive. It is this kind of quick and silly criticism that makes the opposition party look itself insensitive. In times of national crisis we should stand behind our president whether we voted for him or not. He is our president. It’s what patriots do.
Report comment to moderator
I stand behind every Commander In Chief, ADIOS. That’s why I pray that 0bama’s off-key, awkward remarks were the worst thing that he comes up with. The Left tells us about his great temperament, that he’ll rise to the occassion of a hard call, and so I hope!
We’re now two months past the request for more troops in Afghanistan while more servicemen and women are put in increasing danger.
Report comment to moderator
His media people probably told the networks that he would be commenting on the Fort Hood tragedy, so they introduced it as a somber presidential message on that issue alone.
Obama’s people ought to have realized that his message that was originally intended for a small audience would be covered nationally. The tribal issues ought to have yielded precedence.
Report comment to moderator
#10, I’m quite serious, Nana. When you don’t like someone, everything they do is wrong–even if there is understandable awkwardness, we see it as just another sign that the person is wrong, dishonest, incompetent, etc. That’s why some people still ridicule Bush: they despise him. It’s not much different with Obama in this case. Adios has a good point. Unless the President does something wildly strange or counter-productive (and to my knowledge he has not)I don’t see the value in jumping on a bandwagon to run him down. I’m saving my energy to complain about the economy or healthcare mandates. At the rate we’re going, I have a feeling I’m going to need all I can muster.
Report comment to moderator
Honestly, it seemed unnecessary for him to interrupt the remarks he was already giving to comment on the shooting. Finish the speech, get the facts, then make a statement. I don’t get that it was insensitive, just awkward.
Report comment to moderator
An awkward transition, yes. I’m not sure what presidents are supposed to do when they’re focused on visiting and validating one set of constituents, only to be interrupted by late-breaking, tragic news. Other than be prepared at all times to be interrupted by late-breaking, tragic news, of course.
Another reminder that I would never want this job. The Chief Executive is absolutely dependent on a small army of assistants, schedulers, and advance people, because there is no way he can keep on top of everything happening in the world, framing appropriate responses on the fly. He must trust these folks to prepare remarks for him, which often takes the form of a little blue card pressed into his hands only moments before he’s supposed to work from it to sound warm, caring, involved, and able to strike just the right tone. Aack! No wonder there aren’t more of these gaffes.
Let’s cut him some slack on this one, and as DJ notes, save our criticism for those of his ideas that truly harm our country.
Report comment to moderator
Give him a piffling break, for once. He’s done things more deserving of criticism than this hill of beans.
Report comment to moderator
Emily misreports the “light-hearted” bit. Even by the norms of this dole, phlegmatic, and gnarly man, Obama’s appearance was somber. Obama’s “call-out” of Joe Medicine Crow served to emphasize the bonds of others with the military. Emily and FOX fail to report that Obama cut short his planned remarks. Obama’s brevity sent a powerful message that he intended to keep his own persona out of the story and deflect complaints that he was serving himself to a big helping of “leadership.”
As I said on the other thread, this criticism can only resonate with people who already wanted to complain, or with Democrats who want Obama to score some job approval points.
Report comment to moderator
DJ, my antennae went up when MR. 0bama was on the news as a scold in explaining, correctly, how not wearing an American flag lapel pin did not mean you were unpatriotic. This, while we in NY were still going through the 9/11 ashes of the WTC.
I took that as a backhanded slap in the face. The more I watch him now, the less respect I have for him.. I do not hate or despise him.
You are perfectly correct on the energy we need to oppose the policies we disagree with, but the topic of this thread is his statement last night!
Report comment to moderator
Nana,
I should have been clear, I was not addressing your comments specifically, but the critisim in general (See Amphipolis link).
And I quite agree with DJ. Again speaking in general terms. When the opposition makes silly remarks–just cause they are the other side–whether Dems or Pubs it helps the nation not at all.
I did not vote for Obama, like DJ I disagree on his domestic policies, but have been pleasantly surprised that on foreign policy his actions do not match his campaign rhetoric. Once in, is seems President Obama is learning as he goes, but is aware of taking it on. Afghanistan is an enigma with no easy aswers. Unfortunately he needs time.
Though I guess that is easy for me to say since my son doesn’t leave for Iraq until January.
