Obama Adm. Refuses Benefits to Victims of Hasan

[East of Eden]

According to Obamathink, this wasn't terror, it was 'workplace violence'. Question for debate: Does anyone want to defend this lunacy?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood ... N41Qm80WSo

[Wyvern]

Who is being smeared is those brave soldiers wounded in this terror attack, who are being trivialized as a workplace violence incident by Obama and his apologists.

No one is being smeared due to this bureaucratic decision. As has been stated a number of times already this incident simply does not meet the criteria set long before Obama got into office for the awarding of a purple heart medal, not to mention your claim that the injured soldiers are being denied benefits is completely untrue.

By this silly reasoning the attacks on US soldiers by Afghan army traitors is also workplace violence. What you don't get, or won't admit to due to PC-think, is that both the Afghan traitors and Hasan are on the same side.

By your reasoning every soldier that gets raped by another soldier(it's a lot more common than you think) is a victim of a terrorist attack and should be given a purple heart.

And BTW, I have every right to reference his (and his wife's) excessive vacations and golf that I as a taxpayer are paying for.

From CBS news:

So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.

Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off -- 28 days.

So if 61 days off is excessive what term would you give to Bush taking a half year off or Reagan taking nearly two times as much time off? Instead of taking everything Fox says as being true go out and find the real answers before saying something which is so patently untrue and easily verified.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/presid ... tion-days/

[East of Eden]

Who is being smeared is those brave soldiers wounded in this terror attack, who are being trivialized as a workplace violence incident by Obama and his apologists.

No one is being smeared due to this bureaucratic decision. As has been stated a number of times already this incident simply does not meet the criteria set long before Obama got into office for the awarding of a purple heart medal, not to mention your claim that the injured soldiers are being denied benefits is completely untrue.

The wounded soldiers and me disagree with you.

By your reasoning every soldier that gets raped by another soldier(it's a lot more common than you think) is a victim of a terrorist attack and should be given a purple heart.

If it was done by a pro-jihadist soldier yelling 'Allah Akbar' who had been in contact with foreign terrorists, yes.

So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.

Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off -- 28 days." So if 61 days off is excessive what term would you give to Bush taking a half year off or Reagan taking nearly two times as much time off? Instead of taking everything Fox says as being true go out and find the real answers before saying something which is so patently untrue and easily verified.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/presid ... tion-days/

Obama sure seems to squirm when confronted with it: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-c ... vacations/

There's a difference between Bush or Reagan going to their ranch and Obama spending $4,000,000 going to Hawaii. And if Obama's 'recovery' matched Reagan's, he would deserve a lot of time off. I believe Bush stopped playing golf after 9/11 as it would have been unseemly, Obama has played over 100 rounds.

As of almost a year ago they were at 16 vacations: http://washingtonexaminer.com/michelles ... O8vZG80WSo

I haven't had 16 vacations in three years, have you? And what does Michelle need to be on constant vacations for, for pete's sake living at the White House IS a vacation. She's like Marie Antoinette or something.

Speaking of Michelle, here's a sleazy story about her the lapdog media won't tell us:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo ... 1169/posts

[Wyvern]

Who is being smeared is those brave soldiers wounded in this terror attack, who are being trivialized as a workplace violence incident by Obama and his apologists.

No one is being smeared due to this bureaucratic decision. As has been stated a number of times already this incident simply does not meet the criteria set long before Obama got into office for the awarding of a purple heart medal, not to mention your claim that the injured soldiers are being denied benefits is completely untrue.

The wounded soldiers and me disagree with you.

Good for them and you but unfortunately the secretary of the army along with the guidelines laid out for giving purple hearts does not agree with you. At present the only way these people will get a purple heart is if the president you so revile intervenes in their favor.

By your reasoning every soldier that gets raped by another soldier(it's a lot more common than you think) is a victim of a terrorist attack and should be given a purple heart.

If it was done by a pro-jihadist soldier yelling 'Allah Akbar' who had been in contact with foreign terrorists, yes.

So you are saying this is not like any other attack made on US soil against members of the US army? It's like you think only muslims are capable of making a terrorist attack.

So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.

Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off -- 28 days." So if 61 days off is excessive what term would you give to Bush taking a half year off or Reagan taking nearly two times as much time off? Instead of taking everything Fox says as being true go out and find the real answers before saying something which is so patently untrue and easily verified.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/presid ... tion-days/

Obama sure seems to squirm when confronted with it: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-c ... vacations/

You call that squirming?

There's a difference between Bush or Reagan going to their ranch and Obama spending $4,000,000 going to Hawaii. And if Obama's 'recovery' matched Reagan's, he would deserve a lot of time off. I believe Bush stopped playing golf after 9/11 as it would have been unseemly, Obama has played over 100 rounds.

Prove your golf claim or retract it. Obama made one trip to Hawaii that cost in total four million on the other hand Bush went to his ranch so often that the cost of just operating air force one totaled over 20 million and that does not even include all of the other expenses included when a president travels.

During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a ... n-2355535/

So as it turns out Bush took three times as many days off and it cost upwards of five times as much as the Obama vacations. Why not just admit you are looking for anything and everything you possibly can to smear the president.

I haven't had 16 vacations in three years, have you? And what does Michelle need to be on constant vacations for, for pete's sake living at the White House IS a vacation. She's like Marie Antoinette or something.

Where were all these nice conservative budget travel hawks when Bush was taking three times as many vacation days at a considerably higher price? Maybe you don't know it but the first lady has her own office and staff as well to run her own initiatives and supervise the white house staff. Oh yeah she is also not paid for all the work she does.

More importantly what does all this hot air you are blowing have to do with the OP in the first place?

[micatala]

Your position that Obama has nothing to do with his administration is ludicrous, and I already noted my OP said 'Obama Administration', it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

Completely false.

Nowhere have I said or even implied that Obama has nothing to do with his Administration. I call for you to retract this falsehood unless you can quote where I even implied this.


Since you seem unwilling or unable to specify what you mean when you say Obama is responsible for this decision, and have provided no evidence that he even was or is aware of it, and have refused to respond to questions which get at that issue, I will again do your homework for you.



Here is a description of what counts as a Presidential Administration.

http://www.opm.gov/transition/trans20r-ch1.htm







Here is a description of the relation of the President to the bureacracy which he nominally governs. It is from the Harvard Law Review. See in particular page 2272 and following.

II. PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION -
SOME BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Harry Truman, preparing to leave the Presidency, famously remarked
of his soon-to-be successor: "He will sit here and he'll say, 'Do
this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike - it won't be a bit
like the Army."95 Truman's comment may have applied to more than
the administrative sphere, but his relationship with the federal bureaucracy
doubtless took pride of place as a source of his frustration.
Since the dawn of the modern administrative state, Presidents have
tried to control the bureaucracy only to discover the difficulty of the
endeavor.9 6 On another occasion, Truman complained, "I thought I
was the president, but when it comes to these bureaucrats, I can't do a
damn thing."97 John Kennedy reportedly once told a petitioner, "I
agree with you, but I don't know if the government will."98 Richard
Nixon notoriously viewed himself as surrounded by a hostile administration,
complaining on one occasion to his chief domestic policy advisor that "we have no discipline in this bureaucracy."99 Jimmy Carter
commented in a press conference during the last year of his Presidency
that although he knew from the beginning that "dealing with the federal
bureaucracy would be one of the worst problems [he] would have
to face," the reality had been even "worse than [he] had anticipated.' 00
The reasons for this difficulty and attendant frustration come in
two kinds. The President, as an initial matter, confronts a typical
principal-agent dilemma: how to ensure against slippage between the
behavior the principal desires from the agent and the behavior the
principal actually receives, given the agent's own norms, interests, and
informational advantages. In a world of extraordinary administrative
complexity and near-incalculable presidential responsibilities, no
President can hope (even with the assistance of close aides) to monitor
the agencies so closely as to substitute all his preferences for those of
the bureaucracy. And superimposed on this constraint lies another: the
President, even in theory and even as to executive branch agencies, is
not the single, indisputable principal. Given both the structure of
American government and the requirements of administrative law, the
President must compete for that preeminent position with the other institutions
and groups discussed in Part I. The agents themselves, or at
least those possessing substantive expertise, have a claim to control of
the administrative sector; so too does Congress (or its many parts) and
even special interest organizations. This multiprincipal structure -
creating a welter of cross-pressures, forcing all manner of trade-offs
and compromises, and offering a wealth of opportunities for strategic
machination - forms the context in which a President tries to control
administration. 10' Little wonder that Presidents often have felt powerless
to achieve this objective.

