• Good question
  • There is no evidence to support this yet.
  • By definition a terrorist attack usually means its against non combative or civilians. Why they president hasnt described Fort Hood as a terrorist attack I dont know.
  • Perhaps because he was a member of the army and not a civillian or because it is more akin to the washington sniper (mass-murder) or because his motives are not yet fully understood. These are just guesses though +3
  • He wants everyone to think that his first term is hunky-dory in order for him to get re-elected to a second term.
  • Because this was an `american gone crazy` and not some bearded guy from a distant country. Calling americans terrorist is a disturbing idea for a lot of people since they are only used to working, eating, sleeping. They lost touch with how things roll. They don´t understand it so they fear it, so they blame Obama. It´s fairly simple. People always say: don´t shoot the messenger but people always have the tendency to shoot the messenger.
  • Here we venture in a political landmine field for Obama and Eric Holder. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, The Wall Street Journal called on them many time to not confuse political correctness and national security, most importantly to not seek prosecution of CIA officers. There will be a hearing on the Homeland Security Committee of the Senate (Sen. Joe Liberman) and god help these two who put appeasement of their liberal base before quality of intelligence.
  • So he doesn't offend the terrorists I guess. the real question is why doesn't he just round up the arabs like we did to the japenese and put them into camps. we didn't treat the japs badly or anything and it would probably be a whole lot safer for us. Another question, why did he send more troops when his whole campaign was that he was going to get our troops home? so much for obama's change. he is just another hypocrite politician.
  • Perhaps because all the evidence hasn't been gathered yet? Here is another reason that you may not have considered. If the POTUS publicly calls the shootings at Ft. Hood a terrorist attack lawyers could make a damned good argument that the accused could never get a fair trial in the United States? Everyone wants answers at the pace of a post...crimes solved in sixty minutes just like the television shows...but that's not real!! Grow up!
  • Political Correct Crap. The man is a Muslim Terrorist. That is the facts. --- He is a muslim that they have confirmed was in contact with Al Queita. He was emailing stuff about sucide attacks, he was vocal about we should not be attacking muslims in Afganistan or Iraq. During his terror attack he was repeating the same slogan the terrorists do when they attack. On his business cards he has the same abbrev. that the terrorists use. -- If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck----It a duck. (MUSLIM TERRORIST)
  • Because a loan gunman is not a terrorist action. He's not trying to use fear in order to change American policy or actions. He just wanted a body count. That's mass murder not terrorism.
  • I would imagine for much the same reason that Scott Roeder wasn't labeled one either.
  • Trying on Barack's shoes: 1. Don't want to inflame the American public or Muslims abroad. 2. Don't want to loose focus on the Health Care bills. 3. Too much publicity makes a civilian criminal trial impossible. 4. Don't want him sent to Guantanamo; don't have a destination for everyone there now. 5. Best politically not to get his hands bloody; Let the military deal with their own. 6. Don't want to answer questions about such statements during his Asian tour on stops in Muslim countries.
  • The Politically Correct route is the one being chosen right now
  • One disgruntled and possibly psychotic worker going postal does not a terrorist attack make.
  • Because until enough evidence is gathered to prove that it was a terrorist attack, and not just one guy going nuts, he can't claim that.
  • I would say not enough evidence has been collected to prove it.
  • Because he is too liberal and politically correct to admit it. He will not call things their real names. It's not in his benefit to admit it was a terrorist's act.
  • All the evidence is not in yet and unlike some fools he prefers to think before he shoots his mouth off with half cocked truths and imaginary facts. From where I sit it was just another crazy Yank who ran amok with guns , killing innocent people ... only this time he had a army uniform on
  • If he publicly faced up to the event for what it was, he would have to admit there is at least one muslim terrorist in our midst, among our own national protectors. B. Hussein Obama cannot own up to anything so difficult, for several reasons. One of them is his not-so-secret affinity for islam. Another is that he is a community agitator, not a leader against serious adversaries.
  • Wow, this sure brought out some strong answers. It makes no sense to call a lone gunman a terrorist attack. Now, if you can established that he planned this with Al Caida by showing coorespondence that explicitly demonstrates that the terrorist group helped in any way, then you have a case. Just contact is not enough. You have to show intent.
  • He thinks a lot like Keith Olbermann.!
  • Because he wasn't a terrorist; just a Loon.
  • Because it wasn't. It was a psychiatrist going off the deep end. For the life of me I can't understand why the military would ever give a psychiatrist access to weapons. I have only met a few of them, less than ten, but to a person they seem to have entered the field to find out what was wrong with themselves. Those of you that want to call it an Islamic terrorist act need to buy a dictionary. It was a gross security failure and a great tragedy.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy