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

reply to post by chiefsmom


No, I'm saying there is a system or protocol in place that establishes the criteria and defines who will or will not get the medal and/or the benefits.

It was there long before Obama.

There is also an established method for changing it. To say Obama has betrayed them is histrionic and inaccurate. To latch onto every claim made about Obama and beat it to death is partisan and unproductive.

reply to post by chiefsmom


I apologize mom, I was angry at the time of my response.

reply to post by kosmicjack

pjmedia.com...

I posted info above

The administration objects, would that be the Obama administration and would that include Obama?

I think if we were all honest we know why they object.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


No worries!
I was just looking for some clarification, as I really don't see how this has to be a Rep/Dem issue, as far as public opinion goes.
Anyone who looks at the facts including his actions at the time, the fact that he was being watched as a terrorist, it just doesn't make sense that it is not labeled a terrorist attack.

Or maybe it's just me.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


But the objection was related to another shooting and issues surrounding it, not Ft. Hood:

“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.”

Apparently section 552 lumped in both shootings.

reply to post by kosmicjack


OK, but has he tried to change it?
This is the responsibility of the president that is in charge at the time of the incident!

Hell, I don't care if Ron Paul was in the WH at the time!

reply to post by chiefsmom


It's Congress's responsibility to change it.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

But the objection was related to another shooting and issues surrounding it, not Ft. Hood:

“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.”

Apparently section 552 lumped in both shootings.

Yes that is what it looks like.

My strong guess is that, once Hasan is convicted, the Pentagon will join the rest of the government in declaring the shootings a terrorist act and that the uniformed victims will indeed be awarded the Purple Heart and any other additional benefits that come with that designation.

Those killed at the Pentagon on 9/11 were so honored and there’s no obvious distinction between the two groups, other than the fact that Hasan is an American citizen. That’s not a trivial distinction, since the Purple Heart award criteria continually use the words “foreign” and “international:

wounded—
(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.
(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.
(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force inwhich the United States is not a belligerent party.
(4) As the result of an act of any such enemy of opposing Armed Forces.
(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.
(6) After 28 March 1973, as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.
(7) After 28 March 1973, as the result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

That is my guess as well that after this mess is over they will be awarded the Purple Heart, they say it is technically a gray area

President Obama denies Purple Heart to Fort Hood terrorist attack victims
October 23, 2012

A provision was added to the 2012 Defense Appropriations Act that would authorize the Purple Heart Medal for the victims of both the Fort Hood attack and the attack on Soldiers in Arkansas in 2009.

That was one of 32 provisions in the bill that president rejected. In a report from the Office of Management and Budget, keeping the provision for the Purple Hearts would cause the president to veto the bill.

In a report from the Office of Management and Budget, keeping the provision for the Purple Hearts would cause the president to veto the bill.

According to Army Regulation 600-8-22, among the conditions for which the Purple Heart Medal is authorized reads:

"The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States and per 10 USC 1131, effective 19 May 1998, is limited to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under component authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded.

www.examiner.com...

never mind

N/M i'm out

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
President Obama denies Purple Heart to Fort Hood terrorist attack victims
October 23, 2012

A provision was added to the 2012 Defense Appropriations Act that would authorize the Purple Heart Medal for the victims of both the Fort Hood attack and the attack on Soldiers in Arkansas in 2009.

That was one of 32 provisions in the bill that president rejected. In a report from the Office of Management and Budget, keeping the provision for the Purple Hearts would cause the president to veto the bill.

In a report from the Office of Management and Budget, keeping the provision for the Purple Hearts would cause the president to veto the bill.

According to Army Regulation 600-8-22, among the conditions for which the Purple Heart Medal is authorized reads:

"The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States and per 10 USC 1131, effective 19 May 1998, is limited to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under component authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded.

www.examiner.com...

None of the people at Fort Hood deserve the purple heart. They were not hurt in combat so why should they get an award for it.

I'm just going to put this here. For comparison/contrast.

Cyber, drone operators now eligible for 'Distinguished Warfare' medal

How convenient, now that there is such a push for using drones.

But I will add that Obama isn't responsible for the legislation that makes this possible. Fingers should point at the MIC and the money people.

Unleash the Kraken...I mean the authentic outrage.

Wrong thread.

Second line.

Maybe ALOT of the criticism directed at President Obama regarding Ft. Hood is due to the initial light hearted, cavalier attitude shown by the C-I-C at the Tribal Affairs function that same day. When a stunned nation awaited the comments of their new President on the heinous crime, Obama took the podium to give willdly inappropriate shout outs to various Tribal Leaders, sundry Federal and local politicians...and then kinda sorta mentioned Ft. Hood.

Ar the time, even the adoring media was stymied by Obama's oddly given statement. As expected, many MSM pages have been scrubbed of anything critical of Dear Leader. Here is a blog which notes media reaction to the Obama "about outs" and disrespect of the victims of Ft. Hood:

www.theblogmocracy.com...

No wonder they feel betrayed. It started that very afternoon.