Here is a short comment on who typically is involved in getting a purple heart awareded.

Current active duty personnel are awarded the Purple Heart upon recommendation from their chain of command, stating the injury that was received and the action in which the service member was wounded. The award authority for the Purple Heart is normally at the level of an Army Brigade, Marine Corps Division, Air Force Wing, or Navy Task Force.

Note that the award is typically made with the involvement of people entirely within the military, not political appointees, not even the Secretary of the Army. It would apparently be quite an exceptional case for the Secretary to get involved.

In none of the documents I reviewed did I see any indication the President is ever involved in deciding who does or does not get a purple heart.

Again, if East of Eden would care to stop making wild and unsubstantiated assertions based on "assumptions," slanted and loaded rhetoric like "Obamathink," and inaccurate accusations that are contrary to the facts, and actually provide evidence for his accusations, I am all for that.





However, the above information refutes East of Eden's contention that Obama should be considered to blame for the decision he is complaining about. Given this refutation, and that not one single shred of evidence linking Obama to this decision has been provided, one is completely justified in labeling East of Eden's OP an unsubstantiated and insulting smear.

His administration would I assume think like Obama, hence the term Obamathink.

Assumptions on your part, especially an assumption like this one that can be shown to be false with a few seconds reflection, provide no evidence for your smear.


Members of Obama's Cabinet, the closest members of his Administration, often go on record stating opinions not shared by Obama. Obama has just nominated Chuck Hagel to be a part of his Administration, and I think it is fairly clear Hagel has some opinions that are starkly at odds with Obamas.

So, no, your "Obamathink" assumption is completely and utterly ridiculous on its face as you describe it above.

Who is being smeared is those brave soldiers wounded in this terror attack, who are being trivialized as a workplace violence incident by Obama and his apologists.

I again call for evidence that Obama, and let's be clear, you specifically name him here, has said or done anything to smear these soldiers.


Where is the evidence?

By this silly reasoning the attacks on US soldiers by Afghan army traitors is also workplace violence.

Where did Obama refer to this as workplace violence? Did any member of his actual Administration do so, even?

What you don't get, or won't admit to due to PC-think, is that both the Afghan traitors and Hasan are on the same side.

I call for a retraction of this false accusation against me. You accuse me of PC-think with absolutely no evidence for the charge. You claim I "do not get" that Hasan is somehow allied with Afghan traitors. I have made no comments on anything even related to that issue.

And BTW, I have every right to reference his (and his wife's) excessive vacations and golf that I as a taxpayer are paying for. This is still a democracy, whether you like it or not.

Where have I ever expressed any disagreement with the notion that the U.S. is a democracy? THis is yet another unfounded and false personal attack.

Yes, feel free to continue to make unsubsantiated smears against anyone you want.

Likewise, I will feel free to point out the fact that that is exactly what you are doing.

Wyvern has clearly pointed out that the President's vacations are far from excessive, showing yet again that you offer your insults without any seeming consideration even of their factuality.

[East of Eden]

Who is being smeared is those brave soldiers wounded in this terror attack, who are being trivialized as a workplace violence incident by Obama and his apologists.

No one is being smeared due to this bureaucratic decision. As has been stated a number of times already this incident simply does not meet the criteria set long before Obama got into office for the awarding of a purple heart medal, not to mention your claim that the injured soldiers are being denied benefits is completely untrue.

The wounded soldiers and me disagree with you.

Good for them and you but unfortunately the secretary of the army along with the guidelines laid out for giving purple hearts does not agree with you.

Completely wrong, I trust the wounded soldiers over internet warriors any day.

So you are saying this is not like any other attack made on US soil against members of the US army?

I'm not aware of any similar, are you?

It's like you think only muslims are capable of making a terrorist attack.

They certainly do the majority of them, and are you not aware Hasan is a Muslim?

Prove your golf claim or retract it.

Why do I always have to do your research for you? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... m-critics/

I guess CBS is trying to 'smear' Obama right? Most people would call it reporting the facts.

