The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: dutch508 on April 09, 2009, 10:26:59 AM
-
Breaking now.
Obama declines comment on US hostage crisis off Somalia
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWBT01101720090409
WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama declined to answer reporters' questions on Thursday on a hostage crisis off the coast of Somalia, where a U.S. ship captain is being held captive by pirates.
Obama was asked to comment on the situation several times by reporters at a White House event on refinancing for homeowners. Obama, however, stuck closely to the script and replied that he wanted to remain focused on housing.
(Reporting by Jeff Mason, Editing by Sandra Maler)
Is he too chicken to comment or does he not give a ****.
This follows closely on the heels of Hilery laughing during a discussion on the same subject.
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090401/capt.773ffd671ed94927aa537d663380c4cd.britain_g20_palace_lon305.jpg?x=400&y=317&q=85&sig=K8Qbm54DpacFU5XO_dr3tw--)
-
I really don't know what to say to this.
I am truly in shock.
-
TOTUS hadn't scrolled down to the answer/statement yet.
-
He is not so privately rooting for the somalians. I hope the americans who voted for this prick are happy about his leadership.
-
TOTUS hadn't scrolled down to the answer/statement yet.
...or it was broken. What a rookie. :whatever:
-
He couldn't make a statement because he hadn't seen any poll numbers yet.
-
"Breaking news from the White House: 0Bama will issue a statement about not issuing a statement, after the hostage crisis is resolved." :fuelfire:
-
Ooooobama's new slogan:
"Teleprompter. Don't leave home without it".
-
I understand that he was there do discuss something else than the Pirate situation...but at the very least he SHOULD have said, "before we get into our discusison on housing...I'd like to take just a moment and say something about the hostage situation off the coast of Somalia..."
How hard is that?
-
I understand that he was there do discuss something else than the Pirate situation...but at the very least he SHOULD have said, "before we get into our discusison on housing...I'd like to take just a moment and say something about the hostage situation off the coast of Somalia..."
How hard is that?
It's impossible. TOTUS can only handle one topic at a time. More than that, and we get a bunch of "eh, er, and uhs" . Worse we could end up with BSOD.
-
I understand that he was there do discuss something else than the Pirate situation...but at the very least he SHOULD have said, "before we get into our discusison on housing...I'd like to take just a moment and say something about the hostage situation off the coast of Somalia..."
How hard is that?
Very hard when you're out of your depth in a parking log puddle.
Did you hear??? This Easter, Barry's gonna hide his own Easter eggs again.
-
Other than that one little blurb, there is NO coverage on this by any other MSM. The white house remains silent.
-
I understand that he was there do discuss something else than the Pirate situation...but at the very least he SHOULD have said, "before we get into our discusison on housing...I'd like to take just a moment and say something about the hostage situation off the coast of Somalia..."
How hard is that?
Thought the same thing. At least he could have given a shout out to the Navy? The FBI? The heroic Captain? The situation is in capable hands? God Bless America? Blame Bush? Yeah, how hard is that :p
-
Mr. Obama is an empty suit, a narcisissist, less bright than everyone seems to think, completely and utterly inexperienced in "real world" work situations, so it is impossible for him to admit he has no idea of what to do.
Worse still, the advisors he has hired are all Clinton retreads, and from the "b" team as well. THEY don't know what to do either.
I know what to do, see Tom Jefferson.
-
And they gave Bush a hard time??? OMFG......
What a complete and utter fool.
-
And they gave Bush a hard time??? omg......
What a complete and utter fool.
They gave President Bush 8 years of grief over delaying by 30 MINUTES saying anything about the first plane hitting the WTC...but it's been what...36 HOURS since the ship was attacked and there's been NO STATEMENT by the President.
:banghead:
-
Well, Soros IS on vacation and can't be reached to tell Barry what to say at the moment...
-
They gave President Bush 8 years of grief over delaying by 30 MINUTES saying anything about the first plane hitting the WTC...but it's been what...36 HOURS since the ship was attacked and there's been NO STATEMENT by the President.
:banghead:
yep....they STILL beat him up over that. I mean really, WTF was he supposed to do? Run out of that classroom screaming like little Democrat?
-
Well, as I've said, He's probably thinking of the punishment to give the crew for taking back their ship. Can't have them violating the pirates civil rights. The man is a complete, utter, embarassment to every American alive.
-
yep....they STILL beat him up over that. I mean really, WTF was he supposed to do? Run out of that classroom screaming like little Democrat?
Wasn't it sKerry that said he was "paralyzed" for 45 minutes and couldn't even think after he heard what happened???
-
Jesus Christ, could this incident please push that monster's poll numbers over the cliff already?
Hey, at the end of Rush's first hour, a caller called in and said something like Eric Holder said that if any of the pirates were mistreated, he would hold the crew to account. Is this just a rumour? I can't find anything on it.
-
Wasn't it sKerry that said he was "paralyzed" for 45 minutes and couldn't even think after he heard what happened???
I think so........we're still waiting for him to unfreeze. :evillaugh:
-
I understand that he was there do discuss something else than the Pirate situation...but at the very least he SHOULD have said, "before we get into our discussion on housing...I'd like to take just a moment and say something about the hostage situation off the coast of Somalia..."
How hard is that?
Well the evil brother of Steve Eurkel would need a spine first to make that kind of decision.
-
God help us all if we have another attack the magnitude of 9/11. This dunce will turn the event into total chaos.
-
What the **** is his problem :hammer: :banghead:
-
I think some members of the media are beginning to question Obama's ability as Prez. This dunce does not have a clue.
-
I think some members of the media are beginning to question Obama's ability as Prez. This dunce does not have a clue.
I haven't seen any examples of this...They continue to ignore his obvious lack of leadership.
-
Here is the story about Hillery laughing. MSM has nothing on this.
Why is Hillary laughing?
By Doug Powers • April 9, 2009 03:02 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/09/why-is-hillary-laughing/
Hillary Clinton was commenting about the situation concerning the so-called “Somali pirates,†and during her remarks she let loose with a “let’s change the subject†laugh that she hasn’t made since a reporter spotted a cheerleader under Bill’s podium back in ‘93.
Here’s the video.
For those wondering about the reason for Hillary’s sudden cackle, I have five theories:
1) Nervous laughter because she suddenly realized she would be reprimanded for saying “piracy†instead of using a slight variation of the Administration’s preferred term, “Man-caused seafaring disaster.â€
2) Desperately trying to suppress the urge to say “ARRRR!.â€
3) Caught off guard by being asked about doing nothing about the Somali pirates when she was expecting to be asked about doing nothing about North Korea’s missile launch and Iran’s nuclear program.
