Beldar: Surviving Pirate Should Face Death; Also, Why Obama’s Handling of the Pirate Situation Does Not Necessarily Reassure
Should the surviving pirate face the death penalty? Big Media is telling us he faces life at most. Beldar thinks the penalty should be death.
I’m not an expert on federal criminal law, and I haven’t had time to research Beldar’s contention, but it seems facially plausible. [UPDATE: According to this story, the surviving pirate had surrendered at the time the others were killed. I think this would make Beldar’s argument for the death penalty tougher, but not necessarily wrong.] Ironically — if the surviving pirate is a minor, something that is not at all clear — a possible death penalty could be precluded by our Supreme Court’s lawless decision eliminating the death penalty for juveniles. More justices like this, please, Mr. Obama!
Speaking of whom, Beldar has this to say:
If you’re wondering why I’ve been so churlish in not extending even a nod of appreciation to our Commander in Chief, read this paragraph tucked away near the end of the New York Times’ account of the rescue:
The Defense Department twice asked Mr. Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently late on Friday night, senior defense officials said. On Saturday morning, the president agreed to permit action, they said, but only if it appeared that the captain’s life was in imminent danger.
Then tell me: When, exactly, during this entire episode was Captain Phillips’ life not in imminent danger? Why did Barack Obama have to sleep on the decision whether to permit our military commanders on the scene to use their own judgment as to whether to kill pirates who had attacked an American vessel and were holding its captain hostage? If this paragraph from the NYT is correct, then even if our forces had clear shots at all of the pirates simultaneously prior to Saturday morning, they lacked Obama’s permission to take them. And that is outrageous and, on the part of our nominal Commander in Chief, pathetic.
Yes, I suppose Obama could have been more pathetic — he could have refused permission altogether. But Obama obviously thinks he’s our Defense Lawyer in Chief, maybe Defense Lawyer for the World. And that’s not the job he’s in — that’s emphatically not the oath he took last January, and there are times, including this one, when it could be inconsistent with the oath he took last January. Obama’s operating under a delusion that is very dangerous for America and the rest of the free world. Color me unsurprised but still disappointed.
All emphasis in the original.
It’s hard to argue with success, so I’m not inclined to be too harsh. But Beldar provides a good reminder that we shouldn’t get carried away with the fiction of Barack Obama, Tough Guy.
Someone remind Patterico who’s the commander in chief.
Andrew (7e4b75) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:25 amIt’d be dificult to sentence the survivor to death because none of the victims of the piracy were killed. Didn’t we just go through this with a rape case in which the victim survived?
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:40 amAlso, Patterico asked: Then tell me: When, exactly, during this entire episode was Captain Phillips’ life not in imminent danger?
But the Navy commander did not see imminent danger until the pirates pointed their weapons at Phillips, according to the USA Today timeline:
“Sunday: One of the pirates is seen pointing an AK-47 at Phillips. The commander of the Bainbridge determines Phillips is in “imminent danger” and gives the order to fire.”
So the notion that commanders did not use their own judgment is bogus. They used it in determining the point when danger was imminent.
Andrew (ac4c70) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:52 am“Why did Barack Obama have to sleep on the decision whether to permit our military commanders on the scene to use their own judgment as to whether to kill pirates who had attacked an American vessel and were holding its captain hostage?”
He’ll take the tough guy credit when it serves him, but truth be told, he didn’t want any people of color to get hurt.
xerocky (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:56 amHe’ll try to soak up some of the tough guy BS for a while, but it won’t be long before were hearing that if it weren’t for our own churlish self absorption, those innocent children wouldn’t have grown up to be pirates in the first place.
I happen to think Beldar is right on this, although like you I’m not sure about the death penalty. It should be automatic that our troops are there to protect and defend our citizens. It should not require a couple of days to decide to do so.
Fritz J. (89333b) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:12 amI have to disagree for one reason.
The president left it to the captain of the Bainbridge to decide what imminent means.
What is more amazing was the coverage of the episode, the press conference and particularly MSNBC who referred to the captured pirate as a “hostage”.
And if today’s morning joe is an indication they are playing to their niche audience.
datechguy (b2c7e4) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:15 amDoesn’t everyone realize that Obama is just creating more pirates when he orders our arrogant, imperialistic, Christian military complex to take actions such as these?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:27 amBottom line is Obama balked at using force, and when he finally DID authorize it… he used a caveat (ie “only if blah, blah) so if something went wrong he could deflect the blame down to the commander on the scene. poor leadership. I was always taught that when things go well, good commanders credit their soldiers… when things go not so well, they take the hit themselves. That is part of this thing called leadership… something obama (due to his lack of executive/military experience and political leanings) needs to work on.
BadBrad (0a2dc4) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:27 amSomeone mentioned, in another blog, that the US government does not negotiate….it sounds as though our DOD was negotiating with obama and that took days. I would prefer a commander in chief to instruct the military to use its judgment in freeing the hostage.
Judith (e54586) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:56 amI pray for our troops in battle under such a witless fool.
BadBrad: I don’t like our 44th President very much, either, but he wins on this one. If he took his time authorizing the use of force, he can say that he was weighing all of the options. And when push comes to shove, he did the right thing.
To complain that President Obama took too long on this reminds me of our friends on the left combitching that President Bush was out of touch for too long on September 11th, 2001.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:57 amI have to agree, instead of having a “Decider” we have a guy who will inevitably do more harm than good by being indecisive, thinking about how action will resonate in the court of public opinion/lefty blogosphere, and trying to think of every possible angle before giving the go-ahead.
If this were 9/11, he’d have the NYPD still dusting for fingerprints.
Hawkins (3d318d) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:07 amCongrats to the Navy for their successful efforts, in spite of the lack of decisive leadership from Teh One.
FWIW – Comment #1 is vintage Andrew.
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:11 amMy confident guess is that there was interference/conflicting advice from the Justice Department. I say this because 1) the FBI assumed jurisdiction over the Alabama, declaring it a crime scene, and detaining the crew on the ship, and 2) I find it impossible to believe that the Bainbridge’s captain, or at least his Admiral, or at most the area CinC, did not have standing orders regarding this kind of situation. I will leave open the possibility that the standing orders were not perfectly explicit in the case of civilian hostages, allowing DOJ to step in.
nk (52e9a9) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:20 amI love all of these back-seat drivers yelling “Yeah! Go get ‘em!” while they are safely ensconced at home typing away at keyboards. I think they all might feel a little differently if you were a sailor on a merchant ship off the Somalian coast.
Then again, most of ‘em would probably be too chicken-sh-t to even walk on board one.
JEA (0ccd61) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:31 amCHICKENSAILORS !!!!!!!!!
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:37 amListen up, sprout boy. Barack Obama will never be “commander in chief,” because he will never have the trust, confidence or leadership to inspire the men and women of the military. As BadBrad points out, leadership is a multifaceted quality…and one that Obama is totally incapable of.
#6 datechguy:
I’m going to go out on a limb, and guess that it was not Commander Castellano (CO of the Bainbridge) that gave the go-ahead, but an unnamed Commander who is the skipper of the SEAL team that performed the mission. And I’m going to guess that one of the reasons that CINC was even involved in the decision was because Captain Castellano insisted that the SEAL team wait for “direction” from higher authority. On scene commanders have a great deal of latitude to exercise their judgement, but we have lost much of that in today’s political climate where the military is micromanaged by political hacks. A far cry from 1787, when a ship’s captain in the same part of the world wrote home to say “I believe I have precipitated a war.”
#10 The Realistic Dana:
I think not. He doesn’t have the training or expertise to deal with this kind of situation, and should have left it to the professionals from the get-go.
#12 JD:
dumberer.
Well, at least a sack of ’em don’t weigh much, seein’ as there ain’t nuthin’ there.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:38 am#13 nk:
I think there is a lot of merit in what you say: although I think the situation is more of a “higher authority” horned in on a situation that the on-scene commanders were quite capable of handling, because of the notoriety the incident generated.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:41 am#15 JD:
Good thing I don’t work down in torpedo rooms anymore…you could keep me stuck in between torpedoes for hours yellin’ that…I’d be laughing too hard to wriggle back out…
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:47 amBy the Leftist metrics, didn’t we just create a bunch of new pirates?
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:49 amEW1(SG): Remember all of the things we thought would torpedo Senator Obama’s quest for the White House? He wasn’t really a native born citizen, he didn’t have the experience, he couldn’t speak without a teleprompter, yada, yada, yada. Well, guess what: we were wrong on all of those things, and the man was elected president, our president, whether we like it or not.
You can quibble about his decision-taking proces, you can combitch that he didn’t take his decision soon enough, but, in the end, President Obama will get a lot of credit for this on the part of the public. This could have turned out badly: what if one of the snipers had missed on his first shot? A lifeboat moving up and down on the waves, and the ship on which the snipers were poised moving up and down on teh waves, and those were some excellent shots, but they could have missed. One miss, and Captain Phillips could be dead now, too, and President Obama would be getting the blame, not the credit.
The President took the right decision, it was a gamble based on the efficiency of execution — pun intended — and he won. There’s really nothing that grousing about it now can do for us.
The Dana who doesn't like the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is Commander-in-Chief, but recognizes that he is and there's nothing that we can say which will change that fact (3e4784) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:53 amEW1 – According to JEA, you would not have the courage to set foot on a commercial shipping vessel.
This chickenhawk meme has popped up a couple times in recent days. Ironic, or just completely tone deaf?
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:53 amConcerning the standing orders previously existing: the rules of engagement prior to the President changing them were that no force was to be used if doing so would place the lives of innocent people in jeopardy. We don’t know when such rules were put in place, but they probably pre-date 20 January 2009. They might be Bush Administration rules, or even Clinton Administration rules.
The Dana who doesn't like the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is Commander-in-Chief, but recognizes that he is and there's nothing that we can say which will change that fact (3e4784) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:59 amIt ought to be remembered that, prior to his tremendous actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy was tested, and found wanting, during the Bahia de Cochinos invasion, at just about the same time into his presidency. Perhaps President Obama is a quicker learner than President Kennedy.
Heck, President Carter seemed to never learn, until, finally, Leonid Brezhnev taught him a lesson with the invasion of Afghanistan, to which Presient Carter boldly responded by cancelling American participation in the 1980 Moscow Olympics.
The historian Dana (3e4784) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:03 amObama is turning pirates into terrorists.
Dennis D (ae900a) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:08 amI love all of these back-seat drivers yelling “Yeah! Go get ‘em!” while they are safely ensconced at home typing away at keyboards. I think they all might feel a little differently if you were a sailor on a merchant ship off the Somalian coast.
I somehow doubt that. If I were a sailor on a merchant ship that was taken hostage, I’d rather have my life in the hands of the US Military over Obama
Hawkins (3d318d) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:14 amNo this is more akin to the missile strike against the Iraqi Mukharabat, after the assasination that claimed one janitor, on the night shift. It’s a good first step, but the problem is nowhere near solution. All credit to the Navy’s efforts, and in so far as he did not obstruct them, kudos to the President. this dithering over some Zodiacs and a lifeboat,
narciso (4e0dda) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:15 amwhile we press for unilateral disarmament, treat
a NK missile launch as an oversight, embolden the Iranian hardliners, by agreeing to all their
preconceptions
#20 Dana:
You are right, in so far as the this will be hailed as evidence of Obama’s “leadership” and “courage” and a whole bunch of other qualities that he has in short supply or lacks totally. You are also correct in pointing out that we are stuck with him, for better or worse, at least until the next Presidential election…and, let me add that I hope he does do well as President.
