AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE:
DAY FOUR
DAY FOUR
As the international “distractions” keep mounting for President Barack Obama, here are today’s developments in AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE: DAY FOUR.
- Somali pirates threaten to kill the Alabama‘s captain, Richard Phillips
- The Alabama arrives in port, without its captain
- Due to the non-response of America and NATO, another US-owned vessel is taken by Somali pirates
The Somali pirates stole $30M last year alone through bringing terror to international waters. And where, my friends, do you think that money is going?Â
After the Bush Administration shut down the financing of Al-Qaeda, they had to resort to the Somali pirates. $30M can do quite a lot of damage when it is used to finance terror training, WMD development and fighting American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, thanks President Obama. Not only are you losing a third front in the Global War On Terror “Man-Made Disasters”, but violence has disturbingly increased in Iraq since you took office.
I wonder if Al-Qaeda knows that Obama is weak?  Nah, couldn’t be.
AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE: DAY FOUR.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
91 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Man-Caused Disasters? “Man-caused”, they are saying? Shouldn’t we just call them *America-Caused* disasters? Because that’s the next logical step, in the left-liberal playbook.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 11, 2009 @ 3:17 pm - April 11, 2009
Pirates are just the community organizers of the high seas. They shake down big corporations for money that they distribute among their networks of thugs and drug abusers. No wonder Chairman Zero is sympathetic.
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 3:18 pm - April 11, 2009
While it is true that Somalia is basically a failed state with sporadic jurisdiction by a system of Islamic Courts, to say that all of this ransom money is going to al-qaeda is a bit too simplistic.
First off, the Bush Administration did not shut down the funding entirely, and in significant places, such as Saudi Arabia, where there is no oversight of the appropriation of charity donations, charities being a key front organization for Islamist terrorists. It is false to say that they have no other source except pirates.
Second, the pirates have their own set of concerns and priorities. Somalia’s fishermens greivances with the west stem from extensive illegal fishing in Somali waters and the dumping of radioactive waste in their waters, made public in 2005 after a tsunami washed much of it ashore, poisoning the population:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article418665.ece
Is it any surprise that Al Qaeda could co-opt this environment to pursue islamic terrorism? It’s no defense for the actions of the pirates, but the social and environmental histories of this area cannot be looked at in isolation. Funding Al-Qaeda is a symptom, not a cause, of the piracy.
Comment by Scottland — April 11, 2009 @ 3:29 pm - April 11, 2009
Scottland — you are wrong. It is quite well-known throughout the intelligence community (and I use that term loosely) that the Somali pirates are the ATM of Al-Qaeda. But the “United Nations” and NATO have no backbone to stop it. They now have the perfect patsy President of the USA.
Comment by GayPatriot — April 11, 2009 @ 3:34 pm - April 11, 2009
Look you guys, Republicans insisted that we started these bloody, expensive, open-ended wars in the Middle East. Because of that, our military is a little pre-occupied at the moment, and we don’t really have the resources to bet patrolling the entire east coast of Africa stamping out pirates. The Bush administration willfully decided that the military was going to be sluggish and non-responsive to crises around the world such as this through their commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We can’t be everywhere at once, no matter how awesome and kick-ass you might think we are. That’s especially true when you’re passing tax cuts and ignoring economic problems as you’re deploying the military.
Just think about this stuff for a second, I mean Jesus.
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 3:34 pm - April 11, 2009
GP- I didn’t say that no money was going to al qaeda, just that it had other recourse for funding outside of piracy. My point was that there has been a history of environmental and economic exploitation of somalia that would certainly help extremist ideas gain legitimacy. It didn’t go from paradise to failed state and Islamist honeypot because of one well placed al qaeda cell. In the political and economic calculus of somali warlords, it makes complete sense to join Al Qaeda. that kind of realpolitik element of this problem is one potential route out of it. Just as the US put sunnis on the American payroll in iraq, a similar approach could work in Somalia. Just throwing ideas out there.
Comment by Scottland — April 11, 2009 @ 3:45 pm - April 11, 2009
Republicans insisted that we started these bloody, expensive, open-ended wars in the Middle East.