4) Giddy because her “the world needs to come together to end the scourge of piracy†remark gave her a book idea: It Takes a Village to Erase a Pirate
And the most likely possibility…
5) The guy standing next to her looks an awful lot like somebody who just baked a Moroccan air biscuit, doesn’t he?
One of the most disconcerting traits of the Obama presidency so far is that whenever something bad happens, the first response of the administration is to very sternly wonder why nobody else is doing anything about it. “Global consensus†is required to attack everything except our paychecks. Now that’s piracy.
Update: John Kerry says this serious “pirate†situation calls for immediate hearings! That should scare ‘em, Senator
.
-
It is above his paygrade!
-
It is above his paygrade!
What isn't?
-
New title idea, "It Takes a Village Isdiot...."
-
What isn't?
Bowing to a Saudi King!
He got that down without practice or a teleprompter!
-
From the UK:
REFILE-ANALYSIS-Pirates pose annoying distraction for Obama
Thu Apr 9, 2009 7:21pm BST
* First North Korea, Iran -- now Somali pirates
* Recent U.S. experience with Somalia not good
* Analyst: Pirates are test of U.S. resolve
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - Ragtag teams of modern-day Blackbeards are posing an annoying distraction for Barack Obama, forcing him to add Somalia to an already long list of foreign policy challenges.
American presidents are told to expect the unexpected, and Obama is seeing that this week. First it was a North Korean test of a ballistic missile last weekend. Now comes a swashbuckling high-seas standoff with armed renegades.
Obama so far has sent U.S. Navy ships to protect an American-flagged freighter that managed to repel a pirate attack but whose captain was taken hostage.
America's recent experience with Somalia has not been good, making caution a key element of U.S. policy in dealing with the country.
The Obama administration was careful not to give the crisis too much prominence, with delicate negotiations under way to try to secure the captain's release.
"We're obviously paying careful attention to this issue. And I'm really not able to go beyond that at this point," said State Department spokesman Robert Wood.
Obama, just back from a week-long trip to Europe and a morale-boosting visit to U.S. troops in Iraq, already has a long list of foreign challenges from North Korea to Iran to Afghanistan, and beyond.
He declined to comment on the pirate situation for the second day in a row on Thursday.
And the usually voluble Vice President Joe Biden said only: "This is being worked on around the clock since this happened. I'm not in a position right now (to comment)."
Somalia came to U.S. attention in 1992 when warring factions created a humanitarian crisis.
DISTRACTION
President George H.W. Bush, describing it as "God's work," sent U.S. combat troops to the east African nation in late 1992 to lead an international U.N. force to secure the environment for relief operations.
"We will not stay one day longer than is absolutely necessary," Bush said.
President Bill Clinton inherited the problem. He pulled most of the U.S. troops out in early 1993.
But those that remained were sent to track down warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed, ultimately leading to a 17-hour firefight in Mogadishu in which 18 American soldiers were killed, a disastrous battle that led to the book and movie, "Blackhawk Down."
The pirate episode was a reminder to the United States that Somalia is a festering failed state -- or as Foreign Policy magazine called it, "The Most Dangerous Place in the World" -- and poses a foreign policy dilemma that will not go away.
"We don't want to go back there," said presidential historian Thomas Alan Schwartz, a professor at Vanderbilt University. "This may be one of those points where Obama is going to have to cash in some of his international chips and get the U.N. to go in there."
"Somebody needs to go into Somalia and govern the place," he said.
Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, who worked in the Clinton White House, called the crisis "a real test of national resolve" that the Obama White House and opposition Republicans need to work together to deal with.
"It's an annoyance and a distraction," he said. "On the other hand, if we don't take this seriously and we don't stamp it out we will face what other countries are facing, which are repeated acts of piracy." (Editing by Jackie Frank)
It's an annoyance that our ships and citizens are taken prisoner and barry can't apologize to more people...
-
The Pirates are sending reinforcements. If these scum make it to the ship or pirates already on scene, with a US Warship standing by. Well, the Navy and Obam might as well just give up even trying to portray themselves as having any power at all. That they even think about doing it is a sad statement on how our Navy, and our military in general are viewed by these scum. Here's a link to the story. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aNbTueHwH0z4&refer=us
-
Call the Puzzel Palace, get the invasion plans spooled up on the computer and start minuite to minuite updates with optional actions. Start the process as you very secretly deploy the necessary force to the area. Chose an invasion plan for the area where the vessels are held, move in, retake the verssels, fire them up , pull them out , level the city where they were kept. Take what you can, tell anyone who's interested that you'll make this little excursion look like a mild rebuke if there's any piracy again in that area, and anyone who pays ransom will lose docking priviledges in USA PortS, PERIOD.
BUT HE WON'T DO ANY OF IT.
-
FBI joins effort in hostage standoff with pirates.
They are treating this like it's a car thief that went across state lines. :banghead:
As soon as it's dark, put a fast team in the water, 10 mins. later it's over.
-
The Pirates are sending reinforcements. If these scum make it to the ship or pirates already on scene, with a US Warship standing by. Well, the Navy and Obam might as well just give up even trying to portray themselves as having any power at all. That they even think about doing it is a sad statement on how our Navy, and our military in general are viewed by these scum. Here's a link to the story. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aNbTueHwH0z4&refer=us
You're off base blaming the Navy.
They are currently and been made sure to the MSM to be following the Idjits orders.
I know for a fact that no Navy CO would not want to take out the threat instead of just sitting there.
Personally I wish an ARG was on hand and getting ready to end this
-
I'm sure the family of the crew and captain don't think this is an annoyance. Way to go there Obumble.....
-
Where the hell is Jack Bauer ?!?!?!?
-
You're off base blaming the Navy.
They are currently and been made sure to the MSM to be following the Idiots orders.
I know for a fact that no Navy CO would not want to take out the threat instead of just sitting there.
Personally I wish an ARG was on hand and getting ready to end this
I'm not blaming the Navy, I'm blaming the idiots who take this massive firepower and manpower and make it impotent. I'm former Navy, and believe that the Navy should be turned loose. Command decisions have been taken away from the on-scene commander. The Navy might as well give up trying to project power, if they won't use it when it's needed. All that power is impotent, if you stand by and let a speedboat of pirates drill right by you and board a US flagged freighter. There was a time, when the skipper on the spot could make a decision and act. Hell, Kerry wants to have a debate in Congress about it. They will have taken a hundred more ships while these idiots debate.