Let me also point out that I am sufficiently a “sea lawyer” (pedant, to you landlubbers) to take issue with dumberer’s formulation in his post at the top of the thread (sometimes it’s appropriate to use CAPS in a post) and it allowed me a chance to bitch, and a sailor ain’t gonna be happy unless he’s bitching.
And finally, as you point out, the ROE was heavily weighted in favor of the bandits during the Clinton era (one of many reasons that I severed my service then), and the Bush Administration didn’t ever fully recover the autonomy that has traditionally been granted military commanders to effectively deal with situations on the ground, or sea, as in this case. So there is certainly plenty of blame to spread around…and not all of can be laid upon the President’s shoulders. But the equivocation shown by the Commander-in-Chief is one reason he will never be the “commander-in-chief,” and I daresay that I find his performance in this incident a troublesome indicator of his competence to deal with foreign nations that do not have our best interests at heart.
#21 JD:
Yeah, well you know us chicksailors. I never would have stepped aboard a commercial vessel during maritime law enforcement ops except that we had guns.
Lots and lots of guns.
😉
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:36 amEr, chickensailors.
Chicksailors are a another thing entirely.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:37 amWe ought to be pleased this had a happy ending, but it is going to take a while before many of us stopp looking for the caveat that allows Obama to throw somebody/anybody under the bus if something goes wrong. There’s plenty of that here and even Obama’s blindest supporters would have to admit he’s happy to deflect blame and cut bait on anybody.
spongeworthy (c2e8fe) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:41 amFrankly, I’d have told the local commander; “Break things and kill people, as needed to secure the American civilian”.
I suspect that would have been sufficiently clear.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:49 amEW1(SG) wrote:
Well, I’ve got one daughter in the United States Army and another who is begging her parents to sign the consent form so that she can do BCT this summer, between her junior and senior years. When the older daughter took her oath, George Bush was still our commander-in-chief, but her present commander-in-chief is Barack Hussein Obama; if he says go, she goes.
What does the C-in-C do? He gave the authorization; the Navy provided the execution. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
President Obama passed this first test; he’ll have many more to come. I’ll wait until he fails in one to criticize his abilities as C-in-C.
The proud daddy Dana (3e4784) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:49 amI think that saying he passed this one is a bit generous. I would say he did not fail.
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:56 amOh yeah…Brave, brave Sir Obama…
His actions…or lack thereof (they had to ask TWICE?)…are entirely consistent with The Messiah’s stated “it’s a police problem” response to terrorism.
His permission to act (and that is all it was) is exactly the same permission every police officer in the US operates under every instant they are on the job.
Way to go Barry…you have some of the best in the world under your command and you constrain them with a Barney-rule to keep their bullet in their pocket until the really, Really, REALLY need it.
Fortunately the people on-deck were up to that task despite the restrictions.
…and as usual, the politician has their “out” if it goes bad…and their “in” if it works out.
Unfortunately, we need a leader…a Commander…not the slacker politician we have.
MJN1957 (d1de05) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:56 amI think that saying he passed this one is a bit generous. I would say he did not fail.
Did you hope he would?
Sorry! Can’t help self!
Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:58 amNo.
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:03 amProud Daddy Dana has it right. Saying that Obama isn’t the “commander in chief” is just petty, and easily mockable as the whine of a sore loser. (Remember Sore Loserman?) If criticism of Obama is to have any credibility with the public, we’ve got to give him credit when he does the right thing.
It would be unwise to give the surviving pirate who had already surrendered the death penalty. His age, and the fact that he had surrendered should count as extenuating circumstances. And in future hostage situations, that example would make it a lot easier to convince pirates to surrender.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:05 amWell, you see, I was aboard the life boat when this all went down. And I heard Obama’s orders to shoot to incapacitate if the captain’s life was in imminent danger.
The businessmen on board the life boat were trying to negotiate a trade deal with the captain when the captain asked where the bathroom was. And the businessmen pointed over to the makeshift toilet. I was there translating for them because the Somalis don’t speak American and the captain doesn’t speak Samolean. At no time was there any weapons being pointed at anyone and all of a sudden the murderers in the military killed the businessmen.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:12 amThe case for imposing the death penalty in this case is simple:
The little swine wanted to play Pirate? Fine. Far be it from us to interfere with the life-choices of a non-smoker. Pirates hang. Hang him.
C. S. P. Schofield (2f879a) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:12 amYou know, there probably are a couple of jerks out there who were hoping that the pompous Obama would fail. Thank God that he succeeded. It is great that a pirate surrendered and survived. We want the pirates to know that you will die if you fight the USA, and live if you do not.
Obama should have ordered these snipers to kills the pirates immediately. If they could have done it on a split second, as weather worsened (which is AMAZING), then they could have done it much more safely at a time of their choosing. That Obama waffled about using force, offered to negotiate with pirates, and finally granted the request to use force, but only with a caveat that is difficult to interpret (imminent danger was obviously already there, as the blog notes) all means that Obama failed this test. He failed totally in every way aside from the results. Waiting to start shooting until the hostage is in more imminent danger is very stupid.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:15 amMr Schofield wrote:
If he’s to be executed — and he won’t — wouldn’t making him walk the plank be more historically appropriate?
The historian Dana (3e4784) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:15 amCruel and unusual punishment.
nk (52e9a9) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:20 amJuan wrote:
I have a difficult time seeing that as much of a salable argument.
The amused Dana (3e4784) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:21 amLet’s get serious, for a minute. I’ll bet that Captain Phillips knows both semaphore and whateveryoucallthoseonandofflashinglightthings. Wanna bet that the Bainbridge signaled him: “We’ve got snipers with .50 Barretts. First chance you get, jump off the boat and we’ll take the skags out in the next second”.
nk (52e9a9) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:25 amSo the notion that commanders did not use their own judgment is bogus.
Does Andrew ever tire of beclowning himself here? (note: question is rhetorical in nature).
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:37 amIn contrast to his chaos of a domestic policy, Obama shows a glimmer of hope on fighting terrorism. The One might wish to be the Apologizing American, but when it comes to terrorism that risks rejection as another Jimmy Carter — regarded as political poison and a failed president for the rest of his life. We know The Messiah doesn’t want that ignominy.
So where principle fails, raw ambition might convince Obama to toughen his stance on piracy/terrorism (terro-piraticism?).
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:37 amWanna bet that the Bainbridge signaled him
Do they use an encryption code during actions like these?
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:40 amBradley, I don’t care what his motivations are, as long as he shows some spine for once in his political life, I’m all for it.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:40 amDidn’t you read that the US government was negotiating with the “elders” of the tribes? It was when the “elders” insisted that the pirates not be arrested that negotiations broke down. Then the pirates got shot.
The One was clearly hoping to talk a resolution in line with his kindlier, more humble America speeches. But pirates just wouldn’t cooperate! Darn them.
Anonymous (0d6d87) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:50 amWhat Obama did do by denying the Naval Commanders on the scene command authority for a perilous 24 hours is that the entire mission of the Armed forces and its patriotism and the willingness of Americans to defend Americans was compromised severly to an extend it may take decades to unravel.
In my opinion, holding back Navy seals while an American captain is trying to swim to a NAvy Destroyer evokes some of the toughest and most disturbing moments in Naval History.
We owe our armed forces to be judged worthy of the task they cetainly have dedicated their lives too. fighting pirates is like shooting some sniping at children, does need a presidential order, just a message of than you for a job well done.
Leadership is accepting the possibility that people will do the right thing without and learning to accept and to appreciate it
EricPWJohnson (6fb05f) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:51 amYou guess wrong:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB7YMEDuCwwY9ncDOtPAkEI4-H2wD97HKOB80
Andrew (fc155e) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:53 amWhat Obama accomplished by denying the Naval Commanders on the scene authority for a perilous 24 hours was to seriously weaken entire mission of the Armed forces and put into question worldwide its patriotism and the willingness of Americans to defend Americans. Our ability to defend ourselves was compromised so severely that it may take decades to unravel.
In my opinion, holding back Navy seals while an American father and sea captain is trying to swim to freedom at a close by Navy Destroyer evokes some of the toughest and most disturbing moments in Naval History.
We owe our armed forces to be judged worthy of the task they cetainly have dedicated their lives too.
Fighting pirates is like shooting someone sniping at children, doesn’t need a presidential order, just a message of thank you for a job well done.
Leadership is accepting the possibility that people will do the right thing without your input and learning to accept it and to appreciate it
EricPWJohnson (6fb05f) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:56 amWhy do we need a criminal trial. Kenya wants to have a trail for the pirate. This pirate needs to stay in Kenya. If we bring him bck to NY, expect the ACLU lawyers to want to interview the Navy Seals.
This is luducrous that our Naval seals will have to testufy in a criminal court of law. I can see the lawyers now putting the captain of the Naval Vessel under oath.
President Obama did the conservative thing and allowed seals to put a bullet throw the pirates head. But if he allows the 16 yr old in American courts this will be a great blunder.
We have to prtect the identity of the Navy seals and their families.
And finally:
How many Navy Ships it took President Obama to rescue 1 American from 4 Somalian teenage Pirates in a little life boat?
Obama Strategy: Jump in the water twice if you want to be save.
Smart Power (615af9) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:57 amSomeone remind Andrew that criticizing and second-guessing the Commander in Chief is the highest form of patriotism. At least, it was during 2001-2008.
Steverino (69d941) — 4/13/2009 @ 7:58 amIndeed, Andrew is beclowning himself yet again.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/13/2009 @ 8:03 amAmused Dana, from my experience as a math tutor many years back, I actually have seen people do everything wrong and make mistakes while doing it wrong and still somehow get the answer right. 😛
In this instance, I’ll give Obama a pass (on pass/fail) but I reserve the number score to myself.
Regarding the captured pirate, Fox News now says he’s between 14 and 16 years old (would that make him 15?) so that would be a factor. I would suggest trying him as an adult and sentencing him to 30 years. What is the legal term for serving the actual sentence? And, we would likely be dealing with chemical detox as well.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 8:05 amAmused Dana, I think it’s pretty clear what I mean, and it’s also clear that I’m right. Clearly, we have great results here. Live hostage and dead terrorists is perfect. Obama never ordered a rescue, was willing to negotiate, and gave a caveat when the Navy finally got permission, way too late, to use force.
Similarly, a man can spend every penny he has aon hookers and heroin and lotto tickets, win the jackpot, and be a financial success. You can win when you play wrong. Obama has a fawning media to tell us how smart he is on foreign policy, but the fact is that this man did jump from that boat. Every single man with a gun should have opened fire at once. Missiles and rockets and cannons should have destroyed that boat at that moment.