Obama made one trip to Hawaii that cost in total four million on the other hand Bush went to his ranch so often that the cost of just operating air force one totaled over 20 million and that does not even include all of the other expenses included when a president travels. During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a ... n-2355535/

So as it turns out Bush took three times as many days off and it cost upwards of five times as much as the Obama vacations. Why not just admit you are looking for anything and everything you possibly can to smear the president.

OK, if you want to criticize Bush, fine, but this thread is about Obama. I really doubt Mrs. Bush's trips compare to Michelle. Believe me, I have plenty of criticisms of Bush.

[East of Eden]

Completely false.

Nowhere have I said or even implied that Obama has nothing to do with his Administration. I call for you to retract this falsehood unless you can quote where I even implied this.

Obviously, you have been implying all along that Obama could not have had anything to do with this, and you have ignored that the OP is about the Obama administration.

Since you seem unwilling or unable to specify what you mean when you say Obama is responsible for this decision, and have provided no evidence that he even was or is aware of it, and have refused to respond to questions which get at that issue, I will again do your homework for you.

Here is a description of what counts as a Presidential Administration.

http://www.opm.gov/transition/trans20r-ch1.htm

No kidding, Sherlock, I know what an administration is. What I'm trying to get you to admit is that Obama has any control over it.

Here is a short comment on who typically is involved in getting a purple heart awareded.

The Hasan case is hardly typical.

Note that the award is typically made with the involvement of people entirely within the military, not political appointees, not even the Secretary of the Army. It would apparently be quite an exceptional case for the Secretary to get involved.

This is such an exceptional case.

Again, if East of Eden would care to stop making wild and unsubstantiated assertions based on "assumptions," slanted and loaded rhetoric like "Obamathink," and inaccurate accusations that are contrary to the facts, and actually provide evidence for his accusations, I am all for that.

More distortions spewed from the usual suspect.

However, the above information refutes East of Eden's contention that Obama should be considered to blame for the decision he is complaining about. Given this refutation, and that not one single shred of evidence linking Obama to this decision has been provided, one is completely justified in labeling East of Eden's OP an unsubstantiated and insulting smear.

Uh, can you take a breath and admit Obama has control over his administration, and at least me honest enough to admit the OP was about his administration? Whether the incompetence is from him or his administration, so what?

Assumptions on your part, especially an assumption like this one that can be shown to be false with a few seconds reflection, provide no evidence for your smear.

Members of Obama's Cabinet, the closest members of his Administration, often go on record stating opinions not shared by Obama. Obama has just nominated Chuck Hagel to be a part of his Administration, and I think it is fairly clear Hagel has some opinions that are starkly at odds with Obamas.

No surprise there, like Obama, Hagel has an anti-Israel streak in him.

So, no, your "Obamathink" assumption is completely and utterly ridiculous on its face as you describe it above.

Wow, so Obama appoints people who don't agree with him? Why would he do that?

I again call for evidence that Obama, and let's be clear, you specifically name him here, has said or done anything to smear these soldiers.


Where is the evidence?

He has allowed his administration to continue this travesty. Or do you think he is powerless to change the policy?

Where did Obama refer to this as workplace violence? Did any member of his actual Administration do so, even?

Yes, read the OP, or do I have to do that for you too?

I call for a retraction of this false accusation against me. You accuse me of PC-think with absolutely no evidence for the charge. You claim I "do not get" that Hasan is somehow allied with Afghan traitors. I have made no comments on anything even related to that issue.

That is my opinion, and I will not retract it. You can go around calling others basically liars and smearers, but you can't take it, can you?

Where have I ever expressed any disagreement with the notion that the U.S. is a democracy? THis is yet another unfounded and false personal attack.

Your seeming objection to any questioning of Obama's conduct.

Yes, feel free to continue to make unsubsantiated smears against anyone you want.

And you are free to continue to ignore the obvious.

[Wyvern]

Good for them and you but unfortunately the secretary of the army along with the guidelines laid out for giving purple hearts does not agree with you.[/quote]

Completely wrong, I trust the wounded soldiers over internet warriors any day.[/quote]You are calling the secretary of the army and the commander of the base this happened at internet warriors? Yet again you resort to a personal attack on me instead of actually addressing the issue.

So you are saying this is not like any other attack made on US soil against members of the US army?

I'm not aware of any similar, are you?

As I already stated according to your logic every soldier that is raped would get a purple heart.

It's like you think only muslims are capable of making a terrorist attack.