So, the Islamists didn’t start *anything* by … oh, I don’t know, trying to blow up the WTC in 1993, blowing up the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, blowing up the Khobar Towers, Blowing up the USS Cole, or murdering 3,000 people on 9-11.
But the Republicans started it?
I am thinking very uncivil thoughts about Levi’s dishonesty and lack of intellect right now.
Our military is plenty strong enough to whack the pirates. Just like our Border Patrol is plenty strong enough to secure the border… if we would just take the shackles off.
But our president is a metrosexual wuss.
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 3:48 pm - April 11, 2009
My point was that there has been a history of environmental and economic exploitation of somalia that would certainly help extremist ideas gain legitimacy.
See? To the left, the pirates have legitimate grievances that excuse their behavior. They really are the community organizers of the high seas. And they deserve taxpayers subsidies just like ACORN.
The left can not be parodied.
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - April 11, 2009
I just noticed the title of this post was ‘AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE’ and not ‘AMERICAN HELD HOSTAGE.’ You guys are spiraling into the atmosphere with this kind of insanity. Since you’re trying to make a point about how this reflects poorly on President Obama, I don’t suppose you’d mind me making the point that inflammatory right-wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are likely responsible for the shooting in PA last week that killed three police officers?
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - April 11, 2009
So, the Islamists didn’t start *anything* by … oh, I don’t know, trying to blow up the WTC in 1993, blowing up the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, blowing up the Khobar Towers, Blowing up the USS Cole, or murdering 3,000 people on 9-11.
But the Republicans started it?
I am thinking very uncivil thoughts about Levi’s dishonesty and lack of intellect right now.
Our military is plenty strong enough to whack the pirates. Just like our Border Patrol is plenty strong enough to secure the border… if we would just take the shackles off.
But our president is a metrosexual wuss.
I’ve wasted too many keystrokes trying to convince internet Republicans that Iraq was totally unrelated to the 9-11 attacks, so I’ll pass.
It’s disturbing, however, to look back at 9-11 and note how there was almost no criticism of George Bush for failing to prevent the attacks while you guys are flailing about over a single American hostage that hasn’t even been killed yet. Conservatives spent the Bush years putting all of the blame for 9-11 on Bill Clinton, and here you are insisting that Somali pirates are all Obama’s fault less than three months into his first term. Are you really incapable of recognizing such glaring hypocrisy?
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 4:00 pm - April 11, 2009
Did I not say, up at #1, that the next step would be to call terrorist attacks “America-Caused disasters”?
Looks like I was wrong: I should have predicted the Obamadroid Left calling them “Republican-Caused Disasters”.
And Levi: Your ignorance is shocking. The U.S. Navy is perfectly capable of handling the Somali pirates. Right now. And no, Republicans didn’t start the Islamo-fascist/terrorists’ decades-long war on America… nor Islam’s centuries-long war on the rest of the world.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 11, 2009 @ 4:01 pm - April 11, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Somali-Pirates-Tied-to-Jihad
I suggest you read this. Its a brief history of the problems with Somalia slipping into oblivian and al-qaeda infiltration. Somalia has been a problem going back to at least 1995. The Bush administration “closed down the financing” and al-qaeda went to Somalia and got into a new business. I am curious to know what the previous administration did during its time to shut this financing down as well. And I am pretty sure that if Somalia got shut down, then they would go somewhere else to raise money.
Its a shell game.
Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 4:01 pm - April 11, 2009
Undercut, of course, by the leftists that were literally cheering on the cop killer in Oakland. Or the leftists that are devoted to freeing the cop-killer Mumia al-Jamal.
You guys are spiraling into the atmosphere with this kind of insanity.
Says the Truther who claims that Bush invaded Iraq to enrich Dick Cheney.
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 4:02 pm - April 11, 2009
He was in office EIGHT MONTHS, Levi. Congress was still in the process of confirming his appointees. The CIA, more than any other agency, failed to anticipate the attack… and the CIA was being run, and had been run for years, by George Tenet, a ***Clinton*** appointee.
