• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News Poll: Most Voters Say Allow Gays to Serve Openly

Would you say that if it was Bush. Remember what was said about Bush at a school during 911?

Allot of things were said about Bush after 9/11, so what? This has nothing to do with being responsible vs being at fault. Only the idiots and cool aid drinking partisan fools trued to blame Bush. What does this tell you?

Being responsible does not automatically make you at fault. To try and infer otherwise using Bush, and 9/11 as an example is nothing more than partisan hackery.
 
Last edited:
[quoteThis particular officer slipped through the cracks because of the politically correct climate in the military. Although, you should know, when his behavior was the most radical, Bush was still President][/quote]

Horse **** his behavior was most radical when he killed the 13 people at Ft Hood.........

How you and your daddy Obama can not say the words that it was a terrorist attack just to appease some muslims in the Mid East is beyond me........
 
Allot of things were said about Bush after 9/11, so what? This has nothing to do with being responsible vs being at fault. Only the idiots and cool aid drinking partisan fools trued to blame Bush. What does this tell you?

Being responsible does not automatically make you at fault. To try and infer otherwise using Bush, and 9/11 as an example is nothing more than partisan hackery.

It is showing the hypocrisy and how there is 2 standards. The GOP is condemned while the dems get a pass.
 
It is showing the hypocrisy and how there is 2 standards. The GOP is condemned while the dems get a pass.

"Only the idiots and cool aid drinking partisan fools tried to blame Bush. What does this tell you? - Blackdog
 
It was nice to see General Petraeus on Meet the Press today not coming out in full support of dropping DADT and also Governor Pawletty say if it ain't broke don't fix it............
 
Horse **** his behavior was most radical when he killed the 13 people at Ft Hood.........

How you and your daddy Obama can not say the words that it was a terrorist attack just to appease some muslims in the Mid East is beyond me........

Please respond to the counter arguments.

You should being placing blame on his military chain of command that knew this officer was crazy years ago and chose to do nothing about it, primarily because of the PC climate of the Army that has always existed...it just didn't start when Obama was elected. That's something I would know and you would not.

Oh, and by the way, consider before accusing me of "not saying the word terrorist and appeasing muslims" that unlike you, I have actually fought terrorists in combat. You never have and never will.

Who's the terror appeaser now, buddy?
 
It was nice to see General Petraeus on Meet the Press today not coming out in full support of dropping DADT and also Governor Pawletty say if it ain't broke don't fix it............

Pawlenty is going to toe the party line, so that's no shocker.

Petraeus, on the other hand gave me a different impression. He has to walk a fine line and since DADT hasn't been overturned yet, he won't call for it. However, it very much seemed to me like he's open to the study that is being conducted.

Don't assume Patraeus is a right wing guy. He is not. He's gone on the record saying the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, among other things.
 
Last edited:
Please respond to the counter arguments.

You should being placing blame on his military chain of command that knew this officer was crazy years ago and chose to do nothing about it, primarily because of the PC climate of the Army that has always existed...it just didn't start when Obama was elected. That's something I would know and you would not.

Oh, and by the way, consider before accusing me of "not saying the word terrorist and appeasing muslims" that unlike you, I have actually fought terrorists in combat. You never have and never will.

Who's the terror appeaser now, buddy?

If it was a military problem then Obama is still responsible as commander in chief
 
Pawlenty is going to toe the party line, so that's no shocker.

Petraeus, on the other hand gave me a different impression. He has to walk a fine line and since DADT hasn't been overturned yet, he won't call for it. However, it very much seemed to me like he's open to the study that is being conducted.

Don't assume Patraeus is a right wing guy. He is not. He's gone on the record saying the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, among other things.

The point is it will take years to over turn it and it is not sure that will happen.

Obama may not be president when this makes it to the senate
 
If it was a military problem then Obama is still responsible as commander in chief

Yeah, I saw your last post. MAJ Hassan's most radical behavior was exhibited several years ago while he was stationed at Walter Reed, while GWB was president. My whole point (as I've mentioned several times) is that you should hold folks accountable for their inaction, which in this case would be the cowardly chain of command. I doubt Bush nor Obama had ever heard of MAJ Hassan before. I don't see how it's their fault. Policy issues? Blame the President. Individual behavior? No.

I would imagine if this happened on Bush's watch, you'd be singing a different tune.
 
The point is it will take years to over turn it and it is not sure that will happen.

Obama may not be president when this makes it to the senate

It might. But Petreaus is being groomed to take Mullen's job as CJCS someday. If the policy is overtuned before or while he is in that job, he won't be on the record opposing it. He's a pretty smart guy, he'll play his hand right.
 