-
Hi,
Two comments on what I have read.
1. Notice Hillary called the Pirates criminals. That is a HUGE mistake, much like they treated terrorists as criminals during the Clinton administration. Terrorists, like pirates, have no rights, priviledges, nothing, nada. Under the Geneva convention, terrorists are specifically excluded because they are not soldiers, they target innocent women, children etc. therefore they are not afforded protection under the rules of the Geneva convention. Same holds true for pirates......except when the stupid libs are in charge....
2. They are currently negotiating with the pirates regarding the hostage. What a damn joke! You do not negotiate with pirates, terrorists etc. hostages have no value. The minute they do you encourage future attacks. The only negotiations should sound like this. If you let the captain go now, we will give you a five minute head start before we blow you to hell. If you don't release him now you will die an even more painful death. They have to be dead or they do nothing but encourage other pirates. That is much too logical for BO and friends to understand.
What is so hard to understand about that for crying out loud. Put Sara Palin in charge and it would have been handled by now.
regards,
5412
-
Sorry, guys, but I dissent from the group on this one. Obama, et al, should not say anything to complicate the situation. I agree the USA cannot make any concessions or pay any ransom. That would only encourage future attacks. But let's do everything we can to save the captain's life. So far, it seems to me, the Navy and Obama are playing the situation just right. If we are smart about this, that man will be home soon.
-
Sorry, guys, but I dissent from the group on this one. Obama, et al, should not say anything to complicate the situation. I agree the USA cannot make any concessions or pay any ransom. That would only encourage future attacks. But let's do everything we can to save the captain's life. So far, it seems to me, the Navy and Obama are playing the situation just right. If we are smart about this, that man will be home soon.
Because God knows, they're all sitting on that liferaft watching CNN, just waiting to react to Obama's statement...
Reagan had a line back in 1986 when we went after Ghadaffi where he said, "They counted on us to be passive. They counted wrong." Sends a helluva message to the next person who gets the bright idea to go after our ships.
-
Sorry, guys, but I dissent from the group on this one. Obama, et al, should not say anything to complicate the situation. I agree the USA cannot make any concessions or pay any ransom. That would only encourage future attacks. But let's do everything we can to save the captain's life. So far, it seems to me, the Navy and Obama are playing the situation just right. If we are smart about this, that man will be home soon.
The President hasn't said a ****ing word about the situation. Hillery is talking about criminals when she isn't laughing. Holden is trying to figure out what law we can bring them to trial with. Gibbs is just stupid.
There is one option- we go in and get our guy back. The ****ing pirates get to feed the sharks. Those 'criminals' need to know if you **** with our ships you get turned into chum.
Shores of Tripoli ring any ****ing bells, retard?
-
The DUmp has some interesting thoughts ont eh matter:
Thrill (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-10-09 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think you're overreacting a bit
I don't think this is a politically big deal.
Yeah- one of our ships is attacked...not a big deal. Kind of like the USS Cole.
hlthe2b (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-10-09 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Ditto... This has been going on for several years...
Edited on Fri Apr-10-09 08:46 AM by hlthe2b
Hostages from many countries have been taken and ultimately released--albeit with bribes.... Why is it ONLY a crisis for Obama, when crews of our ally's ships were taken over the last several years of the Bush* administration. It is an important, but not devastating issue and I have confidence in his approach, including what I strongly suspect is going on behind the scenes with the Somali government.
DU: Tune off the RW bloviators.... I think they are rubbing off on some DUers.
Note to DUmpmonkie; notice that it wasn't our ships being attacked during Bush's presidency?
monmouth (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-10-09 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. Why should this reflect on POTUS and his admin?????. Way over reaction...n/t
Maybe because he's the ****ing president?
TwilightGardener (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-10-09 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
18. It's a scary situation, but I don't think it's going to impact the Obama administration--
Edited on Fri Apr-10-09 10:06 AM by TwilightGardener
after all, we've had American citizens captured over the last eight years, and in some cases beheaded, in the Middle East, and no one thought it reflected on Bush. Why is this different?
Maybe, and I am just thinking here, it's because those people were in a war zone and were captured by the enemy which you claim doesn't exist. In most cases they attacked innocent civilians and murdered them. The President spoke out in those cases, condeming the enemy. We activily sought to fine them and resue them.
Here is a case of criminal piracy on one of our ships. One of our people is taken hostage. The president doesn't say shit. The Navy on scene should have been able, by now, to affect a rescue. We military types know this to be the case. The only thing stopping them is word from the White House.
-
I read this morning that the captain tried to make an escape. It's getting desperate. WTH are we doing out there? Get him out of there! Our president is disgraceful.
-
monmouth (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-10-09 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. Why should this reflect on POTUS and his admin?????. Way over reaction...n/t
Freaking little goons don't want real life issues and reality to interfere one iota what with their dream of a Socialist utopia within our borders so close.
IMHO they'd just prefer the media didn't mention this even once and look at the sailors and their family members as a "acceptable loss" in the bigger picture...of promoting the greatness of their messiah.
-
Oh my God! This is STILL going on??? Where is the well placed shot of lead poisioning???
-
Oh my God! This is STILL going on??? Where is the well placed shot of lead poisioning???
I had been wondering why some sharpshooters couldn't take them all out at once, also. I saw why this morning. What they showed on the news looks fully enclosed with a hard shell cover.
-
Oh my God! This is STILL going on??? Where is the well placed shot of lead poisioning???
Apparently they are in one of those Lifeboat/capsule things and therefore no clear shot. I'm sure they'd be dead by now if that weren't the case, with or without the presidents OK. Strange shit happens at sea when you mess with sailors and their lady(ship).
-
Apparently they are in one of those Lifeboat/capsule things and therefore no clear shot. I'm sure they'd be dead by now if that weren't the case, with or without the presidents OK. Strange shit happens at sea when you mess with sailors and their lady.
when you say lady, you mean the new guy who dropped the soap in the shower?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97FNAS80&show_article=1
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) - The American captain held hostage by four Somali pirates made a desperate escape attempt Friday but was recaptured after they fired shots, and officials said other pirates sought to reinforce their colleagues by sailing hijacked ships with other captives aboard to the scene of the standoff.
<snip>
Around midnight local time, Phillips jumped off the lifeboat and began swimming, according to Defense Department officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk about the sensitive, unfolding operations.
