The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: 5412 on April 19, 2009, 09:19:45 PM
-
WASHINGTON – While Barack Obama is basking in praise for his "decisive" handling of the Somali pirate attack on a merchant ship in the India Ocean, reliable military sources close to the scene are painting a much different picture of the incident – accusing the president of employing restrictive rules of engagement that actually hampered the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and extended the drama at sea for days.
Multiple opportunities to free the captain of the Maersk Alabama from three young pirates were missed, these sources say – all because a Navy SEAL team was not immediately ordered to the scene and then forced to operate under strict, non-lethal rules of engagement. They say the response duty office at the Pentagon was initially unwilling to grant an order to use lethal force to rescue Phillips. They also report the White House refused to authorize deployment of a Navy SEAL team to the location for 36 hours, despite the recommendation of the on-scene commander.
The White House also turned down two rescue plans offered up by the Seal commander on the scene and the captain of the USS Bainbridge.
The SEAL team operated under rules of engagement that required them to do nothing unless the hostage's life was in "imminent' danger. In fact, when the USS Bainbridge dispatched a rigid-hull inflatable boat to bring supplies to the Maersk Alabama, it came under fire that could not be returned even though the SEAL team had the pirates in their sights.
Many hours before the fatal shots were fired, taking out the three young pirates, Phillips jumped into the Indian Ocean with the idea of giving the snipers a clear target. However, the SEAL team was still under orders not to shoot.
Hours later, frustrated by the missed opportunities to resolve the standoff, the commander of the Bainbridge and the captain of the Navy SEAL team determined they had operational authority to evaluate the risk to the hostage, and took out the pirates at the first opportunity – finally freeing Phillips.
The G2 Bulletin report was authored by Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, and a veteran newsman with extensive military sources developed over the last 30 years.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95451
Hi Folks,
This is from the World Net Daily. I actually called this one. We have a wimpo for president, probably gonna end up making Carter look brave.
regards,
5412
-
The military types here were saying this from the first day.
-
I am not surprised about this. He is a spineless coward that gives Neville Chamberlain a run for his money in terms of appeasement. And on top of that, he has the gall to say that appeasement strengthens us (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cb_obama_summit) :thatsright: :thatsright:
-
The military types here were saying this from the first day.
Hi,
I made a post when I saw the "imminent danger" because I knew that was the wrong order. Everyone I know that was or is currently in the military agreed, it was not the proper order to give.
My real suspicion now is that the part about them pointing a gun at the head of the hostage is not quite accurate. They may well have made it up so they could act. Who is gonna say any different, not the guy who's life got saved, and the pirates likely won't say a word.
There is already many posts about how our enemies are laughing their heads off at the lightweight we have in the oval office. Too bad we do not have a responsible media to print some of this stuff.
regards,
5412
-
"9/11, Part II," here we come.
-
This dumbass is going to get people killed. 4 years is too far away.
-
This dumbass is going to get people killed. 4 years is too far away.
Hi,
I posted this in the non-baseball thread on the Cub message board where politics can get pretty hot and heavy. So far they have attacked me, the source and Bush, but nary a one has refuted the truth, or even admitting to being a bit concerned that BO is putting us all in danger. First response was saying he is 10x the president Bush was.......Good Lord!
Some of these libs just do not have a clue.
Regards,
5412
-
Hi,
I posted this in the non-baseball thread on the Cub message board where politics can get pretty hot and heavy. So far they have attacked me, the source and Bush, but nary a one has refuted the truth, or even admitting to being a bit concerned that BO is putting us all in danger. First response was saying he is 10x the president Bush was.......Good Lord!
Some of these libs just do not have a clue.
Regards,
5412
I honestly think that some just don't care how many people die as long as the guy in the white house is spouting off Lib talking points. :mental:
-
Hi,
I posted this in the non-baseball thread on the Cub message board where politics can get pretty hot and heavy. So far they have attacked me, the source and Bush, but nary a one has refuted the truth, or even admitting to being a bit concerned that BO is putting us all in danger. First response was saying he is 10x the president Bush was.......Good Lord!
Some of these libs just do not have a clue.
Regards,
5412
I try to avoid the loons on there, but once in awhile I'll post a comment down there. They are good at demonizing the messenger and totally ignoring the message.
-
Hi,
I posted this in the non-baseball thread on the Cub message board where politics can get pretty hot and heavy. So far they have attacked me, the source and Bush, but nary a one has refuted the truth, or even admitting to being a bit concerned that BO is putting us all in danger. First response was saying he is 10x the president Bush was.......Good Lord!
Some of these libs just do not have a clue.
Regards,
5412
Libtards, Garafalo and those like her, will insult anyone who shines the light on the truth...they totally ignore the facts.
-
I honestly think that some just don't care how many people die as long as the guy in the white house is spouting off Lib talking points. :mental:
Kinda sounds like DU, eh?