Just one of many examples of how we failed here. The pirates know that the USA is a risky nation to tangle with, but not as risky as it once was. Obama will negotiate, and if you can plan things out a little better, you can kill and kidnap Americans for lots of money. Obama did nothing right here. Even authorizing force was done wrong, with a murky caveat.
It’s a shame, too, because there was more at stake than this one captain. The only correct order was to ‘kill the pirates without harming the hostage as quickly as you can reliably do so’. That would have sent a message that nothing has changed regarding US ships.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/13/2009 @ 8:27 amSomeone remind Patterico who’s the commander in chief.
I love all of these back-seat drivers yelling “Yeah! Go get ‘em!” while they are safely ensconced at home typing away at keyboards
Andrew, meet Hawkins. You guys should talk before your co – ordinate your messages here. I sense a disturbance in the force.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/13/2009 @ 8:32 am“Even authorizing force was done wrong, with a murky caveat.”
He didn’t want one of his peeps to get hurt while trying to earn a living. Period, end of story. He didn’t know what outcome that he wanted. Like I said, he’ll take the “tough guy” thing, but it won’t be long before he’s saying that the U.S. is to blame for the fact that the pirates exist.
xerocky (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 8:42 amHow long is it going to be before we find that Obama is picking targets like Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War?
SPQR (72771e) — 4/13/2009 @ 8:45 amI don’t like the time gap either, but our military is astounding.
This rescue was nothing short of brilliant.
Go good guys.
Harvey M Anderson (a664fb) — 4/13/2009 @ 8:58 amIf Duh-1 had to sleep-on-it before making his decision to hand discretion to the commanders on-scene; and,
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:03 amIf Duh-1 imposed conditions on those commanders that would, in effect, allow him to delegate downward blame for anything going bad; then,
Duh-1, once again, voted Present!
Dmac at 57 – I think the back seat driver comment was made by JEA (never heard of him before). This was also the chickensh*t comment that inspired the Chickensailor hilarity.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:15 amFar as I know Hawkins is one of the good guys.
the shooting was ordered by the captain of the Bainbridge
I think that’s right. There’s only one captain on a ship.
nk (52e9a9) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:18 amAnd as for the timing in this and any future anti-pirate operations, the only acceptable delay is the time it takes a US naval vessel to arrive on scene.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:19 amWant to avoid sudden application of lethal force? Surrender before the navy gets there.
“How long is it going to be before we find that Obama is picking targets like Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War?”
Or, like Carter micro-managing the Desert One fiasco?; or, like Clinton, Albright and Berger vetoing a slam-dunk take-down of Osama?
I see a pattern here.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:19 am“the shooting was ordered by the captain of the Bainbridge”
Only after he was given permission by his Chain of Command. Actually, I believe that he was given very little autonomy by way of taking any action.
What authority that he did have was by virtue of having been designated as the On Scene Commander, not as the Commanding Officer, USS BAINBRIDGE.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:32 amDid anyone watch Barcky’s press conference about the pirates?
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:47 amBarack Obama will never be “commander in chief,” because he will never have the trust, confidence or leadership to inspire the men and women of the military
This does not comport with what I have been told by people I know, including family members, who are currently active duty military.
I think you’re letting your rhetoric and your dislike of the President run away with you.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:50 amI agree. Bill Clinton’s contempt for the military was a matter of record and our armed forces still did their duty. Our soldiers will accept Juggy as their C in C.
nk (52e9a9) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:57 amSalute the rank and not the person.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:59 amEven if late, even if with a caveat, I’m pleased the order was given and carried out. I’m reassured that somewhere within him, even if buried under decades of liberal paralysis, Obama retains the ability to defend Americans.
tim maguire (4a98f0) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:00 amI’m with Aphrael on this.
Let’s stop over-analyzing this. Let’s accept the positive outcome from decisive action. Let’s not criticize Obama for not acting “soon enough”, because none of us know what other factors were involved. The US won, there are three less pirates in the world, and it’s possible that other would-be pirates will think twice about hijacking an American crew.
Steverino (69d941) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:12 am[…] Liberal: Quick Draw Obama Patterico’s Pontifications, Harangues that Just Make Sense: Beldar: Surviving Pirate Should Face Death; Also, Why Obama’s Handling of the Pirate Situation… Michelle Malkin: Free: Captain Richard Phillips, hero; Update: “They were pointing the AK-47s at […]
Obama, You Nearly Blew It with Somali Pirates « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:26 amThey had to ask TWICE? And he had to sleep on it to answer? Good grief.
They shouldn’t have needed to ask ONCE. Should be standing orders regarding American citizens in such situations, orders not requiring ANY inquiries “upstairs.”
Tully (c2f070) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:28 amBarack Obama will never be “commander in chief,” because he will never have the trust, confidence or leadership to inspire the men and women of the military.
Is it fun to make statements that come straight out of your ass?
The pirates who refused to be reasonable were given an instant death sentence, the remaining pirate will probably never be freed from prison, or if he is it will be a long, long time. You don’t think that’s not severe punishment for a 16 year old your nuts.
Most importantly of all, the Captain is safe and unhurt and headed back to his family because the chain of command, all the way up to Obama –who has the last word in this– worked and that includes the personnel and command of the USS Bainbridge feeling secure about needing to do what needed to get done.
Therefore the score is: USA WINS, PIRATES LOSE (Everything forever). Also the other score is USA WINS, OBAMA WINS, RIGHT-WING LOSES (Again). You guys must be starting to like getting you asses handed to you by a superior President who is indeed the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. And the fits of inane logic you guys are going through right now with these comments is truly sad and pathetic.
But, congrats to those of you who have the decency and integrity to give credit where credit is due.
Peter (e70d1c) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:40 amPatterico this post proves beyond any doubt that you dont give a damn about this country and cant celebrate when something good happens. Your all about bashing the Democrats probably because it means more money in your pocket if you get your arch conservative friends to vote you another tax break.
VietnamEraVet (04b9ee) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:00 amYou and so many others who post here are all about hate and bashing. Bet you and half the posters here secretly with the Captain had been killed so you could find more reason to whine!!
Duh-1’s bonafides will be ascertained by his ongoing response to the piracy endemic in the Horn of Africa.
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:04 amWill be allow “Decatur” to raze the pirate bases?
Or, is Somalia already established as another “sancuary” for terrorism?
Well, VEVian found his way back to the library again.
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:06 amHope he remembered to take his meds to deal with those demons that find their way into his comments.
“This does not comport with what I have been told by people I know, including family members, who are currently active duty military.”
Having just retired after 30 yrs of “active duty military,” I’m curious as to who you know.
If the people you know are O4/E7 and above, I’m both impressed and convinced. Needs of the service-oriented people tend to look at things a bit more objectively.
If we’re talkin’ J.O. and junior enlisted, I’m not surprised. Still too much of the needs of “me” in this group. I.e., where’s my time off, pay raise and benefits?
“Bill Clinton’s contempt for the military was a matter of record and our armed forces still did their duty.” Yes, we did, although the contempt was largely mutual.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:11 amI think i will recommend the brilliant anti Obama critics here to the US military to study. A special Arm Chair General Award should be given to those that think they can do better than rescue the captain, kill three pirates and capture another. ..
You negative people ( not everyone here) are so filled with hatefull determination to find fault, its disgusting!
After reading some of these posts I realize how foolish I ever was to think that this is a place for discussion. Its just another group of sorry assed anti Obama whiners that just look for every reason to find fault. I actually thought for for once everyone would have something good to say about the successful mission and wonderful success story this represents but I should have known better!
VietnamEraVet (04b9ee) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:11 amAD you can mock Vietnam Vets, and by implication all vets with remarks meds if you like . says more about who you are and how ignorant you are than me. I bet five bucks you never served in the military because they dont take chickenhawks
VietnamEraVet (04b9ee) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:15 amI only mock you!
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:20 amBTW, you can send the $5 to Patterico, who will donate it to an appropriate mil-related charity.
VEV, you should go where horace is… he’s a coward too. I doubt you know anyone currently in the US military to recommend anything to. You’re a BDS-afflicted little man who misrepresents every issue and anyone who doesn’t worship President Obama. Your only foolishness was thinking that anyone might take you seriously. AD wasn’t mocking vets, Vietnam or otherwise… he was mocking you. That’s all you deserve.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:27 amAD, he’ll never pay up.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:33 am“…Its just another group of sorry assed anti Obama whiners that just look for every reason to find fault.”
B.S. and stop your whinin’.
Lots of folks here giving credit where credit is due. Also lots of legitimate concerns and criticisms regarding what passes for a decision making process.
No one disputes that the outcome was the best of both worlds: dead perps and a safely retrieved hostage. OTOH, no one is ready to believe that we now have a CINC of Lincoln-esque stature occupying the Oval Office. I say that the best decision that Obama made was to get out of the way and to allow the on-scene professionals to do their jobs.
Three shots, three kills; poetry in motion, I say.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:33 ambelloscm: the people i know are all enlisted, and they all take the chain of command very seriously; the president is the president, regardless of party.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:34 amaphrael…”…the president is the president, regardless of party.“…why is it only your friends that are in the military realize this?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 4/13/2009 @ 11:33 am
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:42 amI know that is a high probablity; but it says more about VEV, doesn’t it?
I agree with aphrael on this one and believe that the majority of active-duty can separate their political preferences from their duty. I might not have agreed with President Clinton (or President Bush even) on a course of action, but that’s one of those times when you “Shut up and soldier” because it’s your lawful commander setting lawful policy through lawful orders. Some may not like his politics or policies and will vote against him in 2012. Until then, he’s the CIC and should be treated with respect.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:50 amVeV, please explain how this contributes to anything other than the suggestion that you are mentally ill. Really, “half the posters” here wish death upon this ship captain, just so we can whine? Do you see why you are mocked? To think such a thing is, quite literally, crazy. Hence the need for meds.
carlitos (92022c) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:53 amaphrael: No one with whom I served disputed the fact that “the president is the president, regardless of party.” “Salute the rank and not the person,” as stated by another poster.
They and I did, however, had an opinion about each respective President’s decision-making ability and, hence, their capacity to serve competently as CinC. In my time, a declining scale from Reagan to Carter.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:55 amIf only the political players demonstrated as much respect for those of the military, that they receive in the normal course of events from the military.
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:56 amAD – RtR/OS: I didn’t say that only my friends realize this, at least not in the sense that you mean.
My presumption is that everyone in the military realizes this.
But someone is arguing that the military will never accept President Obama as C-in-C. I can hardly refute their claim with a claim based on my presumption about what is believed by people I don’t know. I can, however, put forward my experience, based on the people I know.
The point isn’t to denigrate the other members of the military or say that my friends are better than they are; the point is to refute an idea I think is ridiculous by making limited claims which I can back up from my experience, rather than trying to refute the idea with a broad claim that I believe to be true but which I don’t have the experience to support.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/13/2009 @ 12:27 pmI tend to agree with aphrael on this one. I served under Clinton, and though I could not stand him, there was never a moment where he was not my CinC.
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 12:34 pm“If only the political players demonstrated as much respect for those of the military, that they receive in the normal course of events from the military.”
The respect that the military holds for “political players” is derived from a culture of service and a deeply imbued sense of deference to legitimate authority. They may be lying crapweasels, but they do out rank us.