One of the pirates then fired an automatic weapon, the officials said, although it was not clear if the shots were fired at Phillips or into the air, and he returned to the lifeboat.
The USS Bainbridge, which is several hundred yards away, has rescue helicopters and lifeboats but is keeping its distance, in part to stay out of the pirates' range of fire.
Its sailors were able to see Phillips moving around and talking after his return to the lifeboat, and the Defense Department officials think he is unharmed.
Negotiations are taking place between the pirates and the captain of the Bainbridge, who is getting direction from FBI hostage negotiators, the officials said. The captors are also communicating with other pirate vessels by satellite phone, officials said.
U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus said U.S. warships also are headed to the area, more than 300 miles off Somalia's Indian Ocean coast.
"We want to ensure that we have all the capability that might be needed over the course of the coming days," he said.
President Barack Obama, who is getting regular updates on the standoff, declined to answer questions about it Friday for a second straight day.
<snip>
-
put a line on the boat, secure it to the destroyer. After dark, have some SEALS put a pair of cargo slings under the lifeboat, then hoist it onto the deck. Then, head for Norfolk. Eventually, someone would come out.
-
Because God knows, they're all sitting on that liferaft watching CNN, just waiting to react to Obama's statement...
Reagan had a line back in 1986 when we went after Ghadaffi where he said, "They counted on us to be passive. They counted wrong." Sends a helluva message to the next person who gets the bright idea to go after our ships.
Ghadaffi also didn't have any hostages
-
Pirates want $2M for American hostage. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090410/ts_nm/us_somalia_piracy_source_sb_1)
"39 mins ago
MOGADISHU (Reuters) – Somali pirates holding an American hostage on a drifting lifeboat want $2 million for his release, a fellow pirate onshore said on Friday.
The pirate, speaking to Reuters from Haradheere port, also said other pirates were taking a hijacked German ship, with foreign crew on board, toward the scene in the Indian Ocean where the lifeboat is floating, watched by U.S. warships.
"Knowing that the Americans will not destroy this German ship and its foreign crew, they (the approaching pirates) hope they can meet their friends on the lifeboat," said the pirate, who has given reliable information in the past but asked for his name not to be used."
-
Ghadaffi also didn't have any hostages
Neither do the ones sitting on shore right now. Use the terrorists (yes, that's what they are) as examples when you tie them to a buoy about 1/2 a mile offshore with a wad of raw bacon stuffed into their mouths as the carrion pick them over, you somehow see a rapid reduction in the number of hijackings.
Gee, I wonder why....
-
Neither do the ones sitting on shore right now. Use the terrorists (yes, that's what they are) as examples when you tie them to a buoy about 1/2 a mile offshore with a wad of raw bacon stuffed into their mouths as the carrion pick them over, you somehow see a rapid reduction in the number of hijackings.
Gee, I wonder why....
You'll never convince Johnny Communist that any action we take will be justified.
He's the biggest apologist for anyone that opposes us you'll find on the internets.
-
I see Capt. Stupid has crawled out from his rock again. I guess there has to be someone to be the bitch in the middle and matrix is it.
-
(http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/040909.jpg)
www.daybydaycartoon.com
damn. He's good.
-
You'll never convince Johnny Communist that any action we take will be justified.
He's the biggest apologist for anyone that opposes us you'll find on the internets.
right, and if obama actually went there himself and personally shot all the kidnappers, you would say that he didn't do enough.
-
right, and if obama actually went there himself and personally shot all the kidnappers, you would say that he didn't do enough.
Wrong, we'd trade hostages.
-
Wrong, we'd trade hostages.
As it is, 0Bama will probably accede to the terrorists demands and give them the money, and the hostage will still end up dead.
-
right, and if obama actually went there himself and personally shot all the kidnappers, you would say that he didn't do enough.
No that would actually earn some honest respect for the man from me.
Try again jackass.
-
obama goes and shoots all the hostages?
As long as we're dreaming, how about if Linsey Lohan gives him a blow job in the oval office?
....what do you mean it's all ready been done?
-
right, and if obama actually went there himself and personally shot all the kidnappers, you would say that he didn't do enough.
If Obama actually did that, man, it would totally change my opinion of him. Instead he is hiding under his desk.
President Bush finished reading to children for seven minutes after the WTC attacks and we never heard the end of it. Obama has been ducking and hiding from this for a few days now and the same people are defending him.
Obama is a weak, pathetic, shell of a man. He had no concept of what the job entails when he ran and he's still clueless.
But he looks good in a suit and he can read a teleprompter well so the lefties love him..
-
yOU'D THINK HE COULD MAN UP here and say SOMETHING useful, but no. He has become a bozo already.
-
If Obama actually did that, man, it would totally change my opinion of him. Instead he is hiding under his desk.
President Bush finished reading to children for seven minutes after the WTC attacks and we never heard the end of it. Obama has been ducking and hiding from this for a few days now and the same people are defending him.
Obama is a weak, pathetic, shell of a man. He had no concept of what the job entails when he ran and he's still clueless.
But he looks good in a suit and he can read a teleprompter well so the lefties love him..
bitchslapped for saying you'd like obama.
-
bitchslapped for saying you'd like obama.
Same back at ya cause that would be a feather in the cap
-
bitchslapped for saying you'd like obama.
Really, it's like saying "If the sun rose in the west tomorrow." I know it's never going to happen because it isn't in Obama's character.
Johnny Matrix is talking about Obama actually going there himself and taking out the bad guys, I think if he actually did that it would be impressive. But he wont ever so Johnny's point is moot. It would be as if Johnny Matrix said, "If Obama were a man, you guys still would hate him." So really it's just an impossible thing and Johnny doesn't have a point. It's one of those twisty logic things.
-
While terrorists watch Obama says "present".
-
While terrorists watch Obama says "present".
That's what community organizers do.
-
The president doesn't say shit. The Navy on scene should have been able, by now, to affect a rescue. We military types know this to be the case. The only thing stopping them is word from the White House.
And you know that? You somehow know that the Navy has not gotten "word from the White House"? How?
The captain is surrounded by four armed pirates. I guess the Navy should take your advice. Of course, that might result in a dead hostage. But at least Obama would satisfy you by appearing all manly and tough.
-
That particular cesspool has been over full for some time. Now, with the latest, it is overflowing, and the stink and mess are all over the front yard. It is past time to land on these idiots with both feet, can you say B-52? CRUSH anywhere they walk , ever, on dry land, then leave the place to rebuild itself.
