A search of Nexis between April 7 -- the day when pirates seized the U.S.-registered and American-crewed Maersk Alabama -- and today, April 10, shows that both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times failed to even mention President Barack Obama in their stories on the ongoing hostage situation. The New York Times did, once, in a page A6 April 9 story by Mark Mazetti and Sharon Otterman, but it came 15 paragraphs into the 26-paragraph story and served to explain Obama's absence in the ongoing U.S. response:
At the White House, military and national security officials tracked the developments from the Situation Room, and they provided several briefings to President Obama and other administration officials throughout the day.
Mr. Obama first learned of the hijacking early on Wednesday morning after he returned to the White House from his overseas trip, and he later convened an interagency group on maritime safety, aides said. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said, ''Our top priority is the personal safety of the crew members on board.''
Basically, the nation's top three newspapers are letting President Obama off the hook from any scrutiny regarding his involvement or lack thereof in the ongoing hostage situation.
So far, President Obama has refrained from making an official statement on the Maersk Alabama standoff. Yet his immediate predecessor in office took just one day before making an official statement on what proved to be his first major test of the George W. Bush presidency.
On April 1, 2001 -- late March 31 Washington, D.C. time -- a U.S. Navy plane was forced to make an emergency landing on Chinese-controlled Hainan Island, having been damage by a Chinese fighter jet over international waters. On the morning of Monday, April 2, 2001, President Bush issued the following statement:
Late Saturday night in Washington, Sunday morning in China, a United States naval maritime patrol aircraft on a routine surveillance mission in international airspace over the South China Sea collided with one of two Chinese fighters that were shadowing our plane. Both our aircraft and a Chinese aircraft were damaged in the collision. Our aircraft made an emergency landing at an airfield on China's Hainan Island.
We have been in contact with the Chinese government about this incident since Saturday night. From our own information, we know that the United States naval plane landed safely. Our embassy in Beijing has been told by the Chinese government that all 24 crew members are safe.
Our priorities are the prompt and safe return of the crew, and the return of the aircraft without further damaging or tampering. The first step should be immediate access by our embassy personnel to our crew members. I am troubled by the lack of a timely Chinese response to our request for this access.
Our embassy officials are on the ground and prepared to visit the crew and aircraft as soon as the Chinese government allows them to do so. And I call on the Chinese government to grant this access promptly.
Failure of the Chinese government to react promptly to our request is inconsistent with standard diplomatic practice, and with the expressed desire of both our countries for better relations.
Finally, we have offered to provide search and rescue assistance to help the Chinese government locate its missing aircraft and pilot. Our military stands ready to help.
Thank you very much.
That standoff with Chinese officials lasted roughly 11 days, with the sailors returned to the United States on April 12. President Bush made a few other official statements in the intervening period.
Seven days into the surveillance plane incident, April 8, 2001, then-Washington Post staffer Mike Allen gave readers a 1521-word article entitled, "Bush Seeks to Avert Repeat Of Carter's Hostage Crisis; Risk of PR Debacle Could Grow If China Standoff Drags On." Here's an excerpt via Nexis (emphases mine):
President Bush has adopted a low-key public stance toward the China crisis in part to prolong the nation's patience and avert a repetition of the "America Held Hostage" television coverage that tormented President Jimmy Carter, administration strategists said.
Bush has conferred on China with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice as early as 5:30 a.m. each day but has otherwise kept his normal schedule -- even throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game in Milwaukee Friday night -- and has sought to project a "calm and measured" tone, according to a source who often talks to him.
People who have attended White House strategy meetings on the crisis say Bush and his aides are quite conscious of the public-relations debacle that could result if Americans came to view the standoff with China as reminiscent of the 444-day siege at the U.S. Embassy in Iran at the end of Carter's term.
So far, the public has stayed behind Bush. A Washington Post/ABC News poll taken on Thursday indicated that nearly two-thirds of Americans approve of his handling of the matter. And a senior administration official expressed satisfaction with TV's generally calm coverage, which has occasionally featured logos such as MSNBC's "Diplomatic Dogfight" but more often has taken a moderate tone, as in CBS News's "The China Challenge."