Political players, OTOH, tend to see the military as consumers of tax dollars that could be spend on political patronage projects that provide for a better ROI. At best, we’re just a bunch of constituents of no influence who can go to the back of the line.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 12:36 pm“…could be spent on political patronage…”
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 12:58 pmComment by aphrael — 4/13/2009 @ 12:27 pm
My point was that it is unfortunate that it seems that only your friends within the military are prepared to accept an elected President as their leader regardless of political party.
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 12:58 pmI served two Presidents I never did, or could, vote for; but that never diminished their authority, or the respect that was extended towards them.
What’s funny is that Patterico comes out and mocks those who would want the president to fail at this task, and he’s still blamed for doing so.
It’s possible to criticize Obama without being a traitor, ya know, Vietnam Vet. It’s hard to come back from that miserable example of American leadership and not have some scars, but Republicans tend to handle wars a lot better than JFK’s Vietnam legacy, Carter’s Iranian one, and Clinton’s Somalian one. We aren’t perfect either, and you aren’t a traitor for complaining about Bush 1 on Iraq, or Reagan on Lebanon, or Bush 2 on North Korea.
But Patterico’s complaints are specific enough for us to not generalize them into derangement syndrome.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/13/2009 @ 1:00 pmWhat Juan said.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 1:04 pmJuan, how dare you mock all Vietnam vets as having some kind of syndrome!
carlitos (92022c) — 4/13/2009 @ 1:06 pmIsn’t it time we moved on to discussing something more important than Obama and this pirate incident, things like Obama bowing to the Saudi monarchy or sending a four megaton blast of hot air to the Norks through the U.N. in response to their missile launch?
I know, I know, I should get my own blog if I don’t like the topics here.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 1:12 pm“…four megaton blast of hot air to the Norks through the U.N…”
So much for minimizing a carbon-footprint.
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 1:14 pmJeff Emanuel seems to favor the indecisive surrender monkey meme:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-story-of-a-successful-rescue-and-obamas-attempt-to-claim-credit/
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 1:26 pmWhen folks like Dana make statements like this: “I don’t like our 44th President very much, either, but he wins on this one.”, they further the notion that Republicans aren’t fit to lead this nation, and aren’t worth the trouble it takes to give respect. After all, why would anyone respect you and trust you with leadership if you’re not willing to stand up for your own people? Giving Barack Obama his due on this issue legitimizes all the dogcrap thrown at Republicans the last 8 years
Be men for once in your lives. Stand up for yourselves!
Brad S (9f6740) — 4/13/2009 @ 1:53 pmAD – RtR/OS: that wasn’t clear. the way you italicized friends suggested that you were differentiating them from the rest of the military.
At the bottom, I think, the answer to your question is that the military worldview and the civilian worldview are different in many respects. I don’t expect civilians to view the chain of command the way soldiers do; and, in fact, I think it would be harmful to the republic if we did.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:04 pmClinton’s Somalian one.
As I recall the events of that time, the operation was begun by the first President Bush, and had already spiraled out of control by the time President Clinton was inaugurated.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:06 pmGiving Barack Obama his due on this issue legitimizes all the dogcrap thrown at Republicans the last 8 years
That’s an interesting philosophy. It seems to me that you are saying that acknowledging when your political opponents do the right thing and/or succeed somehow legitimizes unfair attacks against your allies, but making unfair attacks against your opponents does not.
I would think that “throwing dogcrap” at President Obama is more likely to legitimize “dogcrap” thrown at President Bush. Maybe that’s just me.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:08 pmAphrael, it is debatable when the Somali operation “spiraled out of control”. I don’t think the decision to begin attacking the clans had been made during the G.H.W. Bush administration.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:08 pmAphrael – The issues that led to clinton quitting had not taken place under Bush.
Brad S – Could I subscribe to your newsletter?
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:14 pm“our people” are Americans. I’d take a bullet for any President, or hunt down and kill anyone that plotted to take a shot at one. Even today if President Clinton were killed (god forbid), I’d join in on the hunt for the killer.
I don’t have to like someone, or even respect someone, to acknowledge when something has gone right for them, or for the country.
If you are incapable of admitting to a good done by someone who does not share your mindset or your views, then you are just as bad as the worst leftist, and are of no use to me or this nation what-so-ever.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:19 pmJD, SPQR: fair enough. I was paying less attention in 1993 than I am now, if you can believe that (isolated on a college campus, no internet, no tv, no radio …), so my memory is fuzzy.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:26 pmAphrael, my friend, I was not saying you were “wrong”, just that the topic is debatable.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:30 pm“…(isolated on a college campus, no internet, no tv, no radio )…”
//sarc alert//
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:31 pmAnd we had no idea you matriculated from Patrice Lumumba Univ.?
When are we going to get proper mental health care for our Vietnam veterans?
Before this thread is closed, maybe?
EBJ (2fd7f7) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:32 pmSeriously though…
“…the military worldview and the civilian worldview are different in many respects…”
This is not a problem of the Right!
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:33 pm“why would anyone respect you and trust you with leadership if you’re not willing to stand up for your own people?”
DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC!!!!!!!!!!
Get with the program already.
EBJ (2fd7f7) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:34 pm“I don’t think the decision to begin attacking the clans had been made during the G.H.W. Bush administration”
SPQR – Your recollection is correct. It was a purely humanitarian mission under Bush. Clinton decided to get cute and change the mission and as a result, screwed the pooch.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:35 pmBrad S. – What exactly do you think Obama is due on this one? Please be specific. Stand up for yourself!!!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:37 pm“I would think that “throwing dogcrap” at President Obama is more likely to legitimize “dogcrap” thrown at President Bush.”
Dude, the dogcrap thrown at Bush was legitimatized and is now in ‘everybody knows’ land i.e. everybody knows Bush shredded the constitution, everybody knows Bush lied us into Iraq etc.. The Senate Majority leader said these things for crying out loud and the MSM gave a hearty ‘here, here’. So why don’t you work on undoing the work of the lying Democrats these last 8 years, FIRST, before presuming to self righteously police a right leaning website? All I’m seeing is someone trying to shut down the use of the very tactics by the right that enabled his ‘tribe’ to win the last two elections.
Hightening the ‘richness’: Obama and the Democrats calling out private citizens that think they still have freedom of speech, even if that speech is used to criticize The One. So the right has no power and they are still demonizing – just moving the bullseye on private citizens.
EBJ (2fd7f7) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:45 pmSo the right has no power and they are still demonizing – just moving the bullseye on private citizens.
Just a point of clarification to correct a possible miscommunication EBJ did not intend:
The right has no power and the Obama administration and other Democrats are still …
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:52 pmEBJ – Neener, neener, neener. Don’t be a killjoy. Heh!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:53 pmI would think that “throwing dogcrap” at President Obama is more likely to legitimize “dogcrap” thrown at President Bush. Maybe that’s just me.
It’s also a matter of credibility for Obama critics. If Obama does the right thing (not the Wright thing), even if he needed some prodding, that should be encouraged. It is frankly more than I expected of Obama, and I hope to be so agreeably disappointed in the future.
FWIW, Limbaugh praised Obama’s stance on the pirates today.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (c70dcf) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:57 pmComment by daleyrocks — 4/13/2009 @ 2:35 pm
Of course, the fact that the SecDef refused to authorize AC-130 gunships didn’t help the situation any, either.
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 2:58 pmLes Aspin will probably go down as one of the more feckless examples of SecDef, and a case study in why legislators don’t usually make very good executives.
Thanks, JH, for cleaning that up.
EBJ (2fd7f7) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:00 pm“I don’t think the decision to begin attacking the clans had been made during the G.H.W. Bush administration”
This is correct. Things didn’t “spin out of control” until the U.S. attempted to redeem U.N. incompetence in the aftermath of the June ’93 massacre and mutilation of Pakistani members of the U.N. military contingent.
The decision to target the clans and specifically, their leadership, was made in the aftermath of these killings.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:01 pmAD, fortunately for Clinton, Les Aspin is not around to tell us whether or not it was his idea or Bill Clinton’s.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:04 pmGood thing when he keeled-over he wasn’t anywhere near Fort Marcy Park?
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:07 pm“Of course, the fact that the SecDef refused to authorize AC-130 gunships didn’t help the situation any, either.”
And in another decision, the effects of which wouldn’t be fully appreciated until Oct ’93, he also failed to authorize the use of tanks and APCs.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:23 pmwhat he did was stall. why are we even talking to pirates/terrorists? negotiating with them??? why don’t we blow them out of the water. appeasement in its basest form.
he is an embarrassment as the commander-in-chief. i shake my head in disbelief.
ktr (5eba07) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:23 pmAll I’m seeing is someone trying to shut down the use of the very tactics by the right that enabled his ‘tribe’ to win the last two elections.
(a) I objected to the tactics at the time.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:26 pm(b) I’m on the record as having said so on this very website.
(c) I’m not trying to shut anyone down; conservatives are just as free to make fools of themselves as liberals are. I’m merely pointing out that the tactics are the same, and that they’re just as obnoxious in the hands of their contemporary employers as they were in the hands of their previous employers.
Tully wrote:
There were such standing orders: those rules of engagement said that the military could not use force if doing so would put innocent people in danger of being killed. Now, just how old are those standing orders? President Obama has been in office for less than three months now, so those orders almost certainly predate him. Were they President Bush’s? President Clinton’s?
The commander-in-chief then modified those orders as the situation required.
I’d note here that President Obama gave his approval on Saturday, but the Navy took no action until Sunday evening, local time. That says that the situation was not seen as so critical that they had to act sooner. While it’s possible that there might not have been the clean-shot opportunity for the snipers before then, if the Bainbridge tried putting divers in the water to approach from below, such is not mentioned.
The cool-and-clear-headed Dana (82a421) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:36 pmNew Pattericans should know that Aphrael, unlike certain Obama apologists, indeed criticizes objectionable tactics regardless of party.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (c70dcf) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:38 pmComment by aphrael — 4/13/2009 @ 3:26 pm
I approve of this ad.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:40 pmBrad S wrote:
OK, I’ll admit it: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Is it that you didn’t understand that I was giving a political leader I don’t like credit for having a success, or that you think that by doing so I have somehow surrendered to the Obamabots?
The puzzled Dana (82a421) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:46 pmDoes this mean Obama is a cowboy like Bush? After all, he was willing to kill those who threaten Americans and he issued the order unilaterally, without consulting the UN and the rest of the world.
Anon (8b9d41) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:50 pmSpeaking of surrendering to the Obamabots, or at least the Dems, here comes the totally unbiased AP with its totally reliable source on the dangers of attacking the pirates’ base on land in Somalia:
“That would be nuts,” said Larry Johnson, a former CIA agent and State Department counterterrorism specialist. “These people are not organized into any military force, they are intermingled with women and children. You’re talking about wiping out villages.”
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (c70dcf) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:54 pmDear Mr. Puzzled,
It has come to my attention that my staff has been negligent in their duties to deliver this week’s talking points to your in-box. I assure you this egregious error will not happen again. The offending staffer has been terminated.
Allow me to summarize this week’s talking points.