Report comment to moderator
Mmm…Emily takes time to report on a nation tragedy but first spend several lines “reporting” (yes, scare quotes) “what others are saying” (also scare quotes) in criticism of Obama. Does anyone else think that’s a weird transition?
Report comment to moderator
adios – “Once in, is seems President Obama is learning as he goes, but is aware of taking it on. Afghanistan is an enigma with no easy aswers. Unfortunately he needs time. ”
Adios – Obama lied then. He told the nation he was ready to go on day one and will not need to have a ‘learning as he goes” moment
Report comment to moderator
ADIOS, AMPHIPOLIS, DJ, et al – I guess it’s my turn to be thin-skinned about this and figure WMB is as safe a place as any to let loose a little. I will not have a son in Iraq, but do have a friend there and another doing special ops throughout that mess, plus knowing frustrated people at State’s CTU who fear for our country under this CIC. That doesn’t mean I expect the worst or want to underestimate 0bama.
Having worked for a state offical, I’m very well acquainted with the awkward positions that politicians are unwittingly placed in.
Sigh – time for errands.
Report comment to moderator
Where are the Republican claims that Obama has not kept us safe?
Report comment to moderator
No harm done, Nana. Sometimes I have used this forum as a safe place too. Be well.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis 11.06.09 AT 12:56 PM
Where are the Republican claims that Obama has not kept us safe?
—
if they knew about him six months ago well then yes one could make a case that Obama is not keeping us safe.
Report comment to moderator
Nana, yep, what DJ said. No worries.
Pastor Roy. They all lie in an election. And they all think they know more than they do. Obama was pushed into a campaign corner by Clinton’s “Day One” slogan and McCains years of experience.
But no non-incumbant candidate is or could be ready day one. Especially for that office.
Report comment to moderator
adios 11.06.09 AT 1:10 PM
Nana, yep, what DJ said. No worries.
Pastor Roy. They all lie in an election. And they all think they know more than they do. Obama was pushed into a campaign corner by Clinton’s “Day One” slogan and McCains years of experience.
But no non-incumbant candidate is or could be ready day one. Especially for that office.
—-
Obama has been in his office now for 10 months and all we hear from him. Is it is not my fault. It is Bush’s fault. But no one will challenge on this. I remind you he was a U S Senator, whose party was in control of both house for 2 years. He does not have the right to blame Bush. When he (Obama) was part of the problem.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Pastor Roy, Axelrod was again blaming Bush just the other day. At some point that should stop and this chap should man up. That’s no lying during an election — that’s now.
It’s easy to confuse the medals — but Bush was mocked mercilessly if he misspoke. That happens to Palin, too. We’ll see how they’re treated in the future. The Bush stuff still happens. And if you want to claim that Obama is learning on the job and that there’s no way anyone can be prepared for it, the attacks on Palin become even more disturbing.
Report comment to moderator
Nana – I let loose here all the time, keep keeping us on our toes
Report comment to moderator
Question, will Obama permitt the Gov. to charge this man with a hate crime?
Report comment to moderator
Tepid and typical with a whole lot of “I could care less.”
Report comment to moderator
#25 That’s a risky gambit on your part, Amphipolis. Are you sure you’re all so much better than us? Or perhaps you’re just trying to sucker us into wasting our lives on your game, researching grievances and unfairness.
Am I being too harsh? Well, how come y’all gloat so much, if y’all so much better than libidiots?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop 34:
It is risky. We’ll see if any nationally recognized Republican politicians take that line. I conveniently do not count irresponsible talk radio personalities.
I do believe that, were the positions reversed, that is what we would be hearing from nationally recognized Democrats by now, which is pure and biased speculation on my part.
Feel free to rub it in my face if it happens.
Report comment to moderator
I was one of President Bush’s worst critics. I remember when Michael Moore released the footage of him being informed of the 9/11 attacks while he was visiting the New Orleans school. I was very excited to see the film, and I guess I was hoping it would further confirm what a doofus President Bush was.
When I finally saw the footage, I wondered what all the hullabaloo was about. It was certainly surreal to observe the footage, but I found no reason to criticize or mock him for how he handled the situaion.
I just watched the clip of President Obama and did not see or hear anything awkward about what he said or how he said it.