The longer the standoff continues, however, the greater the risk that public opinion will turn, members of Congress will clamor for retaliation against China, conservative Republicans will attack Bush for showing weakness, and divisions over the China policy within the administration will emerge.
Bush, who began the 12th week of his administration yesterday, could face what one Democrat called "the perfect political storm" -- a foreign policy crisis, an economic downturn and a rebuke by the Senate on the size of his tax cut.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well, once they permanently
April 10, 2009 - 12:50 ET by Chris NormanWell, once they permanently removed the (D) after the name, it was only a matter of time before they omitted the name also.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
...and now there are
April 10, 2009 - 14:21 ET by MassConservative...and now there are reports that one of these terrorists fired hos gun when the captain made a break for it. It is unclear if he fired into the air or towards the captain.
Irregardless...how the hell were these guys not fish chum at that exact moment? Why are we trying to negotiate with these idiots. It is time to send a message and the message should not be "we surrender".
"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." - Tom Delay
MC... Hear...Hear! Doubling
April 10, 2009 - 14:23 ET by bigtimerMC...
Hear...Hear!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Not sure, but my guess
April 10, 2009 - 16:35 ET by JerNot sure, but my guess would be to assure this extraordinarily courageous American didn't also become "fish chum" while preserving a range of options to gain his freedom.
Jer
→ Great sentiment Jer
April 10, 2009 - 16:42 ET by Cool ArrowHonestly, I think Mr. Obama could handle singing the praises of "Old Shoe" also.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Jer, why is this captain
April 10, 2009 - 16:53 ET by Dan The Man 2Jer, why is this captain "extraordinarily courageous" as he is performing his duty. He signed on and assumed the risks as did his crew. I think that well placed snipers and a good plan by a seal team would ensure his safety as much as it is safe now. Remember these are desperate men and the only reason they are alive is because of the hostage.
We could most likely take the man if we told the captors we will kill them if they dont let him go say in 30 minutes. Mene are still men and I imagine these men would like to live. But if you start negociations we have lost the battle if not teh war.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan...
April 10, 2009 - 17:25 ET by JerDuty or not, I consider the captain's actions in thwarting the hijacking of his ship, facilitating the crew's overpowering some of the pirates while assuring their safety, surrendering himself to the remaining pirates to protect his men, and attempting a daring and dangerous escape, qualify as acts of bravery in my book.
Generally, hostage takers don't respond favorably to threats of force.
Jer
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
They do respond to promises
April 10, 2009 - 21:05 ET by Dan The Man 2They do respond to promises of death. Like John Wayne in True Grit said "No threat, promise". And if we follow through there will be fewer piracies if it doesn't go to none. The lack of action is the reason why these are happeningAnd I have not read much and don't know if he was heroic, but your surperlative is frankly used too much.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Spam or internet fluke?
April 10, 2009 - 21:10 ET by DeliaTruly bizarro.
Okay, okay, okay, okay,
April 10, 2009 - 21:15 ET by JerOkay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay okay, OKAY! :-) Disregard "extraordinarily" in my original post, so that it will read simply "courageous".
Jer
lol
April 10, 2009 - 21:44 ET by katainkentyou know when you're doing an internet transaction and next to the button it says "push only once". This is like that.... only less charges have been made to your credit card ;)
next to the button it says
April 10, 2009 - 23:19 ET by Dan The Man 2next to the button it says "push only once"
I was on my Iphone and it went bananas. Sorry, looks neat tho and got Jer to back off.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Drat...my weakness has been
April 11, 2009 - 00:34 ET by JerDrat...my weakness has been exposed.
Jer
I got Uncle Jer's back 100% on this.
April 11, 2009 - 04:09 ET by JWFextraordinarily courageous American is a apt description.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Thanks, JWF...He's
April 11, 2009 - 20:19 ET by JerThanks, JWF...He's definitely the kind of man I'd want to captain my boat. Intelligent, selfless, and resourceful.
Jer
The Navy man corrects Uncle Jer the landlubber.
April 12, 2009 - 06:43 ET by JWFCaptain your ship Uncle Jer, ship. Don't worry, common landlubber mistake.
boat
2.
a small ship, generally for specialized use: a fishing boat.
3.
a small vessel carried for use by a large one, as a lifeboat: They lowered the boats for evacuation.
ship
1.
a vessel, esp. a large oceangoing one propelled by sails or engines
land·lub·ber (lndlbr)
n.
A person unfamiliar with the sea or seamanship
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
an Eternal Champion after many exhausting trials and tribulations in the endless war between Law and Chaos
Aye, aye JWF... But
April 12, 2009 - 22:29 ET by JerAye, aye JWF...
But you're right. I have trouble paddling a canoe.
Jer
Come on , JMF maybe Jer REALLY owns a boat.
April 12, 2009 - 23:56 ET by upcountrywaterAnd just maybe, the Captain of a ship, will grab Jer's tiller, paddle,oar, wheel and navigate into pirate free waters.
Could happen....
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Anyone
April 11, 2009 - 06:20 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI wish I had linked it but I didn't, I saw an article (Yahoo?) where Obama was quoted as saying 'anyone who harms any of the pirates will be prosecuted' or words to that effect. Can anyone else find that article? Send me a link if you can.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Me too...I'd be extremely
April 11, 2009 - 20:15 ET by JerMe too...I'd be extremely interested in seeing that quote.
Jer
Missing link
April 12, 2009 - 07:27 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsYes, I am ticked I didn't save the link. Darn! I do have a link about the US Pirate party endorsement of Obama for President.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
So I guess its safe to assume Obama is the shadow president
April 10, 2009 - 12:46 ET by R D HelmMaybe the Obamalama is waiting for Jihad Jimmy to text him back with his advice on how to handle this mess.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
It's Nothing More Than CYA
April 10, 2009 - 12:54 ET by txradioguyThe MSM is hoping that by taking Obama's name out of the article...no one will notice that for two days he has refused to answer any questions on...or make a comment about...Pirates terrorizing a U.S. flagged ship.
"I May Be Changed By War, But I Will Not Be Defeated By It" - Audie Murphy
Not so--unfair--
April 10, 2009 - 12:58 ET by misterbillObama has said three things about this incident -um, er and uh!~
→ CYA
April 10, 2009 - 13:00 ET by Cool ArrowBarry said he could dribble. Didn't say nuthin' 'bout no jugglin'.
And we're seeing today he really doesn't care about one Captain Courageous.
I'm withholding tomorrow's headline on this incident.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
And did you see this
April 10, 2009 - 13:36 ET by ThisnThatAnd did you see this morning's CNN report? "As if he didn't have enough on his plate, the president is now beginning to deal with immigration." Our poor, exhausted president. The world is so mean to him, having all these things go on at once, without scheduling them firs.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
→ TnT
April 10, 2009 - 14:42 ET by Cool ArrowHe must be moaning in pain "Stop busting my blackberry"
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
What next?
April 10, 2009 - 13:00 ET by boomerconAt first I thought he'd just do his normal street walker thing; y'know, get everyone "organized" and then vote "present".
Now, he's not even acknowledging that there is a "situation", although 200 yrs. have passed since such a thing has happened to a US flagged vessel.
He is, in fact, "Jimmy C. Obama". Just a better tan is all the change we got.
Obama - speak up
April 10, 2009 - 13:08 ET by ConservativeMissourianI can't believe Obama hasn't even made a comment on this situation yet. Whether or not he is actually taking action behind the scenes on this issue, the fact that he didn't immediately make a comment about it to the public is ridiculous!! And the fact that Washington Post and LA Times haven't brought that up is wrong.
→ Pirate standoff?
April 10, 2009 - 13:13 ET by Cool ArrowAm I correct in hearing these pirates are bringing hostages from other hijackings to the same scene as the Maersk?
Is Obama trying to set up a multinational incident?
I can see his logic, but I don't see it ending well from a hostage standpoint.
Is he trying to force International cooperation in ending this situation?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
What's new?
April 10, 2009 - 13:45 ET by FOXFANObambi is nothing but a spineless Jimmy CarterII. A SEAL team could have ended this long ago.