Really, as I said Levi, your ignorance is astounding.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 11, 2009 @ 4:02 pm - April 11, 2009
I just said in my first post that it was no defence for their actions, V the K. as a counter-terrorism student, I was merely suggesting politically difficult ways as to how governments might tackle this problem. Would you call the sunni awakening councils ‘community organizers’? They were a significant platform of the Surge.
The somali population has a variety of grievances that have been CO-OPTED by extremists. Into a scenario of social destitution, they have provided a form of recourse for the population. It in no way excuses their attacks on westerners, but it goes some way to comprehend what is going on.To ignore the potential social impact of the external exploitation of significant resources and the poisoning of the environment by foreign powers is, frankly, bizzare.
Comment by Scottland — April 11, 2009 @ 4:03 pm - April 11, 2009
And Levi: Your ignorance is shocking. The U.S. Navy is perfectly capable of handling the Somali pirates. Right now. And no, Republicans didn’t start the Islamo-fascist/terrorists’ decades-long war on America… nor Islam’s centuries-long war on the rest of the world.
Okay, just to be clear here — Islamists started the war in Iraq. Is that what you’re telling me? Islamists started the war in which the United States invaded and occupied the country of Iraq? How is that possible? Has such a thing ever happened before in the history of the war?
That’s like saying the Jews started World War II.
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 4:05 pm - April 11, 2009
Sorry ILC, the navy, like the rest of the military, is not an infinte resource. Want to blockade all of the Somali coast? Easier said than done. Somalia is a failed or failing state. Solve Somalia, you take away safe haven. Problem solved, but easier said than done.
I am sure there is a Pentagon study on what it would take to protect the entire Somali coast. I would love to see the numbers.
And before we open this 3 theater in the war on terror, who wants to pay for it? Its a fascinating recent development , the rights hypocrasy to go and fix all these problems yet don’t want to pay a single dime for it. Taxes anyone? Belly up to the bar boys if you want to go to war again.
Freedom isnt free to be sure.
Russia today .com has a lot of stories on the Somali pirate issue. I recommend you check it out.
Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 4:09 pm - April 11, 2009
He was in office EIGHT MONTHS, Levi. Congress was still in the process of confirming his appointees. The CIA, more than any other agency, failed to anticipate the attack… and the CIA was being run, and had been run for years, by George Tenet, a ***Clinton*** appointee.
Really, as I said Levi, your ignorance is astounding.
We don’t have to talk very much about this, we’d both be screaming into the wind. What I do want you to recognize is that Obama has been in office for THREE MONTHS, and this website is already making hysterical statements about how the entire country is being held hostage by a piracy problem that goes back at least a few decades. By your formulation, shouldn’t 100% of the blame for this problem be attributed to the Bush administration?
I’m just looking for an iota of consistency. When and when is it not appropriate to blame everything on your precursors?
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 4:11 pm - April 11, 2009
Undercut, of course, by the leftists that were literally cheering on the cop killer in Oakland. Or the leftists that are devoted to freeing the cop-killer Mumia al-Jamal.
Say what?
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - April 11, 2009
ILC, not that I completely disagree with what you said, but take the logic behind your comparison and apply it to the Somali situation. You’re saying it is unfair for Levi to criticize Bush for failing to protect us from the terrorists who had a fixed target because he had only been in office for eight months; the reasonable inference from that being that it was Clinton’s failure for not dealing with it. Right? Okay, let’s take that situation and apply it here to Bruce’s outrage (“America Held Hostage” really does seem rather hyperbolic).
It is unfair for Levi Bruce to criticize Bush Obama for failing to protect us from the terrorists who had a fixed opportunistic target because he had only been in office for eight three months; the reasonable inference from that being that it was Clinton’s Bush’s failure for not dealing with it.
Forget Bush and 9-11 for a minute… Neither of those really makes sense or, to the extent they do make sense, it only shows there is plenty of blame to go around. Is Obama engaged in finger pointing? Absolutely; I agree with Bruce, Dan, you and others on that. But it’s just as unhelpful (and disingenuous) when Democrats do it as when it is done here.
