Memo to orange: Is that YOU, GEN Casey?

sanantonian on November 12, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Might be Baracky.

Plus, the WH advance guy was obnoxious to the soldiers, telling them to get rid of “offensive” literature on their bedside tables, and that they better not try to to shake the President’s hand unless he offers first. Outrageous.

The soldier said Bush was wonderful, spending time with each soldier, holding hands with them, and speaking very warmly and personally with each.

juliesa on November 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM

My first thought after reading that was, why would any soldier in those circumstances (Fort Hood) WANT to shake Obama’s hand? Obama should count himself privileged that the soldiers before whom he made his “group” appearance even so much as looked at him.

Bush and wife, Laura, were genuine troopers with their visit: no publicity, no publicity incentive or goal, genuine personal caring to express love and appreciation for the men and women in service at Fort Hood (and elsewhere, but I’m referring to Bush’s visit to Fort Hood).

The reasons why there’s so much tension, animosity and negative dictation surrounding Obama’s “appearance” there as with elsewhere is that most people by this point understand that the guy’s up to no good.

And if so much as a reprimand befalls Army Major Shawn Keller, we can all further blame Barack Obama or whatever his name is for further cowardly, unbecoming behavior.

orange on November 12, 2009 at 7:33 PM

Wow! You really haven’t been able to figure it out yet? As you’re struggling to reach a conclusion, be sure not to let the mountain of evidence that he was a Muslim terrorist influence your decision in any way.

What I want to know from people like “orange” is what evidence are you looking for that you don’t have in this case that will finally lead you to believe he was a Muslim terrorist?

Major Keller will get in more trouble for writing this, than anyone in Hasan’s chain of command or elsewhere in the government will get for failing to do their job

That, or he’ll never get promoted again.

And thank you, Ed, for a very well done write-up.

I agree with the sentiment of the article written here, but it seems to me that someone has made a strawman to give their argument added gravitas.

Umm, that’s not a very good way of making the point. Those reports were incorrect, obviously, so this is just proof that you should get all the facts before you make a judgment. Since we still dont have all the facts (i.e., the motive for the shooting), it is unwise to jump to a conclusion.

orange on November 12, 2009 at 7:33 PM

You aren’t serious, are you?

Then send the results to GEN Casey with a signature-ready pre-written letter of resignation.

Will 14 deaths be enough to restore their missing backbone?

*Salute* Maj. Keller.

you sound clueless enough to work for the CIA at a senior level

jihadism – active, violent, multi-faceted – existed prior to 9/11 – for years

has, umm, something to do with, ya know, islamic history and doctrine, arab history, etc. you oughta educate yourself a bit before parroting the sort of idiocy coming out of the sub-mediocre institutions in the Beltway

common sense and actual history shows, of course, that the best “recruiting” tool for ANY cause, including the dead-end idiocy of jihadism against the west, is SUCCESS.

the point of the post, the major’s comments, etc is rather obvious – any rudimentary and sensible screening system would have easily weeded out Hasan long long before he was in a position to do much harm

the ludicrous though typical gymnastics and vapid factually wrong “analysis” on offer from the media and such as orange is a good example of how and why America is so much less, and so much more at risk, than it has any reason to be

But even Rumsfeld was aware that the war has been a cause for additional jihadi recruitment.

So what? The lack of a war on jihad would lead to even more jihadi recruitment.

In other words, we’re back to blaming the war for the terrorism, instead of the other way around.

But even Rumsfeld was aware that the war has been a cause for additional jihadi recruitment. It’s not one or the other; it’s both. It’s a vicious circle.

Even four hours after Hasan stood on a desk yelling Allahu Akbar! and opened fire, the FBI stated that they were not investigating the attack as an act of terrorism even as there were still reports of other gunmen on the loose.

Umm, that’s not a very good way of making the point. Those reports were incorrect, obviously, so this is just proof that you should get all the facts before you make a judgment. Since we still dont have all the facts (i.e., the motive for the shooting), it is unwise to jump to a conclusion.

And the bottom line, it would not prevent the onset of an attack like this. It might end it quicker. But I don’t think the added burden would justify the logistical nightmare this would cause.

hawkdriver on November 12, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Retired AF here, I understand and agree. However, I would like to see something along the lines of concealed carry for a reasonable percentage of military troops Stateside for the purpose of base defense. If 10% of the civilian populace were armed we’d see few successful mass shootings, and the same goes for the military I say.