Wounded Fort Hood survivor

[Jenn]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Sources indicate they spent about 2 hours visting the wounded:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_349463.html

Saturday - 8:47 p.m.:
Former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, have visited wounded soldiers and their families at Fort Hood.

The Bushes made their private visit to Fort Hood's Darnall Army Medical Center on Friday night and according to the Los Angeles Times, the Bushes told the base's commander that they wanted no publicity.

LA Times:

...Sources said the former first couple spent about two hours meeting with family and soldiers, talking quietly and at times hugging them as they did in private at other times of crisis such as post-9/11.

But so what?

[rangerdog]

Why so what? Because they care? Because the only time people speak of the former President is to demean him?

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by rangerdog

Why so what? Because they care? Because the only time people speak of the former President is to demean him?

So, assuming that he's doing this because he "cares," why should it make any bit of difference?

It doesn't erase the tons of damage he did, nor the very likely fact that his policies created the shooter that injured this man in the first place.

I mean, if I did something that caused a mass shooting, you'd bet I'd be down there apologizing and trying to make amends.

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

It doesn't erase the tons of damage he did, nor the very likely fact that his policies created the shooter that injured this man in the first place.

I mean, if I did something that caused a mass shooting, you'd bet I'd be down there apologizing and trying to make amends.

That's more than a bit extreme. Yes, if the war in Afghanistan had never happened, this shooting may have never happened, but that doesn't really mean that he is to blame.

There are plenty of other things that can reasonably be blamed on Bush, no need to try and tie him to this.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

That's more than a bit extreme. Yes, if the war in Afghanistan had never happened, this shooting may have never happened, but that doesn't really mean that he is to blame.

There are plenty of other things that can reasonably be blamed on Bush, no need to try and tie him to this.

Actually, if the Afghanistan and Iraq wars had never happened, I can pretty much guarantee you that the shooting would not have occured, as well as many other tragic things.

This was a direct result of his policies and actions. He bears some blame.

[CannonFodder]

Hmm, I've committed violence against Muslims. Should I feel responsible for the Ft Hood shootings too?

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by CannonFodder

Hmm, I've committed violence against Muslims. Should I feel responsible for the Ft Hood shootings too?

It really depends on the circumstances. However, you as an individual soldier are in no way under the same obligations nor do you bear the same responsibility as the Commander in Chief. You know that just as well as I do.

[Sylvanz]

It's very nice they went and visited with the wounded soldiers. The only controversial thing for me is the whole returning caskets thing. In other words, President Bush didn't seem anxious to have that particular photograph snapped privately or otherwise while he was in office. My question regarding the OP is what does this visit have to do with President Obama?

P&LL, Syl

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Actually, if the Afghanistan and Iraq wars had never happened, I can pretty much guarantee you that the shooting would not have occured, as well as many other tragic things.

Actually, I'm not sure you can say that. We do know the shooter was upset about his Afghanistan deployment and had some qualms about US wars against Muslim groups, but we still have very little idea about his motives. It seems likely he was psychologically unstable, and it's not unreasonable to postulate that if not for the war in Afghanistan, something else might have set him off. He may have tried to frame his actions as being some sort of martyr in his own mind, but I've always thought the true reasons for his shooting came from his own internal issues rather than anything from the larger world.

Perhaps we will know with time.

This was a direct result of his policies and actions. He bears some blame.

I don't think we know enough to say the first statement is true, but even if it is, that does not mean he is to blame. Blame requires something more than cause and effect. It also requires fault. Is it in anyway Bush's fault that Dr. Hasan shot his fellow soldiers? I can't see any logical link saying so.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

We do know the shooter was upset about his Afghanistan deployment and had some qualms about US wars against Muslim groups, but we still have very little idea about his motives. It seems likely he was psychologically unstable, and it's not unreasonable to postulate that if not for the war in Afghanistan, something else might have set him off. He may have tried to frame his actions as being some sort of martyr in his own mind, but I've always thought the true reasons for his shooting came from his own internal issues rather than anything from the larger world.

I will give you this, that there is a very slim possibility that he would have shot soldiers in Fort Hood if Bush had never held office and allowed the current wars to occur.

Very slim

I don't think we know enough to say the first statement is true, but even if it is, that does not mean he is to blame. Blame requires something more than cause and effect. It also requires fault. Is it in anyway Bush's fault that Dr. Hasan shot his fellow soldiers? I can't see any logical link saying so.