Next Obambi will fly to Somalia to apologize to the pirates and their families for being thrown overboard by the american crew.
Say what you want about GW, he would not have put up with this.
→ FOXFAN
April 10, 2009 - 14:05 ET by Cool ArrowYou're right.
I'm waiting for a Special from Christianne Ahmanpoor exposing the squalor and sad conditions that force these poor pirates into their profession.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Re:→ Pirate standoff?
April 10, 2009 - 13:56 ET by sdbYes, you heard correctly. As for what he is trying to accomplish; your guess is as good as mine. At this point, I'm fully convinced that he doesn't know what to do and is waiting for someone to tell him how to handle it.
the end
April 10, 2009 - 13:16 ET by Wesen"The Navy dispatched 2 SEALS who emerged portside at the hostage craft. With ruthless precision the pirates were executed and the Captain was released unharmed."
President Obama later said that his instructions had not been followed and he issued an apology to the families of the dead men with promises of bailout funds.
and stipped the Seals of
April 10, 2009 - 13:33 ET by ThisnThatand stipped the Seals of their rank; gave them a dishonorable discharge; and cut the Defense Budget by 50%. "We're not going to tolerate disrespect for other religions in our military -- and we are going to extend our weapons ban to all naval vessels to prevent this type of event from every occuring again. Guns kill."
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
TnT... Exactly
April 10, 2009 - 13:38 ET by bigtimerTnT...
Exactly right!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Wesen.. you nailed it. Here
April 10, 2009 - 15:56 ET by celatorWesen.. you nailed it. Here we have a serious situation that should have been over by now. But Obama is at a complete loss as to what to do, so he does nothing to resolve the situation. That's his response.
And his Secretary of State is having big yuks over the whole thing. What a despicable, useless, incompetent woman.
This guy is going to get us all killed.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
I have been totally
April 10, 2009 - 13:37 ET by bigtimerI have been totally outraged by the silence from the so-called illegal Prez.
The press of all venues for the most part still remain MUM about this obvious avoidance from their Dear Leader...
We all know what would have happened already if this was a Republican President and he hadn't come out with a statement by now.
We all know what this so-called man is...and he has proved it with his actions now regarding this issue alone...An Empty-Suit...and his strings haven't been pulled yet on what to do about this situation quite yet.
Friggin' Disgusting.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
And other nations are
April 10, 2009 - 13:46 ET by ThisnThatAnd other nations are taking careful note of his response. As well as terrorist groups. DAMN! Did I say terrorist? My apologies -- I got the memo late. The pirates didn't get it at all.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
the french forgot to take notes
April 10, 2009 - 13:50 ET by katainkentand did something about their own terro-errr-pirate problem.
TnT... Terrorist...Terrorists
April 10, 2009 - 13:50 ET by bigtimerTnT...
Terrorist...Terrorists...Terrorists!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Ditto
April 10, 2009 - 14:15 ET by Mrs. RukusWell put. You took the words right out of my mouth. :-O
Well Howdy Mrs.
April 10, 2009 - 14:18 ET by bigtimerWell Howdy Mrs. Rukus...
Glad we're on the same page, nice to meet ya' ... ;-)
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Results of no executive experience----
April 10, 2009 - 13:42 ET by Roscoe MendagoObama won't comment or can't, he doesn't have a clue. He wasn't expecting a tough time, everyone was suppose to just capitulate to his wishful thinking. The world was to be so easily managed by this "Community Organizer", nothing to it. Obama is in so far over his head, and that goes for Hillary too. Neither one can muster a rational response to a crisis that past Presidents and SOS seemed to confront without appearing incompetent. Obama doesn't seem to have conducted an assessment of the possible risks and their solutions, he appears as impotent as a eunuch. Obama is so ill equipped to be President and it's oh-so evident he's out of his league. Who voted for this guy?
"If the position of President was a street, someone would have to hold Obama's hand while crossed it." Lloyd Braun--
Roscoe... Hillary
April 10, 2009 - 13:52 ET by bigtimerRoscoe...
Hillary cackles while O hides.
