Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The White House has threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act a $642.5 billion spending bill passed by the House last Friday. Among the 32 veto-worthy provisions: the one awarding Purple Hearts to the victims of the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings.
The administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Ark., the veto threat states. The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism.
The administrations refusal to acknowledge the attacks as terrorism has long rankled Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), the leaders of the Homeland Security Committee, who investigated the Fort Hood massacre last year.
Read more: Barack Obama’s refusal on terrorism—Bridget Johnson - NYPOST.com
Isn't terrorism denial far more dangerous (and whacky) than birtherism? Unbelievable.
A good question is why is Obama so unwilling to call something like this; that was done in the name of politics and religion; and a mass murder to that end; terrorism. If that's not terrorism then what the hell is terrorism? By that definition; 911 is not a terrorist attack.
Could it be that Obama wants America to be weak? Could it be that he wants us vulnerable? Me thinks so.
If you call it an act of terrorism, Hasan becomes not a criminal, but a prisoner of war.
The Administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas. The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism; as a result, this provision could create appellate issues.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr4310r_20120515.pdf
Why does the right consistently do this?
Because they are sort of stupid.
Here's the ugly truth about Hasan. The man was mentally unstable and should have been discharged. But the military was suffering from two cultural things.
First, the reluctance to let ANYONE go.
Second, the tendency to cover up for officers. If he were an E-4 instead of an O-4, he'd have been out of there.
How many POW's from the GUlf War are we still holding? Vietnam? Korea?
The problem with wars is that when wars end, we repatriate the POW's. You give these folks medals, you are admitting that Hasan is an enemy combatant and therefore, he gets a bunch of rights.
It's the conundrum for the War on Terror. you create this gray area betwen POW and Criminal and no one knows what to do. It's why it's taken a decade to bring some of these guys to trial, and often, they get slaps on the wrist. (Only three people have been tried by Tribunal, and two of them are out now.)
You call him what he is, a criminal, no complicated issue. He shot people, he goes to jail. Unless they find him insanse, in which case he spends the rest of his life in a nuthouse.
I was rooting for you to come up with a good counter. But you gave me nothing. He was a terrorist pure and simple. Now we have get to the real motives behind Obama's decisions and not JoeB's made up flub dubbery.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I need to use smaller words?
You give these folks medals, you are admitting Hasan is an enemy soldier. The Geneva Convention IMMEDIATELY applies to him.
Which means you pretty much can't touch him. Legally. YOu can hold him as an enemy combatant, but eventually, all those folks are going to get let go.
The White House has threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act — a $642.5 billion spending bill passed by the House last Friday. Among the 32 veto-worthy provisions: the one awarding Purple Hearts to the victims of the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings.
“The administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Ark.,” the veto threat states. “The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism.”
The administration’s refusal to acknowledge the attacks as terrorism has long rankled Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), the leaders of the Homeland Security Committee, who investigated the Fort Hood massacre last year.
Read more: Barack Obama’s refusal on terrorism—Bridget Johnson - NYPOST.com
Isn't terrorism denial far more dangerous (and whacky) than birtherism? Unbelievable.
If they claimed it to be an act of terrorism, then that would effectively hurt their argument that an act of terrorism never happened on US Soil during the Obama presidency. This would hurt his record of keeping America safe from terrorists, and Obama cant have that happening in an election year.
A good question is why is Obama so unwilling to call something like this; that was done in the name of politics and religion; and a mass murder to that end; terrorism. If that's not terrorism then what the hell is terrorism? By that definition; 911 is not a terrorist attack.
Could it be that Obama wants America to be weak? Could it be that he wants us vulnerable? Me thinks so.
If you call it an act of terrorism, Hasan becomes not a criminal, but a prisoner of war.
terrorists are nothing more than criminals, so no he doesn't.
I was rooting for you to come up with a good counter. But you gave me nothing. He was a terrorist pure and simple. Now we have get to the real motives behind Obama's decisions and not JoeB's made up flub dubbery.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I need to use smaller words?
You give these folks medals, you are admitting Hasan is an enemy soldier. The Geneva Convention IMMEDIATELY applies to him.
Which means you pretty much can't touch him. Legally. YOu can hold him as an enemy combatant, but eventually, all those folks are going to get let go.
You can't touch him anyways idiot. Like I said; I gave you a chance. You gave me flub dubbery. Moving on dot org braw.
It was an act of terrorism and those claiming otherwise are doing so because of their political agenda. They also realize that everyone knows what and why they are lying about it.
"Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word 'enemy' for fellow Americans," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who stands to become Speaker of the House if Republicans win control of the chamber.
"Mr. President, there's a word for people who have the audacity to speak up in defense of freedom, the Constitution, and the values of limited government that made our country great," Boehner said. "We don't call them 'enemies.' We call them 'patriots.'"
If they claimed it to be an act of terrorism, then that would effectively hurt their argument that an act of terrorism never happened on US Soil during the Obama presidency. This would hurt his record of keeping America safe from terrorists, and Obama cant have that happening in an election year.
No, no, no the Republicans are the terrorists, they are the enemy!! Pulllleeezze, this can't be political, this can't be an act of terrorism on US soil, it will spoil the Obama image!!
"Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word 'enemy' for fellow Americans," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who stands to become Speaker of the House if Republicans win control of the chamber.
"Mr. President, there's a word for people who have the audacity to speak up in defense of freedom, the Constitution, and the values of limited government that made our country great," Boehner said. "We don't call them 'enemies.' We call them 'patriots.'"
Oh, I'm sorry, did I need to use smaller words?
You give these folks medals, you are admitting Hasan is an enemy soldier. The Geneva Convention IMMEDIATELY applies to him.
Which means you pretty much can't touch him. Legally. YOu can hold him as an enemy combatant, but eventually, all those folks are going to get let go.
You can't touch him anyways idiot. Like I said; I gave you a chance. You gave me flub dubbery. Moving on dot org braw.
Ummmm, no, legally, they can put him on trial using the criminal code. Unlike let's say, Sheik Khalid Mohammed, who we caught back in 2002, and we are just putting him on trial now in a hearing that is largely a joke.
The Administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas. The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism; as a result, this provision could create appellate issues.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr4310r_20120515.pdf
Why does the right consistently do this?
Because they are sort of stupid.
Here's the ugly truth about Hasan. The man was mentally unstable and should have been discharged. But the military was suffering from two cultural things.
First, the reluctance to let ANYONE go.
Second, the tendency to cover up for officers. If he were an E-4 instead of an O-4, he'd have been out of there.
You can't touch him anyways idiot. Like I said; I gave you a chance. You gave me flub dubbery. Moving on dot org braw.
Ummmm, no, legally, they can put him on trial using the criminal code. Unlike let's say, Sheik Khalid Mohammed, who we caught back in 2002, and we are just putting him on trial now in a hearing that is largely a joke.
Ah. Having a good cry JoeB? Military justice is fair and swift (and not wasteful). And you said, "we can't touch him." And we can't anyways. What's the matter JoeB? Made a stupid argument and you had to change the channel to more stupid?
The Administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas. The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism; as a result, this provision could create appellate issues.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr4310r_20120515.pdf
Why does the right consistently do this?
Because they are sort of stupid.
Here's the ugly truth about Hasan. The man was mentally unstable and should have been discharged. But the military was suffering from two cultural things.
First, the reluctance to let ANYONE go.
Second, the tendency to cover up for officers. If he were an E-4 instead of an O-4, he'd have been out of there.
Right. His being a Muslim had nothing to do with any of it.