Were Obama's remarks after Fort Hood shooting insensitive?

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

Liberals being indignant about someone using a tragedy as a political tool is about as intellectually dishonest and pathetically hypocritical as you can get. It makes me sick to my stomach. Don't imagine you are fooling anyone other than the people who already agree with you. To everyone else, it's just ...

So it's not the fact that Republicans are using a tragedy as a cheap political "gotcha," it's the fact that liberals don't like it that makes you "sick to your stomach."

That certainly puts your indignation in perspective.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by gtc

Also your use of sarcasm rendered your post ambiguous.

Oops. Most people find that my use of sarcasm makes my point utterly clear. I'm sorry if it went over your head.

Quote:

There is no 'apparently' about it. That is what I said.

Yeah, I thought that that was what you were saying. But I gave you a chance to back out.

Let it be known that according to qtc the question is not whether Fox News was wrong, but why Fox News was wrong.

The fact that Fox News was wrong is apparently to be taken as a premise.

Quote:

They were wrong because they thought that Obama would address the shootings first but he didn't. Why they thought that is the issue under discussion.

Oh, I thought the discussion was about whether Obama was being "insensitive", because I was mislead by the title of the thread in which we are participating, which tricked me into thinking that that was what we were talking about. The OP can be so darn misleading when we try to figure out what a thread is actually about, can it not?

If the actual question that we're debating here is why Fox News was wrong --- then that would be a very different debate, and one which I did not realize that we were engaging in.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

LOL. You're way off with that one.

And yet it's Obama's use of the phrase "shout out" that seems to drive the wingnuts into maximum hysteria mode. He said a lot of other things that acknowledged the existence of his audience and the reason why he was talking to them, he spent several minutes doing so, but the thing that really makes the wingnuts froth and foam is his use of an idiomatic black expression --- "shout out". I haven't seen the idiots quote any other words out of all the words that the President said on this occasion. Have you?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Redtail

I see your nit and call your "congressional".

Yes, I recognize the man in question didn't win the big one, but people were referring to that medal in particular. I am not certain if the military tradition is the same with other medals, but I know that "winner" is considered inappropriate for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Yes, I recognize the man in question didn't win the big one, but people were referring to that medal in particular. I am not certain if the military tradition is the same with other medals, but I know that "winner" is considered inappropriate for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Oh You're right, I was just bored. (And decided to pick nits too.)

For the record I know several people who got the Purple Heart and if you were to say they "won" it they would get upset to say the least.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by gtc

Why yes, yes they were insensitive.

It will be funny to watch the people who condemned Bush for reading The Pet Goat on 9/11 lining up to defend Obama.

Is there a transcript online or just the video?

You are comparing Bush's reaction in the midst of a national emergency (you recall, planes flying into buildings) to Obama's pre-statements about a local tragedy that had started and completed?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Daredelvis

I am not sure what point you have been trying to make, but it is in fact the Congressional Medal of Honor. If that is the point you have been trying to make, thanks, if not, I wish to clear this up for the readers of this thread.

For example, Clyde Lassen was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Lurker

You are comparing Bush's reaction in the midst of a national emergency (you recall, planes flying into buildings) to Obama's pre-statements about a local tragedy that had started and completed?

I am still amazed that people are still kvetching about him finishing his time with those kids as some sort of foul. Horsecrap. There is nothing he could have done in a few minutes that his subordinates weren't already doing. For him to act like a drama queen, or some Hollywood version of a President, would have been out of character. The few minutes extra he spent with those kids was worth it to them, and in no way detracted from his role and responsibilties.

It has to be one of the most idiotic criticisms of Pres Bush, a man who attracted valid criticism the way a magnet attracts iron filings, that he completed his time with the school kids and then got on with his job.

The implicit assumption that Presidents would or ought to make a split second, or a knee jerk reaction, to unfolding events is Hollywood, not real life. Spend a few days in a command post a few rungs down from the President, as I have. Sheesh. Not even four stars make split second reactions. At that level, and above, very few decisions rely on seconds, or a few minutes, particularly when you are dealing with a first report.

The use of the Nuclear War football is one of the few that would require a rapid decision, at that level.

DR

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by ProbeX

The OP complaint is embarrassing for those of us who subscribe to some or many Republican viewpoints.

There's something to be said for having (at least) a strong two-party system in the US but this kind of petty nitpicking only highlights how some in the GOP have lost their bearings and are giving the party a bad name. The complaint in this thread comes across as trifling, desperate, bitter, jealous, immature and worst of all, weak.

It reminds me when Sean Hannity complained that Obama was using a French mustard on his hamburger adn couldn't he just be like your average American and use ketchup?