-
Hi,
I posted this in the non-baseball thread on the Cub message board where politics can get pretty hot and heavy. So far they have attacked me, the source and Bush, but nary a one has refuted the truth, or even admitting to being a bit concerned that BO is putting us all in danger. First response was saying he is 10x the president Bush was.......Good Lord!
Some of these libs just do not have a clue.
Regards,
5412
The source is not a credible one unfortunately. I will look to see if anyone else is reporting this, but you have to take a few lumps on the source.
-
Anything better than WND?
-
Anything better than WND?
Hi,
That is the only one I can reference. I have some friends who are former military and some with their children currently serving in Iraq. I had heard some whispers about this after I made the post originally on the thread about the hostage being released. Unfortunately this is the only source I have in writing that I can quote.
As long as the subject is on the table, this is something that really bothers me. Assuming that it is true, the mainstream media refuses to cover or investigate the issue, then what sources are left? Were it not for secondary sources and the internet how is the public to learn what is really going on?
In the mind of the liberals, any source other than their mainstream media that is critical of them and their policies is immediately attacked as being a non-credible source....and that includes Fox News.
When Bush was in office, any source attacking him was considered credible, then it was picked up by the mainstream and he was forced to defend himself.
Seems to me that there is really a double standard....which I guess is not anything new....just does not seem right to me.
We are not the ones who should be defending ourselves, the president and administration should be defending their policies.
Oh well, that is the best I can do for the moment. Hopefully some more stuff will come out of the woodwork. I have been wrong before, but this is one that I suspect is spot on.
regards,
5412
-
...
When Bush was in office, any source attacking him was considered credible, then it was picked up by the mainstream and he was forced to defend himself.
Seems to me that there is really a double standard....which I guess is not anything new....just does not seem right to me.
We are not the ones who should be defending ourselves, the president and administration should be defending their policies.
Obama gets no credit from me for affecting the rescue of Cpt Phillips as the commander on-scene was acting under long standing authority...
...BUT...
...Obama, and everyone else for that matter, need not defend themselves from allegations that cannot be credibly substantiated and, alas, WND is pretty anemic in that regard.
And just because the left could make hay out of thing such as the Downing Street Memo or Dan Rather's SeeBS story doesn't give us license to chase every rumor to bob to the top of the toilet bowl. Consevatism is, if nothing else, based on truth.
-
This has to be true, Capt Phillips certainly didn't mention Obama in his welcome home comments :uhsure:
-
This has to be true, Capt Phillips certainly didn't mention Obama in his welcome home comments :uhsure:
I did notice that glaring absence.
Did anyone notice if DU caught it as well?
-
Obama gets no credit from me for affecting the rescue of Cpt Phillips as the commander on-scene was acting under long standing authority...
...BUT...
...Obama, and everyone else for that matter, need not defend themselves from allegations that cannot be credibly substantiated and, alas, WND is pretty anemic in that regard.
And just because the left could make hay out of thing such as the Downing Street Memo or Dan Rather's SeeBS story doesn't give us license to chase every rumor to bob to the top of the toilet bowl. Consevatism is, if nothing else, based on truth.
Hi,
I agree with you. At the same time if I was not convinced it was the truth I would not have posted it.
A few years back I read a book called "Dereliction of Duty" which was written by the Air Force Colonel who was at Clinton's side with the nuclear codes for a good part of his presidency. Everything in the book was written in first person, things the officer observed. As luck would have it, I spent some time with a very famous General who was very much in the loop at that time. I asked him about the book and the author and he told me he knew the author personally and that it was 100% true. He went on to say something like "If the public knew what was really going on behind the scenes they would be very upset."
Now the book never got any press and it never got picked up by the mainstream media because, God forbid, it was critical of a democrat in office. I am sure there are many others that the same thing could be said about.
If you want to find out the truth about the factors that led up to the Iraq war and beyond I suggest the book, "The Party of Defeat" The last fourty pages or so are the footnotes documenting the statements made by the author. I mention this because my ex-wife happens to be a librarian in a county library and she wanted to read the book. Well she discovered something interesting. According to the records they had four books in inventory, they were not checked out, but all four were missing from the library. Now that must of course be a coincidence, because we have no proof of anything.
What is my point? I firmly believe there is a concerted and orchestrated effort on the part of the liberals to suppress the truth in any way they possibly can. That leaves us with little choice but to pay attention to what we see. I would not have made the post it I did not feel it was accurate, but that may be the best we get.
Of course, if a reporter would consider asking the question at a press conference it might clear up the entire matter, just like BO's birth certificate issue, but it just will not happen.
Thanks for the note of caution.
regards,
5412
-
We have a wimpo for president, probably gonna end up making Carter look brave.
God help us all!
I keep thinking of Joe Biden's statement about Zero's "spine of steel"....
I keep wondering if Zero has found one yet....
-
Anyone wanna bet that the somali pirate will not only get a light sentence but that "the dear leader" will pardon him after his first year in office?
-
Anyone wanna bet that the somali pirate will not only get a light sentence but that "the dear leader" will pardon him after his first year in office?
Hey,
He is just a teen ager, I am sure that will be taken into consideration. He gave himself up and he smiled at the cameras in New York. He didn't really mean it.
