Obama declines comment on US hostage crisis off Somalia

[JohnMatrix]

Jesus you guys are pussies.


Hey, John, you ass wipe.  Frank is going to kick your little ghey buttox in the fight club, if you have any ball to show up that is....which most of us here are betting against.

well most of you lost some money then

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You seem to like to focus on insults--admittedly plentiful--at the expense of genuine inquiries. Maybe you have a need to feel martyred...maybe you just managed to miss this earlier. At any rate, I repeat:

When the surge was our primary strategy in Iraq the democrats either out of principle or for political gain (you decide) made a tremendous show of putting Gen Patraeus in to a near inquisitorial interrogation and going so far as to question his integrity but short of implying perjury. Obama was front and center during this episode because of his presidential candidacy. Well after the hearings Obama continued to impugn the efficacy of the surge and success in Iraq. Since his election Obama appears to have hedged on his pledges to affect a withdrawal as fast as logistics would allow. He now says that while he has goals for demobilization any demobilization will be contingent upon security conditions on the ground and the surge he scoffed at earlier is the plan he wants to employ in Afghanistan.

* When Obama ridiculed Patraeus in Feb 2008 was he being political to secure the democrat nomination or a genuine misunderstanding?

* Is Obama's embrace of Bush policy in Iraq in all but name only a political calculation to avoid losing a war already won and the attending electoral fallout or has he had an authentic epiphany?

* Is his stance on Afghanistan an authentic effort to deal with terrorists which he sees as purveyors of unjustified aggression or is it the most convenient front to politically assert his military street-cred?

* Afghan commanders asked for 30,000 additional troops for Obama's surge. He held them to 17,000. Was it politically calculated to minimize his vulnerability in the event matters took a downturn or risked a high toll in US lives or does he have a better grasp of the manppower and logisitics of his intentions?

* If he was triangulating either before the election or only trying to avoid fallout from ordering a general retreat do you trust the balance of his military instincts to be politics free and practical?

[JohnMatrix]

You seem to like to focus on insults--admittedly plentiful--at the expense of genuine inquiries. Maybe you have a need to feel martyred...maybe you just managed to miss this earlier. At any rate, I repeat:

When the surge was our primary strategy in Iraq the democrats either out of principle or for political gain (you decide) made a tremendous show of putting Gen Patraeus in to a near inquisitorial interrogation and going so far as to question his integrity but short of implying perjury. Obama was front and center during this episode because of his presidential candidacy. Well after the hearings Obama continued to impugn the efficacy of the surge and success in Iraq. Since his election Obama appears to have hedged on his pledges to affect a withdrawal as fast as logistics would allow. He now says that while he has goals for demobilization any demobilization will be contingent upon security conditions on the ground and the surge he scoffed at earlier is the plan he wants to employ in Afghanistan.

* When Obama ridiculed Patraeus in Feb 2008 was he being political to secure the democrat nomination or a genuine misunderstanding?

* Is Obama's embrace of Bush policy in Iraq in all but name only a political calculation to avoid losing a war already won and the attending electoral fallout or has he had an authentic epiphany?

* Is his stance on Afghanistan an authentic effort to deal with terrorists which he sees as purveyors of unjustified aggression or is it the most convenient front to politically assert his military street-cred?

* Afghan commanders asked for 30,000 additional troops for Obama's surge. He held them to 17,000. Was it politically calculated to minimize his vulnerability in the event matters took a downturn or risked a high toll in US lives or does he have a better grasp of the manppower and logisitics of his intentions?

* If he was triangulating either before the election or only trying to avoid fallout from ordering a general retreat do you trust the balance of his military instincts to be politics free and practical?

You can't trust any president's military instincts to be politics free and practical.  Obama is no exception to that. 

[Bluesuiter-Retired]

The worrisome thing about this whole pirate issue is that the DOD had to request permission to use deadly force.

Not only did they ask once, but they had to ask a second time.

The skipper of the ship on which the SEALS were posted could very well find his career going down the toilet for giving the order to fire without FIRST asking permission.  He committed the simple crime of UPSTAGING "the messiah".

Remember what happened to "joe the plumber" when he had the audacity to ask "the messiah" an UNSCRIPTED question.  The liberturd media and liberal lawbreaks in that state went after him with all guns blazin.

Gotta be careful about what we say about "the messiah" now that "the messiah's" spy agency [DE-FARTMENT of HOMELAND SURRENDER].  They no doubt are monitoring the internet.

[TheSarge]

The worrisome thing about this whole pirate issue is that the DOD had to request permission to use deadly force.

IMHO they already had the authorization...but since this administration seems to think that terrorists are best handled by cops and lawyers...it delayed what should have been taken care of the moment the Bainbridge arrived on station.

[Sam Adams]

We really do not know what happened, and when. I think we should just be glad it turned out the way it did, and be grateful to everyone involved, from the top to the bottom.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You can't trust any president's military instincts to be politics free and practical.  Obama is no exception to that. 

You're dodging specific, historical examples to make a cynical broad-brush indictment of all presidents just so you can snark at us for not trusting Obama based on a long and specific history.

And yet you profess to like debate.

And your point fails on its own merits because I seem to remember a group of politicians and a president that went forward with an extremely unpopular military campaign that cost them a great deal of political capital both in Washington and the press and hence the general public. I also seriously doubt JFK went to Vietnam simply to push polls. That war was all risk with no reward. Ditto Korea and just about every other engagement in the 20th century. We can only wonder if Carter would have ordered the abortive Desert 1 rescue had he not suffered in the polls for his weakness.

Nor does your point follow for Obama. What reason would Obama--who enjoys far more political capital than most of his predecessors and who campaigned for a surge in Afghanistan--trump his military advisors by holding them to only 17 of the 30,000 troops they requested? The thought that Obama could know something more than the very advisors on whom he wholly dependent should be dismissed out of hand. So, if not military concerns what then could possibly be the reason? Surely, you're not suggesting that the dem congress would interdict their favorite son as they did Bush.

So Obama allowed the on-site commander to engage if the hostage's life appeared to be in imminent danger. So? That was the standing protocol. My point about Obama's action being a political no-brainer stands because had Obama insisted the SEALs withhold fire and the captain were executed he would suffer for it. Am I implying Obama would shrug-off the death of an innocent American? No, but again returning to his history, I see nothing that would indicate he would see the American people as a people worthy of protection at all cost and effort...protracted negotiation for mere humanity's sake perhaps but never a people for whom blood--even foreign blood--should be spilled. His entire paradigm is based on perceived notions of racism, classism and every other psuedo outrage.

How can a man proactively kill on behalf of people he has spent decades prejudging and actively working against on the grounds that they are a bunch of racist, sexist, money-obsessed, homophobes?

[Dragon]