Oh, what the heck, if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em. This undoubtably shows that at heart, President Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. His Chicago style ’shout out’ is likely acknowledgement of some slimy political favor he garnered. And, and, and…that goes for his Reverend White-loving wife too!
Report comment to moderator
To compare Ft. Hood to 9/ll is wrong.
9/11 was something that you can’t seem to swallow even while watching it.
Ft. Hood to Obama probably seems to be more like, more servicemen killed–here or overseas, same/same.
Why not compare it to what happened to the US ship that encountered a small vessel with explosives during Clinton’s reign. What was Clinton’s response?
Report comment to moderator
Well, that’s wierd, Travis. Who woulda thunk it?
Report comment to moderator
Still feeling very disoriented after not reading wmb for a couple of days. Also after watching television for a couple of days when we don’t usually watch television. And of course, but the shock of the horrible events at the military base.
Adios and Travis, what is the proper way for me to react to to all this?
Report comment to moderator
This criticism of the President seems to be a bit misplaced. It seems that right-wing evangelicals are determined to take offense at everything the President does. And evangelicals wonder why polls show that Americans trust evangelicals to about the same degree that they trust used car salesmen.
Report comment to moderator
I think I just better stick to DJing songs on Whirled Views.
Travis, the Travmeister, the Travinator – spinnin’ the virtual platters during your morning drive time.
Report comment to moderator
39, If I were Adios or Travis I’d tell you to ignore it.
Report comment to moderator
I think he handled it as well. Debating whether or not the President made an awkward segue between two statements doesn’t seem appropriate in light of the tragedy itself.
Report comment to moderator
RSD
It has nothing to do with car salesmen, but I have to admit, Obama is starting to sound just like a tire kicker – in fact he’s going to kick a lot more, and sell less than he ever realized. The public isn’t happy with him – just look at those polls.
I watched Obama yesterday, and listened to his inappropriate, hipster remark, a big “shout out” – He doesn’t have the kindness to address the attack on Fort Hood FIRST, but instead gives a ’shout out’ -
Report comment to moderator
OH, he’s the Commander in Chief; of course it’s appropriate to debate his judgment in reactinig to tragedies.
Report comment to moderator
Nana
This is not something I believe which merits criticism in light of the tradgedy itself. Seems trivial to me, that’s all.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Okay, OH, that nicely settles that.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, good. Thanks. As for our other discussion, you’ll have to forgive me…
Report comment to moderator
So NOOOOBODY is mentioning the fact that this guy was a Muslim and was shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he gunned down his comrades. Just a trivial little angle of the story, that.
But I guess abortion foes have gunned down just as many people as muslims…..Oh wait, that’s not true..
Report comment to moderator
John M.
Is that a Faberge egg in your avatar?
Report comment to moderator
RSD #40
Liberals whined for 8 years and said they were leaving the country because it was so horrible that Bush was the Pres.
The thing is they are still whining about Bush.
Report comment to moderator
The only reason to mention he is Muslim would be to blame the woman who shot him for discrimination and profiling.
According to some he was just an ordinary guy in the Army who went beserk because he didn’t want to go to Afghanistan.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and according to the news, a lot of guys at Ft. Hood go beserk so it’s the pressure that Ft. Hood places on these guys that causes stuff like that to happen.
Again, as liberals do, they play the “it’s not his fault” card. Get out of jail free.
Report comment to moderator
News2Me & Victoria,
Didn’t your mothers teach you that two wrongs don’t make things right?
Report comment to moderator
News2Me (37): I think we can say that in a large sense the difference between 9/11 and the Ft. Hood shootings is one of scale, not one of purpose.
Report comment to moderator
Emily’s thread is titled “Obama’s response to Fort Hood.” This is all well and good, and certainly something worthy of discussion.
But we should also consider “America’s response to Fort Hood” — as in, the response of the US government in general, as well as that of the lamestream media.
Russell D. Longcore gives us a leg up today in his “Fort Hood Murders: What Won’t Be Discussed.”
But Longcore is right — none of these observations or ideas will be discussed, whether by the “left” or the “right.”
Report comment to moderator
#56
Frank, than you for your comment and the link. I found it worth reading and considering.
Report comment to moderator
Feel free to rub it in my face if it happens.
OK, here it comes. World Net Daily goes one step beyond accusing Obama of not keeping us safe. It says Obama was the shooter’s accomplice. That’s only one fringe outlet, but you have to add into the equation the fact that millions of y’all now believe it.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 56
Russell Longcore is an advocate of Ron Paul, a radical libertarian.