A reminder of what really happened at Ft. Hood:


www.cnn.com...
At least one person is "neutralized" in connection with the incident, and a second is "cornered," retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore told CNN, citing "unofficial, unconfirmed reports" from two sources.

news.yahoo.com...
Armed gunmen Thursday killed .....
A suspect was in custody, Master Sergeant Tim Volkert at Fort Hood told AFP.
But a Killeen police department spokeswoman warned there were still suspects at large. "There has been a shooting at Fort Hood and all the suspects are not in custody at this time," she told AFP. "I know they have active shooters out there."
MSNBC reported there were at least two shooters, with one in custody, adding there was speculation that there may be a third gunman.

www.msnbc.msn.com...
One gunman was reportedly in custody and another was on the loose, NBC News said. A third shooter may be involved, according to NBC News affiliate KCEN in Waco...

www.kdhnews.com...
There are two confirmed suspect shooters, one in custody and another surrounded by swat in a building on post.

www.statesman.com...
Army spokesman Lt. Col. Nathan Banks ... says two shooters were apparently involved.

www.statesman.com...
Fort Hood spokeswoman Sgt. Rebekah Lampan says authorities believe at least two gunmen were involved in the attack on Thursday.

www.freerepublic.com...^www.msnbc.msn.com...
Milly Land, who works at the base fitness center, said she was headed for the graduation ceremony at 2 p.m. at the Howze Theater when the campus was locked down. She went back to the fitness center. She said she spoke by phone with friends at the soldier processing center, who said a gunman walked in about 1:30, walked to the medical area of the processing center, and started shooting. A second gunman was shooting at the theater next door, she said.

www.foxnews.com...
All three of the people believed to have carried out the shooting were soldiers, Lt. General Bob Cone told reporters Thursday evening.

forum.prisonplanet.com...
no.162
--rick perry (gov and bilderberg member) said there were 3 shooters

ca.news.yahoo.com...
Base spokesman Sergeant Major Jamie Poston
"At this point we're looking for the other shooter.... " he added.
"We are on the lookout for the second shooter," Poston said.

ATS
www.abovetopsecret.com...
posts
--''They are reporting a third shooter now.''
[That source was Ms. Shine from the Public Affairs office of Killeen, TX]
--''3rd shooter now being reported as having been shooting "moments ago".''
--''Shepard Smith was talking with someone who confirmed a 3rd shooter.''
--pg19[dwiggen] ''My buddy at Hood just told me that there's a FOURTH SHOOTER! ....There is a confirmed FOURTH SHOOTER who is still at large. They just launched aircraft to search for him. My buddy.. is an Apache mechanic, and they just got word to spin their birds up and go lookin for this guy.''

www.telegraph.co.uk...
One gunman was caught quickly but the second went on the run and was cornered by SWAT teams

blogs.news.com.au...
KCEN-TV in Waco is reporting that one gunman is in custody, the other is involved in a standoff with police. The station is reporting that there is a third shooter.

www.mcclatchydc.com...
Details of the events were sketchy, but officials said the shooting involved two men with M-16 rifles and began about 1:30 p.m.

I think the reason that the government is so eager to portray certain acts as terrorism and others, as in this case, as something else, stems from the fact that they do want to strike fear into Americans about terrorism to garner support for military actions, but they also want to portray to the American people that the military is strong, and that terrorism could never happen or reach one of their installations from the inside.

Something like that anyway is what I am thinking this may be about. But even that doesn't make all that much sense to be honest. It could simply be what it seems like, which is the government would have to spend more money if they took the other route. Classification of things like this should never be based on money. I mean the military gets FIFTY PERCENT, roughly, of all tax dollars collected. THAT is simply crazy. And we wonder why other countries have free health care.

And some will say "ya but our military is the reason we are still a country," and they would be wrong. First of all, the reason we are still a country is because of the regular American and their willingness to die for democracy, which we barely are hanging onto now. Those who gained independence for us were not a military that was financed, or barely financed. And secondly, how many times has America been attacked and forced into a war? Let's see...There was the War for Independence, the War of 1812, and WWII...That is the 3 times we have actually had to go to war. Some may also include the Mexican-American War and WWI as well, and that is fair I would say. The Civil War does not count imo since the Southern states were never recognized as a sovereign nation, so that war took place between Americans and had nothing to do with a foreign country.

But so many of the conflicts that our military has engaged in and won were not necessary for the preservation of the USA. So why is half of America's income being spent on our military? It is just ridiculous. So that we can spill the blood of young American men for the sake of corporate profits? For the likes of companies like Haliburton, and others that the political elite and financial elite are a part of? Why should we both die for their benefit, as well as turn around and GIVE them half of our tax dollars as well? The military industrial complex is run by politicians, and like it or not, it will eventually come to a head. So do not give up your guns, or let them regulate or dictate any more on an issue they have no right to mess with. Constitutionally I mean, they have no legal basis to alter our right to bear arms in any way.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
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

Neither are any of the other places we are in are combat WAR zones.
Best I Can remember war hasn't been declared anywhere since WWII

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.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Well You Know That Commander In Chief.
Little Punk Never Had To Serve.
Don Henley If You Please.
LMAO I Just Wonder How Many Of You Had To Serve.
Ex ARMY
Took Me 15 Years To Get 20% Disability.
God Bless The USA