Cheat Sheet
The Best In Brief
Obama: Ft. Hood 'Incomprehensible'
President and Michelle Obama bowed their heads before the boots and photos of 13 fallen American soldiers at Fort Hood Tuesday after the president delivered an eulogy: "This is a time of war and these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here on American soil ... It's the fact that makes the tragedy ever more painful, even more incomprehensible." He went on to memorialize each of the fallen servicemen and women, who ranged in age from 19 to 62. Among the three women and 10 men who died were 21-year-old Pvt. Francheska Velez, who died pregnant as she prepared to return home from Iraq deployment; 22-year-old newlywed Spc. Jason Hunt; and Maj. Libardo Eduardo Caraveo, who learned English when he immigrated to America as a teenager and went on to earn a Ph.D. and work in Ft. Hood's mental-health program. Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the base's commanding general, also emphasized the heightened tragedy of military lives lost on American soil: "We will never be accustomed to losing one of our own. Never did we expect to pay such a high price at home."
byersl
This just breaks my heart. Godspeed to all the lost and my condolences to their families and friends.
pclayton
Do you mean?
President Honors the Personnel at Ft. Hood
maryfrost2
From the reports I have heard of the emails and statements made by Hasan before the killings, it would appear that if they had been acted upon sooner, this could have been prevented. Seems like a repeat of 9/11--just on a smaller scale. Wouldn't you think that after 9/11, it would have been better to assume the worst from Hasan's radical comments, rather that just not take him seriously? We bend over backwards so as not to offend anyone, but there are consequences to this type of thinking, and that is what we are now seeing. When are we going to "get real", and act accordingly?
angels81
maryfrost, I agree that we should be more careful, but this is the price we pay for a free nation. We are a country of laws, and no matter if someone say's things that are vile and radical, if he didn't break any laws what does a free country do? By your logic we should be going after a lot of American citizens who have said vile and radical things against Obama, but in a free country they have that right until they act on it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it is not that easy before someone acts on the speech, which he has a right to speak. Freedom is messy, and sometimes we pay a high price for that freedom.
Carole65
angels81: You're right about freedom being being messy at times, but in this particular case, the intercepted emails or Hasan's should have been acted upon at the time they were discovered. If it's ok to pull 65 year old ladies out of line at an airport and search, imagine if that said 65 year old was concealing a weapon. Would she be allowed to go home and fly another day? Don't think so......
Heads are going to roll in the military for this horrible oversight, and well they should.
This conflict (war) with Islamic terrorists is like none other this country, nore other countries, have had to deal with in recent past. They have no allegience to a country and live and operate in all countries. Until Muslims, who truly honor their religion, rise up collectively around the world and decry these terrorists, the bloodshed of innocent people will continue.
maryfrost2
angels81, Not everyone that makes a radical statement gets in touch with a terrorist
overseas--Hasan did. If we are not going to act upon these type comments, then why even monitor the conversations between people in the U.S. and terrorist? Hasan was clearly a Muslim that had turned radical, and he certainly had no business in the position as he was in--according to all the statements and emails that have been attributed to him.
maryfrost2
It surprises me that anyone would think that the killings are incomprehensible after 9/11. Hasan sent up MANY red flags but they were just ignored. I guess we never learn. I guess the Obama Adm. kept the monitoring of phone calls(that were so roundly criticized during the Bush Adm.), and there was evidence on them that he was a radical, BUT THEY DID NOTHING. Correction--they promoted him. Go figure!!!!
angels81
maryfrost, being a radical is not a crime. The crime is when one acts on the words. Should the military have kept a eye on this guy after his radical rantings? The answer would be yes, but like I said earlier, freedom of speech is something we hold dear in this country, and I'm not willing to give that up to feel safer.
maryfrost2
angels81, I think we have passed the time when we could put freedom over everything else--sadly. Our lives are very much threatened now by radical Islamist as in evidence right now. I'll choose my life over my freedom----those 13 people that are now dead were alarmed by the comments made by Hasan, but no one did anything.
diamondgirl
angle, so we should wait until the radical muslim terrorist attacks us? No one is saying you have to give up your freedom of speech, this guy was over due for a big time arrest. The fact they didnt do it had nothing to do with freedom of speech. I hope they re-think why they didnt pick him up sooner, and I hope they let us know, instead of finding it out from the London Press.