Read this piece, it will give you the reasoning behind Longcore’s wild ideas.
Report comment to moderator
millions of y’all now believe it.
Millions of people believe Bush deliberately allowed 9-11 to happen, and that Bush caused the deaths from Hurricane Katrina – perhaps including members of congress and the Obama Administration.
My father-in-law may believe as you said, he loves WND (bless his heart). I don’t.
Nationally recognized politicians. I’ll even throw in former Bush Administration officials. My fingers are crossed.
Report comment to moderator
How did WND become a nationally recognized Republican?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Victoria, those “off limits” points definitely got my attention. There was a time when I appreciated Ron Paul. Now he sounds like he doesn’t deal with the real world – or he simply doesn’t want to.
Report comment to moderator
Oh no, I just read this quote cited by Jonah Goldberg at NRO’s Corner:
“Darr said he hopes having a registered sex offender in a leadership role doesn’t give people the wrong impression about the Libertarian Party, which bills itself as ’socially tolerant’ and ‘fiscally responsible.’”
Report comment to moderator
FRANK IN SPOKANE (56): Russell D. Longcore gives us a leg up today in his “Fort Hood Murders: What Won’t Be Discussed.”
VICTORIA (59): Russell Longcore is an advocate of Ron Paul, a radical libertarian.
FRANK: Victoria, your phobia of Ron Paul (and his constitutionalism) exceeds no bounds!
But regardless of your blatant misrepresentation of Ron Paul’s views and positions (which you have displayed for WMB readers countless times), what does his (ahem) “radical libertarianism” have to do with the idea’s put forth in Mr. Longcore’s article?
Why not try to be intellectually honest and engage with Longcore’s points, instead of implying some manner of “guilt-by-association-with-Ron-Paul”?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
To put it another way, how do “Longcore’s wild ideas” as expressed in “this piece” pertain to the ideas he espouses in “Fort Hood Murders: What Won’t Be Discussed”?
(NOTE TO ALL: This should be good … I predict an accusation that Ron Paul doesn’t care about children within Victoria’s next three posts, while offering NO substantive engagement with the Longcore piece for the rest of the thread. Anyone wanna cover those bets?)
Report comment to moderator
NANA (62): [Longcore's] “off limits” points definitely got my attention.
FRANK: In what way? Do you agree or disagree with them? In what way?
NANA (62): There was a time when I appreciated Ron Paul. Now he sounds like he doesn’t deal with the real world – or he simply doesn’t want to.
FRANK: And what does your agreement or disagreement with Ron Paul have to do with the Ft. Hood shooting?
Report comment to moderator
Nana,
And what, may I ask, does your post at (63) have to do with the subject of this thread?
Report comment to moderator
Nana – I’ve just read part of the article the quote came from. What an EYE OPENER that one is – and they knew about the “sex offender” from the beginning –
Nana, thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention. The link and a several quotes below.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
If you’re proud of Russell D. Longcore beliefs, then you won’t mind the rest of us knowing his other beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Gee Frank, don’t you want us to understand Longcore and the rest of the Libertarian party? – You should be thrilled that I’m helping you out with all this incredible information into the Libertarian pary –
Report comment to moderator
70 should read PARTY -
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory, it’s a plush Holy Hand Grenande of Antioch. You can get one here:
http://www.amazon.com/Python-Toy-Vault-Grenade-Antioch/dp/B000GTNPP2
Report comment to moderator
John M
After further investigating the known Faberge Eggs, I realized yours infact was something else.
Thank you for letting me know what it was. I had no idea.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
1) I’m not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Libertarian Party.
2) Ron Paul ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988. He was a Republican congressman before that, and and returned to the GOP after that.
3) I am not “proud” of Russell D. Longcore “beliefs” — I never heard of the man before today, and I certainly don’t know what he “believes.”
4) NONE of your or Nana’s points has anything to do with the points Longcore brings up in the article I linked to.
Now why don’t you quit hijacking the thread, and engage instead with his points.
Here, I’ll even give you a hand:
The morality of our presence/actions in the Middle East will not be discussed with re. to Hassan’s motives and actions.
At the end of the day, criminals are criminals, and they must be held to account for their crimes. Longcore makes this quite clear.
And yet, criminals are often motivated and frustrations by real injustices. Our Bravo Sierra “rationale” for invading Iraq could be just such a motivation for Hassan’s crimes.
Yet the Iraq war is no longer a “Republican” war — Obama has embraced it, as well. Thus, it will not be discussed in light of the Ft. Hood incident.
Your thoughts, Victoria?
Report comment to moderator
[One more post until she dusts off "Ron Paul hates children" ... ]
Report comment to moderator
(And for the record, the only third party I’ve ever been interested in/involved with is the Constitution Party. Weak stuff Victoria. Weeeeeeeak …)
Report comment to moderator
Frank, when you bring up a guy like Russell Longcore, spouting his beliefs regarding politics, and the war in Iraq and Afganistan, etc, etc., it’s a GOOD THING to give a deeper look into what Longcore really believes – see post #59 – in this way we can really get to know the man.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK, while he does make a few legitimate points, Longcore sounds like a conspiracy theorist by suggesting that the mainstream media won’t discuss the morality and legality of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, PTSD and military suicides and desertion. They’re all Democrat and pacifist talking points. He’s either not paying attention or inhabits an alternate universe.
And what does he really mean by, “…military personnel constitutionally deployed within the borders of the U.S. in a purely defensive status…” having a reason to go berserk like Hasan did? Equating joining any military service with slavery is just nutty. I shall return.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, trying to catch up on lots of cross-posting in betweenn other things. Neither GWB or anyone else in his adminstration lied us into following through on the UN’s resolutions against Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War’s “truce.”
Our presence in the Middle East is totally irrelevant in explaining Hasan’s motives and actions. The injustice, if that’s what it was he saw was through his own prism of radical teachings of Islam.
Report comment to moderator
Nana
I do not think that the United States presence in the Middle East is totally irrelevant in regards to explaining Hasan’s motives.
Report comment to moderator
OH, isn’t that a complex point? He must have been fine with the Gulf War since it’s reported that he joined afterwards and knew we possibilities. It seems to me he didn’t go off kilter until he was drawn to radical Islamic teachings and began describing himself as a Palestinian. I’m not so sure it’s a chicken and egg situation.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Nana, I’m not saying its a simple issue at all. I have no idea what his motives were. I’ve simply suggested the U.S. involvement in the Middle East is one of many possibilities to consider.
By no means do I think its a “simple” case.
Report comment to moderator
This is a stupid thread, filled with picayune criticisms of every breath Obama takes, digressions into irrelevancies, and desperate efforts to score cheap political points from a national tragedy.
You all really should be ashamed to be part of it.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t really think you did OH. I just get so tired of those who blame the U.S. for history that’s impossible to change. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Those weren’t my intentions, Steve. I stand by 43.
That’s the only “score” I was going after.
Report comment to moderator
I ignore stupid threads and their posters.
Report comment to moderator
Nana
I know. We agree.
Report comment to moderator
I should clarify that my #87 was in response to block #84.
OH
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t talking about you OH.
Nana: I ignore stupid threads and their posters.
Bully for you. I, on the other hand, think that stupidity needs to be pointed out for what it is sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
Got it. Have you heard which memorial service the Pres. will attend? I’ve only been following the House debate on the latest health care bill, no newscasts today. Have you heard any reactions from Doug and how the Fort Hood murders are playing over there?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg,
If this thread is difficult, and you deem it “stupid” – why don’t you post somewhere where you feel those who contribute are worth your time and effort. Maybe the Health Bill thread could use some vital information you have stored away.
Report comment to moderator
Old Norwegian saying: Stupid is as stupid does.
Old Taxes saying: You can’t fix stupid.
Report comment to moderator
Yuck – Texas above.
Report comment to moderator
Nana
Doug is often out of range. Get this, he goes to a local coffee house wherever he is presently to get the Internet. They are truly in and among the people there. I hear from him a few times each week.
I have not followed the President’s itinerary, no. As far as the Ft. Hood incident, I do not know how he’s reacted to it of course as I haven’t yet heard from him recently.
