Flashy-
you are being a jerk.
hmmmm yes...because lauding the president and thanking him 3 times instead of any mention whatsoever of the Seals was an appropriate way to celebrate the resolution of the situation
Right wingers - Bad
Obama - Amazing
Seals - Huh? Oh...right...the shooters...yeah...Awesome! But Obama...wow...that is *TRIPLE* Awesome. Thank you! Great Shot Obama! All that time in sniper school really paid off!
In fact, yes, Obama gave the order that the seals could use lethal force.
In fact, no, Obama
authorized the use of lethal force *IF* there was imminent danger *ONLY* to the captain
In fact, YES, the right was pillorying OBAMA for "doing nothing" and calling him names, while Obama simply instructed the Captain to make sure that the situation was optimal before authorizing seal action.
I do not care what the "right" was doing...he did not instruct the captain make sure the situation was "optimal"...he instructed the use of lethal force if there was *IMMINENT DANGER* to the Captain.
He did not "simply instruct" the captain to make sure the situation was "optimal"
If the instructions had been for "optimal" that would have meant they could shoot or assault at any time they saw an "optimal" opportunity...
big difference in tactics and rules of engagement between Optimal opportunity and waiting for imminent danger.
Optimal means taking an opportunity that presents itself to assault
Imminet Danger means waiting till the situation can no longer continue without the prospect for immediate harm to the hostage and death or injury is imminent.
this is perfectly illustrated, that you are wrong from Admiral Gortney's Q&A
ADM GORTNEY: I want to make one thing perfectly clear, that the on-scene commander determined that the captain was in imminent danger. If he was not in imminent danger, they were not to take this sort of action they were supposed to let the negotiation process work it out.
The on-scene commander took it as the captain was this imminent danger and then made that decision and he had the authorities to make that decision and he had seconds to make that decision.
So, Phil, in fact, Obama was more than willing to keep negotiating and do nothing...he did not in fact give the Seals authorization to act in an "Optimal Situation".
Yes, it was the Seals who executed the operation.
But the point of the OP was that no one on the right was criticizing the Seals' ability. No one was criticizing the Captain for dragging his feet...
No, They were criticizing Obama and the 'left' as being too weak to decisively use military force when faced with just such a situation.
the point of the OP has nothing to do with whatever some a-holes on the Right were doing. Besides...considering that the a-holes on the left made undermining and criticizing everything Bush did no matter what a crusade, can you blame the right for criticizing Obama?
The OP thanked the president three times, and said "nice shot Mr. President"...while not even bothering to mention that it was three SEAL sharpshooters, who, in the dark, 75 feet away, on the deck of a pitching destroyer, each put three bullets into the three respective heads of three pirates on another pitching boat.
one might think a little thanks might be directed *THEIR* way without any prodding, and certainly, in the absence of the thanks from the OP, at least crediting *THEM* with the nice shot, instead of the president would be more appropriate.
or, Phil, maybe you could take a jog down to Coronado, to the Amphibious Base, and hold up a sign saying "Thanks Mr. President....Nice Shot"
after all, he should be thanked for it.
Of course, this is not the first time they have jumped to finger wagging only to have Obama make them look like morons because Obama prefers to PLAN an effective response rather than make a lot of noise about it.
I do not care what the idiots on the right do...but tell me something Phil...how exactly did Obama authorizing the use of lethal force by special forces designed exactly for these situations, amount to "planning an effective response" rather than making noise about it?
do you think Obama had a little map on his desk and was saying..."okay" i want the seals stationed on the aft deck...and i want to make sure...blah blah blah.
spare me the nonsense...
George W. Bush may be the biggest retard in the history of the Oval Office, but President's do not plan an "effective response" to these types of temporary crisis situations...they give orders to the military command, that either authorizes the use of force or does not, through rules of engagement.
No president or leader plans an "effective response" to these situations...all special forces in almost every situation are in control on the ground, and they virtually always receive authorization beforehand to assault if there is a point in time when there is either
A. An absolutely optimal moment to attempt to end the siege, which is very uncommon.
or
B. An absolutely vital moment when the hostages or captives are in imminent and immediate danger of being harmed or have already begun to be harmed.
Operational Control and the authorization of force are two totally different things.
Notaguru's post was directed at the CRITICISM of the president by the Right wingers...
They DID criticize him. He countered that critique.
funny...he countered that "critique" by claiming, with absolutely no knowledge, that Obama's critics secretly wanted the captain to have his brains blown out.
yes...talk about unfair criticism.
he managed to
1. Accuse critics of wanting the prisoner to be killed
2. Thank the president three times, even though he was busy most of yesterday doing photo ops with the portuguese water dog.
3. Commend the President for the "Nice Shot"
4. Not thank or praise the Seals, or the on site commander, who actually are the real heroes, at all.
And you come out claiming that you have deciphered, that his true intent was just to slap back at the right wing?
wow... I am totally underwhelmed at your penetrating ability to discern the obvious.
I never deciphered it...it was pretty obvious that the OP had no intention of actually simply resting on the facts of the situation
And saddened that you don't seem to comprehend that neither the Captain nor the Seals would have done shit without the direction and consent of the President.
Completely incorrect. Even without Obama's "consent" if the pirates had begun to attempt to execute the hostage, before any formal authorization, the SEALs would rightly shoot to kill before receiving authorization.
Special Forces operate under certain guidelines, at all times, with the absence of direct orders from the White House. No Special Forces Unit would allow hostages to be killed while waiting for the president to give them "direction"
the fact that this was a protracted situation, allowed for time to frame the rules of engagement that the President's military advisors presented to the president and that he approved
I suppose you would have taken the position that Churchhill and Roosevelt had no part in the victory in WWII, Or that Lincoln had no impact on the Civil war.
On an operational military level?
Absolutely not.
Commander In Chief is not an official military rank. Presidents do not plan operations, they are not generals. they are given options through the chain of command, and are asked to authorize military force.