We're already in the neighborhoood, and the entire area DESPERATELY needs a firepower demonstration. To include Mr. MOAB a time or two.
Indeed, lives WILL be lost, some "friendly", but those who are saved from being subjected to these barbarians will be thankful. And so would the refugees who DON'T die of starvation awaiting the arrivial of a pirated vessel.
-
And you know that? You somehow know that the Navy has not gotten "word from the White House"? How?
The captain is surrounded by four armed pirates. I guess the Navy should take your advice. Of course, that might result in a dead hostage. But at least Obama would satisfy you by appearing all manly and tough.
You ****ing retard. The only reason that the military hasn't taken action is they haven't been allowed too. In the military things work according to a set of guidelines. In a situation such as this, that is to say a political situation, a commander can not take independant action without authorization from higher. The rules of engagement in this situation have already been elevated to the White House the moment Hillery said the state department is sending in the FBI.
Guess what. The military trains just for such hostage situations and would ahve been able to respond as soon as they were on scene. In any event, the risk for casualties is present. You midigate the risks as much as possible, and then execute the mission. Worst case scenario, the Captain dies, the pirates are killed, and the rest of the 'criminals' know not to mess with US shipping.
As it satnds now- four ****s are holding off two American warships with AK-47s while the government tries to figure out how not to look like dumbasses.
Hell, even the French have more balls than this government does, now.
-
The fact that the FBI is involved at all, is more proof showing that 0Bama and his administration is completely FUBAR. This is NOT a criminal hostage situation, it is an act of TERRORISM, not a man made disaster.
-
In 1968 it took LBJ 10 days to send us the Wash. DC to help put down the riots and that was this nation's CAPITAL. It takes a while for the bureaucrat mind to make a military decision, then, more often then not, they make the wrong one.
-
Sam Adams...dutch...if you two want to get into a pissing contest...go start one in the FC.
Keep your sword fighting out of Breaking News.
-
Really, it's like saying "If the sun rose in the west tomorrow." I know it's never going to happen because it isn't in Obama's character.
Johnny Matrix is talking about Obama actually going there himself and taking out the bad guys, I think if he actually did that it would be impressive. But he wont ever so Johnny's point is moot. It would be as if Johnny Matrix said, "If Obama were a man, you guys still would hate him." So really it's just an impossible thing and Johnny doesn't have a point. It's one of those twisty logic things.
I doubt that Obama even knows which end the bullet comes out of.
-
right, and if obama actually went there himself and personally shot all the kidnappers, you would say that he didn't do enough.
You're such a fag.
If Obama we're strong about defense, not to mention matters economic and social we'd be more than happy to cheer him on.
Tell us fag-stick, what do you think irks us the most about Obama: A) his policies B) the "D" behind his name C) his skin D) other, be specific
-
I had to look twice to make sure this wasn't a story from 1993.
he White House discussions highlight the challenges facing the Obama team as it attempts to distance itself from the Bush administration, which conducted at least five military strikes in Somalia. The new administration is still defining its rationale for undertaking sensitive operations in countries where the United States is not at war.
Some in the Defense Department have been frustrated by what they see as a failure to act. Many other national security officials say an ill-considered strike would have negative diplomatic and political consequences far beyond the Horn of Africa. Other options under consideration are increased financial pressure and diplomatic activity, including stepped-up efforts to resolve the larger political turmoil in Somalia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/10/AR2009041003734.html?
-
You're such a fag.
If Obama we're strong about defense, not to mention matters economic and social we'd be more than happy to cheer him on.
Tell us fag-stick, what do you think irks us the most about Obama: A) his policies B) the "D" behind his name C) his skin D) other, be specific
Wow, an ad hominem from snuggle bunny. In other news, the sky is blue. Quit projecting.
and to answer your "question", it would be A,B,and D he's a closet muslim
-
Obama will soon move to his top levels of diplomacy in dealing with the muslim pirates. All the way up to, "Purty, please, please, please with whipped cream and a cherry on top."
-
It's beginning to look like the pirates will make it to the coast of Somalia, by drifting with the current , no less. They get their freedom, and still have the hostage, and meanwhile 0Bama has his thumb stuck up his ass.
-
Wow, an ad hominem from snuggle bunny. In other news, the sky is blue. Quit projecting.
Unlike you who, without any basis, claimed we'd hate him regardless.
and to answer your "question", it would be A,B,and D he's a closet muslim
I don't think he's a closet muslim because he spent too much time with his Marxist-based liberation theologian Rev Wright and the outright Marxist Bill Ayers for that to be true (I know, I know...me and my whole "guilt by association" thingy. I just can't help but judge a man by the company he keeps...I'm weird like that).
The D behind his name is immaterial because democrats like Zell Miller, Lieberman (on defense) and Sam Nunn have been well-recieved...because of their POLICIES.
Oh yeah, and we railed against Bush plenty over the years...I know I have...based on POLICIES.
So it's pretty much an issue of policy.
You, however, want to pretend that Obama could actually do the right thing to show us up but you know he won't. He's looking weak, indecisive and fumbling, but the fantasy in your mind that if he could do the right thing he could show us up so you prefer your fantasy rather than the demonstrated truth which underpins our disapproval; not to mention the fact we have a solid history of acceptance and disapproval based solely on policy.
So what this boils down to is, paraphrasing:
right, and if CC'ers actually looked there themselves and judged the merits the administration, you would say that they didn't do enough.
And that's why you're a fag. I suppose I could have used the more academic-sounding "hypocrite" or "disingenuous" but despite your conjurations of aires of dispassion you're just such...
...a fag.
-
Stolen from a post on FR, but just had to repeat it here:
President Bush liberated 50 MILLION people, Nobamessiah can't even rescue ONE American in a dingy that is out of gas and surrounded by the United States Navy!
-
Stolen from a post on FR, but just had to repeat it here:
President Bush liberated 50 MILLION people, Nobamessiah can't even rescue ONE American in a dingy that is out of gas and surrounded by the United States Navy!
Hilarious and sad at the same time. :rotf: :banghead:
-
Stolen from a post on FR, but just had to repeat it here:
President Bush liberated 50 MILLION people, Nobamessiah can't even rescue ONE American in a dingy that is out of gas and surrounded by the United States Navy!
ow
Damn, I felt that one all the way over here.
-
Sunday afternoom, Obama's thought to have picked a Dog, just like Teddy Kennedy's, he is thought to have picked a Church, just like Bill Clinton's, he may be negotiating with Iran, just like Jimmuh Carter, and, oh yes, American Still held hostage in the hands of Muslim extremists, and Obama has no comment.....we've got the worst of three worlds, don't we?