Never give any praise, even hesitant praise, to the enemy.
If a lie will be more powerful for our cause than the truth, lie.
Barack Obama did not do anything to fix the recent pirate issue in any way.
Again, sorry for the delay in getting this week’s talking points to you. It won’t happen again.
— President, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:55 pmBrother Bradley – I’m skeptical of a ground attack in Somalia, for the simple reason that the last time we invaded Somalia, we failed. Which is not to say that we couldn’t do it differently this time; but I would have a difficult time supporting such a move without some reason to believe that the people calling the shots had learned the lessons of the last invasion.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/13/2009 @ 3:56 pm“those rules of engagement said that the military could not use force if doing so would put innocent people in danger of being killed.”
I think that the Standing ROE that refers to such incidents does not absolutely preclude the use of deadly force “if doing so would put innocent people in danger of being killed,” but requires that the authorization of such action be given by higher authority.
Except in cases of unit self defense, this is not a decison to be made by the local commander.
I also believe that the delay between authorization and execution was driven by the need for darkness IOT provide our side with all of the advantages provided by night vision optics.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:01 pmDana,
When you made the statement you made, you gave the Obamabots a weapon. You see, when the time comes that Obama screws up on defense issues, your favorite Obamabot will come up to you and say “Hey, you agreed with MY PRESIDENT on killing pirates; what’s your issue with X?”
As someone who has come to the obvious conclusion that the hatred towards Republicans and conservatives has LITTLE TO NOTHING TO DO WITH IDEAS, I have decided that I will play the game the way the Obamafreaks played it prior to 11/4/2008. It’s going to be SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND PERSONAL. And if some conservatives who had the bad taste to think Reagan’s 11th Commandment applied to them look askance at my actions and beliefs, that is too bad.
The troops aren’t my troops at this time. There is no need for me to clap approval at Obama’s action.
Brad S (ae31fd) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:01 pmFor those who don’t know about Larry Johnson, here’s some history about his role with the non-existent “Whitey” tape of Michelle Obama.
Here is Patterico on another stunt by Loathsome Larry, AP-anointed anti-terrorism expert.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (c70dcf) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:02 pm“the last time we invaded Somalia, we failed”
What failed was the courage of our political leadership.
Name that President.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:03 pmBrad, I’m so glad to hear your disdain for Dana’s daughter and my daughter. Now, go away and poison some other place. It is you who give the left’s nutjobs ammunition. They will point to the likes of you to denigrate everyone on the right.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:11 pmAphrael,
What I was drawing attention to was the AP’s use of the vile partisan hack Larry Johnson as an anti-terrorism expert. There are plenty of other experts one can call who don’t have Johnson’s disreputable record of planting a phony story and thuggish intimidation tactics.
I can’t imagine what was running through the mind of the reporter to use that creep as a credible source.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (c70dcf) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:11 pmTo destroy the pirate lair(s) won’t require one boot on the ground.
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:14 pmIt’s “bounce the rubble” time.
Dear President Hitchcock,
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™
Thank you kindly for your prompt attention to this matter. However, I do regret that the negligent staffer has been terminated. In these troubled times, could you see fit simply to have him retrained or reassigned?
Thank you ever so much. I am, sincerely yours,
Dana R Pico,
The always grateful Dana (82a421) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:17 pmMere peon, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™
John Hitchcock,
It would be an amusing sight to watch Obamafreaks get into a hissy fit about the words I stated, and it would get absolutely nowhere.
One of the things that I would LOVE to see in these next four years is visible proof that military recruiting in places like South Dakota, Louisiana, and Mississippi has fallen off a cliff. I would love to see salt-of-the-earth, Deep RedState folks flip the bird to Obama’s Defense Dept.
Alas, since these same places tend to send higher percentages of their youth to the military than any other places, I’ll never see that. Not even a hatred of Obama can prevent the recruiters from finding success in those places.
Brad S (ae31fd) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:19 pmWhat we need to do is obvious. We need to start intercepting Somali boats offshore, and everytime we find the crew armed with AK’s and RPG’s, we should sink the boat right there and make them swim to shore.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:19 pmAnd that’s all we need to know about you. Please go away and massage your ALLCAPS key somewhere else.
carlitos (92022c) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:20 pmBrad S. – Do you want to go to neocon camp with me this summer?
You still didn’t answer the question you yourself raised about giving Obama his due. What exactly is he due over this incident? Stand up for yourself Brad. You are the one who brought the issue up. Own it.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:21 pmdaleyrocks,
As I stated earlier, there is no need for me to give The One validation; he already has legions of followers who will praise his actions.
My response to his Navy’s successful actions against the pirates is that of silence.
Brad S (ae31fd) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:24 pm“Alas, since these same places tend to send higher percentages of their youth to the military than any other places, I’ll never see that.”
Brad S. – I’d like to see the stats on that to see the comparisons to other states. Do you have a link?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:24 pmYes, Brad, since we hate
ourtheir president, we should work very hard to make our country indefensible so we can get overrun. That’s such aterriblewonderful idea.Again, go away. You are not wanted here.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:26 pmBrad S clarifies the situation:
Ahhh, but you see, I feel sufficiently confident in my powers of reason and persuasion to note the differences between admitting that a President I don’t like very much did something right, and the argument that such an admission means I must agree with everything he does.
As for “my president,” though I regret the choice the American people took last November, I recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is your president, my president, John Hitchcock’s president, Scott Jacobs’ president, even Fred Phelps’ president.
The understanding Dana (82a421) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:26 pmDear President(?) Hitchcock:
When did Rush die? Just how many votes did you get, anyway?
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:26 pmAnd, was that a termination with extreme prejudice?
Ugh. He had another bilious screed queued up before I could cut / paste the last one. Thanks for wishing reduced military recruitment, Brad S. Way to go rooting for your country and ‘flip the bird’ to their military!
carlitos (92022c) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:27 pmAphrael – What possibly suggests that Barcky learned any lessons from the last failure in Somalia?
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:27 pmDear Peon Dana R. Pico,
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™
I share your regret over the termination. We happily have many positions to fill at our small but thriving organization.
Who is John Galt?,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (c70dcf) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:29 pmBrother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.,
Community Organizer, The Tiny Libertarian Conspiracy™
AD,
He didn’t, all of them, yes.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:30 pmBrad, #144, evidently what amuses you, does not amuse me.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:31 pmVery Good!
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:31 pmYou may have a cookie.
Brad S wrote:
I’m afraid that your hopes will be dashed, Mr S. The younger Miss Pico made an appointment to have the local Army Reserve recruiter visit us last Thursday, and he told me, whilst she was doing her quick ASVAB pre-test on his laptop, that the Army had scaled back hours for recruiters not only to ease the pressure on them — the untold story concerning the rise in suicides among enlisted personnel is that the greatest rise was among recruiters — but because they were 40,000 recruits above their targets.
I am uncertain whether this refers to the Army and Army Reserve together, or just the Reserves.
The proud father Dana (82a421) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:33 pm“As I stated earlier, there is no need for me to give The One validation; he already has legions of followers who will praise his actions.”
Brad S. – I am not asking you to validate him, I am asking you to follow up on your comment #102, which you ended in the following manner:
“Giving Barack Obama his due on this issue legitimizes all the dogcrap thrown at Republicans the last 8 years
Be men for once in your lives. Stand up for yourselves!”
Why can’t you answer what you believe Obama’s due is on this incident since you are DEMANDING it from others?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:35 pmDana,
While I congratulate your daughter on her choice, you’ll notice that I was certain there was no way that folks from RedState land would summarily reject being in the service. It’s just a wish, with no real hope for it to be true.
Just feels good to say it, and to show the blogosphere what a real manly Republican sounds like.
Brad S (ae31fd) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:37 pmBug off, Brad.
nk (ca8012) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:39 pmdaleyrocks,
I am not required to give Obama his due on this issue, and I am strongly recommending that conservatives don’t pay him that due. If they wish to greet the news with silence, that is preferable to making yourself sound “reasonable” to a bunch of people who personally, socially, and culturally hate your guts.
Brad S (ae31fd) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:39 pmMr S: Would that not mean, therefore, that the arguments by some people above that President Obama would not be respected as the Commander-in-Chief are refuted?
The proud father Dana (82a421) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:40 pmBrad S. is a Moby.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (c70dcf) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:40 pmBrad: You may vote Republican but you have no principles worth emulating, at least none I’ve seen. You, sir, are a disgrace to your gender.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:44 pmJohn,
I used to think it was all about the principles and ideas, until I saw very good people (like President GW Bush) get cut down and shunned by people who didn’t want the messy world of standing behind people to interfere with their “principles.”
So I’m a disgrace. I’m in good company.
Brad S (ae31fd) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:47 pmMr S wrote:
That’s simply another way of raising the blogwar of last month between Jeff Goldstein and our esteemed host. The argument is phrased differently, but it’s the same thing: do we fight, bitterly, on every point, refusing to see our opponents as honest people, or do we fight honorably, as we define honor amongst ourselves, even if by doing so we might surrender a momentary advantage?
That blogwar got way, way, way out of hand, and I respect Mr Goldstein and his opinions, but I come down on the side of our host. We need not become Amanda Marcotte to argue with her, we need not sink to the depths of some of our friends on the left to meet them in intellectual and political combat.
The argumentative Dana (82a421) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:47 pmBrad S yearns for a decline in the US military, something he would love to see. He wants the US to be even less safe, because of his juvenile hatred. I have about as much use for him as I do for Barcky.
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:51 pmDana,
It’s really simple. We don’t have to bitterly fight every position and every issue, but we don’t have to pay tribute to The One, either. Thus my suggestion of greeting success in foreign issues with silence.
You seem to yearn for the “Moral High Ground,” and seek to have it at any cost. I hope you realize that the Moral High Ground is the most overrun piece of territory in military history.
I’m up for throwing mudballs at Amanda Marcotte. She needs to see that Republicans can get into the dirt and dogcrap just as much as she does. And besides, she isn’t expecting any Republican to get down there with her, what with her having the attitude that the Right is too “principled” to be human.
Brad S (ae31fd) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:53 pmHe doesn’t vote Republican, he’s a Moby. Thought so upthread, but that last bit confirms it.
carlitos (92022c) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:54 pmDana of Many Names,
It’s a phony choice, anyway, because the real struggle is not over the Amanda Marcottes, but those who are open to persuasion. Sound too shrill and they’ll be driven away.
No way would I have voted for McCain if I thought all conservatives believe as Brad S (supposedly) believes. If Brad S is not a Moby, he may as well be.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (c70dcf) — 4/13/2009 @ 4:58 pmcarlitos,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (c70dcf) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:04 pmIsn’t it amazing how much trouble leftists take to attack conservative blogs, even to playing Moby, when they’ve taken both the presidency and Congress?
Not a Moby, a manly Republican. My bad. Can I see your chest hair, Brad?
carlitos (92022c) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:04 pm“He wants the US to be even less safe, because of his juvenile hatred. I have about as much use for him as I do for Barcky.”
I might rethink my words if Robert Gibbs were stupid enough to accuse Republicans of using “inappropriate language in a time of war” AND if CNN/CBS/ABC were to start doing lengthy pieces on “Do the Republicans Care About Our Country?”
