Obama dithered for nearly three days on pirates

Obama dithered for nearly three days on pirates

politicalwarfare.org

White House spin, being headlined in the press, is that President Barack Obama "twice approved force" to rescue Maersk Alabama Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates.
What isn't making the headlines is that Obama flailed and dithered for nearly three days before first approving force.
A White House chronology shows that Obama did not authorize the use of force to save the freighter captain until 3:00 AM Mogadishu time on Saturday, a full 48 hours after the Bainbridge reached the ship.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk

It took the Bainbridge 20 hours to reach the Maersk, so his limited order to use deadly force only if the Captain was in imminent danger took 67 hours; almost 3 days!

Obama didn't issue broader orders until 9:20 a.m. on Saturday and only after the Pentagon twice urged him to make a decision.

Pretty slow decision-making in a life-or-death situation. Slow to order action to save an American citizen's life. Slow to respond to a terrorist attack on an unarmed American vessel.

Weak.

The administration doesn't understand how to send the right message to the Islamist pirates in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean.

A Maersk Alabama crewman said after news of Captain Phillips' rescue that the US shouldn't have allowed the pirates to threaten American shipping in the first place: "Tell the president to get these guys. It shouldn't come to that."

The US Navy was ready before the word "go." The sailors performed flawlessly, saving Phillips' life and Obama's credibility. Hopefully the president has learned a lesson.



politicalwarfare.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 13-4-2009 by jdub297]

Not going to over react here, but this dude is getting on my nerves.
Anytime I mention his name around people, the usual response lately is
"oh god, dont talk about that idiot". People are starting to recongnize that they made a mistake, but at the same time, they dont want to hear it from people like me who have been telling them since day one that he was a joke. They want to act like something just recently happened to him that made him this way, when really he has been a tool since day one.

As far as this decision to go after the pirates lethally, it shouldnt have even crossed his mind to give the right answer. Hell it shouldnt have even reached his desk, he should have gave the go on it the moment he realized what was happening. He is and always has shown weakness(my opinion).

I just hope when it comes to serious problems such as war that he wont be so hesitant to protect his own people. So far, his decision making abilities arent really what the majority of the American people have been hoping for all along, but thats just through my eyes, and what I see/hear from the people I come in contact with on a daily basis. People are getting tired of the rhetoric and the lies more now than ever. He better get his act together real fast or things are going to turn on him quicker than ever before in presidential history.

reply to post by Common Good

s4u
It seems people are either adamant loyalists to BHO or diametrically opposed. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground. He is polarizing, to say the least.

He's already giving in to Iran on nuclear enrichment before they sit down face-to-face. Holder and Pelosi are working hard to eliminate gun ownership. Now, Gates' budget proposal minimizes our readiness. We are asking for someone else to kick sand in our faces. We were lucky this time it was only a bunch of kids. It won't be next time.

I don't mind Cuba, though. We should've been trading with them years ago.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Right on.
I agree that people are not on the fence when it comes to Obama.
There are only two sides, those who love him and those who dont.
The people that were on the fence in the beginning, I believe have already chosen by now which side they belonged on. With no middle it is the perfect storm for civil uprest. They know this, and I believe that is why they are not stopping on the Gun rights issue. They are sticking to their "guns" on this issue, and will not let up because they know such a vast majority of the people are against their views on the subject. If you can control the other sides ability to fight back you pretty much dont need to care what they think, for they cant do anything about it anyways.

Whats funny about the democrats though, in my opinion, is that they want to get rid of everyones guns, but when it comes to thier own popularity, they are the first ones to pull the trigger to save face. Just like this whole pirate issue. How did they solve the problem? They took out the bad guy, not by words, not by hugs and kisses, but by trained gunmen casting lead into the air. War is ugly, and war is hard on a mans soul, but it is dentrimental to the stability of our country. The day we give those rights away to cumbubbles that sit in chairs making decidions for everyone else, is the day that they are using those guns to protect themselves from the lives that they have put under risk.

Im sure if the President went into the military at some point in his life, he would understand how many lives guns have saved, but he hasnt. This (as far as I know) was probably the first time he had to make the decision to end a mans life. Hehas a long road ahead of him, along with hard times, so this is the first of many predicaments he is going to find himself in.
Its not easy being cheesy.

