Sunday, April 12, 2009


What matters are results.

The American hostage is now free and unharmed. Our Navy sent a message to the pirates -- don't mess with Navy SEALS.

While I disagree with ever negotiating with them in the first place, he did get the job done.

Congratulations, Mr. President.


  1. Intent and intentions have meaning -- therefore, your "props" may be premature.

    IF this entire "rescue" was prompted by the captain's courageous escape attempt, then I give Obama very little props.

    His intent was to negotiate a settlement and he would have proceeded down that path (blindly) if not for the heroic actions of the man being held hostage.

    I see no reason to give him credit for this -- even though the SEALs sealed (ha ha) the deal with their sharp shooting.

  2. Agree to a point, but in situations as high profile as this, I can't imagine the Navy would have the go-ahead to shoot without the President's permission.

    For that, he needs credit.

    With that being said, as my post on Wednesday morning said, he should have acted much faster.

  3. According to ( ), the President did not give the order, it was strictly chain of command. Take it for what you will, I'm not impressed with Redstate as an information source.

    "He did affirm the military’s authorization to use force if the captain’s life was in danger, but they already would have had that authorization as part of their standard rules of engagement. If there are innocents about to be slaughtered the same reasoning that authorizes self defense also covers an imminent execution unless the ROE specifically forbid it.The AP is making it sound like there was an active rescue ordered by the President. It was not, there was an imminent threat and the local commander gave the order to fire. Good on Obama for ensuring their authorization was clear, but let’s also be clear that he did not authorize or order an active rescue attempt."


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.