I’m pretty certain I’ll be waiting a while, though.
Brad S (ae31fd) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:06 pm#91 aphrael:
No, aprhrael, nobody is arguing that.
But there is a profound difference between Commander in Chief (CINC), which is a Constitutionally defined title bestowed upon the President at Inauguration; and commander-in-chief, an adjectival description. The military men and women that I know will most certainly adhere to values and principles that they have sworn to uphold and defend, even to the point of following the orders of a duly constituted authority whom they will never appreciate as a commander-in-chief.
Therein lies the difference between a Reagan and a Clinton: Reagan’s love of America, and the American people was manifest in his approach to everyone; where Mr. Clinton’s narcissism (and even more so his wife’s) made their motivations suspect in the eyes of the military at large. I suspect it will remain so for Mr. Obama~even though the military will do its damndest to effectuate the policies prescribed by the Chief Executive.
It is, after all, the Constitutional role that they have sworn to be their duty, and if necessary, their very lives.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:12 pmSemi-OT:
Foxfier has a list of links in her sidebar she updates daily that she finds of note. This one caught my eye.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:26 pmKos is a pig.
nk (62c772) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:33 pm#63 nk:
Er, not exactly.
If the news reports are at all correct in describing the marksmen as “special forces,” then they are not part of the ship’s company; and have a rather tenuous relationship to the ship’s command as guests of the vessel’s captain. They would have brought their own commanding officer with them.
It would also account for the delay in the Navy’s action engaging the pirates: the SEAL team would need be transported to Bainbridge in order to stage their operation.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 5:41 pmI defer, EW1(SG).
nk (5a2f98) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:08 pmYou don’t think that’s not severe punishment for a 16 year old your nuts.
Leave other people’s nuts out of it.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:15 pmPatterico, OT, have you seen this? Phil Spector was found guilty of second degree murder.
nk (5a2f98) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:21 pmPatterico came by with a sense of humor 😉
JD (5e0805) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:22 pmI think Brad S. is confusing himself over which meme he’s supposed to be pushing right now.
How about that link to the recruiting stats you mentioned comparing Soth Dakota, LA, and MS to other states? I’m still waiting for that.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:25 pm“Leave other people’s nuts out of it.”
Do nuts improve with age? Is sixteen years long enough?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:28 pmNothing to defer to, nk. As aphrael also noted above, there is a difference between the way military members see the chain of command and the way that civilians do.
On paper, the rules can seem straightforward, where tradition and practical necessity can make it much less clear~even to the point of being inexplicable, even though it seems perfectly lucid to us. 😉
If my surmise is correct, and a SEAL team was guested aboard Bainbridge for the operation, the SEAL team commander would have asked for, and normally been granted with little hesitation, permission to operate as he/she saw fit while aboard. A courtesy granted by the ship’s CO, providing it didn’t have the potential to adversely affect the ship’s operations, safety, or reflect poorly on the hosting command. There would also be a need for coordination, especially if the ship needed to be maneuvered to accomodate the SEAL team’s needs to effect their mission.
The permission to operate freely aboard the ship may have been witheld by the CO of the ship pending approval by higher authority…as the Dana of many names and progenitor of some of the Army’s finest (and soon to be) notes above, the ROE for handling such situations was restricted several administrations ago…to the point where we are beginning to resemble the old Soviet model of centralized command and control. However, once the permission was given to engage, the tactical decision of how to subdue the pirates would have been the SEAL team commander’s…and it would have been him that gave the order to shoot.
Incidentally, while network centric warfare and its associated communications have been a terrific boon to battlespace management, the downside is the ease with which decision making can be elevated out of the battlespace into an arena where the same considerations aren’t present, or even available to decision process more suited to strategic planning than tactical implementation.
In my post earlier, I noted that the military will always be responsible to the mission that they have sworn to uphold~but the same cannot be said for the office of the Commander-in-Chief. There is no mechanism to enforce CINC’s adherence to the constitutional role of “civilian leadership” of the military, nothing to prevent the CINC from attempting to exercise military leadership with its historically bad record of outcomes.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:36 pmOh nuts. ?A good thread turned into a good ‘ol boys club once again.
dana (d08a3a) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:41 pmCheapass vowels. Don’t always realize how much you need ’em until you drop one.
…available to a decision process…
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:42 pmAs ever, Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive is quicker and more accurate than me, leaving me with bloviation all over my face.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/13/2009 @ 6:49 pmThere are more details on the rescue here, including that the snipers were SEALS, Phillips was onboard with his hands tied during the shooting, and the pirates were 17-19 years old and had become “increasingly agitated.” According to the AP, here’s how the final moments unfolded:
Anon (10cc96) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:19 pmPersonally, I don’t see Dana’s comment giving tepid credit to Obama as some kind of weapon for the dems. It’s just her opinion.
We need to just be honest, and let the chips fall where they may. I disagree with her, but I don’t think she should ‘deny’ the left credit for things.
Aphrael, Iraq was an issue long before Dubya too, but anyone crediting Clinton for whatever problems we had in Iraq would sound as ridiculous as you do for suggesting Somalia’s disaster was Bush 41’s fault.
It’s not hard for the GOP to win this debate. Carter and Clinton OWN the african genocides, and Clinton owns 9/11, stock lock and barrel. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon before he got himself into a big mess, but he had the greatest diplomatic success int he history of human civilization in defeating the evil soviets without too much war. Dubya managed to give millions of people the right to vote, and his failure is mainly that he didn’t fix everything else as well as he did Iraq.
But everything else really pales to the obvious truth: the democrats are at fault for 9/11. No need to really even bother going into more detail than that. You have to go back to Truman to get a real democrat who can handle the CinC position.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/13/2009 @ 9:55 pmThat’s fucking retarded, holy shit.
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:16 pmBHO gets little credit from me. He behaved precisely as WJC did when the operation to take out OBL was ongoing. He withheld command authority from his commander(s) on scene and as we all know (thank you John Ziegler) OBL and other scum escaped death. All because WJC would not make a proactive use of force decision. BHO lucked out that the hostage survived long enough to give the good guys a chance to git ‘er done.
How would any of y’all like to have been the JAG on scene during this mess, prior to the direct CINC authority to use deadly force? How would you like to have told the commander what “imminent danger” meant in the order finally given by BHO?
This is no way to run a military.
Ed from SFV (f274d1) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:18 pmI’ll elaborate.
Newt Gingrich was practically beating off under the table on ABC’s Sunday show fantasizing about how he was going to ride this shit into the White House in four years. That’s right — Newt wanted the captain to be killed so he could make points about Obama being weak that wouldn’t have even made any fucking sense. I know that’s what a lot of people around here were thinking, too. Do you not think people can see through ridiculous bullshit like this?
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:27 pmJuan: I think the difference between President Clinton and Iraq, on the one hand, and President Bush and Somalia, on the other hand, is that the commitment of troops and the rules of engagement for Somalia were set by President Bush.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:29 pmMan, what the fuck would you even know about it? You talk about it like you were in the room looking over his fucking shoulder.
Just so we’re clear: Towers and Pentagon get hit? All Clinton’s fault. Pointlessly invade Iraq? Bush keeping us safe. Hostage gets rescued? Obama is a worthless piece of shit. That about right?
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:34 pm…and then the troops were withdrawn from Somalia by Pres.Bush (41), before they subsequently were reintroduced by WJC with a completely different mission.
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:48 pmAD, you’re quite right. It was an entirely different situation, and it really is baffling that I even bothered to argue such a banal point. Clinton really messed up there, but I guess blaming Bush was in its infancy back then.
I was talking to a friend about my disagreement with Obama’s approach to the pirates, and her response was that she thought Bush had a low IQ. What a world we live in. Oh well, if the polls are any indication, Obama is just plain not as good a politician as Bush 43 was. He’s not going to be able to hold back the criticism very long, when everyone who is fair about this wishes Bush was handling that pirate issue. He’s rightfully or wrongfully considered a cowboy of war and surges, and that’s what many Americans want, in their hearts, to be protecting them.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/13/2009 @ 10:56 pmDuh-1’s across-the-board popularity will last only as long as the U.S. itself, and/or one of our major interests abroad, are not attacked.
AD - RtR/OS (040549) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:04 pmOnce either event occurs, and the public perceives that there is a less-than-forceful response, he is politically doomed.
Ted Kopel might as well go on late-night and start the AHH countdown.
_______________________________________
The Defense Department twice asked Mr. Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently late on Friday night, senior defense officials said.
Hmm, could that be a whiff of the sort of behavior — of the sort of philosophy or mindset — that is described below?:
Mark (411533) — 4/13/2009 @ 11:16 pmNewt Gingrich was practically beating off under the table
More projection (and Jergen’s) from Duh Sedative.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/14/2009 @ 6:58 amAD Rt/OR – I don’t recall that being the way it went. The troops were sent in early Dec. 1992; President Clinton took over on January 20, 1993. Seems like an awfully short time for the troops to be sent in and then withdrawn.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 4/14/2009 @ 7:06 amTeh Narrative … Never mind. Your pud pounding fantasies are just that. Now, back to the basement. Musn’t upset Dear Momma.
JD (8918e5) — 4/14/2009 @ 7:17 amThis is for you, “old” Gary.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/14/2009 @ 7:20 amAfter deploying ashore in Dec ’92, U.S. troops were “withdrawn” to ships offshore (Quick Response Force) in May ’93 after being “relieved” by U.N. forces.
They were re-deployed ashore in June’93 after the clans massacred several Paki members of the U.N. contingent. At this point, the Clinton Admin “owned” the mission.
belloscm (d3b446) — 4/14/2009 @ 7:31 amMy own personal view of military missions in a Dem v Rep admin:
Republican admins tend to prefer using overwhelming force when reacting to a situation. Democrats tend to call it an over-reaction and an improper escalation of violence without looking at the results, which are culprits being put down and US military suffering few casualties.
Democrat admins tend to prefer using minimalist force when reacting to a situation. Republicans tend to call it an irresponsible endangerment to the lives and well-being of US military personnel. The results of minimalist force tends to be a ratcheting-up of the violence instead of the quelling of it and more US lives lost and more US wounds and injuries.
That is my perspective, anyway.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/14/2009 @ 7:32 amAphrael, you are correct in that the troops were not significantly withdrawn, however there were confused lines of authority involving UN commands that I could not describe the timeline of, although its my impression that it postdates Jan ’93.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/14/2009 @ 7:54 amWow. You know who is sure talking tough. You folks must have struck a nerve or something.
Eric Blair (4d78ef) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:02 amBy which I meant #198.
And also notice how folks from the Left who act politely are…treated politely.
Eric Blair (4d78ef) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:03 amAnd also notice how folks from the Left who act politely are…treated politely.
Comment by Eric Blair — 4/14/2009 @ 8:03 am
Just wanted to say, I really, really like aphrael’s contributions here. Intelligent, thoughtful, polite liberal commentary. A lot of the other liberals here unfortunately are nothing like that. Why, it’s almost like they don’t want to share their views or something, but just fight and throw insults. Who knew?
no one you know (65b7aa) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:11 amI guess you have to consider why people post, NOYK. Sometimes they post to learn new things. Sometimes they post to advance their point of view. And other times, it’s all about feeling powerful and speaking Troof to Power while nice and safe, electronically.
aphrael is in the first two categories.
