Obama declines comment on US hostage crisis off Somalia

[dutch508]

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.

[thundley4]

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?

 

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. 

[dutch508]

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.”

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.”

***

Be very glad that our U.S. military is trained, equipped, ready and able to do more than “mull things over.”

[JohnMatrix]

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. 

[TheSarge]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[Sam Adams]

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.

[TheSarge]

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.

[Sam Adams]

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.

[TheSarge]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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

[JohnMatrix]

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. 

[Hawkgirl]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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?

[Sam Adams]

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?

[TheSarge]

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.

[TheSarge]

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

[happy1ga]

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!!!!!

[thundley4]

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.

[Peter3_1]

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.

[JohnMatrix]

Not everyone...just those who seek to do us harm....DUH.

and those pirates are dead, are they not?

[Hawkgirl]

and those pirates are dead, are they not?

Thanks to the Navy Seals!

[Chris_]

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

[dutch508]

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.