Frenchmanaz
MF2, how on earth do you people manage to make this about Obama ?
Maybe you should read the story on this killer, the intelligence community HAD EMAILS !!!!!!! I cannot confirm if this animals phones were tapped but it wouldn't have given us any new information that we didn't already have AND if we were able to tap into this guys e-mails then I must assume that sufficient monitoring of the now more frequently used form of communication ( e-mail ) were monitored.
So it was DESPITE having more than enough information to lead them to believe this idiot was a radical and they STILL DID NOTHING.
We are in agreement that this should have been prevented but to somehow sneak in a completely irrelevant jab at Obama's scrapping of wire tapping rights really shows the juvenile levels to which his opponents will stoop.
Maybe you should think before you write, because it only makes it seem like your not really paying attention.
maryfrost2
Maybe you missed my point about Obama keeing the same wiretapping policy that Bush had. It was that Obama kept it, it gave us important info. that Hasan WAS emailing a terrorist overseas. Surely that is VERY unusual. That shows that the wiretapping COULD be useful IF we make use of it. If we just ignore these conversations with terrorist, THEN WHY HAVE THEM. That was my point.
Frenchmanaz
OK MF2, I apologize for not understanding your initial post.
Mauiboy
Perhaps if the FBI hadn't been so busy following up on the nutcases that have been ginned up by FOX news and the teabaggers and the birthers, they would have been able to spend more time on this particular case and would have been able to do something before these tragic events unfolded.
maryfrost2
Mauiboy, It's time to let go of the birthers. Seems like you Democrats are the only ones that ever mention it anymore. Give it up already.
RomeoHotel
Name one "nutcase who the FBI has been following up on who was ginned up by FOX news and the teabaggers and the birthers".
How many comments do we have to read that blame the victims?
Mauiboy
How about this report that was leaked about the overburdened Secret Service:
http://www.viperalley.com/forum/anything-goes/79494-report-secret-servic e-strained.html
Sure, I can take the word "birthers" out of my vocabulary, as long as the GOP can refrain from using the word "socialist" in their comments.
Steve0099
It has been reported that the shooter wanted a way for Muslims to opt out of a war against a Muslim enemy. What about a Christian opting out of a war against a Christian enemy? Like the United States of America agains Adolph Hitler? War isn't about religion, but about right and wrong. Muslims are killing Muslims in the middle east and we are there trying to help the carnage stop. The shooter didn't make sense.
loloo33
You are right, religions have nothing to do with wars. Not to mention he is not a combat soldier, he works in the office with high paid salary so I don't see any excuses from him at all.
BOKOBOT
This was a moving speech and a well made point. I wish we would have heard something like this right after 9/11, instead of all the weird talk about 'crusades.' BOKO
RomeoHotel
Given that Obama finds this latest attack "incomprehensible", what makes you think he could have understood 9/11?
khepri
It is not surprising that the madness engendered by America's prolonged and sometimes brutal conflict surface in these tragic ways. I can imagine that a number of Iraqis and Afghanis whose non-combatant relatives have fallen during the past eight years see this as a very small down-payment. Very bad news all around.
RomeoHotel
Is Obama really so stupid that he finds this latest attack, as he says, "incomprehensible"? It seems perfectly comprehensible to anyone with an IQ above 90.
Does political correctness really require a lobotomy now?
spinozareader
Romeo,
Stop it.
Stop pretending that you don't understand the President's use of the word "incomprehensible" when he refers to what happened at Ft. Hood. (Or, let us hope you're pretending not to understand the word incomprehensible; perhaps we're flattering your intelligence by assuming such a thing.)
To comprehend is to FULLY grasp something with the mind and spirit; to "get it/understand it" completely.