I KID YOU NOT!!!!

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am still amazed that people are still kvetching about him finishing his time with those kids as some sort of foul. Horsecrap. There is nothing he could have done in a few minutes that his subordinates weren't already doing. For him to act like a drama queen, or some Hollywood version of a President, would have been out of character. The few minutes extra he spent with those kids was worth it to them, and in no way detracted from his role and responsibilties.

My post was about the attempted equivalencing of the two events. Bush's event was ongoing and of a much larger magnitude than Obama's event which was relatively minor and quite over.

Quote:

The implicit assumption that Presidents would or ought to make a split second, or a knee jerk reaction, to unfolding events is Hollywood, not real life. Spend a few days in a command post a few rungs down from the President, as I have. Sheesh. Not even four stars make split second reactions. At that level, and above, very few decisions rely on seconds, or a few minutes, particularly when you are dealing with a first report.

The use of the Nuclear War football is one of the few that would require a rapid decision, at that level.

DR

I actually will disagree with you here, DR. You speak with someone who is looking back and knows the outcome. At the time, we had no idea how many planes were involved or the scope of what was to come. We did know that America faced an unprecedented series of events that, at the time, seemed without end. I think Bush should have politely excused himself and attended to the emergency of the decade. Decisions don't have to be made in split seconds but minutes could matter. Who orders planes to be shot down? How is that decision arrived and and who gives authority? Were there going to be more attacks and how to respond? I'd rather have Bush being fully debriefed right away instead of waiting half an hour to start getting the full debriefings.

The whole premise of your post being that Bush could not have done anything is predicated on us knowing the breadth of the attacks before they were completed.

ETA: All that said, I don't think this critique of Bush is a major issue but I do think he should have reacted differently.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Lurker

My post was about the attempted equivalencing of the two events. Bush's event was ongoing and of a much larger magnitude than Obama's event which was relatively minor and quite over.

Exactly. And Obama's team had communicated to him what he felt he needed to know, to the extent that he could understand the available information.

All the Shrub knew was what Andy Card had whispered in his ear. Then he just sat there for a while with the most vapid look I have ever seen on the face of the POTUS in public. He didn't ask any questions. He did not try to involve himself in any of the planning for an alternative route by which to leaved the building. I have never really thought that he even looked in charge of anything.

[daredelvis]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am not sure what point you have been trying to make, but it is in fact the Congressional Medal of Honor. If that is the point you have been trying to make, thanks, if not, I wish to clear this up for the readers of this thread.

For example, Clyde Lassen was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

DR

My point is that if one is going to pick nits they should at least be accurate. From the wiki page:

Quote:

The medal is frequently called the Congressional Medal of Honor, stemming from its award by the Department of Defense "in the name of Congress" though the official and correct title is Medal of Honor.

For example one could (and someone on wiki did) say

Quote:

Clyde Everett Lassen (1942–1994), a native of Fort Myers, Florida, was a United States Navy aviator who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his rescue of two downed aviators while piloting a search and rescue helicopter in Vietnam.

These nit picks are only slightly less vacuous then the "question" expressed in the OP.

Daredelvis

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

Liberals being indignant about someone using a tragedy as a political tool is about as intellectually dishonest and pathetically hypocritical as you can get. It makes me sick to my stomach. Don't imagine you are fooling anyone other than the people who already agree with you. To everyone else, it's just ...

I am... unsure how to evaluate your comments in a way that does not make you look like an immense hypocrite.

Can you please clarify? Was the exact offense using the tragedy to take cheap political shots, or someone actually getting annoyed about that?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

It has to be one of the most idiotic criticisms of Pres Bush, a man who attracted valid criticism the way a magnet attracts iron filings, that he completed his time with the school kids and then got on with his job.

I agree with this. Let's give blame where blame is due. There's really nothing he could have done in that minute or two that would have mattered.

Besides, it was Bush. I'm not sure I would have wanted a quick reaction from him.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Lurker

The whole premise of your post being that Bush could not have done anything is predicated on us knowing the breadth of the attacks before they were completed.

My premise is that he need not have reacted quickly, with quickly here being "quick enough to suit after the fact criticism by people who've got a curious idea of time/event flow based on unknown influences." (I assume Hollywood, or TV, but I may be wrong). Your complaint seems to be in how he appears to have been reacting, perception management.

At that level, finishing what one is doing while various subordinates scurried about doing what they do was about what most people at that level do until enough info to make a decision arrives. The other point is on perception. If he was perceived as panicking, or reacting in a rush/fit of emotion, then there is ample criticism available there, and should be. The higher up in command you go, the less suitable it is to panic, get over excited, and be a drama queen.

