Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Uncle Bubba on April 18, 2009, 02:13:59 AM
-
This came from a long-time friend of mine whom I have always considered a credible source. He's been a soldier since 1980 and a cop since 1986. One thing he has never been is a bullsh*tter. If he's willing to vouch for his source and pass it on I'll take it under consideration and do the same.
Based on this, I have to say that I may have spoken too soon in defense of the President's "decisiveness". Looks like the media's love affair with Himself has caused them to spin the matter in his favor.
.............
The real story of Obama's Decision Making
Yesterday at 8:18pm
I am just passing this along. The source is reliable (Italics his. UB)
This was just sent to me by a former Assistant Director of the FBI- thought you might find it interesting reading. There is no way to confirm these kinds of reports- just add it to your information gathering process and make with it what you want.
Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1. BHO (the President) wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the pirates all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the pirates were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead pirates
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.
So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-.
Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.
Read the following accurate account.
Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn't worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country's Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors - and none was taken.
The guidance from National Command Authority - the president of the United States, Barack Obama - had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear, extreme danger.
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates - and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief's staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution" would be acceptable.
After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he'd had enough.
Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage's life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer - unnamed in all media reports to date - decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips' back was a threat to the hostage's life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.
Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.
There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday's dramatic rescue of an American hostage.
Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president's toughness and decisiveness.
Despite the Obama administration's (and its sycophants') attempt to spin yesterday's success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours - as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location - became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
-
FYI I split this off from the original thread, thinking its probably going to get very political.
-
Is anyone else reporting this? I
want need to see it somewhere besides an internet forum before I start bashing.
-
Same here.
Although this fits perfectly with my assessment of President Obama, I'd like another source before I give it credibility. (No offense, Uncle Bubba).
If it is true, I do hope this gets out. I can trust that the military will keep their mouths shut, though.
-
Oh, crap.
I tried restoring the original thread sans this split, and lost it instead.
Stay tuned, I may need some sysadmin support. :|
-
I would seriously doubt that soldiers would have violated direct orders from the president.
If they did, they need to be punished, and removed from service, despite having a good outcome this time.
-
What I think is interesting on the original post is that it is completely silent on the role played by the FBI negotiating team. The original post makes things sound as if it was entirely a military operation with military decision-making. Most of the media stories I came across noted the heavy involvement of the FBI in this event. So how many of these operational 'restrictions' were actually at the recommendation of the hostage negotiation team? If they are the experts in such matters, would not the on-scene commander want to listen to and follow their advice?
-
I never understood the need for FBI presence in the first place. Is piracy a criminal matter, an act of war, or something else entirely?
When the Marines went to the "Shores of Tripoli", did they take a bunch of lawyers?
-
It boggled my mind that the pirates weren't pink mist as soon as the captain jumped off the boat the first time. I heard in the media that he was trying to escape, when to me it was obvious that he was only removing himself from the sight picture. I would have been a very angry and wet captain when I found out that my captors were still alive and coming to pick me back up.
-
It boggled my mind that the pirates weren't pink mist as soon as the captain jumped off the boat the first time. I heard in the media that he was trying to escape, when to me it was obvious that he was only removing himself from the sight picture. I would have been a very angry and wet captain when I found out that my captors were still alive and coming to pick me back up.
The captain surely will have - somewhere along the way - gotten "the full story" from the military personnel on-scene. Let's wait to see if he speaks up to confirm any part of what Uncle Bubba's source says. If true . . . I imagine he WILL air the real story.
Based on my impresson of BHO, the OP's story sounds very, very plausible . . .
But that doesn't make it true.
-
No offense taken from those who want corroboration. I do too. Hank said it right, based on what I know of the President the story is very plausible - that and my source's integrity are why I passed it on - but neither of those make it true.
lone-gunman, I don't see where direct orders from the President were disobeyed. Hopefully even he knows that the people out on the sharp end of the lance are smart, experienced, dedicated professionals who understand how to do their jobs. If the Prez didn't specify what he meant by "imminent danger" - and he'd be smart not to - then the on-scene commander has discretion to interpret that part of the order according to developments. If you're advocating for strict control from on high - getting clearance from the chain of command up to and including NCA before doing anything - well, that's one of the things that made a complete clusterf*ck of the war in Vietnam.
-
The captain surely will have - somewhere along the way - gotten "the full story" from the military personnel on-scene. Let's wait to see if he speaks up to confirm any part of what Uncle Bubba's source says. If true . . . I imagine he WILL air the real story.
Based on my impresson of BHO, the OP's story sounds very, very plausible . . .
But that doesn't make it true.
I gaurantee this will be a movie. Will it be a Documentary or a Hollywood work of fiction dressed to look like a documentary?
-
I gaurantee this will be a movie. Will it be a Documentary or a Hollywood work of fiction dressed to look like a documentary?
Hopefully just a movie. Then we can point out all the things that they got wrong. :police: =D
-
This sounds very fishy to me. Why would a "former deputy assistant director" know what happened there? There's no names involved either - we can't verify this at all.
-
This sounds very fishy to me. Why would a "former deputy assistant director" know what happened there?
Friends who still work for the Bureau. This thing may have weak points, but that ain't one of them.
-
OP reads like a rehash of
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95451
-
OP reads like a rehash of
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95451
My friend posted his online at 8:18PM EDST on Friday the 17th, I posted it here at 2:13AM EDST on Saturday the 18th, WND's time stamp says they posted their excerpt at 11:54PM EDST that same day. No idea when WND's founder publishes the newsletter that the excerpt came from but
Rather than a rehash, I'd call it the first corroboration. Looks like my friend has pretty good contacts.
-
I'm not sure I buy it. There are 2 things that stand out as likely BS.
1)They couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger. OK, the guy jumps ship and the pirates shoot at him. Certainly seems like he was in "imminent" danger there.
2)They were fired on and had to sit there and take it. I would love to see the ROE that says US troops cannot return fire when fired upon.
While I wouldn't put it past Obama to be the micromanaging type, I think this thing gives him way too much credit.
-
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to human stupidity.
That said, this is nothing more than Internet rubbish. I wouldn't believe a word of it (probably came from a gun shoppe). =D
-
>I would love to see the ROE that says US troops cannot return fire when fired upon. <
Marine barracks in Lebanon, when I was but a lad.
Not saying this particular report is true, just pointing out that we HAVE had our troops in harms way, and not allowed them to shoot...