COMPLETE Idiots voted for this POS.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Community Organizers of the high seas-----
April 10, 2009 - 14:02 ET by Roscoe MendagoObama speaks---
"My fellow American's those "Community Organizers" that inhabit the waters off the coast of East Africa and the streets of Chicago only mean to make a better life for themselves and their constituents." Blah, Blah, Blah.....
Sounds reasonable to me.
In some ways I can see this
April 10, 2009 - 14:16 ET by Dan The Man 2In some ways I can see this pirate fiasco being a real problem for the USA and Obama, but they have been doing this for a long time. Yes they hijacked a USA flagged ship and are holding a hostage but the ship is free. So the question becomes what resposibility does the USA have in protecting the shipping lanes halfway across the world?
The owners of teh ship knew the risks and rolled the dice. Is teh USA supposed to be held hostage to stupidity? Some compare it to a military plane being forced down in China and I say there is no comparison. If the miitary is set upon by another country then it is an act of war or pretty close, but if pirates take over a private vessel (even a US one) then what is teh USA supposed to do.
I agree ever since Jefferson took on the Barbary pirates the USA has been standing up to tyranny, but not always. The Barbary were demanding ransoms from the countries reasuries and in this case the ransoms come from private concerns.
Now, IMO, just because I think the USA should stand up to these pirates we should blow them out of the water. Hunt them down and kill them as spies and sabetuers under the Geneva Convention. And we should invoke the passages of teh convention when we pronounce sentence upon the pirates.
But, we wont and I bet yall are glad I am not in charge.
So how much should we get involved in private concerns halfway around the world. If the bailouts taught me anything it is once we start down a road we are likely to pick up speed and heaven help us when we round that bend ... if we do make it.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
→ On the other hand
April 10, 2009 - 14:28 ET by Cool ArrowWe have a country that demonstrates we will negotiate with terrorists.
Obama must now decide if the US Navy is involved in a ransom drop. And that ransom will soon involve hostages from many other countries. Do we buy back our own and move on, having no more dog in the fight?
Not a good situation.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
CA, It's a bail-out don't you know.
April 11, 2009 - 21:32 ET by upcountrywaterAnd it's with your money, Just hoping the pirates get all the bucket loads of cash, they want thereby sinking the boat .
day 4 of 444?
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Not without precedent, Cool
April 11, 2009 - 21:44 ET by JerWe have a country that demonstrates we will negotiate with terrorists.
Right, that's what the previous administration did in Iraq with excellent results.
Jer
Not sure I am following Uncle Jer.
April 12, 2009 - 07:11 ET by JWFI am not sure if you are being sarcastic/funny/smarmy. We did not negotiate with terrorists in the previous administration in Iraq. So I am assuming it is a sarcastic comment.
But we did have excellent results in Iraq.
We took on the most powerful military in the region twice.
We went in the the heart of the caliphate and removed a brutal tyrant in four days. And three of those days were spent racing across a desert.
We did it cheaply in terms of treasure, as a percentage of GDP.
We did it efficiently in terms of lives lost. We had the lowest KIA as compared to the military in country and compared to the population at large and compared to wounded in action.
We had an insurgency pop up and we put that down in about half the time an average insurgency lasts.
We are leaving behind a relatively free country in the heart of the caliphate
So, yes, the results were excellent.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
an Eternal Champion after many exhausting trials and tribulations in the endless war between Law and Chaos
Not like China
April 10, 2009 - 14:50 ET by sdbDan, I agree that this situation is not like GWB faced with China. Even the comparison to Jefferson is not quite right. But other modern presidents have had to deal with this issue and how they dealt with it had far reaching national security consequences for years to come. This is an interesting article on the subject:
http://spectator.org/...
Owwww! My brain hurts reading that.
April 11, 2009 - 05:17 ET by JWFSeriously people. Do you hear some of the stuff you are saying?
There is this brand spanky new website to look up information YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. It is called geeble. no wait. GOOGLE.
MARITME LAW - GOOGLE IT.
Why No Arms on Merchant Ships?
Katharine Houreld in the Chicago Sun-Times:
The reason is twofold:
• Owners fear pirates would be more likely to continue shooting once on board if they confronted weapons.
