"Fort Hood HERO" at last SOTU address now says she was betrayed by the administration!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    "Fort Hood HERO" at last SOTU address now says she was betrayed by the administration!

    Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

    "Betrayed is a good word," former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."

    "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."

    There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.

     

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re:

    So she wants a Purple Heart and wants to be compensated as if she were shot in combat?

    I'm pretty sure the military has precise definitions of who receives those benefits.

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    So she wants a Purple Heart and wants to be compensated as if she were shot in combat?

    I'm pretty sure the military has precise definitions of who receives those benefits.

     




    The POTUS used her and the tragedy as a political tool. He promised "the govt " would take care of all of them yet, they were dropped andrefused medical services in some case.

    Im sure you have no problem with this since it's was Obama.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    It was NOT terrorism (Allah Akbar!!) just a little work place incident.

     

    SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (wink wink)




    The DOJ went with work place violence to make the case easier to prove; which I understand but, the promises either never should have been made or a way to fullfill them should have been found!!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: "Fort Hood HERO" at last SOTU address now says she was betrayed by the administration

    I saw this piece on TV and I was shocked.  Sgt. Kimberly Mulney is the one who took down the shooter while sustaining multiple gun shots herself.  The whole categorization that this was work place violence as opposed to a terrorist attack is simply outrageous.

    Those involved deserve the full government benefits of serving your country and getting injured through a terrorist attack.  The real issue here is that the government has a better (PC) strategy to deal with this as workplace violence.  A better solution would have been to charge the Army psychologist with treason and a terrorist attack and handle it with a military combatant trial and execute him by firing squad.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Why isn't tvoter calling her a "taker"?




    Because she defended the lives of others almost at the expense of hers.

    Im sure that to you it was no big deal.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:


    It sounds almost like the reason you insist on labeling it a "terrorist attack" is that you recognize that there is no logical reason why, if this person should be rewarded with unnamed "federal benefits," then all good samaritans who save lives should.

    Why does the decision to call it a "terrorist attack" as opposed to "mass shooting," "workplace violence," or "multiple murder" make her actions any more or less heroic?

    It doesn't, does it? The facts matter. Bullets fly, and she takes some of them while stopping the shooter.

    Wherever those facts inhere, should the federal government provide unnamed "benefits" t othe person stopping the shooter? 

    In fact, why restrict it to bullets? Why not have the federal government provide "benefits" to anyone who puts themselves in danger to try to save lives? 

    Why should whether or not we choose to term the taking of a life "terror" matter?

     



    The FACT that it happened on a military base duiring the USA's known war against terror and she was injured trying to save our soldiers lives makes it much different than anything you've tried to compare it with!

    It should be called a terrorist attack because that is exactly what it was! It wasnt a disgruntled employee wanting to hurt his company. It was a extremist sympathizer wanting to hurt the USA by killing our serv ice men and women!

    I understand the prosecutors wanting to plea basically to insure an easier conviction but, that does not make it right!

    geez!!

     

     

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Why don't you just shut up?

    You aren't responding to any of the points, just scolding.

    The question is not whether or not it should be called "terror".

    The question is why it should matter whether or not it is "terrorist attack" vis a vis entitlement to federal benefits.




    Because the truth matters!!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    So you think this was a "disgruntled worker" not an extremist sympathizer who was taking action because of the US military's involvement in the Middle east?

    Or do you both are the same thing?

    The truth matters!!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    I saw this piece on TV and I was shocked.  Sgt. Kimberly Mulney is the one who took down the shooter while sustaining multiple gun shots herself.  The whole categorization that this was work place violence as opposed to a terrorist attack is simply outrageous.

    Those involved deserve the full government benefits of serving your country and getting injured through a terrorist attack.  The real issue here is that the government has a better (PC) strategy to deal with this as workplace violence.  A better solution would have been to charge the Army psychologist with treason and a terrorist attack and handle it with a military combatant trial and execute him by firing squad.

     




    It sounds almost like the reason you insist on labeling it a "terrorist attack" is that you recognize that there is no logical reason why, if this person should be rewarded with unnamed "federal benefits," then all good samaritans who save lives should.

     

    Why does the decision to call it a "terrorist attack" as opposed to "mass shooting," "workplace violence," or "multiple murder" make her actions any more or less heroic?

    It doesn't, does it? The facts matter. Bullets fly, and she takes some of them while stopping the shooter.

     

    Wherever those facts inhere, should the federal government provide unnamed "benefits" t othe person stopping the shooter?

     

     

    In fact, why restrict it to bullets? Why not have the federal government provide "benefits" to anyone who puts themselves in danger to try to save lives?

     

    Why should whether or not we choose to term the taking of a life "terror" matter?

     

     

     

     



    Not a bad idea;

     

    but my point is that the Government went out of its way to not call it a terrorist attack.  The real question should be why?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    The question is not whether or not it should be called "terror".

    The question is why it should matter whether or not it is "terrorist attack" vis a vis entitlement to federal benefits.

    So you think this was a "disgruntled worker" not an extremist sympathizer who was taking action because of the US military's involvement in the Middle east?

    Or do you both are the same thing?

    The truth matters!!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:



    I think you are making a big deal out of something and are desparately avoiding trying to actually explain whyit should be a big deal because you really don't want to discuss any of the more poignant issues (or more likely, lack the capacity). 




    Ok so to you the truth is no big deal. I disagree but, ok at least you are trying to sound honest

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    The truth is a big deal. WHEN IT IS RELEVANT TO SOMETHING.




    So, the truth is only important when it's relevent to and supportive of your politics!

    got it.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In the article it says that Sgt. Munley was a "laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force".

    That, by itself, should disqualify her from receiving any military awards or ongoing medical care through the VA.



    It does if, the POTUS saying "we will take care of you and see that you get the absolute best care available" means nothing.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re:

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    Ummm no, PotUS can't unilaterally change the federal laws governing military status and benefits. Ya can't give military medals or benefits to civilians.

    It sounds like the Sgt, as a civilian, wants things that only an actual member of the military is entitled to and only because she worked on an Army base.  



    So Obama WAS just talking out his a55 and making political points at her expense when he knew it was alll BS

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share