Ask any reasonable and intelligent person: "Do you understand fully why someone would fly planes into buildings to kill thousands of people along with himself, or aim a gun at random passers-by and shoot them dead, or rape a 3-year-old child?"
Who could answer "Yes, I understand" to such a query?? About the only thing you can say with certainty to such questions is that you realize that deeply-troubled individuals exist. You might even be able to tick off a list of things that put you on alert to "the crazies." But neither you, or I, or the President can "comprehend"/fully grasp and understand what makes these people do what they do; what makes them cross the line from being angry/damaged to what makes it (in their minds) "okay" to perform despicable acts. Because, ultimately, decent and loving people can't "understand" what compels sociopaths/psychopaths to do those things--rendering those actions"incomprehensible" to rational, loving, compassionate human beings.
RomeoHotel
What are we doing now? I thought the need to "parse the President's exact words" went out with Clinton. (Btw, since you seem to be an expert parser, you can probably tell us why Clinton NEVER said anything TRUER than, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Miss Lewinsky". I say again: That was a true statement by Pres. Clinton. Can you say why?)
I admit, Obama is no Clinton when it comes to an ability to say things that are technically true, but completely misleading. (His latest amateurish attempt to Clintonize was when he said that his health care plan "won't increase the deficit by one dime". Well, yes, it will increase the deficit by far MORE than "one dime", so it succeeds in the first half of a classic Clintonism by being technically true; but it failed the second half because who besides his Kool-Aid drinkers were actually misled?)
But to the substance of your point, that "no decent, loving, compassionate ... um, rational" ... *reading for more* ... "reasonable, intelligent" ... *ok, I think that's all* ... "person could comprehend Maj. Hasan's actions": I disagree.
For years -- decades, even -- we have been watching men just like Hasan do things just like he did for reasons just like the ones he stated.
Why would we now be unable to connect the dots: "(1) a radical muslim who views infidels as sub-humans .... (2) who says that violence against infidels is justified and even required by his holiest book ... (3) commits a violent act against infidels. The better question is, What kind of person could FAIL to comprehend his actions?
Whatever kind that is, Pres. Obama is one of them -- unless he's just lying.
spinozareader
Romeo
I never admired, nor endorsed, Bill Clinton's semantic contortions.
Nor am I engaging in some cheap, forensic-arts exercise in trying to "parse the President's exact words" in order to obfuscate an issue.
Rather, I consider myself to be reasonable, intelligent, and compassionate. And yet--precisely because I am reasonable and intelligent and compassionate--I find the actions of this shooter incomprehensible. (Which is not equivalent to "were his actions predictable"...though behavioral experts would tell you that they're lousy at predicting who's cork will pop.)
XavierOnassis
Incomprehensible? Evidently, Democrats have a bit of difficulty "connecting dots", too.
NoNoneSense
Funny how hypocritical people are in this forum. If McCain was in power he would have made the same speech and everyone would have agreed with him. Unfortunately a Democrat is in the White House, so people can't agree with him no matter what he says.
@RomeoHotel: you must be joking, the Bush administration showed how much they understood 9.11 by attacking the wrong country and never held into account the Saudi monarchy (reminder most of the hjackers were from there).
RomeoHotel
If McCain was in power, yes, he might have given the same speech. That's why no one is happier than conservatives that Obama won last year. As I've said before, electing McCain in 2008 would have been like electing Ford in 1976.
But you do have your history wrong. Will you allow me to fix it? The Bush administration showed how much they understood 9/11 by attacking the country from which the attack was planned and directed (Afghanistan) and then by attacking the only regime (Saddam Hussein's) that celebrated it. But the best thing about toppling Hussein was that it put the fear of God (or at least of the U.S. military) into the hearts of Arab regimes everywhere. Libya famously surrendered its nuclear program, and, finally, states like Saudi Arabia -- which had been playing both sides of the fence for decades -- were forced to choose a side. They chose us.
It's really not clear if Obama has Bush's understanding.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.