-
Unlike you who, without any basis, claimed we'd hate him regardless.
I don't think he's a closet muslim because he spent too much time with his Marxist-based liberation theologian Rev Wright and the outright Marxist Bill Ayers for that to be true (I know, I know...me and my whole "guilt by association" thingy. I just can't help but judge a man by the company he keeps...I'm weird like that).
The D behind his name is immaterial because democrats like Zell Miller, Lieberman (on defense) and Sam Nunn have been well-recieved...because of their POLICIES.
Oh yeah, and we railed against Bush plenty over the years...I know I have...based on POLICIES.
So it's pretty much an issue of policy.
You, however, want to pretend that Obama could actually do the right thing to show us up but you know he won't. He's looking weak, indecisive and fumbling, but the fantasy in your mind that if he could do the right thing he could show us up so you prefer your fantasy rather than the demonstrated truth which underpins our disapproval; not to mention the fact we have a solid history of acceptance and disapproval based solely on policy.
So what this boils down to is, paraphrasing:
right, and if CC'ers actually looked there themselves and judged the merits the administration, you would say that they didn't do enough.
And that's why you're a fag. I suppose I could have used the more academic-sounding "hypocrite" or "disingenuous" but despite your conjurations of aires of dispassion you're just such...
...a fag.
LOL. Well so much for that eh
-
Cpt freed, three pirate/terrorists dead, one captured. NAVY does it right again. GO NAVY!
-
As I stated earlier. The choice to engage the pirates was the president's. If he had given it earlier, the first escape attempt would have been the only one needed.
-
As I stated earlier. The choice to engage the pirates was the president's. If he had given it earlier, the first escape attempt would have been the only one needed.
The fact is, no president is daft enough to tell the SEALs to withhold fire if the death of a hostage is imminent; even Carter attempted a rescue in Iran, so I'm not seeing anything overly spectacular.
Obama is also dragging his feet on the demob from Iraq. Does he believe in what we accomplished in Iraq? Absolutely not. The fact is, he is a political creature and he doesn't want Iraq going tits-up on his watch. Does that mean he has the appreciation of the military arts and the moral fortitude to decide what is best in circumstances where force is the best/only option. Absolutely not.
The fact that a no-brainer situation resolved itself successfully does not speak to Obama's credit, only to his good luck; but gawd help US if HIS luck ever runs out.
-
The fact is, no president is daft enough to tell the SEALs to withhold fire if the death of a hostage is imminent; even Carter attempted a rescue in Iran, so I'm not seeing anything overly spectacular.
Obama is also dragging his feet on the demob from Iraq. Does he believe in what we accomplished in Iraq? Absolutely not. The fact is, he is a political creature and he doesn't want Iraq going tits-up on his watch. Does that mean he has the appreciation of the military arts and the moral fortitude to decide what is best in circumstances where force is the best/only option. Absolutely not.
The fact that a no-brainer situation resolved itself successfully does not speak to Obama's credit, only to his good luck; but gawd help US if HIS luck ever runs out.
The fact is, if obama had ordered them to use force within minutes of the pirate attack, you would have still said it was a "no brainer"
-
The fact is, if obama had ordered them to use force within minutes of the pirate attack, you would have still said it was a "no brainer"
SO what you're saying is: Obama's political history gives you confidence to trust his guiding philosophies and vision for the employment of American military power.
Where should I give credit: a multi-decades career of repeated rhetoric or a single event that was precipitated by the hostage seeking to escape successfully concluded by the skills of people ordinarily held in contempt by the Leftists?
-
The fact is, if obama had ordered them to use force within minutes of the pirate attack, you would have still said it was a "no brainer"
:whatever:
Actually moron...if he'd ordered the use of force within minutes...this thread wouldn't have gone this many pages of people wondering why he's swallowed his tongue on the whole thing.
-
:whatever:
Actually moron...if he'd ordered the use of force within minutes...this thread wouldn't have gone this many pages of people wondering why he's swallowed his tongue on the whole thing.
Actually, reports seem to be indicating the DoD asked...twice. So it seems Obama is not as pro-active as some would have us believe. There's a big difference between, "May I, sir"..."Yes." versus "I want you to take them down."
Even still I stand by my earlier assertion that Obama is no one to look to on matters military; he's simply following the political no-brainer.
To further my point: if/when the economy recovers only a fool would give credit to Obama and his policies; and I draw my declaration from Obama's long history of commenting on matters economic, political and military.
-
What was his message/order exactly? Was there room to weasel with the words even at that last minuite? Did he say "Your mission is to take the Craft, the Captian back, and use whatever force you feel is required" Or was it, "using all necessary force" , then you can weasel, Well, I don't think getting everyone KILLED was nesessary, but as President, I bear responsibility! tHE CROWD GOES WILD, rock star status maintained.
We'll be hearing about it as soon as the teleprompter decides how to play it to the adoring MSN.
-
What was his message/order exactly? Was there room to weasel with the words even at that last minuite? Did he say "Your mission is to take the Craft, the Captian back, and use whatever force you feel is required" Or was it, "using all necessary force" , then you can weasel, Well, I don't think getting everyone KILLED was nesessary, but as President, I bear responsibility! tHE CROWD GOES WILD, rock star status maintained.
We'll be hearing about it as soon as the teleprompter decides how to play it to the adoring MSN.
I'll hazard a guess that the standard format of proposing assets to be employed, RoE along with best-worst-and-probable scenario outcomes were presented. Of the several plans offered Obama authorized the one that he felt best balanced probability of success against reasonable allowance for failure.
The real proof in the pudding will be whether we grab what is ours and beat-feet hoping to evade future incidences of this sort or whether we take the fight to the pirates now that they are REALLY pissed-off. I don't see Obama--or any president for that matter--leaping into yet another asymetetrical war with 2 others still raging but the threat is significantly increased. The pirates seem to feel the need to retaliate. Perhaps a middlin' path of arming the ships.
The other big--indeed, bigger--test wil be the trial of the captured pirate. We will get the first very public glimpse of Obama's legal theories concerning unlawful combatants. The fact that he even refuses o call them such does not portend well. Perhaps the idiocy of his ideals will be made manifest and prove sufficient embarrasment to Obama to get him to reverse his reversals. Then again maybe he's enough of an ideologue to humiliate himself out of a second term. Obama may be the dog who chased the car and caught it.
