Story about some special visitors at Ft Hood

[Sweetpea]

I received this in an email from my father (I hope its true!):
-----------------------------------------------------

Class shows up...
The doctor had his TV on in his office when the news of the military base shootings came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay." Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,"I'm the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan , Alabama , and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to comfort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side. The nurse took this picture.

(see below)

What? No news crews and cameras? This is how people with class respond and pay respect to those in uniform.

-------
Subject: Note of Interest (I received this 1-23-10)

This is the difference between a leader and a person only interested in his own image.


I sent my cousin,(retired from Special Forces) that picture of George. W. Bush visiting the wounded at Ft. Hood . I got this reply:


What is even better is the fact George W. Bush heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped. Bush only ask for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that "The president Is on ' Fort Hood and driving to the hospital." The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush they immediately offered escort and Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead. He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours and was finally ask to leave by a message from the White House. Obama flew in days later and held a "photo " session in a gym and did not even go to the hospital. All this I picked up from two soldiers here who happened to be at Fort Hood when it happened.

[zephyp]

Dont know for certain if this is true or not but my bet is that it is...

[wylde007]

Possible confirmation:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11 ... d-victims/

[OakRidgeStars]

And Bush did it all without the media, TV cameras or a teleprompter. Maybe he just wrote the directions on his hand. In any case, he just did what any commander-in-chief should do. He cared enough to go.

[tursiops]

When you want to know if something is a hoax or not, a good place to find out is snopes.com.

here is the link for this topic:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp

It is partially true. The part about Obama is false.

[Leonidis]

Snopes is a great site for fact checking. Apparently, both Presidents deserve kudos for thinking about the wounded and families.

[Sweetpea]

I actually did do a snopes search for bush at ft hood and nothing came up. must have worded it wrong.

[CCFan]

Snopes isn't a bad reference, but I'd hesitate to use it as any sort of authoritative entity... You can find lots of articles where Snopes is wrong and/or biased in the way it reports, just as a word of warning.... worth checking out but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Kudos to George W. Bush for doing it out of the goodness of his heart, and not using it as a photo op...

[zephyp]

If snopes said the sky was blue I would go outside to see for myself...they are NOT authoritative...

[zephyp]

Snopes is a great site for fact checking. Apparently, both Presidents deserve kudos for thinking about the wounded and families.

If what J posted is correct obama deserves nothing and most especially not kudos...

[Leonidis]

SNOPEs is correct in its assessment as laid out in the link. Unlike most "media outlets" they spelled out the sources they used--from across the political spectrum--to make their assessment. In addition, they also laid out their intelligence gaps on what they could not confirm/deny. If you add in the large number of media reports/YOUTUBE clips (many more covering the POTUS visit of course) it appears SNOPEs is correct in that the original story is an urban myth. There are also a number of credible media reports describing the POTUS visit. For example, see the quote from the Wall Street Journal below, not known to be a bastion of Obama support:

Mr. Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama arrived at about noon and began their day on the base with a private visit with the families of those killed in the attack. After the memorial they visited with those wounded in the mass shooting, more than a dozen of whom are still hospitalized.

Standing apart from the crowd after the service, Sgt. Lavell Lathan said the ceremony had been "one way to have a closing so that we can start healing." The president, he added, "made me feel like their sacrifice wasn't in vain."

Authors: Elizabeth Williamson and Ben Casselman
Wall Street Journal
10 November 2009

Again, kudos to both Presidents.

[jadedone4]

GWB = former President
Obama = current President

One would think (and expect) it easier for former to do so (i.e. low-key) than the current POTUS (every conceivable security layer).

... always easier to "MondayAM armchair" situations... and find something wrong, after the fact, or especially when you don't care for, or like the current POTUS.

[Leonidis]

Yeah, but in this case I guess the facts got in the way of a good story.

[GS78]

Yeah, but in this case I guess the facts got in the way of a good story.

Well unless you took the initiative to investigate the MILITARY blogs, and if you would have, you would have found out that in fact the Bushs' beat the obamas to Hood by at least five days.


Thats only of course if you wanted to find out the truth,. Obama is a disgrace.

[CCFan]

Okay, I'm not really one to get in pissing matches, but come on...

GWB = former President
Obama = current President

One would think (and expect) it easier for former to do so (i.e. low-key) than the current POTUS (every conceivable security layer).

... always easier to "MondayAM armchair" situations... and find something wrong, after the fact, or especially when you don't care for, or like the current POTUS.

So where was Clinton? And I would think it would be DEMANDED that the current POTUS show up to the site of a terrorist attack that killed US soldiers!

And:

Yeah, but in this case I guess the facts got in the way of a good story.

Facts, huh?

http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=11462537
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... mpage.html
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics ... ident.html (And gee, that's from NBC - a CHICAGO affiliate, no less...)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... hasan.html LA Times? Not exactly a Bush-loving entity...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Bush.html Really? Did you read the part about Fort Hood? And that's from the UK....