They certainly do the majority of them, and are you not aware Hasan is a Muslim?

Which is still no reason to make a stereotype which in turn creates a blind spot for anyone else that might want to commit such an act such as McVeigh.

Prove your golf claim or retract it.

Why do I always have to do your research for you? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... m-critics/

I guess CBS is trying to 'smear' Obama right? Most people would call it reporting the facts.

How about you actually try to back up your claim not whatever this smear against Obama is. Sad that you have to be reminded of what you wrote such a short time ago, but here it is again,

I believe Bush stopped playing golf after 9/11

. Lol and how does an article about Obama critics criticizing Obama about anything prove Bush stopped playing golf after 9/11 especially when even a cursory search shows he did in fact play golf after that date.

Obama made one trip to Hawaii that cost in total four million on the other hand Bush went to his ranch so often that the cost of just operating air force one totaled over 20 million and that does not even include all of the other expenses included when a president travels. During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a ... n-2355535/

So as it turns out Bush took three times as many days off and it cost upwards of five times as much as the Obama vacations. Why not just admit you are looking for anything and everything you possibly can to smear the president.

OK, if you want to criticize Bush, fine, but this thread is about Obama. I really doubt Mrs. Bush's trips compare to Michelle. Believe me, I have plenty of criticisms of Bush.

No this thread is not about Obama, that is what you are trying to turn it into. This thread is about the attack made by Hasan and the injured soldiers wanting to receive a purple heart so they can receive enhanced benefits than they otherwise get. Your continued attempts to blame Obama for everything shows what your true intentions of this thread are.

[East of Eden]

You are calling the secretary of the army and the commander of the base this happened at internet warriors?

As my retired Navy captain uncle says, every military officer above a certain rank is a politician. The wounded soldiers aren't.

As I already stated according to your logic every soldier that is raped would get a purple heart.

Never said that, you're fabricating again.

Which is still no reason to make a stereotype which in turn creates a blind spot for anyone else that might want to commit such an act such as McVeigh.

The fact Muslims commit the majority of terror attacks is a fact, not a stereotype. It is just such PC blindness the thread is about.

No this thread is not about Obama, that is what you are trying to turn it into.

It is about a crazy decision by the Obama administration. If you don't know what it is about, why participate?

This thread is about the attack made by Hasan and the injured soldiers wanting to receive a purple heart so they can receive enhanced benefits than they otherwise get. Your continued attempts to blame Obama for everything shows what your true intentions of this thread are.

Perhaps we should blame this decision on the Bush administration, like Obama does with the economy? You seem to think I am obsessed with Obama when this thread is about his administration, yet you bring up Bush out of the blue.

[otseng]

What you don't get, or won't admit to due to PC-think

Speaking of Michelle, here's a sleazy story about her the lapdog media won't tell us

More importantly what does all this hot air you are blowing have to do with the OP in the first place?

Moderator Comment

Let's try to use more a civil and respectful tone in the discussions please.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[micatala]

Completely false.

Nowhere have I said or even implied that Obama has nothing to do with his Administration. I call for you to retract this falsehood unless you can quote where I even implied this.

Obviously, you have been implying all along that Obama could not have had anything to do with this, and you have ignored that the OP is about the Obama administration.

I have not ignored that you mentioned the Administration. I have pointed out you referred to this vague notion of "Obamathink." You have also explicitly in the thread said "Obama" and not "the Administration." Part of my response is because you have refused to be specific. In particular, you have refused to point to any actual behavior by Obama that has anything to do with this. You have refused to specify what you mean by Obama being responsible for this situation. I have asked for clarification, including providing other examples of actions by those that Obama might be considered "responsible for" and you have not addressed those. I am not the one who is ignoring things here.



If you feel I have implied Obama has nothing to do with this, that is your own fault for not providing any direct evidence he did have anything to do with it. My questioning you for evidence to support your own assertions does not equate to denying the possibility.


So, yes, you have made a false assertion about what I have said. Please document that I said what you said I said or retract.

Since you seem unwilling or unable to specify what you mean when you say Obama is responsible for this decision, and have provided no evidence that he even was or is aware of it, and have refused to respond to questions which get at that issue, I will again do your homework for you.