Here's the deal. President Bush would have probably done the same thing and waited the same ammount of time. Of course this is speculation, since we're playing Monday morning quarterback here. But based on past behavior, president bush or republicans as a whole, haven't shown much of the renowned american cowboy attitude. What I'm saying is, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to hate President Obama or attack him based on this incident. Our Seals parachuted into the ocean in the dead of night and took out the bad guys just like we're supposed to do. We had FBI negotiators there right away. I wouldn't say the President dithered here and I wouldn't say that the previous president or the other presidential candidates in this election would have acted in a more expiditicious (s.p) manner.

Just my 2 cents here

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Common Good

 

s4u
It seems people are either adamant loyalists to BHO or diametrically opposed. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground. He is polarizing, to say the least.

He's already giving in to Iran on nuclear enrichment before they sit down face-to-face. Holder and Pelosi are working hard to eliminate gun ownership. Now, Gates' budget proposal minimizes our readiness. We are asking for someone else to kick sand in our faces. We were lucky this time it was only a bunch of kids. It won't be next time.

I don't mind Cuba, though. We should've been trading with them years ago.

jw

The polarization is no different then it was with W... I think you now get to experience the full disappointment that 1 party all branches brings. I was severely depressed and pissed thru the first 6 months of W's term. Worse in 04 -

high blood pressure city

Agree with you on Cuba

reply to post by jdub297


Being an Aussie, I'm not pro or anti Obama. I was wondering if perhaps it took a long time to take action due to exploring a non aggressive resolution first?

Though I don't condone the piracy, there are valid reasons why it is happening that can be squarely blamed on the west and their insatiable desire to pilfer the natural resources (i.e the wealth) of 3rd world nations.

IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by jdub297

 

can be squarely blamed on the west and their insatiable desire to pilfer the natural resources (i.e the wealth) of 3rd world nations.

IRM

OHH! snap!

People have free will, I don't condone piracisms or fascism...

reply to post by InfaRedMan


There are no valid reasons to hold 250 people captive for ransom. Or the property of others.

The Somalis are thugs pure and simple, and have been lawless for over a decade. (Remember the SNL routine about Clinton and Somali
"warlords?")

There may be illegal fishing and illegal dumping, but can you show me which countries of the "West" are responsible?

The French took action as well, even though they had warned the sailboat in question to stay out of hostile waters.

What justification is there for killing an innocent sailor and taking his family hostage?

jw

But then again why would they even bother him. It to me looks like micro managing to have him sign off. It probably takes a few days to clear it with the Russians and Chinese before any real decision's made anyway. Obama Bush no difference.

reply to post by mental modulator


I'm not so sure the polarization was so great and obvious with W. There have been several recent articles about the extremes under this admin.

Bush may have been a "cowboy," but Obama won't do anything without worldwide approval and polling to back up his actions. Look at his pandering to Iran. He only acted against the pirates after Pentagon prodding.

Moreover, he is clearly using his own party in Congress to push through "crisis management" while he solidifies his constituent base and his socialist agenda. We are about to legitimize 12 million illegal aliens. He will have built a huge constituency by the end of his first term with programs that do not serve the nation's interests, but cater to Mexican American and Black interests. Do you recall what he told "Joe the plumber" about redistribution of wealth? Where do you think it is going?

His raison d'etre is the nationalization of energy, education and health. The "bailouts" and stimulus/budget are distractions while he sets up a takeover of what had once been private or state enterprises. He has no business setting salary rules or dictating the management of private enterprise.

I'm not so sure whether he's pure fascist or just using fascism until he can establish socialist policies. Can you be both simultaneously?

jw

Somali pirates wanted a ransom for the captain. They also wanted attention to their cause. That attention coming from Obama would be a powerful message.

It was right for Obama to not speak anything about this incident. Why? Why give the enemy what they want when you don't have to.

The solution to the Somali pirate threat lies within our own civilian naval fleet. Not within our military strength. Time was long ago that captains of civilian vessels could petition congress for letters of marque authorizing them to defend themselves, and to board and take from enemy vessels.