Did Obama go? Sure. He went "to attend a memorial service for soldiers killed in a mass shooting at a U.S. military base" (Source: Reuters)

And Snopes closes its *argument* by stating "Many soldiers and relatives expressed gratitude that the president had come to help them grieve, with many breaking into tears." (Source: NYTimes) I'd hope someone shed some tears for our fallen soldiers!! However, when someone said they knew his speech was from the heart, Snopes never mentioned the other side of the story from the same NY Times article it was using as a source:
"But David Cronk, 25, a disabled Iraq veteran, was not so sure. “It was well-written,” Mr. Cronk said, “but I think he needs to do a little more from the heart. I can tell when someone is reading from a tablet and when someone is speaking from the heart.”
Also in the NYTimes article: "At least some in the community surrounding Fort Hood said they wanted Mr. Obama to address whether the attack was tied to terrorism. “If this was a Muslim terrorist thing, to not call it that is an insult to people who know different,” said Randy Wallace, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Killeen, Tex." And lets not forget that Obama never called the gunman a Muslim.... that's like me not calling Hitler a Nazi. Lying by omissions is misleading and dishonorable. Snopes mentions none of the "other side of the story", so it's not hard for me to see where their slant it.

So, as for the "facts getting in way of a good story", which "facts" were you referring to? If you want to use Snopes to feed into your cognitive dissonance by all means go ahead. I like to let the facts speak for themselves and actually do some research on my own rather than regurgitate what my "friends" say and swallow it wholesale without giving it much thought. I'll let the facts speak for themselves in this case...

Carry on.

[GS78]

Okay, I'm not really one to get in pissing matches, but come on...

GWB = former President
Obama = current President

One would think (and expect) it easier for former to do so (i.e. low-key) than the current POTUS (every conceivable security layer).

... always easier to "MondayAM armchair" situations... and find something wrong, after the fact, or especially when you don't care for, or like the current POTUS.

So where was Clinton? And I would think it would be DEMANDED that the current POTUS show up to the site of a terrorist attack that killed US soldiers!

And:

Yeah, but in this case I guess the facts got in the way of a good story.

Facts, huh?

http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=11462537
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... mpage.html
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics ... ident.html (And gee, that's from NBC - a CHICAGO affiliate, no less...)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... hasan.html LA Times? Not exactly a Bush-loving entity...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Bush.html Really? Did you read the part about Fort Hood? And that's from the UK....

Did Obama go? Sure. He went "to attend a memorial service for soldiers killed in a mass shooting at a U.S. military base" (Source: Reuters)

And Snopes closes its *argument* by stating "Many soldiers and relatives expressed gratitude that the president had come to help them grieve, with many breaking into tears." (Source: NYTimes) I'd hope someone shed some tears for our fallen soldiers!! However, when someone said they knew his speech was from the heart, Snopes never mentioned the other side of the story from the same NY Times article it was using as a source:
"But David Cronk, 25, a disabled Iraq veteran, was not so sure. “It was well-written,” Mr. Cronk said, “but I think he needs to do a little more from the heart. I can tell when someone is reading from a tablet and when someone is speaking from the heart.”
Also in the NYTimes article: "At least some in the community surrounding Fort Hood said they wanted Mr. Obama to address whether the attack was tied to terrorism. “If this was a Muslim terrorist thing, to not call it that is an insult to people who know different,” said Randy Wallace, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Killeen, Tex." And lets not forget that Obama never called the gunman a Muslim.... that's like me not calling Hitler a Nazi. Lying by omissions is misleading and dishonorable. Snopes mentions none of the "other side of the story", so it's not hard for me to see where their slant it.

So, as for the "facts getting in way of a good story", which "facts" were you referring to? If you want to use Snopes to feed into your cognitive dissonance by all means go ahead. I like to let the facts speak for themselves and actually do some research on my own rather than regurgitate what my "friends" say and swallow it wholesale without giving it much thought. I'll let the facts speak for themselves in this case...

Carry on.

good post.

[zephyp]

Okay, I'm not really one to get in pissing matches, but come on...

good post.

A good post my ass.

Outstanding Jason. An outstanding post. Way to put it out there bro !!!!!!!!!!!!

[tursiops]

So, I thought the point about Snopes was that it was a good place to try and check out whether something was a hoax or not. The rabidly anti-Obama comments posted make me think that Snopes is never to be trusted. So should I conclude that this SNopes bit (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/palin.asp) is actually true, not a hoax as they say?

Just kidding. Have you guys got a better site than Snopes to check things out? If not, would you be OK with Snopes being a decent first bit of info, and then you work from that point toward what your own opinion will be?

I guess my point is the we are all entitled to our own opinons, but we are not entitled to our own facts. (I forget who said this.) Selective use of facts is just opinion masked as truth. Not very compelling. And since getting at the facts is both difficult and time-coming, I'd like to start somewhere where the facts have already been mostly obtained. What is the alternative to Snopes?

[zephyp]

So, I thought the point about Snopes was that it was a good place to try and check out whether something was a hoax or not. The rabidly anti-Obama comments posted make me think that Snopes is never to be trusted. So should I conclude that this SNopes bit (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/palin.asp) is actually true, not a hoax as they say?

Just kidding. Have you guys got a better site than Snopes to check things out? If not, would you be OK with Snopes being a decent first bit of info, and then you work from that point toward what your own opinion will be?

I guess my point is the we are all entitled to our own opinons, but we are not entitled to our own facts. (I forget who said this.) Selective use of facts is just opinion masked as truth. Not very compelling. And since getting at the facts is both difficult and time-coming, I'd like to start somewhere where the facts have already been mostly obtained. What is the alternative to Snopes?

I have something way better. How bout doing some good ole research yourself and come to a conclusion based on your own review of the available information. Why trust someone who is rumored to be biased to do it for you. And, I dont/wont even visit snopes.

[GS78]

I don't go out of my way to visit snopes either. I usually hit three or four news sites (that have a decent reputation) and usually you can formulate a pretty good understanding of whats going on. Remeber the National Enquirer was the one that broke the Bret girls story.....