Eric Blair (4d78ef) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:19 amSome people just like to prove that they are asshats, Eric. It is not enough for them that we think them to be, they feel compelled to prove it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
JD (3f2bdf) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:24 amMost of all, JD, these folks are ideologues of the first water, and the first casualty of ideological bias is a sense of humor.
Eric Blair (4d78ef) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:27 amaphrael is in the first two categories.
Comment by Eric Blair — 4/14/2009 @ 8:19 am
Right.
no one you know (65b7aa) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:28 amSpeaking of Troof to Power, what happened w/ that latest guy (i love america?) Who did he end up being – was that the bet I saw mentioned on another thread that JD won?
I think that there has been a lot of sock puppeting going on. My guess is that they are mostly college sophomores on academic probation and feeling badly about their prospects, or bitter twenty-somethings with McJobs. I mean, why waste the energy being nasty?
Oh, that’s right: I’m telling everyone what to do (so the trolls say, telling me what to do). I forgot. But the sad part is that, with all the noise, we don’t get to hear enough from people like aphrael.
If they are PBTLEs (previously banned troll like entities), they’ll get booted again. Just like Auntie Entity said: “Break a deal, face the wheel.“
Eric Blair (4d78ef) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:34 amThat was the Diamond guy. Likely the same guy as the amerikkka guy, imnsho.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:34 amSpeaking of “people like aphrael” where did Leviticus go?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:35 amSPQR: US forces went into Somalia (Operation Restore Hope) in Dec ’92, at the direction of then-President GHW Bush. Although designated a U.N. operation (UNITAF), it was lead by the United States until May ’93, when operational control was passed to the U.N. (UNISOM). At this point, most U.S. forces were withdrawn from Somalia, although we retained a “Quick Response Force” based onboard USN amphibious ships offshore.
When the U.N. lost control of the situation a few weeks later in June ’93, U.S. forces were re-inserted ashore at the direction of then-President Clinton. We effectively re-took control of the U.N. mission at this point.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:40 amJust like Auntie Entity said: “Break a deal, face the wheel.“
Comment by Eric Blair — 4/14/2009 @ 8:34 am
🙂 With all the talking going on in that movie there’s bound to be a quote for every occasion – a sort of postapocalyptic Princess Bride.
PBTLEs (previously banned troll like entities)
Like that one. We could use it all the time now and get accused of “putting things in code” again. The PB ones remind me of the definition of insanity: doing the same exact thing over and over but this time expecting a different result.
no one you know (65b7aa) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:42 amSpeaking of “people like aphrael” where did Leviticus go?
I’ve been wondering about that myself – we need more of that kind of commentary, please.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:43 amI would love to see a psychiatrist study Teh Narrative, ASPCA, i like amerikkka, Levi, and David Petranos Esp., and MKDP for good measure.
JD (3f2bdf) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:56 amAfter deploying ashore in Dec ‘92, U.S. troops were “withdrawn” to ships offshore (Quick Response Force) in May ‘93 after being “relieved” by U.N. forces.
They were re-deployed ashore in June’93 after the clans massacred several Paki members of the U.N. contingent. At this point, the Clinton Admin “owned” the mission.
That’s fair. I would say that, theoretically at least, it’s possible that things which happened prior to May 1993 changed the facts on the ground after May 1993 sufficiently that responsibility persists, but I’d need to know a lot more about the details to be sure.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:57 amaphrael, the scary thing is that, post-Colonialism, sleepy places like the horn of Africa are once again reverting to form and Obama (44) is having to deal with the same issues as Jefferson (3).
I deplore the inherent racism in Churchill’s “White Man’s Burden” approach, and the Belgians in particular behaved horrifically, but really – compare Africa today with 50 years ago. I fear that “post Colonial” Africa is open to new colonization unless we figure this out. There must be somewhere between failed state and democracy, and the UN doesn’t appear poised to help.
carlitos (fd4646) — 4/14/2009 @ 9:13 amPreviously banned trolls…
Was over at Instapundit,
and took a link to Gay Patiot,
and discoved in the comments…
LEVI!
Not a good way to start the morning.
AD - RtR/OS (e50e17) — 4/14/2009 @ 9:27 amIt was reassuring though, that he was having his ass handed to him as usual.
So, could we get a list of who are on the Previously Banned Trolls roster?
The as yet unbanned Dana (3e4784) — 4/14/2009 @ 9:35 amaphrael,
U.S. forces had stabilized the situation to the point that by March of ’93, the U.N. felt comfortable enough to assume the mission. Formal authority, however, did not pass to the U.N. until May. At the time of the transition, the basic mission was the delivery of relief supplies and the protection of food convoys and distribution centers.
Soon after mission authority passed to the U.N., the clans sensed that the U.N. forces were neither as aggressive nor as capable as the U.S. forces that they had relieved. Attacks on the food supplies dramatically increased. In response, the U.N. began to target the clans’ leadership and weapons depots. A U.N. raid led by Paki troops in early June ’93 resulted in heavy U.N. casualties and the mutilation of the Paki KIA. The U.N. conceded loss of control/lack of capability and requested that we reassume the mission.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 9:36 amwhere did Leviticus go?
He’s a young man, likely contemplating marriage, and JD probably scared him off with his marital troubles. JD, why the complain about wife? Sell more gotes and buy more wifes.
nk (9eb1c1) — 4/14/2009 @ 9:38 am“…The U.N. conceded loss of control/lack of capability and requested that we re-assume the mission.”
Just another mile-post (or mill-stone) marking the U.N.’s wonderful history of humanitarian relief/peace-keeping.
And people wonder why multilateralism seems not to work very well?
AD - RtR/OS (e50e17) — 4/14/2009 @ 9:46 amOf course, currently we have the stirling examples of 6-Party Talks on the Korean situation,
plus the Euro Multi-party talks with Iran:
Glaring examples of futility.
I think of couple of commenters here are well read in Matters Islamic…
I read that Mohammed had written that a man could have many wives, but that it was impossible to deal justly with more than one.
In JD’s case, think of the costs in microwave ovens alone!
Sorry about that, JD…
Eric Blair (4d78ef) — 4/14/2009 @ 9:46 amKinda baffling that people are going on arguing about Somalia, in order to discuss whether Bush 41 was responsible for some direct decisions Clinton made that are well known and have nothing to do with Bush 41, and this point being made to dispute the more general point that both parties screw up internationally, but Democrats seem to have worse impact.
I mean, saying that Clinton’s huge errors are mitigated somewhat by Bush’s slight connection would seem to be a bad way of disputing my point.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/14/2009 @ 9:47 amJD, why the complain about wife? Sell more gotes and buy more wifes
Now, you know JD could not survive if forced to sell his goats….snicker…
AD - RtR/OS (e50e17) — 4/14/2009 @ 9:49 amI think of couple of commenters here are well read in Matters Islamic…
Yeah! It is not important that a wife loves her husband. It is important that he loves her.
nk (9eb1c1) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:03 amBush 41 committed U.S. forces to a U.N. sanctioned humanitarian relief mission. The Clinton admin assumed and maintained support for this mission until relieved by the U.N. in May ’93. The failure of U.N. forces in June ’93 forced us to re-engage and to assume a different mission.
In the aftermath of the killing of the Paki troops, the mission expanded to suppressing the clans, confiscating their weapons and capturing their leadership. “Blackhawk Down” resulted.
A laudable and do-able mission that was undermined by an unending series of half-assed measures and lack of commitment by the Clinton Admin. Conflicted by their desire to redeem the U.N. and an unwillingness to concede to the American public that we were effectively engaged in low-intensity combat, the administration “bugged out” at the first crisis in Oct ’93.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:04 amAD – RtR/OS:
The U.N. has a habit of exercizing authority on our dime and muscle.
Without us, they are left with nothing but impotence, corruption and imcompetence. All of the best that the emerging/Third World has to offer.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:07 amComment by belloscm — 4/14/2009 @ 10:04 am
I read “Blackhawk Down” and my thought was that it was a failure of the one-star on the ground. Where the hell were his reserves/firefighters?
nk (9eb1c1) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:08 amJuan – I don’t think the discussion about Somalia is an argument. I’m learning a fair bit from it; as I said before, I was only marginally attentive at the time.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:25 amFrom a tactical perspective, the one-star was late in deploying his reserves, although he was largely dependant upon Paki APCs to transport his response forces to the fight. However, by the time that the need for back-ups was recognized, the mission (Olympic Hotel raid) had irretrievably gone south. The Pakis initially refused to provide support and, only after a lengthy delay, were effectively coersed into providing assistance.
Operationally, the administration deliberately under-resourced U.S. forces on the ground. Requests by the mission commander for armor and AC-130s were denied, so as to not “escalate” the situation and alert the public that we were, in fact, engaged in hostile action.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:29 amDmac, at 203: I think the comment you were responding to is interesting. It seems to me to be a liberal attacking a conservative because the liberal speaker believes the conservative wants President Obama to fail, so as to make Republicans more successful in the next election.
This strikes me as being the precise parallel of the argument I saw all over the conservative side of the blogsphere for much of the period 2003-2007: that liberals wanted President Bush to fail, so as to make Democrats more successful in the next election.
In both cases, I think the claim was and is overblown.
A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:34 amPeace through strength works.
A willingness to respond with overwhelming firepower works.
Minimalism fails. And Clinton and Carter tried to use minimalism.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:38 amI can’t remember that Democrat congressman who, when asked what happens to Democrats if the surge proves to be a success, said it would be a major problem for Democrats. I believe he was a southern Democrat and I believe Rush covered it.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:42 amAnalysing the political consequences of a success or failure of policy, even military action, can be tone deaf but it is not itself actually offensive.
Actually advocating for failure, as many Democrats did in public during the Bush administration, is deserving of tar and feathers.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:45 amAnd as a tactical political matter, he was probably correct, just as it will be a major problem for the Republicans if the economy turns around in the next sixteen months.
That said, acknowledging that [x] will be a major problem for your side is not the same thing as wishing that [x] doesn’t happen.
I would presume that the overwhelming majority of Republicans want President Obama’s programs to succeed, at least in the sense that they want the outcome to be good for the country, even if the result of that is a reduction in the medium-term political influence of conservatives. The issue is that they don’t believe that they will be good for the country.
Similarly, my presumption in 2006 was that the overwhelming majority of Democrats wanted President Bush’s programs to succeed, at least in the sense that they wanted the outcome to be good for the country, even if the result of that was a reduction in the medium-term political influence of conservatives. But they didn’t believe that they would succeed or be good for the country.
I think the failure to acknowledge that stems in large part from the type of factionalism that Mr. Madison was talking about in my quote above. There’s a tendency in political debate to presume the worst about one’s opponents; it’s a natural human behavior, well documented throughout the ages – but nonetheless one which we should resist because it is, in the end, harmful.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/14/2009 @ 10:51 amGood points aphrael. Adams and Madison both warned of the obvious dangers of party dynamics in politics.
carlitos (fd4646) — 4/14/2009 @ 11:01 am“Minimalism fails. And Clinton and Carter tried to use minimalism.”