My guess is he will get political asylum and end up on or generous welfare system and start screaming about his rights.....which of course will then cause him to be granted immediate citizenship.
My wife just walked into my office and announced the pirates mommy has already asked BO to pardon her son. Now this kid took shots at a US military vessel and if BO pardons him that will really sit well with the military.....
regards,
5412
-
Here is another obscure write up I received in an email.... a bit of a bias with the term "raggies", but yanno. :-)
Obama's Decision on pirate hostage Capt Phillips
Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.
So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Obama's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.
Read the following accurate account.
Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his
lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors and none was taken.
The guidance from National Command Authority the president of the United States, Barack Obama had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution†would be acceptable.
After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene-commander decided he’d had enough.
Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer unnamed in all media reports to date decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.
Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.
There is upside, downside, and spin side to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.
Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.
Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.
What should have been a standoff lasting only hours as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
This information is provided by PURE PURSUIT INFORMATION CENTER, as a service to members of the Military and Air Defense Community with the purpose of offering relevant and timely information on (open source) defense, aviation, emergency, law enforcement and terrorism issues. Posts may be forwarded to other individuals, organizations and lists for non-commercial purposes
-
Can anyone here say FUBAR in the White house?
-
Can anyone here say FUBAR in the White house?
FUBAR............................BOHICA
-
Can anyone here say FUBAR in the White house?
How about FUBARma?
-
I am skeptical. From the moment this incident started, people who were not present have been saying, "This happened," "That happened," and "The other thing happened." People who were not in a position to know have claimed to know exactly what Obama said or even thought.
We will have plenty to criticize later. Let's give Obama a break this time.
-
I am skeptical. From the moment this incident started, people who were not present have been saying, "This happened," "That happened," and "The other thing happened." People who were not in a position to know have claimed to know exactly what Obama said or even thought.
We will have plenty to criticize later. Let's give Obama a break this time.
I guess we may find out the true chain of events during the trial of the captured pirate. It should come out unlless they claim it is secret in the interest of national security covering 0Bama's ass.
-
I hadn't thought any more about this, but caught Col. David Hunt on O'Reilly last night. He said the problem was that there was too many g'ment entities involved, and that slowed up the whole process. He also said that like most Presidents in the past, that Obama made the mistake of getting too involved and had had 17 meetings over this matter. His opinion was that on this, as all things like this, the matter should have been handled and decided by the military and the ship folks. He did say that O did o.k. in the end, but that it should never have gone on for 4 days, and that it should never happen this way again. He gave all kudos to the SEALS. I hadn't seen BOR in quite a while, only so much of him I can take, but he actually was right on target with his segments last night. I was surprised. He didn't even act like a blowhard.
-
I hadn't thought any more about this, but caught Col. David Hunt on O'Reilly last night. He said the problem was that there was too many g'ment entities involved, and that slowed up the whole process. He also said that like most Presidents in the past, that Obama made the mistake of getting too involved and had had 17 meetings over this matter. His opinion was that on this, as all things like this, the matter should have been handled and decided by the military and the ship folks. He did say that O did o.k. in the end, but that it should never have gone on for 4 days, and that it should never happen this way again. He gave all kudos to the SEALS. I hadn't seen BOR in quite a while, only so much of him I can take, but he actually was right on target with his segments last night. I was surprised. He didn't even act like a blowhard.
The FBI should never have been involved, for one thing. 17 meetings? Only one was necessary, and that would have been for 0Bama to have said "Take whatever steps needed to rescue the hostage."
-
I know this may upset some folks but anything coming from WND gets my bunny-sense tingling. Yet again WND never fails to disappoint when disappointing their avid readers:
President Obama dispatched two separate teams of Navy commandos to carry out last week's rescue of a merchant ship captain held hostage by Somali pirates but left the operational details and rules of engagement to military commanders, National Security Adviser James. L. Jones said Tuesday.
"I can tell you from a White House and presidential standpoint, there was no conflict, no gnashing of teeth, or excessive influence in trying to manage this thing," Mr. Jones, a retired Marine Corps four-star general, told The Washington Times in an interview.
He and other military officials gave the most detailed account to date of how Navy SEAL forces were dispatched - first from a base in Africa and later from the United States - to carry out the mission, and how Pentagon officials communicated with the White House. They sought to dispel Internet reports that the military was delayed from taking action by indecision inside the White House.
"I don't recognize" the information being circulated on the Internet, Mr. Jones said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/22/obama-okd-2-seal-teams-for-pirates/
There's plenty of bad policies decisions to contend with and I continue to maintain the SEALs acted under standing orders long-established before the current administration took office.
BUT
The last thing we need are flights of unsubstantiated fancy. Everytime we buy into some BS some zealot fabricates we diminish our credibility for matters that do count. You can bet your bottom dollar the next time Obama is criticized about a military decision the left will throw the WND article back in our faces. We cannot battle liberal derangements by becoming deranged ourselves. We're supposed to be better than this.