Fox: Lawmakers Blast Administration For Calling Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence'

[Burgold]

Two issues for me:

1) Do these guys deserve their Purple Hearts. I say "yes"

2) Is this article framed as another cheap shot political attack. I say "yes"

[Redskins Diehard]

"The Administration" was responsible for Abu Graib and is responsible for this in my opinion.

Like GACOLB...not really sure right now whether I think Purple Hearts should be awarded to these service members. Tough situation.

[Thiebear]

Purple Hearts for soldiers that have been doing tours of duty for the last 10 years non-stop = no thought process whatsoever on what they deserve.

Name another 20year period where they have worked this hard against such an anonymous source?

There is no 'real' conventional source so guerilla warfare is in effect and rogue individuals infiltrating is still a wartime casualty.

[Kilmer17]

This really seems like a case where some Govt wonk made a decision inside his or her own vaccuum cubicle.

However, the WH SHOULD have stepped in right away and fixed it. In fact, if they had done so swiftly, they probably would have have looked like heroes.

[Predicto]

This really seems like a case where some Govt wonk made a decision inside his or her own vaccuum cubicle.

However, the WH SHOULD have stepped in right away and fixed it. In fact, if they had done so swiftly, they probably would have have looked like heroes.

With the speed of the news cycle and Fox's ability to generate partisan outrage at the drop of the hat, there is almost no way to do anything swiftly enough to look like a hero. Everything becomes a huge controversy in 5 minutes, and everything is defined as a deliberate insult to the troops, or to Christians, or to conservatives, or to gun owners, or white men, or whatever, right at the outset.

And if the Administration turns its attention to this and fixes it now, Fix will spin it as caving into pressure - not only did Obama personally show his hatred for our troops, but he is also weak and vacillating. It's a win-win.

[Madison Redskin]

With the speed of the news cycle and Fox's ability to generate partisan outrage at the drop of the hat, there is almost no way to do anything swiftly enough to look like a hero. Everything becomes a huge controversy in 5 minutes, and everything is defined as a deliberate insult to the troops, or to Christians, or to conservatives, or to gun owners, or white men, or whatever, right at the outset.

And if the Administration turns its attention to this and fixes it now, Fix will spin it as caving into pressure - not only did Obama personally show his hatred for our troops, but he is also weak and vacillating. It's a win-win.

[Kilmer17]

Oh it's way too late now for that exact reason.

And it's stupid to blame this on the administration or claim it's a purposeful protection of muslims. Which is the way it's being spun Im sure.

[twa]

the idiocy continues

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/30/defense-department-says-giving-purple-heart-to-fort-hood-survivors-would-hurt/

Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart would adversely affect the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan by labeling the attack terrorism, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Fox News.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/30/defense-department-says-giving-purple-heart-to-fort-hood-survivors-would-hurt/#ixzz2P7ceLd9N

[Redskins Diehard]

The system seemed to work for the Hasan Akbar case. I don't think his victims were awarded Purple Hearts either.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154220,00.html

I don't see any of the lawmakers blasting the Administration over that one. I am sure Hannity was furious though.

[skinsmarydu]

The system seemed to work for the Hasan Akbar case. I don't think his victims were awarded Purple Hearts either.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154220,00.html

I don't see any of the lawmakers blasting the Administration over that one. I am sure Hannity was furious though.

Hannity called us "peacemonkeys" for not supporting the war in Iraq. HE'S NEVER SERVED.~ and therefore, has no right to label anyone, except himself as a blowhard dumbass.~

Just my pennies.

[Redskins Diehard]

Hannity called us "peacemonkeys" for not supporting the war in Iraq. HE'S NEVER SERVED.~ and therefore, has no right to label anyone, except himself as a blowhard dumbass.~

Just my pennies.

Oh, he is definitely the biggest chump in their lineup in my opinion. Easy to support war when you and/or your kids don't have to fight it. I just wonder if he was as furious the last time something like this happened.

[twa]

are the cases the same?

http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2013/02/12/from-fort-hood-victims-twice-over/

The military’s position on the shooting is schizophrenic. On the one hand, the Obama administration has taken the position that it had the authority to authorize the targeted killing of Awlaki becuase he was a terrorist and threat to the United States. On the other hand, the government will not recognize the terrorist’s role in the horrific bloodletting

we will see how the lawsuit shakes out the system

[Redskins Diehard]

are the cases the same?

http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2013/02/12/from-fort-hood-victims-twice-over/

The military’s position on the shooting is schizophrenic. On the one hand, the Obama administration has taken the position that it had the authority to authorize the targeted killing of Awlaki becuase he was a terrorist and threat to the United States. On the other hand, the government will not recognize the terrorist’s role in the horrific bloodletting

we will see how the lawsuit shakes out the system

Are the cases the same? Very similar if not exactly the same. Organizational responses have been similar in some regards and different in others.

edit: I agree there is a lack of consistency on the part of the Administration if Alwaki is labeled a "combatant" because he inspired Hasan...but doesn't label Hasan himself a combatant. However, I think they are right on Hasan and wrong on Alwaki. Although they could point to Abdulmutallab to justify that distinction. I would think that pretty weak rationale.

