Fort Hood Hero Says President Obama 'Betrayed' Her, Other Victims, Newly obtained video

Newly obtained video.

abcnews.go.com...

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.

Sorry, didn't know where to post this but watching that man cry made me cry,

Obama betrays us all everyday.
abcnews.go.com...

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."

I would say it was a terrorist attack.

"These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue," said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said.

"It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us," said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries.

An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as "combat related," but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army.

Overruled why?
Why are/were, they so desperate to have this unrelated to terrorism?

Any guesses?

youtu.be...

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.

Tonight's broadcast report also includes dramatic new video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day.

The government and the military will never admit that it was a terrorist attack, they can`t admit it.
If they did admit that it was indeed a terrorist attack then they would be admitting that the U.S. military has been infiltrated by terrorist and they have gone undetected and many may still be undetected..
I wonder how many more terrorist are in our military that haven`t been detected yet??
Since the government can`t even secure the military from terrorist infiltration what hope is there that they can secure the entire country from terrorist infiltration?

Originally posted by Tardacus
The government and the military will never admit that it was a terrorist attack, they can`t admit it.
If they did admit that it was indeed a terrorist attack then they would be admitting that the U.S. military has been infiltrated by terrorist and they have gone undetected and many may still be undetected..
I wonder how many more terrorist are in our military that haven`t been detected yet??

edit on 12-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

Absolutely infiltrated, and at its highest levels.

Political Correctness wins the day again.

It will be our downfall trying to make everybody feel good while demonizing the true victims.

Apparently there is no end to feigned outrage over Obama.

If anyone could, in good conscious, receive a Purple Heart from that incident, they are doing a disservice to their fellow soldiers who actually braved battle in a designated war zone.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Apparently there is no end to feigned outrage over Obama.

If anyone could, in good conscious, receive a Purple Heart from that incident, they are doing a disservice to their fellow soldiers who actually braved battle in a designated war zone.

Hmm I am surprised by your comment.

feigned outrage

You think these soldiers are being deceitful?

Not sure I understand.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


No.

I'm saying some people like to take any issue, make it Obama's fault and beat it to death on the internet.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

never mind not worth it

edit on 032828p://bTuesday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

But this is Obama's fault

Fingers have been pointed

"used for political advantage" pretty strong words

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
But this is Obama's fault

Fingers have been pointed

"used for political advantage" pretty strong words

I didn't say that, those involved did,.

reply to post by kosmicjack


I'm confused then,
If he is the commander and chief of all branches of the military, then technically it is his fault, right?

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by kosmicjack

 

I'm confused then,
If he is the commander and chief of all branches of the military, then technically it is his fault, right?

Only if you are a republican.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

No.

I'm saying some people like to take any issue, make it Obama's fault and beat it to death on the internet.

We'll ignore your Obama apology. I'm sure you can't help yourself. However how does this do a disservice to others serving in the military?

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Well that was helpful.


If he is the commander and chief of them, can he not change the policy on this issue? Or at least try to?
How does that make anyone a Republican, Democrat, whatever?

I thought they labeled this guy a terrorist?

Ah. Never charged with it.

They wouldn't even classify it as a hate crime.

The shooter shouted praise to Allah as he shot his victims.

Not a hate crime? No, I guess he shot them because he liked them so much.

i]reply to post by chiefsmom


He doesn't write the rules and regs.

While I agree it seems like a bit of a dodge on the medical care aspect of it, there is pending litigation which prevents the military from laying out their side of the case.

Regardless, the military protocols for handling the incident were likely set in place long before Obama. Why aren't they bitching about their Texas Congressional delegation who could propose a bill to Congress which might provide some relief, like the 9/11 victims? Or the Hurricane Sandy victims?

Likely it has to do with their personal politics.

reply to post by kosmicjack


So basically, no matter which side politically you are on, common sense (according to his actions at the time of the shooting.) goes right out the window, as to the handling of the aftermath?

reply to post by Bilk22


How gracious of you.

www.purpleheart.org...

Chartered by Congress in 1958, The Military Order of the Purple Heart is composed of military men and women who received the Purple Heart Medal for wounds suffered in combat. Although our membership is restricted to the combat wounded, we support all veterans and their families with a myriad of nation-wide programs by Chapters and National Service Officers

Fort Hood is not a designated combat zone.

Their reps are already working on getting them the Purple Heart:

blog.chron.com...

That's how it should be done. Congress makes the laws.

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by kosmicjack

 

So basically, no matter which side politically you are on, common sense (according to his actions at the time of the shooting.) goes right out the window, as to the handling of the aftermath?

I don't have any idea how the military decides these sort of things, but I don't think the soldiers involved deserve to be treated the way they have been by the higher ups or the government.

No. 26 on the list of veto-worthy offenses is objection to 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, Arkansas,” 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; as a result, this provision could create appellate issues.”

The Administration objects to ,
pjmedia.com...
Ok so who is the administration,

This past December, a letter from the Defense Department was raised at a joint session of the House and Senate Homeland Security committees that noted the Pentagon was “dealing with the threat of violent Islamist extremism in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence.” Lawmakers blasted the language as dismissing the true nature of the tragedy.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill at the end of April to amend Title 10 of the U.S. Code to provide for the award of the Purple Heart to members of the Armed Forces who are killed or wounded in a terrorist attack perpetrated within the United States.

It’s also retroactive. “The Secretaries of the military departments (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard) shall undertake a review of each death or wounding of a member of the Armed Forces that occurred within the United States between January 1, 2009, and the date of the enactment of this Act under circumstances that could qualify the death or wounding as being the result of a terrorist attack.”