I will say that Doug often laments how the criteria for soldiers coming into the military has changed since he joined in 1989. “Softer and gentler” is how he describes it. I saw a bit of that myself when I was in. There is much more individualism within the ranks, especially with the “An Army of One” campaign. It is wholly contrary to “team”. It’s much easier to be an “individual” nowadays in the Army than it was just twenty years ago. Less oversight of soldiers and their private lives than there was decades ago. Doug, I can tell you, is more than likely not surprised by the Ft. Hood tragedy from what we’ve talked about over the years.
Report comment to moderator
Fascinating, OH, and I’ve heard similar laments re esprit de corps, but based on the high reenlistment rates, maybe it separates the “wheat from the chaff” there, too. It isn’t easy to strike the right balance between commeraderie from discipline and need for independent intitiative, especially in our all-volunteer forces. Kudos to your brother and to you. (apologies for seldom-used misspelled terms).
Report comment to moderator
Nana
Some of the reenlistment offers are nothing short of amazing, though. Cash bonuses, extra college tuition, choice of duty station, promotion, certain schools.
My re-up was tempting. Sergeant’s academy, choice of duty station, airborne/jump school if I wanted it, and there was some extra money with it too. I could’ve even gone to Italy if I’d wanted to. I imagine today its not any easier to say “No” to a few more years.
But I sensed God’s calling for me in college and a teaching degree.
Report comment to moderator
Different strokes for different God’s folks OH. You chose what you felt God wants you to do and are honoring Him in the process I’m sure.
I wonder if those who are re-upping and enlisting now are a little more wary as we’ll be in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan operations for quite some time. btw, your responses on another thread were not neurotic and you had no reason to “apologize.” Stand your ground when you know you’re right. We all let emotions overtake us at times, and then we use some of it to sink the hole – eh?
Report comment to moderator
Nana – 97
I agree with you about the other thread.
OH, stand your ground, you had no reason to apologize. NONE! Nana is right.
Report comment to moderator
What happened was, the president addressed a national tragedy that had just happened. He didn’t handle it especially adroitly, but he didn’t particularly botch it either … and here are conservatives, freaking out as if he had collapsed weeping into a fetal position and needed sedation.
No matter what Obama says or does, you will always criticize it. Given that your criticism is predictable and reflexive rather than reasoned, why should anyone take it seriously?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG clearly has not read this thread.
Report comment to moderator
“Adroitly” – perhaps you’re looking for a more apt word, but there isn’t one, ’skillful’ wouldn’t work either, but ’skill’ is what Obama strives for, which if he occasionally accomplishes this end, leaves his sincerity in the dumpster. Obama didn’t collapse, he made a big “shout out” nor did he weep or turn himself into a fetal position. He doesn’t need “sedation” what he needs is compassion for many who were killed and many who were wounded, instead he blurts out with a “SHOUT OUT” –
Even his tele-prompter would have fallen ill with that blunder.
Report comment to moderator
. . Bush deliberately allowed 9-11 to happen, and . . caused the deaths from Hurricane Katrina . .
Where else does the buck stop, Amphipolis?
Report comment to moderator
NANA (78) [T]he morality and legality of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, PTSD and military suicides and desertion [are] all Democrat and pacifist talking points.
FRANK: On the one hand, I would initially take points from Democrats (who are no longer anti-this-war now that The One is at the helm) or pacifists with a bit of skepticism.
On the other hand, just because something is said by either group does not mean that it must automatically be assumed to be invalid, and therefore requiring no engagement.
And besides, Longcore is neither a liberal Democrat nor pacifist.
That said, would you mind providing a couple links from the Dems and a couple from pacifists showing that Longcore is merely regurgitating their “talking points”?
NANA (78) And what does he really mean by, “…military personnel constitutionally deployed within the borders of the U.S. in a purely defensive status…” having a reason to go berserk like Hasan did [my ital -- FiS]?
FRANK: You either misunderstood Longcore, or you made a typo above. His actual statement was:
His point is that men who are asked — no, ordered by their government — to do things that are contrary to their deeply-held moral standards, they may well be inclined to react with antisocial behaviors (e.g., those commonly associated with PTSD). In the present situation, American military men (and to our great shame, women) are being sent overseas for senseless and morally dubious purposes. (You have no doubt heard that we’re losing a tremendous number of Middle East vets to suicides — more, according to some sources, than we are losing to actual combat.)
On the other hand, Longcore’s argument is that, since there is nothing senseless or morally dubious about using American military men here at home, in the legitimate defense of the US and its boundaries, they likely wouldn’t react in antisocial ways.