Quote:

ETA: All that said, I don't think this critique of Bush is a major issue but I do think he should have reacted differently.

I think your assumptions about what he ought to do, and the timelines involved, are in error. Most of the "reacting" was being done by his subordinates. Any dramatic action he would have undertaken would have been ... staged, and as such phony, and as such worthy of criticism in its own right.

Originally Posted by Meademaker

Besides, it was Bush. I'm not sure I would have wanted a quick reaction from him.

Good point.

DR

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

My premise is that he need not have reacted quickly, with quickly here being "quick enough to suit after the fact criticism by people who've got a curious idea of time/event flow based on unknown influences." (I assume Hollywood, or TV, but I may be wrong). Your complaint seems to be in how he appears to have been reacting, perception management.

Perception management? I'm sorry, I don't even know what you are talking about here. What *I* am saying is Bush should have politely excused himself from the class and attended to the events at hand.

Quote:

At that level, finishing what one is doing while various subordinates scurried about doing what they do was about what most people at that level do until enough info to make a decision arrives. The other point is on perception. If he was perceived as panicking, or reacting in a rush/fit of emotion, then there is ample criticism available there, and should be. The higher up in command you go, the less suitable it is to panic, get over excited, and be a drama queen.

I'm not sure *drama queen* has to do with the President excusing himself and attending to the crisis. Yes, I do not want him yelling and screaming but I do want him briefed on what is going on.

I note you did not address ANY of my queries about chain of command on shooting down planes and other possible reactions.

Quote:

I think your assumptions about what he ought to do, and the timelines involved, are in error. Most of the "reacting" was being done by his subordinates. Any dramatic action he would have undertaken would have been ... staged, and as such phony, and as such worthy of criticism in its own right.

Again, you approach all of this as if by the time he was reading the book to the class that the whole event was over. Alas, during his read he was informed of ANOTHER plane crash. I feel pretty strongly that he should have excused himself and attended to the unfolding events. Planes being crashed into skyscrapers is pretty high on the crisis list IMO. At the time, we had no idea what was next. But if you feel the appropriate response was to continue to sit in the class for another half hour and receive limited data upon which to form an opinion then you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrongheaded it is.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

He did not try to involve himself in any of the planning for an alternative route by which to leaved the building.

That isn't his job. That is the job of the security professionals that surround him.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

My premise is that he need not have reacted quickly, with quickly here being "quick enough to suit after the fact criticism by people who've got a curious idea of time/event flow based on unknown influences." (I assume Hollywood, or TV, but I may be wrong). Your complaint seems to be in how he appears to have been reacting, perception management.

At that level, finishing what one is doing while various subordinates scurried about doing what they do was about what most people at that level do until enough info to make a decision arrives. The other point is on perception. If he was perceived as panicking, or reacting in a rush/fit of emotion, then there is ample criticism available there, and should be. The higher up in command you go, the less suitable it is to panic, get over excited, and be a drama queen.

I think your assumptions about what he ought to do, and the timelines involved, are in error. Most of the "reacting" was being done by his subordinates. Any dramatic action he would have undertaken would have been ... staged, and as such phony, and as such worthy of criticism in its own right.

Claiming that the only other possible action would have been dramatic is bifurcation, a logical fallacy. It ignores the obvious choice of the President politely excusing himself, then leaving the room so he could find out more about the nature of the attack. Not to satisfy his curiosity, but so he would be prepared to make decisions as Commander in Chief.

[ProbeX]

Originally Posted by Lurker

It reminds me when Sean Hannity complained that Obama was using a French mustard on his hamburger adn couldn't he just be like your average American and use ketchup?

I KID YOU NOT!!!!

"What is our great nation coming to? I can't believe our national leader refuses to conform to mediocrity!"

[Scootch]

When I heard about this the first thing I thought of was this clip from Amazon Women on the Moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntx6VRcoVjs

(sorry i dont know how to imbed videos yet)

I think if he would have said "but seriously" before speaking of the Fort Hood incident this whole thing wouldn't be an issue.

But seriously I dont think this is an issue at all.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Claiming that the only other possible action would have been dramatic is bifurcation, a logical fallacy. It ignores the obvious choice of the President politely excusing himself, then leaving the room so he could find out more about the nature of the attack. Not to satisfy his curiosity, but so he would be prepared to make decisions as Commander in Chief.

Dr's mention of the football made me wonder about something. I wonder if the President has some sort of secret signal, whether it's a hand signal, code word, electronic device, etc. that means. "Mr. President. Stop what you are doing and get the heck over here right now."