It is Bush's fault that he allowed the conditions, circumstances, and events which, most likely, led to the shooting, yes.

[Photo Bob]

Originally Posted by Sylvanz

My question regarding the OP is what does this visit have to do with President Obama?

Do you see Obama in that picture? No. So obviously he does not care about the wounded soldiers and hates America which is why he is turning it into a socialist Islamic state.

I think that is what the OP is trying to say.

Plus the Librel media is teh ebil because they did not plaster this personal photo across the front pages of every newspaper in the world.

Bush rules. Obama fools (us all into believing that he is the legitimate POTUS).

Photo "Just because one person does something nice does not mean everyone else is evil." Bob

[Mama Duck]

[hijack]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

It is Bush's fault that he allowed the conditions, circumstances, and events which, most likely, led to the shooting, yes.

This is an intriguing concept. Is there always a "larger blame" in mass killings? Do you think this "larger blame" (for lack of a better term) shold have any bearing on legal processes? Note: I'm not asking how just if it should.
[/hijack]

re:OP, I don't remember Obama downplaying this tragedy at any time. Didn't he say the killer would be met with justice in this world and the next? Isn't that rather pointed? How is that "downplaying anything?

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Photo Bob

Do you see Obama in that picture? No. So obviously he does not care about the wounded soldiers and hates America which is why he is turning it into a socialist Islamic state. I think that is what the OP is trying to say.

And of course, George W. Bush is retired and lives in Texas, so it was a great hardship for him to take time out of his busy schedule and travel all the way out there to visit. Whereas Barack Obama is has nothing more to keep him occupied than being POTUS and is just a short hop away in D.C.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Mama Duck

[hijack]This is an intriguing concept. Is there always a "larger blame" in mass killings? Do you think this "larger blame" (for lack of a better term) shold have any bearing on legal processes? Note: I'm not asking how just if it should.
[/hijack]

I believe in the concept of "separate blame," for lack of a better term.

For an easy and clear example, let's say you have an intact bitch, you don't protect her properly while in heat, your neighbor's intact male dog jumps the fence and they tie, and you don't spay/abort.

You are responsible for the lives in that litter until the day they die. You are to blame for their existence.

Separately, the male dog owner is also to blame for their existence, because he had an intact male and didn't properly supervise it. However, his "blame load" does not effect your blame load. The two are independent of one another.

In a case where a person commits a crime such as a mass killing, the guilt of parties who created the situation/mindframe/society in which the crime occurs to have a blame load. But their blame loads are separate from the blame load of the individual who commits the crime. If it is to be taken in consideration when trying/sentencing the person who commits the crime is really an individual, case-by-case thing.

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

It is Bush's fault that he allowed the conditions, circumstances, and events which, most likely, led to the shooting, yes.

I'm guessing you disagree with the war in Aghanistan, or at least Bush's handling of it. But what if something you agreed with spurred a mass shooting - would the person responsible for that action still be at fault? Suppose Obama pushed through a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," and some crazed homophobe in the military shot up base as a result - would Obama be to blame? Or if he and the Democratic leaders pushed through a health care bill with full abortion coverage, and someone was pissed and shot up an abortion clinic - would those leaders be to blame? I don't think so, and neither is Bush to blame for Dr. Hasan's shooting.

[Mama Duck]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

But what if something you agreed with spurred a mass shooting - would the person responsible for that action still be at fault? Suppose Obama pushed through a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," and some crazed homophobe in the military shot up base as a result - would Obama be to blame?

I'm guessing Ryda would say the separate blame would be the culture/parents that raised a psychotic homophobe.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Mama Duck

I'm guessing Ryda would say the separate blame would be the culture/parents that raised a psychotic homophobe.

And you would be right.....

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

And you would be right.....

Well, then so here the "separate blame" for the Fort Hood shootings is also on the culture/parents who raised a psychotic Dr. Hasan. How is this case any different from the hypothetical scenarios I posted?

Face it, your argument may be emotionally satisfactory, but is entirely without logical base or consistency.

[Mama Duck]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

And you would be right.....

Ok, I figured as much. Now how about this? Bush is responsible for this mass murder because he started the war in Aghanistan. What about the original terrorists that triggered the war? What is the separate blame load there? Some culture taught them to hate enough to kill people, surely. Could we argue that the original culture of hate stemming from extreme Muslim fundamentalists is responsible for the Ft. Hood murders?