-
I heard some talking heads earlier saying that if found guilty, the pirate will face up to life in prison, no death penalty.
-
I heard some talking heads earlier saying that if found guilty, the pirate will face up to life in prison, no death penalty.
There's a lot of legal wrangling. Every two-bit Ramsey Clarke is going to come pouring out of the woodwork and crawling out from under their rocks to defend this guy. They will simultaneously--and in full consciousness of their own inconsistency--claim A) the US has no legal authority to try him and B) his rights under the US Constitution were violated when _________ occurred. Look forward to allegations of torture and coerced confession as well. Worse still, they only need 1 sympathetic judge to skate.
Trial?
:rotf:
Brother, we got YEARS of court proceedings before we get to any trial and that in and of itself will be seen as grounds for dismissal due to the fair and speedy clause. You can thank Obama and the libs for setting the legal framework for that in their near-treasonous efforts to knock down Bush all those years.
-
Personally, I think barry first thought to cover his political ass, thus didn't give the go ahead to take them out, then sent in the FBI in to take care of the situation in a nagotiational way. The administration was embarrassed by; 1)The french taking a ship back, and 2)the missed attempted escape by CPT Phillips.
There is no way a military (or police) team during a hostage situation is not going to be ready to exploit an escape attempt unless they were on stand down. The only way that would happen is if the FBI and the white house told them.
-
There's a lot of legal wrangling. Every two-bit Ramsey Clarke is going to come pouring out of the woodwork and crawling out from under their rocks to defend this guy. They will simultaneously--and in full consciousness of their own inconsistency--claim A) the US has no legal authority to try him and B) his rights under the US Constitution were violated when _________ occurred. Look forward to allegations of torture and coerced confession as well. Worse still, they only need 1 sympathetic judge to skate.
Trial?
:rotf:
Brother, we got YEARS of court proceedings before we get to any trial and that in and of itself will be seen as grounds for dismissal due to the fair and speedy clause. You can thank Obama and the libs for setting the legal framework for that in their near-treasonous efforts to knock down Bush all those years.
To make it even worse, Holder at one time defended the pardoning of the FALN terrorists. Who knows he may be the defense attorney for the pirate. :-)
-
What’s missing from Obama’s statement
By Michelle Malkin • April 12, 2009 05:13 PM
This is the full statement the White House released today in response to the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips:
“I am very pleased that Captain Phillips has been rescued and is safely on board the USS Boxer. His safety has been our principal concern, and I know this is a welcome relief to his family and his crew.
“I am also very proud of the efforts of the U.S. military and many other departments and agencies who worked tirelessly to secure Captain Phillips’s safe recovery.
“We remain resolved to halt the rise of piracy in this region. To achieve that goal, we must continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks, be prepared to interdict acts of piracy and ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes.
“I share the country’s admiration for the bravery of Captain Phillips and his selfless concern for his crew. His courage is a model for all Americans.â€
Nine words missing. Stated clearly by Navy Vice Admiral William Gortney. But not directly, publicly, and loudly by our commander-in-chief:
“The United States government policy is to not negotiate.â€
***
Be very glad that our U.S. military is trained, equipped, ready and able to do more than “mull things over.â€
-
:whatever:
Actually moron...if he'd ordered the use of force within minutes...this thread wouldn't have gone this many pages of people wondering why he's swallowed his tongue on the whole thing.
yes, it would. You would be wondering what the real reason for doing it was. You would then assume he just did it for political gain, and somehow appeared weak doing so.
-
yes, it would. You would be wondering what the real reason for doing it was.
Nope. Sorry I don't deal in tinfoil like you do. THere would be a LOT of military people breathing s sigh of relief that he did the right thing and acted swiftly.
For how he reacts to things like these Pirates sends a signal not only to our military...but to the people we are fighting exactly how our new leadership will react to what they do.
You would then assume he just did it for political gain, and somehow appeared weak doing so.
Really? You know how I'd think on this Carnak? Good God you're a moron.
-
yes, it would. You would be wondering what the real reason for doing it was. You would then assume he just did it for political gain, and somehow appeared weak doing so.
Your right.
Obama really is the go-to guy on matters concerning the military. His lifelong deep and abiding appreciatioin for the military proves that despite his lacked of uniformed experience, he's not one of those egg-headed academic types that views American military power as the source of all the world's ills. I have full faith that his policies on Iraq, Afghanistan and the GWoT "Overseas Contingency Operations" are seated firmly on a bedrock of principles. He would never be the sort to engage in theatrical political triangulations designed affect some sort of kumbaya social theory at the expense of candor with the America voter. Nope, not Obama, he's a straight-up kinda guy.
-
I am not crazy about Obama, folks.
But all of us who were ready to condemn him, if this situation turned out poorly, should give him credit, because it turned out well. He is the commander and chief of our Navy. Let's be fair.
Or, alternatively, some of you could just keep calling me names.
-
I am not crazy about Obama, folks.
But all of us who were ready to condemn him, if this situation turned out poorly, should give him credit, because it turned out well. He is the commander and chief of our Navy. Let's be fair.
Or, alternatively, some of you could just keep calling me names.
I'll give credit where credit is due...to the Navy special operators and the crews of the MASERK Alabama and the U.S.S. Bainbridge.
Having lived through and served under this kind of Democratic inaction on even the smallest need for military intervention before...I'm giving no credit to the White House.
-
I'll give credit where credit is due...to the Navy special operators and the crews of the MASERK Alabama and the U.S.S. Bainbridge.
Having lived through and served under this kind of Democratic inaction on even the smallest need for military intervention before...I'm giving no credit to the White House.
Obama is the Commander-In-Chief. And Obama authorized the operation.
If the operation had failed, or if ransom had been paid, or if the hostage had died, would you blame the Navy? No. Neither would I.
-
Obama is the Commander-In-Chief. And Obama authorized the operation.
How long did it take? How many headlines did we see about what a "distraction" this was?
What would the media and the Dems...hell how man of US would have roasted President Bush had he acted so slowly.
If the operation had failed,
Blame would depend on whether it was a faulty plan or not. Not every ship commander it Chester Nimitz.
And besides...the Navy wasn't in overall command of the situation. The administration dispatched the FBI because as we ALL know...terrorism on the high seas is a matter for the cops.
or if ransom had been paid,
Not up to the military in ANY case.
or if the hostage had died, would you blame the Navy?
Death of a hostage is one of the risks when dealing with terrorists. everyone involved knew this.