Here is a description of what counts as a Presidential Administration.

http://www.opm.gov/transition/trans20r-ch1.htm

No kidding, Sherlock, I know what an administration is. What I'm trying to get you to admit is that Obama has any control over it.

Well, pardon me for asking, but I see no evidence that you know who is or is not to be considered part of Obama's Administration. If I am confused about your view it is because you have assiduously avoided giving any specifics or responding to questions I asked to get clarification.


I'll ask again.

If a janitor at Mr. Rushmore doesn't clean the bathrooms adequately, is Obama responsible for that or not?

How about a TSA employee groping an airline traveler?

Here is another. How about General Petraeus' marital infidelity? Is "Obamathink" responsible for that or not?




If you want me to buy into your accusation you have to show me that Obama was directly involved in the decision, or that Presidents in general involve themselves in such decisions. I have challenged you to provide such evidence and you have done nothing but issue a blanket "Obama is responsible for his Administration" statement, without specifying who you include in this group.

As my source from Kagan shows, in reality, President's have limited control over many parts of the government. I would certainly accept that have more say over, control if you will, their cabinet members. However, even here, cabinet members are expected to exercise a good deal of autonomy. I doubt Obama goes over every single decision made by Hillary Clinton or any of his other direct reports. If you differ, provide some evidence that this is the case.


Right now all you have provided are a whole lot of assumptions larded on with slanted and vague rhetoric like "Obama think." You have ignored or dismissed evidence that decisions like this are typically dealt with at a much lower level. Your desire that the President get involved and do something is not evidence that he has refused to become involved or is to blame for the original decision within the military.

Here is a short comment on who typically is involved in getting a purple heart awareded.

The Hasan case is hardly typical.

I'll certainly accept that. However, the point stands that Presidents typically do not get involved in such decisions. Niether does the Secretary of Defense of even the Secretaries of individual branches of the armed services. I can accept that you and the soldiers making the request would like a response from the higher echelons. Making such a request is certainly not unreasonable, and I never implied it was.



What IS unreasonable is insulting the President or his Administration with inflammatory rhetoric like "Obamathink" and "lunacy" and suggesting this was a deliberate "refusal" on Obama's part to disrespect the soldiers involved or somehow show sympathy for Hasan. Such insinuations are entirely unwarranted and uncalled for.

Note that the award is typically made with the involvement of people entirely within the military, not political appointees, not even the Secretary of the Army. It would apparently be quite an exceptional case for the Secretary to get involved.

This is such an exceptional case.

Agreed. However, that does not automatically mean an exception to the usual policy should be made. It does not justify insulting and inflammatory rhetoric like "lunacy."

Again, if East of Eden would care to stop making wild and unsubstantiated assertions based on "assumptions," slanted and loaded rhetoric like "Obamathink," and inaccurate accusations that are contrary to the facts, and actually provide evidence for his accusations, I am all for that.

More distortions spewed from the usual suspect.

Feel free to clarify if you think I have distorted your position. I have been asking very specifically for clarification to no end to this point. It is certainly true you have been assuming a number of things without evicence, and it is undeniably true you have used loaded and slanted rhetoric. What else would anyone make of "Obamathink?"

However, the above information refutes East of Eden's contention that Obama should be considered to blame for the decision he is complaining about. Given this refutation, and that not one single shred of evidence linking Obama to this decision has been provided, one is completely justified in labeling East of Eden's OP an unsubstantiated and insulting smear.

Uh, can you take a breath and admit Obama has control over his administration, and at least me honest enough to admit the OP was about his administration? Whether the incompetence is from him or his administration, so what?

Well, yes, you mention the Administration in the OP. You also mention "Obamathink." Later you specifically say "Obama" which pretty clearly means him personally. Now you try to avoid the implications of your own ambiguity and vagueness by saying "so what."


Following that logic, it makes no difference if we fire Obama or the janitor for the janitor not cleaning the bathrooms.

If this is a "so what question" why did YOU specify Obama and Obamathink and not the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Army? You go out of your way to put this at Obama's doorstep and now you say "so what?" Right.

Assumptions on your part, especially an assumption like this one that can be shown to be false with a few seconds reflection, provide no evidence for your smear.

Members of Obama's Cabinet, the closest members of his Administration, often go on record stating opinions not shared by Obama. Obama has just nominated Chuck Hagel to be a part of his Administration, and I think it is fairly clear Hagel has some opinions that are starkly at odds with Obamas.