I was just wondering whether there wasn't additional information being sent, or not being sent, to the President at that time, and we are judging on only partial information.

[Stellafane]

Oh, never mind -- I should know better than to wade into the Politics forum anyway.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by daredelvis

The use of the patented Bill O'Reilly "some say" style accusation in in the OP is getting a little old. But as an added benefit we have the lame accusation that Obama was insensitive is quickly morphed into a variant of the tired and ironic Dick Cheney "Amateur hour" critique. Pathetic.

Daredelvis

ETA:

Originally Posted by applecorped

but.....couldn't.....help.....commenting..........

You should have that looked at. I hear there's a treatment for ODS.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Dr's mention of the football made me wonder about something. I wonder if the President has some sort of secret signal, whether it's a hand signal, code word, electronic device, etc. that means. "Mr. President. Stop what you are doing and get the heck over here right now."

I was just wondering whether there wasn't additional information being sent, or not being sent, to the President at that time, and we are judging on only partial information.

What level of crisis situation would you think it appropriate to stop with "hand signals" and just get up and leave to talk directly? It seems the bush apologists in this case think only if nuclear missles have been launched should Bush take the time to excuse himself from the important duties of his reading a book to schoolchildren.

Numerous planes flying into buildings with the possibility of more just does not cut it as a national emergency with you folks. Oooookaaaayyyy......

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Numerous planes flying into buildings with the possibility of more just does not cut it as a national emergency with you folks. Oooookaaaayyyy......

Yeah, us folks are like that.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Yeah, us folks are like that.

So tell me, what level of national emergency is needed to get a President to act (at the very least to start getting debriefed) immediately instead of continuing his photo op?

Do the nukes have to be raining down or something?

You all have a mindset, after the fact, that Bush could not have done anything. Great ex post facto reasoning there.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Perception management? I'm sorry, I don't even know what you are talking about here. What *I* am saying is Bush should have politely excused himself from the class and attended to the events at hand.

The attending necessary is what his subordinates were already doing. But we aren't getting anywhere here ... you are arguing from a matter of (IMO flawed) perception.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Claiming that the only other possible action would have been dramatic is bifurcation, a logical fallacy. It ignores the obvious choice of the President politely excusing himself, then leaving the room so he could find out more about the nature of the attack. Not to satisfy his curiosity, but so he would be prepared to make decisions as Commander in Chief.

You assume that a -, it was necessary, based on nothing but perception, and b - that he was not already prepared. I don't know why you make that assumption. You are making things up to suit your conclusion. Not well played.

Once again, we are derailing here, you make a number of assumptions to get to the point where it is necessary to excuse one's self. When your assumptions are unfounded, your follow on reasoning is as well.

Quote:

So tell me, what level of national emergency is needed to get a President to act (at the very least to start getting debriefed) immediately instead of continuing his photo op?

It's briefed, not debriefed, (nitpicked) and the only decision I can think of that might have been in the offing for a number of hours after initial impact was "Do we start shooting down civilian aircraft or not?"

Decisions to get civil acft out of the sky were made without presidential authority, IIRC.

I'd need to run back to the timeline, with how many planes had or hadn't hit what, and the goat book event, to see if there was an overlap.

But we have derailed, and I am done with this one.

DR

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Lurker

So tell me, what level of national emergency is needed to get a President to act (at the very least to start getting debriefed) immediately instead of continuing his photo op?

Do the nukes have to be raining down or something?

You all have a mindset, after the fact, that Bush could not have done anything. Great ex post facto reasoning there.

I just think it's amusing for me to be lumped in with "Bush apologists".

For what it's worth, I did a bit of googling, and learned something:

"According to Bill Sammon in Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House, Bush's Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was in the back of the classroom holding a pad on which he had written "Don't say anything yet."[3] Sammon contends that, although Bush was not wearing his glasses, he was able to read this message, and it went unnoticed by the media. Sammon further asserts,"

ETA: Source - Wikipedia article on "The Pet Goat"

So, it appears that there was indeed some other communication going on.

Should Bush have acted differently? I don't know. I suppose. There's a lot of speculation about things that should have been done differently. Some people in the entourage wanted to rush in and and get him out of there. Perhaps he assumed that would happen if the situation was truly dangerous and required his immediate attention. Certainly, many people would have reacted differently than he did when told that "America is under attack".

To relate this to the OP, people analyze and dissect the actions of the President's smallest actions and words, but, really, too much is made of most of those things. This just isn't very significant.

[Yoink]

I can see why people who just happened to be watching Fox News at the time and weren't really paying attention initially got upset by this. They thought that the President was calling a special news conference to talk about the Fort Hood thing and then came out and blathered about something else.

