FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
Yes, you read that right.
If something sounds stupid while you're saying it, it probably is. One has to hope this at least occurred to whoever decided to call this attack "workplace violence." This would almost be hilarious if it weren't related to unnecessary deaths, and if it weren't so scary.
It is incredibly disturbing that the administration just can't call this what it is: terrorism. This only exposes to what extent they are more afraid of being perceived as intolerant than they are of radical Islamists.
Describing this as workplace violence is like saying 9/11 was an "airline accident," or that Pearl Harbor was a "turning point in US-Japanese relations." It is somewhat accurate, but completely missing the point. Who knows, maybe they wouldn't have passed Obamacare if they had called uninsured patient deaths "healthcare system burden reductions."
This is, of course, not wholly unprecedented. After all, we now have to refer to "man caused disasters" and "kinetic military actions." If the White House can't be bothered to call the enemy by his name, we can't expect them to defeat him.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
David Williamson
Are you sure they want to defeat him?
They only want to defeat Republicans. Islamists, not so much.
I knew of a guy in Abbotabad, recently diseased, who might have disagreed with you.
Mar '11
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
Tom Meyer
David Williamson
Are you sure they want to defeat him?
They only want to defeat Republicans. Islamists, not so much.
I knew of a guy in Abbotabad, recently diseased, who might have disagreed with you. · Dec 7 at 5:27pm
To what end? The same reasons that motivate those of us who see the danger of Islamism? Have you ever read his press release on that day:
What ego, what self-aggrandizement; how fortunate we were to have this Commander in Chief who could think of such a brilliant plan.
Edited on December 8, 2011 at 2:48amJan '11
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
That explains why unemployment is so high. Not only do we have penny pinching business people who are too mean to hire anyone, they arm the 1% and make it dangerous for the middle class to even go to work.
I think the real problem at Solyndra was the whistle blower uncovered the plans for the wind powered ATM that fired upon human tellers during non-peak energy usage.
Oct '10
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
Tom Meyer
Eric Ames:
It is incredibly disturbing that the administration just can't call this what it is: terrorism.
With respect, Eric, if Hassan's murder of uniformed, volunteer soldiers during a time of war was an act of "terrorism," the word has no meaning.
This is an important point which may seem like quibbling to some. When an al Qaeda affiliate attacks uniformed soldiers it’s not terrorism, which is the purposeful attack of non-combatants. Hasan’s attack is a force protection issue for the military. This does not change the fact that the Obama administration is deliberately mischaracterizing the Ft Hood attack for reasons—apparently—of either political correctness or political expediency. What’s truly depressing is how readily the military’s senior leadership acquiesced to this subterfuge. Perhaps that's explained by the Army's failure to deal with Hasan despite many of his colleagues correctly identifying him as a clear and present danger. I don't know of a single military member being held accountable for what is a stupendous internal Army failure, born out of the bizarre notion that we somehow are intolerant if we guard against a sworn enemy’s intolerant ideology.
Jul '11
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
I think it's better characterized as acting stupidly.
Nov '11
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
Here's a thought.
I wonder if someone in the Defense Department did this as a stunt. Picture a major at the Pentagon charged with writing a report about the incident. Some political hack tells them that they can't use the word "terrorism", or some other relatively accurate term, then nixing the next couple of suggestions as well. So the major changes it to "workplace violence" to make a point, and it sails through.
It could have happened something like that.
Oct '10
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
Terry Mott:
I wonder if someone in the Defense Department did this as a stunt. Picture a major at the Pentagon charged with writing a report about the incident. Some political hack tells them that they can't use the word "terrorism", or some other relatively accurate term, then nixing the next couple of suggestions as well. So the major changes it to "workplace violence" to make a point, and it sails through.
Let’s remember the response of the Army’s most senior officer, GEN Casey, Army Chief of Staff, to Hasan’s attack, which killed 13 people: "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here." So, this sickening display of craven political imbecility started at the very top of the chain-of-command. Sadly, instead of “some political hack” looking over the Major’s shoulder in your scenario, to be accurate you must substitute a 4-star General. Presumably, the latter was being sensitive to the White House … if not being guided by it. One doesn’t become Army Chief of Staff without keen political instincts.
Jul '10
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
Tom Meyer
Eric Ames:
It is incredibly disturbing that the administration just can't call this what it is: terrorism.
With respect, Eric, if Hassan's murder of uniformed, volunteer soldiers during a time of war was an act of "terrorism," the word has no meaning.
To be sure, Hassan is a member of a loathsome organization and is certain to be convicted -- if only he is tried -- of murder, treason, and espionage, all three of which are capital crimes under both federal law and the UCMJ. As you're using it, "terorrism" is just the federal version of a "hate crime," and it's just as counter-productive and confusing a moniker. · Dec 7 at 5:20pm
Edited on Dec 07 at 05:30 pm
In that case, shouldn't they be calling it "an act of war"? Suits me fine, frankly.
Apr '11
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
Eric Ames:
It is somewhat accurate, but completely missing the point.
The "lost helicopter/Microsoft" joke: Information that's completely accurate, but ultimately worthless.
Mar '11
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
Sometimes the decision makers/wafflers in charge do make one change one's language for completely asinine reasons.
Once, we had an aircraft engine vibration result that needed to be recorded. The levels were nominal (nothing to see here), abnormal (get this looked at when you land), excessive (land now!), and catastrophic (eject eject eject).
The lawyers told us we couldn't say "catastrophic," even if that was precisely what it was.
I don't remember what we ended up using. My suggestion was "double-plus ungood."
Mar '11
Re: FNC: White House Classifies Ft. Hood Shooting as 'Workplace Violence'
And I said the Left has no sense of humor.
Actually, this ridiculous euphemism proves that no lesson has been learned. After Fort Hood it came out that for a long time before Major Hassan started shooting up the medical center he didn't try to conceal his radical islamic sympathies, yet no one raised an alarm or suggested he was not fit for for his duties or his rank, he was even promoted to avoid any suspicion of prejudice. I suspect, if he had hired Gloria Allred and called a press conference to announce his plan, fear of punishment for a crime against diversity would have prevented any action against him.