No surprise there, like Obama, Hagel has an anti-Israel streak in him.

You are missing the point. You made the "assumption" that everyone in the Administration thinks like Obama. It turns out you are wrong, and now you seem not to get the point of the example. I will note Obama and Biden apparently disagreed on the contraception issue. Again, this shows your assumption is wrong.



WHere is this mysterious "Obamathink" you put in the very first post of the thread? Do you have any evidence for his existence other than your own assumptions?

So, no, your "Obamathink" assumption is completely and utterly ridiculous on its face as you describe it above.

Wow, so Obama appoints people who don't agree with him? Why would he do that?

The question is irrelevant. The fact is he has. That fact would seem to suggest your assumptions about "Obamathink" have as much validity as assumptions about unicorns.

I again call for evidence that Obama, and let's be clear, you specifically name him here, has said or done anything to smear these soldiers.


Where is the evidence?

He has allowed his administration to continue this travesty. Or do you think he is powerless to change the policy?

Shifting the goalposts. The fact that Obama potentially could do something unusual, perhaps even unprecedented as far as I know, and has not yet done so is not evidence he has done anything to smear the soldiers or that he has played any role in the decisions that have been made to date.


Do you have any evidence Obama has played any direct role in this situation or not? Do you have any evidence of "Obamathink" or that, whatever it is, it is responsible for this situation?

Where did Obama refer to this as workplace violence? Did any member of his actual Administration do so, even?

Yes, read the OP, or do I have to do that for you too?

I read the OP and the entire article. I saw no instance of Obama referring to workplace violence.


The first instance of that phrase did not specify who said it. Later in the article we have:

The references to "workplace violence" in the video apparently refer to Department of Defense memos in which officials recommend the Department take steps to address workplace violence in response to the 2009 attack. In the Defense Department's final review of recommendations issued by an independent panel following the attack, published in August 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates highlighted workplace violence as an area in which the Defense Department would "strengthen its policies, programs and procedures."

With respect to the Hasan incident, it is unnamed officials who classified it as such. I accept Gates seems to accept the classification made by his subordinates. The phrase, however, seems not to have originated with members of Obama's Administration, and certainly not Obama. It is an internal military decision.

Where is the evidence "Obamathink" is responsible for this? Even if you want to make a huge stretch and assign responsibility for this situation directly to Gates, he was Secretary before Obama came into office. Did Obama somehow hypnotize Gates with his "Obamathink" before he was even a candidate for President? Were all the other military officials, most who presumably were not appointed by Obama and pre-dated his Administration probably for years somehow infected by this yet indiscernible and undefined "Obamathink?"


I again have to ask, why didn't you just state the facts and make a sensible assingment of responsibility to those actually involved in the process?

I call for a retraction of this false accusation against me. You accuse me of PC-think with absolutely no evidence for the charge. You claim I "do not get" that Hasan is somehow allied with Afghan traitors. I have made no comments on anything even related to that issue.

That is my opinion, and I will not retract it. You can go around calling others basically liars and smearers, but you can't take it, can you?

An opinion internally held is one thing. Making a claim on the forum is another. I again call for a retraction. I made no statements on either of these and if you do not have evidence to support your opinion, it should be retracted.

Where have I ever expressed any disagreement with the notion that the U.S. is a democracy? THis is yet another unfounded and false personal attack.

Your seeming objection to any questioning of Obama's conduct.

I only object to false or unsubstantiated accusations, or unjustified inflammatory rhetoric.

I note here you point to Obama's conduct. I have asked again and again for ANY evidence that there has been ANY conduct at all by Obama on this matter. You haven't, even by your own admission, questioned Obama's conduct because you haven't shown he has engaged in any action at all in this matter. As you yourself say when I object, it is Obama's Adminstration, or are you still not clear on that?

My whole point is not to defend Obama's conduct. I have yet to see any evidence of conduct on Obama's part. My objection is that you are accusing Obama of conduct that is not in evidence.

Yes, feel free to continue to make unsubsantiated smears against anyone you want.

And you are free to continue to ignore the obvious.

Calling something obvious is an easy dodge to avoid having to admit you have no evidence. If it was really obvious it should not be so hard to actually provide some evidence.