I completely agree we need to come down like a 10-megaton hammer on these thugs, but… the outrage here seems a bit insincere. I was following these stories back last September and was outraged that we weren’t doing anything about it, so maybe that’s why I find Bruce’s sudden indignation somewhat manufactured. It should have been obvious to everyone — Obama, Bush and McCain — that this was a national security issue last September, when the Faina (loaded with main battle tanks and heavy weapons) was hijacked. If a ransom wasn’t paid (with the money probably going to terrorists) then the weapons probably would have (or have been sold to support the terrorists). Bush did very little about it and, if anything, our Navy seemed to leave it up to the Indians, French and Russians to deal with. That was dumb. And Obama has been dumb for failing to do anything about it since he’s been elected. No argument from me. But… god, I get so tired of the finger pointing. Bleh.
Happy Easter, Happy Passover, cheers… time for some wine.
Comment by CR — April 11, 2009 @ 4:27 pm - April 11, 2009
A blockade of the Somali coast is not necessary. Killing some pirates and raising the cost of committing piracy, would alleviate the problem.
To suggest that the only military option is a blockade as much a straw man argument as claiming mass deportation is the only alternative to mass amnesty.
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - April 11, 2009
A blockade of the Somali coast is not necessary. Killing some pirates and raising the cost of committing piracy, would alleviate the problem.
Well you can’t really ‘kill some pirates’ without having a network of ships in the area to locate, identify, and shoot at them, can you?
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - April 11, 2009
V the K – How does killing pirates serve as a deterrent if it’s an al qaeda operation? surely it could be propagandized as an act of religious sacrifice by al qaeda, an approach that they genuinely do benefit from in radicalized communities.
Comment by Scottland — April 11, 2009 @ 4:35 pm - April 11, 2009
shouldn’t 100% of the blame for this problem be attributed to the Bush administration?
We can blame the Dear Teleprompter for his lack of response and his dawdling, and for his displays of weakness to the international community.
And the Navy has adequate resources to strike against pirates in the horn of Africa… Obama’s defense gutting hasn’t begun in earnest yet.
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 4:37 pm - April 11, 2009
Letters of Marquis, Levi.
just one option. Blowing the pirates to hell is another.
I prefer “Hand over the captain, and we let you live. Don’t and we’ll kill you, stuff you full of bacon and hang your bodies from the docs of your home town.”
Comment by The_Livewire — April 11, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - April 11, 2009
it could be propagandized as an act of religious sacrifice by al qaeda
To you on the Pacifist left, we can never do anything because it will provoke a response. That’s exactly the paralysis we’re talking about.
You were the same guys who claimed the Surge wouldn’t work because it would “further radicalize” the opposition. The only thing that doesn’t “radicalize” the Islamist is appeasement and willing subjugation, which you Euros appear to be plenty good at.
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - April 11, 2009
We can blame the Dear Teleprompter for his lack of response and his dawdling, and for his displays of weakness to the international community.
I’ll leave aside ridiculing you for bringing up the absurd teleprompter whine, but just so we’re clear: A coordinated terrorist attack on U.S. soil in two major American cities that kills 3,000 people was not George Bush’s fault, but a single hostage being taken on the other side of the world in the middle of the ocean is a direct consequence of the election of Barack Obama. Got it!
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 4:44 pm - April 11, 2009
I prefer “Hand over the captain, and we let you live. Don’t and we’ll kill you, stuff you full of bacon and hang your bodies from the docs of your home town.â€
Sounds good to me. Also, if the military finds a way to kill the pirates while holding the captain hostage without harming the captain, I’m all for that too.
Scottland, V the K, I do believe that any military option should take into consideration what the consequences may be, and thus prepare for it. Or see if another solution is better in the short run, but more importantly, in the long run.
Unfortunately, it appears al Qaeda will still do their best to undermine America and western civilization no matter what we do in this crisis and other crises, and no matter how strong or weak we are or perceived to be. So I wouldn’t give al Qaeda that much due consideration here.
Comment by Pat — April 11, 2009 @ 4:49 pm - April 11, 2009
Letters of Marquis, Levi.
just one option. Blowing the pirates to hell is another.