• The company might be held liable for deaths or injuries inflicted by someone on the vessel.
There's basically resistance to the idea of armed guards because of the risk of escalation . . . possible harm to the crew," said Neil Roberts of Lloyd's Market Association, which provides support to Lloyd's, the largest maritime insurance marketplace in the world. "Most ship owners don't encourage it."
Graeme Gibbon Brooks of Dryad Maritime Intelligence says that another problem is that merchant ship crews would be outgunned because sailors must conform to the laws of the ship's flag carrier as well as the laws governing ports they visit. Often that means that the crew can only use shotguns--no match for pirates carrying longer-range automatic weapons.
http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2009/04/why-no-arms-on-merchant-ships.html
The owners of the ship knew the risks and rolled the dice? They are following the law just like everyone else.
if pirates take over a private vessel (even a US one) then what is teh USA supposed to do? You know what, I am tired. google it yourself.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
an Eternal Champion after many exhausting trials and tribulations in the endless war between Law and Chaos
Relax...
April 10, 2009 - 14:31 ET by Dan DiegoRumor has it that an ATF unit is enroute and Obama is actively searching for Janet Reno (last seen in a red pick-up) to handle this situation.
LOL...oh yes...I feel so
April 10, 2009 - 14:37 ET by bigtimerLOL...oh yes...I feel so much better now.
That is a sad picture you painted, but unfortunately close to the truth.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
The longer this lasts
April 10, 2009 - 14:38 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarThe more Comrade Zero looks like an ass. So how is he going to spin this one ... he can't. Every day that goes by compounds his problem.
The moment our Navy ship showed up there should have been a SEAL team sent in for four well placed ballistic lobotomies. Issue would have been closed and El Zilcho would have even come off as a can-do/will-do President.
Now, it's really turning into a cluster f...
This guy is a joke.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain
Look I DESPISE Barack Obama,
April 10, 2009 - 14:41 ET byLook I DESPISE Barack Obama, I loathe him. I have every negative feeling about the man short of "hate" and that's only because the Lord said not to! But COME ON. You people are starting to sound like the idiots over at the Huff Po or the Daily Kos!
You expect the President to be involved in the kidnapping of ONE MAN? Was Bush "involved" in the kidnappings of American Soldiers, other than as the Commander in Chief who was appropriately apprised of the situation? Was Bush flying to Iraq wheeling and dealing with the terrorists on his own? OF COURSE NOT. Nor should he have.
The Somali Pirates are testing Obama. Period. They NEVER would have done this had Bush been still in office. That said, the ONLY way in which a President can deal with this sort of thing is through lower level functionary's who can't seem that worried about it either, in public! ANYTHING short of that would ELEVATE the pirates in their own eyes and place at RISK every ship with an American flag on it.
In your zeal to condemn OBama who rightfully should be condemned for a LOT. Don't become stupid in your thinking and FORGET the lessons learned from the past. HAND WRINGING from the Oval office led DIRECTLY to American's being held hostage for over a YEAR! When Reagan came into office they were IMMEDIATELY let go. Why? Because they knew that Reagan would have let ALL of the hostages DIE rather than deal with terrorists and then he would have killed them and everyone who ever KNEW 'EM! The lib butt shivering led directly to Americans having targets on their backs and Obama CANNOT appear too concerned with this "minor" situation. I know it's not minor to the Capt or his family, don't get it twisted!
Why not concentrate your anger on the President bending over and BLOWING the Saudi King! Since he wasn't "bowing" according to the W.H., he must've been doin' something and the floor was already clean!
~For what it's worth
April 10, 2009 - 14:49 ET by choselife3xI don't think Mr. Shepherd was implying that Obama should be personally involved. He was pointing out how differently the media portrayed the handling of the two situations.
I agree with the substance of the rest of your post. Excuse me, I must bathe. ;-)
Yes, my focus is on media
April 10, 2009 - 15:02 ET by Ken ShepherdYes, my focus is on media coverage and the way the media frame the issue.