[twa]

Are the cases the same? Very similar if not exactly the same. Organizational responses have been similar in some regards and different in others.

The testimony of terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann is among the items on the table. In his evaluation, Kohlmann said Hasan meets six factors indicating someone is a homegrown terrorist.

http://austin.ynn.com/content/special_reports/fort_hood_shooting/291020/hasan-trial-will-stay-at-fort-hood

we shall see

[Redskins Diehard]

The testimony of terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann is among the items on the table. In his evaluation, Kohlmann said Hasan meets six factors indicating someone is a homegrown terrorist.

http://austin.ynn.com/content/special_reports/fort_hood_shooting/291020/hasan-trial-will-stay-at-fort-hood

we shall see

"Expert" is not a universally shared assessment of Kohlmann's work. "Analyst" is probably more fitting. What are these six factors?

[twa]

"Expert" is not a universally shared assessment of Kohlmann's work. "Analyst" is probably more fitting. What are these six factors?

except when they use him to convict?:evilg:, but there are certainly detractors for most 'experts'

Is James Richardson more of one?

[Redskins Diehard]

except when they use him to convict?:evilg:, but there are certainly detractors for most 'experts'

Is James Richardson more of one?

No, just in general by the community. I am not sure the "they" you are referring to. Still looking for the six factors?

[twa]

No, just in general by the community. I am not sure the "they" you are referring to. Still looking for the six factors?

they would be the ones that have used him as a expert.

why would I look for something only he can provide?....His opinion

[Redskins Diehard]

they would be the ones that have used him as a expert.

why would I look for something only he can provide?....His opinion

Yes, that "they" consider hims an expert. There is a whole other "they" that does not. The two "they"s are not the same. I thought you fell into the he's an expert category and would know the 6 factors that the expert uses in his classification system.

[twa]

Yes, that "they" consider hims an expert. There is a whole other "they" that does not. The two "they"s are not the same. I thought you fell into the he's an expert category and would know the 6 factors that the expert uses in his classification system.

comes down to the 'they' running the trial don't it?

you will probably have a better pool for the panel to decide it's worth.

He is clearly labeled one and has been used as one....the value,as usual, is to be determined.

my opinion is immaterial unless you want a mock hearing

[Redskins Diehard]

comes down to the 'they' running the trial don't it?

you will probably have a better pool for the panel to decide it's worth.

He is clearly labeled one and has been used as one....the value,as usual, is to be determined.

my opinion is immaterial unless you want a mock hearing

Trying to figure out what point your trying to make here. Idiocy that the government not calling it terrorism followed up by saying they are calling someone you consider an expert to say it is.

The bit that he is not universally regarded as an expert was simply for board information.

[twa]

most 'experts' are not considered so universally, he has passed muster in the courts opinion a number of times before.

the bit on the pool is simply those weighing the testimony in a military trial are a bit more qualified than the average Joe

I have no point other than the one I started with.....the govt denying the wounded merit because of a consideration of a trial is wrong imo

it was bad enough they overlooked the threat to start with

did you have a point other than you don't like/value the 'expert'?

[Redskins Diehard]

most 'experts' are not considered so universally, he has passed muster in the courts opinion a number of times before.

the bit on the pool is simply those weighing the testimony in a military trial are a bit more qualified than the average Joe

I have no point other than the one I started with.....the govt denying the wounded merit because of a consideration of a trial is wrong imo

it was bad enough they overlooked the threat to start with

did you have a point other than you don't like/value the 'expert'?

Yes. It is up there right after the post about idiocy continuing. Before introduction of your expert.

[elkabong82]

I think they should get Purple hearts.

I think this is a goof up by whomever at the DoD was in charge of classifying the incident.

I think the article should be titled: Lawmakers blast DoD...

I think the article says "Lawmakers blast Administration" because Fox wants to use the story to suit their own agenda against the administration, which is pathetic and shows, to me anyways, that they are exploiting this incident to their own benefit.

I think such is par for the course for Fox. I'm glad this has come to light, but as others said, where was the outrage when it happened before? And I think Fox is belittling the incident and distracting from the real issue with the sensationalist headline, this thread being direct evidence of such given where the convos have gone.

[twa]

Yes. It is up there right after the post about idiocy continuing. Before introduction of your expert.

Did you have a opinion on the Justice dept memo declaring giving them Purple hearts would bias the case?

How about the lawsuit by the dead/wounded & family?.....just propaganda to embarrass the administration?