I prefer “Hand over the captain, and we let you live. Don’t and we’ll kill you, stuff you full of bacon and hang your bodies from the docs of your home town.â€
‘Blowing the pirates to hell’ is an option that kills the hostage, is that what you’d like to see happen?
Again, they are adrift in a boat with no motor or supplies that is surrounded by American warships. A fourth-grader should be able to recognize that waiting is an infinitely smarter course of action than anything I’ve heard proposed here, which by the way, consists so far of stupidly hollaring ‘Kill them!’
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - April 11, 2009
V the K, dude, i’m just suggesting that, as an international coalition, cen’t we be a bit more creative than killing people! the only reason i’m saying we should take al qaeda into consideration is because this post made that the entire point! The reasons why I challenged your point is because you claimed that would aleviate the problem. Can you see how it might, just possibly, be used against western powers in a significant way? How does it serve as a deterrent?
Comment by Scottland — April 11, 2009 @ 4:54 pm - April 11, 2009
Scottland, do you really think it will make a difference to al Qaeda what we do? They really don’t like us.
Comment by Pat — April 11, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - April 11, 2009
Levi, I’m all for being cautious and pragmatic. But if there was a way to take out the pirates now and save the captain, we should absolutely do it. The lives of these pirate scum is not worth the trauma the captain is going through now, and the sooner he is returned to safety the better. The lives of the pirates should have zero consideration as long as they hold the captain hostage.
Comment by Pat — April 11, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - April 11, 2009
Levi,
You still haven’t answered the post why you think Sarah Palin is an idiot, yet President Obama’s open mouth hasn’t removed all doubt.
And yes. Kill them. These aren’t misguided fishermen, these aren’t people who had a bad childhood. They’re pirates. They’re also cowards, kill a few and the rest will think twice.
Apparently unlike you, we know there are more pirates than the ones in the boat.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 11, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - April 11, 2009
I brought up the surge because there are some things to be learnt from its successes (Which are not all of it’s own making, but that is for a different thread!). Putting sunni militias on the payroll meant that they stopped supporting al qaeda. In this particular environment, such an approach could make even more sense! Paying those somalis whose dedication to this is more monetary than ideological to prop up what would be effectively an insurgency, supported by a union of african states and the international community… it’s been done before!
Comment by Scottland — April 11, 2009 @ 5:03 pm - April 11, 2009
I believe that Al Qaeda is an organization with it’s own internal policy workings, and can be approached as such. It makes a difference because it is a franchise; its a brand that terrorists organize themselves around. You change the environement where the franchise is trying to take root, and you can resist it. Of course they care what we do. They need us to react in certain ways in order to maintain a steady flow of propaganda.
Comment by Scottland — April 11, 2009 @ 5:07 pm - April 11, 2009
They need us to react in certain ways in order to maintain a steady flow of propaganda.
Not really. Al Qaeda can take any action, reaction, sign of strength or weakness on our part and put it to good use.
Comment by Pat — April 11, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - April 11, 2009
Ok Gay Patrioters! Where’s y’alls bright ideas for this issue? Invade Somalia again? Kill the hostage so that the Pirates can’t claim credit for it? What exactly has Obama done/not done that you are upset with?
The reality is that, while the US has a small issue here, which should be persued by the US government, the issue of the shipping lanes should be dealt with by the Saudis, the Europeans, and the Chinese. Why should we pay to protect their damn shipping lanes? Let the Saudis/Kuwaitis/Iranians worry about how Europe is going to get their oil.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — April 11, 2009 @ 5:16 pm - April 11, 2009
They can use anything to make propaganda, that is true, but how much of this is internal propaganda to maintain morale, and how much is it to actually actively recruit? This is all one big poker game; Al Qaeda want it to seem like any action of the US egreiges the whole of the Ummah. Going after Barack Obama as, in the words of Malcolm X, a ‘house n***o’, was a low point for them. It echoes their condemnation of past ‘apostate’ rulers, without any substance, even using an American to defend their claims, going directly against the intent of past Bin Laden Fatwahs. Who was that directed at? potential recruits, or dyed in the wool followers?