NANA (78) Equating joining any military service with slavery is just nutty.
FRANK: While they aren’t entirely analogous, there are similarities. Unlike a regular job, if you have a change of priorities or moral convictions after signing up, it is extremely difficult to sever oneself from military service. I understand that there is an issue of the enlistment contract. But no legal contract should bind a man who has experienced a sincere and conscientious shift of moral principles. (E.g., if a soldier becomes convinced that a particular war is illegal or immoral.)
And it is especially worth noting that, in OT Israel, God Himself required commanders to exclude from military service for one year men who had just built a home, planted a crop, or taken a bride.
Additionally noteworthy is the fact that any man who was simply afraid — that’s right, a coward — was likewise excluded by God from military service. They were sent home — for their own good and for the good of the other fighting men — and were not punished by the civil magistrate. (See Deut. 20:5-8.)
Thus it seems to me, when man applies his own moral standards rather than those of God Almighty to a situation, such a situation has much in common with slavery. It is, in the very least, wicked.
Report comment to moderator
NANA (79): Neither GWB or anyone else in his adminstration lied us into following through on the UN’s resolutions against Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War’s “truce.”
FRANK: What do you call urging America and her allies (the “coalition of the willing for a price”) to invade Iraq due to the “immediate threat” Saddam allegedly posed due to his supposed possession of WMDs?
(George Bush’s own “comedy skit” at the 2004 White House Correspondent’s dinner was particularly damning.)
Or how about the intentional manipulation of intelligence to make people think that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?
(Who’s “not paying attention” again, Nana?)
Report comment to moderator
But since this thread is supposed to be about President Obama’s response to the Ft. Hood shootings …
Read the rest.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Obama admitted his mistake in saying the police acted stupidly. I see no double standard in urging caution in the shootings. Initial reports on particulars were wrong.
You may interpret the President’s actions as a double standard or perhaps a mixed bag of the difficulties of the office of the President which include the American people’s continued obsessive and legalistic insistence that the occupant of the Oval Office speak fairly, sincerely, honestly and perfectly all the time,, examining, critiquing and criticizing everything from the tone in his voice to the First Lady’s choice of clothing while on vacation.
The article you posit makes too much out of race and not near enough of human nature in general.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OH,
Did you actually read the piece?
Merkle’s point was more about “white” and “establishment” angst and “guilt” in a Darwinian framework.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Frank I did read it.
It’s very sociopolitical. It’s a sociological interpretation of culture, not a biblical one.
OH
Report comment to moderator
After all, what is meant by “white” or “establishment” or “angst”? Can we get a specific definintion for each of these classifications?
Easy generalities with little specificity are problematic in argumentation in my estimation. Classifications which tempt us to look at the “outward appearance” instead of the heart don’t get us very far in solving problems. How does one specifically pin the type of person of which this article speaks? How is man going to identify him and if we do, what then are we to do about it?
We of course cannot see the heart as God does, so it’s easier for us to classify and sort people by their standing/place in society so that we may generalize about them.
In reality that does nothing to explain the sinful propensity of man in general as outlined in Romans 3. Its not a Darwinian or an elitist who alone sets up his own ideals and ethics, but each one of us, Frank. This article heightens the racial tension by explaining things from a sociological perspective. It perpetuates class and racial tension in a moralistic tone but offers no solution. Any “religious” minded person could’ve written it. It is very “conservative” but there is nothing distincly “Christian” about it.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK, I read Merkle’s piece, all the way to the end where he asks, “Is white self-loathing one desperate attempt to still win the debate? Millions of angst-ridden whities asserting that we are not the supreme race.” I hope you’re not taken in by what sounds to me like subtle paranoia. I don’t believe God has anything to do with this kind of thinking.
I also read some of Doug Wilson’s writings and looked up credendaagenda. It reminds me of the Chalcedon Newsletter I used to get from Rushdoony about 30 years ago, until I felt he was also approaching an extreme approach to Christian life.
It’s hard to keep up with all your diligent research, but I’ll make the attempt as I go along here tonight and tomorrow.