Personally, I don't want the president micromanaging, and I think the involvement of FBI hostage negotiators already tipped Obama's hand to the pirates. He's looking at this not as an act of war or terrorism to be met with swift military retribution, but as a crime scene that needs to be treated as such.
That, in my judgment, is a big mistake.
Of course, my expertise is media bias, not geopolitics or military tactics, but I'd much rather have the pirates dead or captured and thrown in the brig then treated like some thugs holding up a bank on U.S. soil.
~Exactly
April 10, 2009 - 15:11 ET by choselife3xObama should simply say, "We don't negotiate with terrorists or petty thugs." and send in the SEALs.
Ken
April 10, 2009 - 15:22 ET by BlondeI appreciate your view on this....
Having said that, though, I remember living through "Day X" of the Iran "Hostage Crisis". Ted Koppel made his bones on that one.
Compared to the media treatment of Carter....and to this total pass for the Lightworker.....well, 'nuff said.
This is apparently below Obama's pay grade....one of our CITIZEN's being held by terrorists....sorry, CNN says businessmen with a great business model. Check.
I hope he fails, too.
Sorry Ken, I misunderstood
April 10, 2009 - 16:09 ET bySorry Ken,
I misunderstood what you were calling for. In that case I completely agree! It should NOT be treated as a mere kidnapping, it is an aggressive act against a sovereign nation.
→ So it begins
April 10, 2009 - 14:50 ET by Cool ArrowHaving already dispatched a US Navy Ship to the scene, you bet your butt he better be concerned with this "kidnapping".
I prefer to "Act of Piracy" to "kidnapping", but I'm still trying to get used to "Overseas Contingency Operations" as opposed to "terrorism".
Now the Pirates are upping the ante with a bevy of international hostages? Keep in mind Obama has a US Naval vessel at the scene.
Do you still think the President shouldn't be involved?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I prefer to "Act of Piracy"
April 10, 2009 - 15:37 ET by Dan The Man 2I prefer to "Act of Piracy" to "kidnapping", but I'm still trying to get used to "Overseas Contingency Operations" as opposed to "terrorism".
Me too. This is shaping up to be Iran hostage crisis 2. I pray we dont give them any renumeration and if we do I hope Obama gets hammered for it ... if we ever find out that is.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I wasn't trying to say that
April 10, 2009 - 16:17 ET byI wasn't trying to say that the Pres shouldn't be "involved" I was saying that I thought a more "back channel" involvement was called for. I don't think that the "Act of Piracy" (I agree that it is better than "kidnapping") should merit the President's PUBLIC involvement. That said, I apologize for misunderstanding Ken Shephard's overall point about the difference in MEDIA coverage. It is appalling once considered. I spoke with a friend who didn't even KNOW about the "BOWING" to Abdullah, hadn't even HEARD of it! He only watches network news. Combine that with the media running cover for all of Obama's mistakes and it's like "1984", totally scary. It makes one think that if he did really screw up, say with Iran or the Palestinians, something grave enough to lead to war, THEY WOULD LIE ABOUT HIS COMPLICITY. That is scary.
~"THEY WOULD LIE ABOUT HIS COMPLICITY"
April 10, 2009 - 16:23 ET by choselife3xYes, of course. They're too invested in him to let something like that out.
Last week there was a story here quoting an official saying that the war in Iraq "distracted" us from real threats. Which to me means that they know another attack is coming and they intend to pin the blame on Bush using that line.
→ Acts
April 10, 2009 - 16:30 ET by Cool ArrowI'm just getting antsy over the escalation in progress. Our options are diminishing in feasibility as those other boats move in closer to the scene.
This is Slo-Mo warfare unlike anything we've seen since the Falklands.
Throw in Hillary Clinton's lighthearted take on the situation, and it's easy to see why lots of Americans are scratching their heads and second-guessing this Administration's nonchelance.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Come on, there must be someone
April 10, 2009 - 14:46 ET by StarAZCouldn't he at least call Mitch Rapp or Jack Bauer or something. That captain is having a pretty bad day here.
