Barack Obama -- April 18, 2009

April 18, 2009

Custom Search

Obama once dressed as
a Somali elder. Now he has
to kill Somali pirates.

event	description
Marxists Exchange Secret Handshake
Obama, BackSeat Commander	On the 14th, Blackfive reported that early reports indicated that Obama had hindered the military's rescue of Merchant Marine Captain Phillips. Flopping Aces now confirms, from first-hand reports, that Obama did indeed restricted Navy SEALs from rescuing the Maersk Alabama's captain with force. Aces spoke to some SEAL pals in Virginia Beach yesterday and asked why the incident dragged out for 4 days. He was told the following: 1. BHO 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 raggies 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 raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in. 5. Obama specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge captain and SEAL teams. 6. The Bainbridge captain and SEAL team commander finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies 7. Obama immediately claimed credit for his "daring and decisive" behavior. As usual with him, it’s BS. So per our last email thread, I’m downgrading Oohbaby’s performace to D-minus. 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 -- 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 that 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 the 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 declared that the dramatic end to the standoff answered 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.
Obama Will Punish Israel if it Attacks Iran	Obama has taken military action against Iran off the table, and now he is considering ways of punishing Israel if it attacks Iran to end its nuclear arms program (and prevent a second Holocaust). In other words, having failed to contain Iran, the Obama is concentrating on restraining Israel. Administration contingency plans include condemnation of Israel, support for a United Nations Security Council resolution that could include sanctions on Israel, and suspending or seriously cutting military aid to the Jewish State. One of Obama's closest foreign policy advisers, National Security Council member Samantha Power, is a proponent of ending military aid to Israel in order to force it to negotiate with Iran's Palestinian Islamist proxy, Hamas, and withdraw from all lands taken during the Six-Day War of June 1967. Power also advocates shifting aid to a Palestinian state. Overall, she views Israel as a liability and a historic mistake, in line with the European left position (and that of old-line, right-of-center, American isolationists and anti-Semites). Her antidemocratic admirers in the Democratic Party's (Hillary-hating) left wing agree and are eager for an opportunity to paint Israel as a Jewish North Korea (although they actually have more sympathy for North Korea than for Israel). The big question is how the Obama administration would react if Iran retaliated against Israel indirectly as well as directly -- by making good on its repeated threats to attack U.S. forces in the Middle East and shut down the strategic, 29 mile-wide Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 20% of the world's crude oil is transported by tanker ships. Would the U.S. fight back with real ferocity or respond in a limited way while blaming Israel for preemptively attacking Iran and appealing to "the Muslim world" for "understanding?" One wonders how the Apologizer-in-Chief would react. Related: The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government. Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack. Two nationwide civil defense drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.
Ahmadinejad Mocks Obama	In response to Barack Obama's "outstretched hand," as he expressed in his April 1, 2009 speech, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad emphasized that the West was weak, and could not force anything on Iran. He enumerated Iran's demands for dialogue with the U.S.; the demands included the withdrawal of Western forces, the destruction of the West's entire nuclear arsenal, and respect for Iran's right to its nuclear program. The following are just a few of the excerpts from Ahmadinejad's speech: "You yourselves know that you are today in a position of weakness. Your hands are empty and you can no longer promote your affairs from a position of strength." "Anyone who talks about change must change his own behavior and policy." "The fundamental step [must be] the collection and destruction of all [nuclear] arsenals in the world" "If they [the US] ask for real change, they must withdraw all their military bases and respect the independence and the values of the nations." "But today, with the grace of God, and thanks to Iran's national unity, the recommendations of Supreme Leader [Ali Khamenei], and the following of his [path], nearly 7,000 centrifuges are spinning today at Natanz, mocking them." Good luck with those negotiations with no preconditions Bambi. This maniac is going to eat your lunch and make you his butt-boy.