WH still denying Ft. Hood Massacre was act of terrorism

[chanel]

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.

 

[zonly1]

work place violence from AG mouthpiece who hides behind fast and furious

 

[Emma]

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?

 

[Truthseeker420]

 

[Emma]

This, of course, has nothing to do with refusing to call what happened in Little Rock "terrorism".

 

[chanel]

The Obama administration has been consistent in referring to this as "work place violence". Since when are these boneheads concerned about possible "appellate issues"? These are the same people who are suing the states. Who would be filing the appeal? Holder?

 

[California Girl]

Well, compared to the rampant violence of, say, those evil domestic terrorists in the TEA Party, the Fort Hood terrorist attack pales into insignificance.

Oh wait.

My bad.

 

[jillian]

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 if they didn't have fauxrage... they'd have nothing.

 

[chanel]

Jillian - just curious. Do you ever address the issue?

Was this "workplace violence" or an act of terrorism?

 

[chanel]

P.S. - Lieberman is not a Republican.

 

[zonly1]

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?

you are an idiot ...it isn't right vs left as you cling to ideology

 

[zonly1]

This, of course, has nothing to do with refusing to call what happened in Little Rock "terrorism".

why do good people resort to blatant stupidy? can you explain your statements, emma

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[zonly1]

more ideology horse shiite from the resident leftnut nazi.......who by the way can't get his head out of azz but goes to the third grade level.....great...maybe try chasing park cars for while and that might straighten issue that you may have....eh capt air head and the space cadets.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

So what.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

So what.

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.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you call it an act of terrorism, Hasan becomes not a criminal, but a prisoner of war.

So what.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

So what.

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.