→ Ken Shepherd
April 10, 2009 - 15:18 ET by Cool ArrowWarner T Hudson has an entry analyzing Standoff . . . Shows US Power Limits
I noticePresident Obama is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Here's the thing: In a way
April 10, 2009 - 21:37 ET by Ken ShepherdHere's the thing:
In a way this does show the limits of our power, in the sense that we have let out Navy get gutted and stretched thing. We need a larger fleet, a larger Navy, and more vessels suitable to combating terrorism.
This is a legitimate issue to raise and guess what, it will call for seriously boosting spending on defense, particularly related to seaborne warfare and anti-piracy efforts.
But of course the MSM don't want us to consider that this might be where federal spending should be allocated, as opposed to Detroit bailouts and social spending.
→ So we're there?
April 10, 2009 - 21:51 ET by Cool ArrowFor how many years have we heard "We can't continue to be the World's policeman"?
Will we have to pull out everywhere to protect ourselves?
Are we committing ourselves to a strength drawdown so massive that only enormous alliances can give us a feeling of safety?
That's where I see us going, but I could be wrong.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Day one of the crisis there were two AP stories
April 10, 2009 - 16:25 ET by DaMavmarked "analysis" that basically stressed that Obama had "few options" to deal with either the problem of piracy in general or the specific matter at hand. Then Reuters came out with an article headlining that the piracy incident was a "distraction" to Obama.
Geez, poor Obama. Imagine being busy bringing Light to the masses and you get interrupted by a mundane matter like the security of American shipping, with lives at stake. And to boot, it's a matter that the brilliants analysts at AP say is basically hopeless and nobody better expect the President to actually do something about it. Now can we let the President get back to his Huge Carbon Footprint Pizza please?
→ Breitbart scores again
April 10, 2009 - 16:57 ET by Cool ArrowJohn Scott Lewinski, at Big Hollywood, offers PC as the reason you won't see this pirate situation coming (anytime) soon to a theater screen near you.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Somali Crisis
April 10, 2009 - 18:28 ET by VinncyGReminiscent of a flash back to the great Jimmy Carter:
Somali Hostage Crisis Day 3
America held Hostage, Day 4
April 11, 2009 - 18:42 ET by UpNorthToday, the President and his Secretary of State met to discuss the situation off the Somali coast, http://michellemalki...
After an exhausting meeting, the children adjourned to the Oval Office, the adults remained to discuss the next pizza order.
That makes sense to omit Obama's name. After all . . .
April 10, 2009 - 20:19 ET by CKA in Red State USA. . .he was elected to the all-good-things-in-the-world presidency, not the one where he actually has to make decisions about national defense, or where he actually has to act like a man.
Interesting, though, how quickly, savagely and ghoulishly he wages war against the unborn, but behaves like a mouse because four Somali pirates have done what they've done.
Soon, given his posture and cowardice, he may have another human notch on his pistol. Regrettably, that could well be the brave captain of the vessel who gave himself up to save his crew.
That act of bravery is something about which Obama would have and will never have a clue.
The Captain escaped
April 10, 2009 - 23:32 ET by Wesenand nobody was watching.
So it wasn't important to be close enough to take advantage of a fliud and dynamic situation. The Captain gave the Military the chance to resolve this and nothing happened. Don't tell me "I got your back".
If anything happens to this brave man Borak Hussein Obama must be held personally responsible.
imho, i think they were watching....
April 11, 2009 - 06:33 ET by clinging to my guns and my religion...but have orders from very high up to take no action! i imagine the scenario as this: phillips dives into the sea thinking the navy destroyer will certainly blow the life raft out of the water if he is just able to get far enough away. navy crew, watching helplessly, does nothing because they have been ordered to "stand down while we see how this plays out". pirates haul him back on board. phillips feels betrayed; navy captain and crew silently vow to themselves that, given another such opportunity, they will do what is right instead of what they have been ordered to do.
"i believe he will not stop until we are all jobless, homeless, hungry, and cold!"
Borak
April 11, 2009 - 13:47 ET by WesenYou're probably right and that makes the re-capture all the more despicable. Borak "I got your back" Obama. It's every man for hisself.
I have a nephew who was considering the Military. I warned him off by reviewing the facts of the Carter years.