Obama After Ft. Hood – Don’t Jump To Conclusions


There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence. Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not “jump to conclusions” about Hasan’s motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

Continue reading

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I believe that Obama’s initial response this time is entirely consistent with his initial response to Ft. Hood.

As many members of his own Democratic Party decried the often rabid level of political discourse in the country, Obama said he is grieving for the victims and their families and honoring those who apparently prevented more deaths.

“Right now the main thing we’re doing is to offer our thoughts and prayers to those who’ve been impacted, making sure that we’re joining together and pulling together as a country,” Obama said.


I think that both the present response and the prior (Ft. Hood) response were entirely appropriate. In both cases, it was better to have full investigations, to obtain all relevant facts, and not have the President of the United States offer any sort of premature opinions/conclusions.

It is entirely regrettable that other politicians, pundits, and bloggers did not exhibit the same wisdom.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA


Good grief Larry, he didn’t address the Ft. Hood shootings until 3 minutes into his opening remarks…..after his infamous shout out as he addressed the Bureau of Indian affairs. It obviously wasn’t serious enough to cancel or postpone his scheduled photo op meeting.

With Ft. Hood we learned right away we were not to jump to conclusions, well, many in the MSM and Congress have jumped to conclusions in this horror, where’s our leader????? IMHO he isn’t capable of offering a “premature opinion” or lead.

: I think that you are being hypercritical — you are basically criticizing style, as opposed to substance. I looked up the episode to which you refer; here’s a fair and balanced description, from the fair and balanced network:

Critics say that through both the tone and brevity of his remarks, Obama “did not appreciate the gravity of what he represents,” said Brad Blakeman, former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush

“It was uncomfortable to watch,” he said of Obama’s comments on Thursday.
“He should have begun his official remarks with the tragedy. The fact that he used colloquialisms like “shout out” — and was so cavalier at the beginning of his remarks — was a reflection of his inability to be presidential,” said Blakeman, though he stressed Obama’s comments were not “ill-intended.”

“He’s not comfortable enough in his role yet,” he said.

Blakeman cited the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, during which Bush was roundly criticized for his immediate reaction to the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Critics blasted Bush, who was visiting a Florida elementary school, for waiting seven minutes to excuse himself from a classroom of students after then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him a second hijacked jetliner had hit the World Trade Center.

“He didn’t have all the information to make a statement,” Blakeman said in Bush’s defense.

But others, like Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, who managed Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign, said Obama handled the Fort Hood tragedy with the right presidential instincts.

“He was eloquent in how he talked about it,” said Beckel. “It was a difficult situation.”

Beckel blasted conservative critics, saying, “Republicans would criticize Obama on how he took a shower in the morning.”

“This is a guy who went to Delaware to see bodies brought back from Afghanistan,” demonstrating a compassion for fallen soldiers and their families….”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/obamas-response-fort-hood-shooting-scrutiny#ixzz1AgOJiKj3

My original reply to Curt was simply noting that Obama wasn’t being either hypocritical or inconsistent, with his responses to Ft. Hood on one hand and Tucson, on the other hand.

– Larry W/HB

I think the main reason there were two different reactions is that anyone watching world events (the Danish cartoon riots, the Christian convert riots, the Paris riots over the deaths of the two fleeing felons, and so on) realizes that if you give Muslims any excuse to become angry with you SOME of them might take you up on it in a violent manner.
BUT…..in the case of a crazy man….you can be as vile as you like, and slime Tea Partiers all you want.
No Tea party member has ever been arrested at a Tea Party event.
And crazy people are far more attentive to the thoughts in their own heads than from would-be inciters from the Left.