I would argue that Bush/Rumsfeld, in their planning and execution of OIF, were guilty of the same, although motivated by different considerations.
All of them, ultimately, were too smart by half.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 11:08 amI think thatthere has been a lot of sock puppeting going on.FIFY.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (3617fc) — 4/14/2009 @ 11:36 am“There’s a tendency in political debate to presume the worst about one’s opponents; it’s a natural human behavior, well documented throughout the ages – but nonetheless one which we should resist because it is, in the end, harmful.”
So, who are the adults, on both sides of the political aisle, who can resist the urges of “natural human behavior”? Did the then minority Democrats recognize that their deliberate undermining of Bush would be, ultimately, “harmful”?
In the post 9/11 era, I can’t remember a single voice of reason or restraint coming from the Democrat side. Lots of mean spirited and dishonest hackery, but nothing in the way of comity or compromise.
While I agree that the now minority party should not respond in kind, I do know that the Democrats, to include the POTUS, have done absolutely nothing to earn the cooperation of the Republicans. In fact, in victory, Obama has been the most ungracious and unmagnanimous President in my memory. And Jimmy Carter was a downright small and petty person.
Is it not up to the Chief Executive, in both word and deed, to set a new, more positive, tone?
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 11:38 amEven if Obama had been gracious and magnanimous, his ideas would be still just as bad.
Yes to not being as nasty to Obama as the left was to Bush. But no to doing anything that helps Obama carry out his socialist agenda.
Just vote no.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (3617fc) — 4/14/2009 @ 11:43 am“Yes to not being as nasty to Obama as the left was to Bush.”
Agreed.
However, my fear is that in promoting his “socialist agenda”, Obama and his supporters will use the same modus operandi that enabled their rise to power.
Prediction: The upcoming debate over “immigration reform” will be undiluted ad hominum.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 12:09 pmaphrael, to me that discussion was taking place within the context of a large argument. I did bring it up, of course, as a premise for something else.
But no worries. It’s interesting enough on its own.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/14/2009 @ 12:25 pmbelloscm,
Of course ad hominem will be used liberally, no pun intended.
And the best response to that will be a mixture of the facts and ridicule of the Obamites’ silly ideas.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (3617fc) — 4/14/2009 @ 12:28 pmIn the Senate, Joe Lieberman. In the commentariat, Charles Johnson, Christopher Hitchens, and (for a while) Andrew Sullivan. I’m sure that there were more in the house – Jane Harmon was not exactly rewarded for her pro-security stance, as I recall, with Pelosi stripping her of her security duties. Which makes one wonder what the incentive is for a Democrat to be security-minded. Are the Blue Dogs getting committee seats?
carlitos (92022c) — 4/14/2009 @ 12:36 pmComment by belloscm — 4/14/2009 @ 11:08 am
I don’t think that you can call the force-levels used in OIF “minimalism” as the word relates to Billy-Jeffs’ force restrictions in Somalia in ’93.
AD - RtR/OS (e50e17) — 4/14/2009 @ 12:41 pmOIF, the toppling of the Hussein regime, was a success, with minimal casualties (on both sides).
The problem was the occupation, and the force required for that endeavor.
The force was sized as it would need to be if the plan for prompt turn-over of the reins of government to the Iraqi’s under Jay Garner’s initial plan had been followed, and coalition forces were then withdrawn.
The continuing occupation imposed by Bremer was the fly-in-the-ointment, ratcheting-up tensions within the country and providing a fertile breeding-ground for anti-coalition, and anti-democratic factions.
“Yes to not being as nasty to Obama as the left was to Bush.”
While we may not have to be as nasty toward Obama as the Left was toward Bush, why should we enable his decisions by praising him when things go right for him?
The Left, the MSM, and by extension the American people, have told Republicans they are dogcrap and aren’t worthy of leadership and its responsibilities. This has been going on, with only a few small intervals, since 1933. Let’s be men, for once, and tell these people above that it’s their baby, now.
Just say NO!
Brad S (9f6740) — 4/14/2009 @ 12:42 pmNote that a single comment about “watching what you say” by the White House spokesman was greeted as the beginning of Orwell’s 1984 by Democrats, but what’s being said about Obama’s Dept of Homeland Security putting out reports about the “threat” of “rightwing extremism” ?
Obama is earning the opprobium very rapidly.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/14/2009 @ 12:48 pmYeah, Brad S, let’s be manly men. And wish that our troops fail under the Obama DoD. Screw off, asshole. The only dogcrap in this thread is you.
carlitos (92022c) — 4/14/2009 @ 12:50 pmBrad, go away.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/14/2009 @ 12:51 pmIt stinks of Moby.
The pseudo-manly talk is a leftie’s caricature of conservatives.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (3617fc) — 4/14/2009 @ 1:00 pmBrad S. is now probably begging Markos and Amanda for advice:
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (3617fc) — 4/14/2009 @ 1:09 pm“They found me out! What do I do now??”
Aphrael, I understand your point, but when you have deep thoughts like this to ponder it’s difficult not to respond in kind – for example:
Man, what the fuck would you even know about it? You talk about it like you were in the room looking over his fucking shoulder.
Not much you can do with that one, if you ask me.
Adams and Madison both warned of the obvious dangers of party dynamics in politics
While I greatly admire Adams, it should be noted that he had pronounced Royalist tendencies during his time in the government, and often rued over what he considered “the rabble” having too much say regarding important decisions facing the country. Granted, he had good reason behind his many fears (and there was well – founded paranoia over the state of the nation at that time as well), but he never quite accepted the kind of democracy that was established after our independence was won.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/14/2009 @ 2:28 pmBrad S. is now probably begging Markos and Amanda for advice
Perhaps our host can do something about this particular Moby, this is the second time (after a brief period) that he’s come on here to spew his faux conservatism. It’s not even a bad caricature at this point.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/14/2009 @ 2:32 pmAD – RtR/OS:
I knew that if I said OIF and not discern btwn the invasion and the occupation, I would get some kick-back.
OIF was executed with a Force Structure considerably lower than initially recommended by both the COCOM and the JCS. SecDef drove the numbers down IOT affirm/validate his preconceptions on RMA, reduce our regional “footprint” and to teach the Army a lesson about excessive force levels and risk aversion, among other concerns.
Regardless of the reasons, when the mission changed from invasion to occupation/stabilization, we didn’t have the forces in place to “flood the zone” and to provide for better security. Additionally, the SecDefs continued refusal to consider substantial and permanent increases in Army / USMC manning undermined the long-term sustainability of our forces in place (i.e., 6-9 mos ToDs became 12-16 mos in duration). I’m not even talking about the grossly abbreviated reset periods back in CONUS.
His rationalization back in 2003 that the acquisition (M, T and E) of a new Army division would take at least 18 mos seems a tad bit ironic in the context of a now 6 year war.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:13 pm“In the Senate, Joe Lieberman.”
Of course, you are right, but do the Dems now claim him as one of their own?
Hitch has also been disowned by the Dems and, most importantly for him, The Nation-reading left.
Jane and randy-Andy have pretty much weaseled their way back into the good graces of the progressively minded, haven’t they?
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:20 pmDude, you asked for some voices in the “post 9/11 era,” I gave you some voices. I am not disagreeing with you analysis of subsequent actions; actually, they speak for themselves.
carlitos (92022c) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:22 pm“I can’t remember that Democrat congressman who…”
James Clyburn, D-S.C.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:25 pmbelloscm, #262, its not clear that subsequent events actually proved Rumsfeld wrong.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:27 pmI don’t know… the mission was redeemed by the surge and I don’t recall that Rumsfeld was in favor of the plus-up in forces.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:31 pmAgain, I must emphasize the disconnect between force levels of the Garner plan, and what they tried to implement under Bremer.
AD - RtR/OS (e50e17) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:41 pmBremer’s occupation was terribly under-forced, and the surge was the correction.
Why it took so long will probably only be answered when Rumsfeld ultimately writes his book.
I suspect there was a lot more “palace warfare” going on than most people realize.
Carlitos,
Not to quibble; I agrre with you.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:41 pmCarlitos,
Not to quibble; I agree with you.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:41 pmThe “surge” was more of a change in tactics than force levels. Yes, there was an increase in ground forces for awhile, but it was hardly the immense number needed for a “flood the zone” effort.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/14/2009 @ 3:48 pmcarlitos,
Did you really think that once the GOP ended up powerless on 1/20, that all it would take to bring them back to power would be “principles,” “ideas,” and the “appeal to sweet reason?” Gosh, your naivete is so cute. You oughta bottle it up and sell it to gullible teenagers.
You folks who keep referring to me as a Moby (whatever that is) must be irate because I dared suggest that conservatives and Republicans can be just as emotional as the Dems/Left were these past 8 years. Get over it; politics at its very heart and soul is about emotion and “wanting to be with the team.”
Brad S (ae31fd) — 4/14/2009 @ 4:24 pmDefinitely “Moby”. Not working Brad, this crowd could smell a rat a mile away.
Oiram (983921) — 4/14/2009 @ 4:55 pmBrad, come back to this blog once you’re old enough to shave, mmmkay?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/14/2009 @ 5:12 pmBrad is either a child or a gassy dwarf.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/14/2009 @ 5:55 pmWhat does it take for a person to actually want to be a Moby? I think it’s the realization that you can’t actually come up with a reason for liberalism, but a shame that you can’t admit you were wrong, and a fear at presenting yourself honestly.
‘brad’, no one cares what you think conservatives act like.
I’m always amused at the left’s view of the right. Like the DHS’s warning that returning vets could be terrorists. They say that out of over a million servicemen from the GWOT era, only 19 have joined domestic terror groups… a shockingly tiny percentage, but so what? It’s in their soul to hate the right, the troops, whoever else. Brad’s just another example of the sickness.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/14/2009 @ 6:09 pmI guess they’ll be coming for me soon:
AOracle (e50e17) — 4/14/2009 @ 7:10 pmA Veteran;
Life Member NRA;
variously registered GOP or Libertarian;
a known gun-owner (FFL, actually);
someone who has been dismissive of governmental authority for his entire adult life.
Hey “Brad S.”, click on this link and take your Moby act there! They’ll really appreciate your manliness!
We’re just a boring backwater of tea-sipping pseudo-conservatives and fringe Libertarians.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:23 pmI suspect this won’t win me any points…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 4/14/2009 @ 8:32 pmquote from the head of the Republican party Rush Limbaugh.. Even halfway decent people can see through this shit..
RUSH: You know what we have learned about the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers that were wiped out at the order of Barack Obama, you know what we learned about them? They were teenagers. The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old. Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas. Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
They were kids. The story is out, I don’t know if it’s true or not, but apparently the hijackers, these kids, the merchant marine organizers, Muslim kids, were upset, they wanted to just give the captain back and head home because they were running out of food, they were running out of fuel, they were surrounded by all these US Navy ships, big ships, and they just wanted out of there. That’s the story, but then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama.
VietnamEraVet (04b9ee) — 4/15/2009 @ 6:05 pm