Of course, anyone paying attention at the time should have realized that the President was walking out into a room at a previously arranged appearance and speaking to an audience many of whom would have heard nothing whatsoever about the tragedy at Fort Hood. He was not "making a statement to the nation," he was speaking to a room full of people gathered to discuss America's First Nations, and allowing the nation to listen in. The people in that room were expecting a speech from the President directly addressing the business of the conference. The President, consequently, did the polite and proper thing. He acknowledged the people in the room, acknowledged the business of the conference, explained why he was cutting the expected speech short, and turned to the developing situation at Fort Hood.

For anyone not caught up in the heat of the moment and in full possession of the facts about the situation in which the President was speaking to claim to be outraged or shocked by this is pure and simple fauxtrage. Mind you, it just gets tossed onto the ever-growing heap of such bogus "controversies" along with the Mom Jeans, the mustard, the presents to the Queen etc. etc. etc. There really is nothing so absurdly trivial that the righties can't work themselves into a lather about it, on cue.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

"According to Bill Sammon in Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House, Bush's Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was in the back of the classroom holding a pad on which he had written "Don't say anything yet."[3] Sammon contends that, although Bush was not wearing his glasses, he was able to read this message, and it went unnoticed by the media. Sammon further asserts,"

And my contention is that this is not enough communication concerning the ongoing emergency.

Quote:

Should Bush have acted differently? I don't know. I suppose. There's a lot of speculation about things that should have been done differently. Some people in the entourage wanted to rush in and and get him out of there. Perhaps he assumed that would happen if the situation was truly dangerous and required his immediate attention. Certainly, many people would have reacted differently than he did when told that "America is under attack".

Keep in mind, Bush was told about the first attack en route to the school. He was told about the second attack when he started with the class and knew it was a terrorist attack at that point. He then stayed to finish with the class before leaving. I think he should have recognized the gravity of the situation adn left then.

That being said, I don't consider it a hangable offense. Just a mistake in judgement. Not a huge deal.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Lurker

That being said, I don't consider it a hangable offense. Just a mistake in judgement. Not a huge deal.

Just a mistake in judgement = not what I would have done. And that's a fair position for you to take.

Quote:

Not a huge deal

While my original response to this was "not a deal in the first place" your assessment is close enough to a fair position as need be.

DR

[Lurker]

Damn you, DR. For having fallen to the dark side you are far too reasonable.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

You assume that a -, it was necessary, based on nothing but perception, and b - that he was not already prepared. I don't know why you make that assumption. You are making things up to suit your conclusion. Not well played.

Once again, we are derailing here, you make a number of assumptions to get to the point where it is necessary to excuse one's self. When your assumptions are unfounded, your follow on reasoning is as well.

I am of course making a few assumptions here:

1. Bush made decisions like a rational adult. Evaluating the information available instead of shooting in the dark and trusting Jesus to guide his hand to the target.

2. Bush didn't already know all about the attack because he was in on the conspiracy.

3. The book in his hand was really "The Pet Goat" and not an electronic device briefing him on the terror attacks.

I may in fact be wrong about that first assumption.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

I am of course making a few assumptions here:

You might have quit about here ... and don't quit your day job.

[Meadmaker]

So today there was a memorial at Fort Hood, and the headline from Reuters is something along the line of "Obama speaks at memorial".

I think the emphasis is misplaced.

And of course, no matter what he says, a lot of people who don't like his tax policies will say it is wrong.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Keep in mind, Bush was told about the first attack en route to the school. He was told about the second attack when he started with the class and knew it was a terrorist attack at that point. He then stayed to finish with the class before leaving. I think he should have recognized the gravity of the situation adn left then.

But part of the communication in those situations isn't necessarily the words spoken, but the degree of urgency conveyed. If you surround yourself with competent people, you will know when it's necessary to step in and act, and when your subordinates are taking care of the situation.

And Bush tended to surround himself with people who did one heckuva job.

[Darth Rotor]

Let me answer the OP simply:

Were Obama's remarks after Fort Hood shooting insensitive?

Nope



My campaign to win the November Pith award has begun.

DR

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

I am... unsure how to evaluate your comments in a way that does not make you look like an immense hypocrite.

If Whiplash didn't have unintentional self-parody, what would he have?

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But part of the communication in those situations isn't necessarily the words spoken, but the degree of urgency conveyed. If you surround yourself with competent people, you will know when it's necessary to step in and act, and when your subordinates are taking care of the situation.

Yeah, I suppose they could have used hand signals to ask the President whether he was granting authority to shoot down passenger jets. Good point.