Report comment to moderator
Longcore seems to be nearing the nutty side by using Democrat anti-war talking points to try and persuade people that men and women are volunteering to be slaves in the military. Not to mention being admired by Lew Rockwell. Ron Paul can oppose the Federal Reserve, our “foreign interventions” and withdrawing from the UN all he wants because, as a minor minority voice, he’ll never have to deal with those unrealistic plans. I’m for all the Amendments; 2nd, 10th, 14th – all of them. Did you know that Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act? And the last time he ran for president he had the most conspiracy nuts of any candidate, including 9/11 Truthers.
All of which ties in perfectly with off-the-rails Ray McGovern who testified at John Conyers’ phony impeachment hearing of GWB.
Report comment to moderator
NANA (111): Did you know that Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act?
FRANK: Yes, and I admire him greatly for it.
The PATRIOT Act was an ill-advised piece of legislation if ever there was one — rushed through in great “urgency,” and unread by most everybody in Congress. They voted for it because, well, not to do so would be “un-American” or “appeasement.”
Did you know, Nana, that the PATRIOT Act’s “sneak-and-peek” provision (i.e., warrantless premises searches without the knowledge of the suspect) is now being used to break into the homes of suspected drug dealers?
Now you may be all for the feddle war on drugs — I’m certainly not — but that is besides the point. The PATRIOT Act was supposed to be about fighting terrorism. But — surprise!! — it contained Trojan Horse provisions weakening other criminal suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well.
Or don’t you think that criminal suspects should have any rights?
Report comment to moderator
I hate to say this, Nana, but your arguments on this thread have tended more toward “guilt-by-association” rather than any kind of consideration of — or engagement with — points I have raised.
Indeed, that is a favorite tactic of Victoria.
Hmmm.
Wouldn’t it be quite ironic if the vaunted “sock-puppet huntress” herself turned out to have her hand in a couple of sock puppets of her own?
(Can’t prove anything … and frankly, I don’t care. Just sayin’, is all … )
Report comment to moderator
FRANK, at the risk of repeating myself as I try to address your #66, military suicide rates, PTSD and all forms of “desertion,” as in refusing to fight as ordered, are always cited by the liberal left to support their anti-government stance and immorality of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (one war in both countries). The illegality of our presence there is another phony charge. (Many examples are more easily googled by you than my posting them here). It has never been easier for military personnel to reneg on the terms of the “contract” they signed when they enlisted
Paul and his supporters also decry our military presence there and I expect will ditto the above complaints as causes for Hasan’s motives/grievances instead of acknowledging that these things happen for complex reasons. No it will be the government’s fault. I’d love to be wrong.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK 113, you and I and many others may share the same complaints for different reason, yet view them through different prisms for different solutions. The Patriot Act was authorized to essentially use the same techniques as law enforcement used for years to keep us safe and make a case.
There’s a common thread between the people you’ve cited and their affiliations that strikes me as questionable logic. You should have no complaint against Victoria for also pointing this out in disagreeing with you. I’m sure it isn’t personal, so you shouldn’t have to make it that way to support your beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Oh my gosh, FRANK, I just understood your hypothetical in 113. No, no, that’s one thing you dont’ have to concern yourself with. Sweet dreams.
Report comment to moderator
And I did not expect #112 would be a link to Lew Rockwell. But there it is.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: Where else does the buck stop, Amphipolis?
Do you hold our current president to the same standard? Looks like I have hit close to the mark.
Report comment to moderator
Question – If it is proven that the Major who killed our soldiers did it, with the purposes of support our enemies. Can he be charge with treason?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: If it is proven that the Major who killed our soldiers did it, with the purposes of support our enemies. Can he be charge with treason?
I am not a lawyer, but my non-professional opinion is that he could be. And my personal opinion is that he should be, if that was his motive.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
There’s a good bit of truth in that what you’ve said, Frank. I wouldn’t say that I’m a non-interventionist exactly, but I do think we do more than is wise. If a good bit more of our attention went toward cleaning up our own domestic policy, we’d have less time, money, interest, or need to go to war and interfer in the internal affairs of other countries. Well, we already lack the money, and if conservatives were really that conservative it seems to me we’d be involved in fewer wars already.
Report comment to moderator
The Obama Administration will respond quickly, and decisively, and long as it’s not OUR country! LOL Check out this short animated cartoon we created…hope you get a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EST3y0vcTmk
Enjoy –
Insanity Island – Leaders in the Conservative Cartoon REVOLUTION!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!