No. Neither would I.
But neither would you expect to find...on a Conservative board...someone defending Obama like you are either.
I guess you're about the only one here that would say "yes" to franksolich's question about whether we are feeling "united" yet.
-
I am not crazy about Obama, folks.
But all of us who were ready to condemn him, if this situation turned out poorly, should give him credit, because it turned out well. He is the commander and chief of our Navy. Let's be fair.
Or, alternatively, some of you could just keep calling me names.
No names for you, just a question or two...with preface.
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?
Sorry, but I don't have a scintilla of faith that he has the well-being of those he commands in mind and the word "victory" isn't even in teleprompter's vocabulary. I have no reason to believe his military decisions are sincere and every reason to hold them suspect based on his life's long political history and even slanders.
-
Former green beret Uncle Jimbo weighs in:
My post yesterday pointed out that President Obama did not actually order a rescue attempt, he merely reaffirmed the standing authority on scene commanders had to act if lives were in imminent danger. Jonah Goldberg makes the fair point that Obama is Commander in Chief and this happened on his watch, so he should gain congratulations just as he would have been blamed had it gone poorly. I have no problem with that my beef was with the news agencies i.e. Obama cheerleaders who were spinning the event as a decisive action by the President. It wasn't. There were also reports that the President gave orders for a rescue if an opportunity presented itself, that does not appear to be true and it would have been a significant escalation from merely confirming standing orders allowing force if a death appeared imminent.
The legal standard for the use of deadly force is a legitimate fear for your life or the lives of others. That same standard is infused into all military rules of engagement (ROE) I have seen. The commander of the Bainbridge had the authority to kill the pirates at any time he felt the lives of US citizens were in imminent danger. What President Obama did was to confirm that authority. There is some question as to whether his initial orders restricted the ability of the military to intervene while the negotiations were going on. This comes from the fact that no action was taken when Phillips jumped off the lifeboat and attempted to escape. It is unknown whether there were actually restrictions placed.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/04/congratulating-obama-on-the-rescue.html
-
Your right.
Obama really is the go-to guy on matters concerning the military. His lifelong deep and abiding appreciatioin for the military proves that despite his lacked of uniformed experience, he's not one of those egg-headed academic types that views American military power as the source of all the world's ills. I have full faith that his policies on Iraq, Afghanistan and the GWoT "Overseas Contingency Operations" are seated firmly on a bedrock of principles. He would never be the sort to engage in theatrical political triangulations designed affect some sort of kumbaya social theory at the expense of candor with the America voter. Nope, not Obama, he's a straight-up kinda guy.
yes, those damn egg-headed academic types. You're right, being president is all about showing everyone how tough you are.
-
yes, those damn egg-headed academic types. You're right, being president is all about showing everyone how tough you are.
Not everyone...just those who seek to do us harm....DUH. :whatever:
-
yes, those damn egg-headed academic types. You're right, being president is all about showing everyone how tough you are.
A swing and a miss, scarecrow.
Since you want to play obtuse (are you playing?) I'll repeat my earlier questions directed at another poster:
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?
-
But neither would you expect to find...on a Conservative board...someone defending Obama like you are either.
I guess you're about the only one here that would say "yes" to franksolich's question about whether we are feeling "united" yet.
Well, maybe you should not put words in my mouth. No, I am not feeling "united" yet. I have condemned almost everything Obama has done. His policies are a disaster, and he is turning out to be an even worse president than I thought he would be. I have criticized Obama vigorously in here.
On this thread, I merely suggested that Obama might be trying to do the right thing with respect to the recent Somali pirate incident. For that, I was insulted. Obama Derangement Syndrome is in full bloom, obviously.
By the way, how long did it take for President Bush to get our people back from China after their surveillance plane was hit by the Chinese in 2001? Did you approve of what he did to get them back?
-
On this thread, I merely suggested that Obama might be trying to do the right thing with respect to the recent Somali pirate incident. For that, I was insulted. Obama Derangement Syndrome is in full bloom, obviously.
No...just stating very plainly that signing two pieces of paper authorizing what the military already had standing authorization to do is not leadership.
Ordering the sinking of any pirate ship found along the coast of Somalia...that would be leadership in a situation like this.
By the way, how long did it take for President Bush to get our people back from China after their surveillance plane was hit by the Chinese in 2001?
That day. He was on the news that day and kept commenting on it and telling the people what was going on.
He didn't sit on this thumbs for 5 days preferring instead to fly pizza chefs and make up artists in at our expense.
Did you approve of what he did to get them back?
No. They should have sent SF in to destroy the plane on the runway.
-
The fact is, if obama had ordered them to use force within minutes of the pirate attack, you would have still said it was a "no brainer"
franksolich has requested a moment of your time on this thread.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,27436.msg289990/boardseen.html#new
-
I am a nite person, so I was up last nite when the pirates took yet another ship, a Greek one. I just heard that they have now gotten yet ANOTHER ONE! This one was off the Horn of Africa, and it is British. Good goog a mooga! 2 in the matter of hours! And that is not taking in account the 250 or so hostages they already have!!!!!
-
I am a nite person, so I was up last nite when the pirates took yet another ship, a Greek one. I just heard that they have now gotten yet ANOTHER ONE! This one was off the Horn of Africa, and it is British. Good goog a mooga! 2 in the matter of hours! And that is not taking in account the 250 or so hostages they already have!!!!!
They are saying on FNC that 4 ships have been taken in the last 24 hours.
-
It appears now that the eldest of the pirates was 19. This AM Obama gives a speech saying well, the economy is healed, BUT WAIT, IT WON'T REALLY SHOW 'TIL NEXT ELECTION CYCLE! This non news has frozen out MSM mention of the piracy. Why? Because we all know what the reaction in the MSM would be if Bush had been pres.. But, as it is Obama, well SOMETHING has to move story off the front pages......
Synical? You bet.
-
Not everyone...just those who seek to do us harm....DUH. :whatever:
and those pirates are dead, are they not?
-
and those pirates are dead, are they not?
Thanks to the Navy Seals!
-
and those pirates are dead, are they not?
franksolich has requested a moment of your time on this thread.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,27436.msg289990/boardseen.html#new
-
Quote from: JohnMatrix on Today at 14:11:30
and those pirates are dead, are they not?
Quote from: TxRadioguy on Today at 05:34:16
franksolich has requested a moment of your time on this thread.
http://www.conservativeca...289990/boardseen.html#new
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.
-
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
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/GetAttachment.jpg)