I believe that today the same could be used in this region. This way pirates would be forced to think about who they intend to board and try and capture.

No negotiations, no ransoms, but limited reverse acts of piracy in order to quell a criminal threat. These are not terrorists, these are not a military, these are thugs and pirates. The only way to defeat the threat of piracy is to make it unprofitable for pirates to operate.

Somalia is a failed state. One that will probably have to either be wiped out, combine with a stronger state, or regain it's own government. If this does not happen, pirates will continue to take ships and continue to expect ransoms.

Micro-management indeed. The President shouldn't be bothered with every single instance of thuggery on the high seas. Ship crews should be charged with the defense of their own vessels. You know how expensive it is to task a destroyer to follow a pirated vessel, and airlift in a crew of snipers to take care of the mess? That is not cheap.

Make the shipping companies responsible for defending their own ships, crews and cargo. If your ship gets taken over by pirates, then tough luck for you. Your cargo is forfeit to the Navy, to help recoup the costs of eliminating the pirates onboard. No negotiations. A ship that is taken over by pirates should be declared an enemy vessel, and handled at the discretion of the Navy, to use any and all force deemed necessary. If the Navy decides they don't want to risk a commando assault, then they can feel free to blow it out of the water.

The risk of potentially losing hundreds of millions of dollars gives great incentive to shipping companies to arm and protect their own ships. Mount some Ma-deuces along the gunwales of every vessel that passes through dangerous waters, and instruct your crew to shred anyone who gets too close. Issue sidearms to your crew, and advise them that if they allow themselves to be captured, then they are on their own.

Ok.......look people, I dont like to come off like a complete A hole here, but can we please please PLEASE stop doing the same old thing?

Anytime someone says ANYTHING negative about Obama, there are one of two things that happen right off the bat, they are either called a racist, or hes compared to GW, or they outright blame GW.

Start holding this man responsible for his own decisions, and drop the GW thing, its getting old and its completely irrelevant to the mans PERSONAL decisions, his decisions are his own and it doesnt make a difference what GW did or would have done......

I agree, there should have been absolutely no hesitation, these people are thugs and armed, and should be handle accordingly, you take hostages, you threaten lives, you get taken out, end of story.

As my martial arts teacher use to say "you hesitate, you meditate.....horizontally and sometimes permanently"

Well...looks like he's going to get another chance to "blither":

www.voanews.com...


Desperate people doing desperate things and the BigO had best get used to it because it's going to be parked in his manicured back-lawn with the inbred puppy soon.


I see "pirates" on land starting to organize right here.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by irishchic]

reply to post by amazing


"Here's the deal. President Bush would have probably done the same thing and waited the same ammount of time. Of course this is speculation, since we're playing Monday morning quarterback here. But based on past behavior, president bush or republicans as a whole, haven't shown much of the renowned american cowboy attitude."

This is not "speculation":
Shortly after Bush took office the Chinese Air Force forced an American surveillance plane to an airport in Chinese territory. This happened on a Sunday. On Monday, less than 24 hrs. later, US military, under direction of G.W. Bush, were in the area, (as I recall) 9 personnel on board. Swift decision by the "cowboy", led to a resolved situation in less time than the Captian was held captive.

The Chinese had said that they were going to "dismantle" the aircraft, full of surveillance equipment, and were told that it was US property, and if an attempt was made to dismantle, that the US Air Force would destroy the plane, on the ground, before the first screwdriver removed the first screw.

I'll leave the documentation for you to research, as this happened in 2001, references should be available on-line somewhere.

I see "pirates" on land starting to organize right here.

Yarrr! Avast, ye scurvy dogs!

Maybe those Somalian guys are on to something. They kidnap people, get in all of the papers, get paid a whole ton of money, and are allowed to go free. Rinse, repeat. Kidnapping is a growth industry, methinks. Perhaps time to get in on the ground floor?

reply to post by jdub297


As mentioned already, I don't condone the piracy antics jdub - but I do understand why it's happening in a 3rd world nation where people have no education and little to no recourse to the antics of developed nations.

IRM

Gee he must be far worse then than someone dithering for days while a major American city drowned huh?