Yeah, I saw your last post. MAJ Hassan's most radical behavior was exhibited several years ago while he was stationed at Walter Reed, while GWB was president. My whole point (as I've mentioned several times) is that you should hold folks accountable for their inaction, which in this case would be the cowardly chain of command. I doubt Bush nor Obama had ever heard of MAJ Hassan before. I don't see how it's their fault. Policy issues? Blame the President. Individual behavior? No.

I would imagine if this happened on Bush's watch, you'd be singing a different tune.

So the commander in chief is not responsible for failures in the Military?
 
It might. But Petreaus is being groomed to take Mullen's job as CJCS someday. If the policy is overtuned before or while he is in that job, he won't be on the record opposing it. He's a pretty smart guy, he'll play his hand right.

It is not up to the military. Congress has to over turn it.
 
So the commander in chief is not responsible for failures in the Military?

Policy/Strategic failures, yes. Individual failure? No.

Did anyone blame Bush when SGT Akbar threw grenades into my Brigade's command tent in Kuwait just prior to the invasion of Iraq?

No, of course not that would be silly. Even though his chain of command didn't want to deploy him because of major behavior concerns. The buck doesn't always stop with the President. That is a very amateur viewpoint.

Please hold people responsible for their actions. I thought you were a conservative? Because you sound like a big govt. liberal right now.
 
It is not up to the military. Congress has to over turn it.

Yeah, no ****. I didn't say any different. Are you that dense or just trying to be annoying on purpose?
 
Policy/Strategic failures, yes. Individual failure? No.

Did anyone blame Bush when SGT Akbar threw grenades into my Brigade's command tent in Kuwait just prior to the invasion of Iraq?

No, of course not that would be silly. Even though his chain of command didn't want to deploy him because of major behavior concerns. The buck doesn't always stop with the President. That is a very amateur viewpoint.

Please hold people responsible for their actions. I thought you were a conservative? Because you sound like a big govt. liberal right now.

Depends if Obama does anything to prevent this from happening agaim. Notice the tent grenades did not happen again after that.

I understand the ladder of command but Obama must make sure those under him take steps and set up policies to prevent this type of thing from happening again.
 
Depends if Obama does anything to prevent this from happening agaim.

Fort Hood has already taken these measures. It's an Army issue, not a Presidential issue. The Army needs to fix this.

Notice the tent grenades did not happen again after that.

Actually it did. There were several more high-profile "fragging" cases after Akbar in 2003. So there you go. But I don't blame Bush, unlike you.

I understand the ladder of command but Obama must make sure those under him take steps and set up policies to prevent this type of thing from happening again.

Again, very amateurish to make this an issue at the highest levels. These are Army problems that must be mitigated by the Army, which trust me, is already happening. We don't take threats to the chain of command or other soldiers lightly.
 
The left keeps promoting certain General's views. They can not change it.

Well, I don't spend my days worrying about what particular hacks are saying about anything. I did not say that Generals or the President could overturn the policy; I am acutely aware that is not the case. Not sure who specifically "the left" is in this instance. I think anyone with a clue who is tuned into the issue knows full well it will take congress to overturn.
 
Fort Hood has already taken these measures. It's an Army issue, not a Presidential issue. The Army needs to fix this.



Actually it did. There were several more high-profile "fragging" cases after Akbar in 2003. So there you go. But I don't blame Bush, unlike you.



Again, very amateurish to make this an issue at the highest levels. These are Army problems that must be mitigated by the Army, which trust me, is already happening. We don't take threats to the chain of command or other soldiers lightly.

So Obama as Commander in chief is not responsible to make sure his generals fix this?
 
Well, I don't spend my days worrying about what particular hacks are saying about anything. I did not say that Generals or the President could overturn the policy; I am acutely aware that is not the case. Not sure who specifically "the left" is in this instance. I think anyone with a clue who is tuned into the issue knows full well it will take congress to overturn.

You brought up Patreus.
 
So Obama as Commander in chief is not responsible to make sure his generals fix this?

Dude, seriously.

I have defeated your argument that Ft. Hood was Obama's fault. It clearly was not. Thanks for conceding.

I am 100% sure that Obama has talked personally with Army CoS GEN Casey to take measures to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Actually, I know it for a fact. We have already seen the residual effects of policy changes.

I am not saying that the President should not take action here. I am simply saying that blaming him for what happened is a bridge to far, just like I would say that if Bush was President.

It's a matter of understanding the chain of responsibility and WHO at WHAT level can effectively prevent individual action. What you are saying is that Obama found out about MAJ Hassan and said, "oh well, this guy sounds like he's not crazy, so let him be". We of course know that it didn't happen that way. What we do know is that MAJ Hassan's behavior was noticed and reported and nothing was done. THAT is the fault of his immediate supervisors.
 
Back
Top Bottom