They need us to react to them to exist. I’m not saying that the captain shouldn’t be rescued or attempt to be rescued, but the situation in Somalia is more than pirates. Extra pirate prohibition will not solve the latent social problems that allow extremism to gain legitimacy in Somalia (Which, V the K, is NOT the same as me saying extremist ideas are legitimate. There is a difference.)
Comment by Scottland — April 11, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - April 11, 2009
I think these hysterics have finally caused me to stop reading the blog. We should expect restraint from our leaders and measured, considered use of our considerable military force. Implying a nation is being held hostage is no less inflammatory than anything you accuse the left of.
While I have been a very supportive reader of this blog’s position on the GWOT, I think this is uncalled for. I expected reason, but it’s not what I’m finding anymore.
Best wishes to you all.
Comment by Neptune — April 11, 2009 @ 6:34 pm - April 11, 2009
Why does the military need to be involved in a massive effort?
A few Blackwater-type security people could fend off one of these pirate raids without too much trouble. Of course, we don’t allow these ships to defend themselves. I read that the Royal Navy doesn’t get involved because any captured pirates could claim asylum and get welfare-for-life in the UK.
The military could provide some intel to these ships using an airborne radar system (Hawkeye, for example).
Levi: just for the record – the nut in PA who murdered the three officers is responsible for his crimes. Not Rush Limbaugh or any other talk-radio host.
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 11, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - April 11, 2009
As mentioned above, the pirate problem predates Obama and has bedeviled China, the Saudis, &c. I don’t expect him to have an instant solution.
The problem with Obama’s “response” is that it’s like his response to the Nork missile launch (nothing): it emboldens the bad guys.
Unfortunately, this continues the recent US tradition of turning the other cheek.
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 11, 2009 @ 7:09 pm - April 11, 2009
I hereby in list in any military, or preferably non-military action to rid the high
seas and the low lands of all undesirables and keep a heavy hand on the arrogant
type of animals who think they can get away with it. They have no idea what
awaits them. We Marines Rule !!!!! Semper Fi.
Comment by Stan Dunne — April 11, 2009 @ 7:11 pm - April 11, 2009
Unfortunately, blowing them out of the water is the only way to resolve this.
And what about Somalia? Don’t they need to accept some responsibiliity?
How about a rocket attack on that country while we are at it?
Comment by PatriotMom — April 11, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - April 11, 2009
Of course, Al Qaeda thinks our so cvalled President is weak!!!
Comment by PatriotMom — April 11, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - April 11, 2009
I think these hysterics have finally caused me to stop reading the blog. We should expect restraint from our leaders and measured, considered use of our considerable military force. Implying a nation is being held hostage is no less inflammatory than anything you accuse the left of.
While I have been a very supportive reader of this blog’s position on the GWOT, I think this is uncalled for. I expected reason, but it’s not what I’m finding anymore.
Best wishes to you all.
See? Even supporters of this blog are being chased off by this sort of overblown, nonsensical hyperventilating.
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - April 11, 2009
Levi: just for the record – the nut in PA who murdered the three officers is responsible for his crimes. Not Rush Limbaugh or any other talk-radio host.
It’s not like we don’t know why he did what he did — someone convinced him that the big, scary government was going to take his weapons. I wonder where he got such an idea?
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 7:41 pm - April 11, 2009
Three times I have tried to post this. I will try one more time.
Your third point: “Due to the non-response of America and NATO, another US-owned vessel is taken by Somali pirates”.
Did you read the article to which you linked?
It read, and I quote: “The ship is owned by an Italian maritime services company, Micoperi. ”
It was not a US-owned vessel. And what the US Navy is doing around the lifeboat is not exactly a non-response. It may not be the response you or I want, and it may be the wrong response, but it is not a non-response. Once again you are distorting facts to attack the opposite political party and their leader. As long as we conservatives are dishonest in our attacks on the democrats, we will never be taken seriously by the majority of the American voters. That is exactly why the majority turned against the Bush Administration.
Comment by Cecil — April 11, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - April 11, 2009
Likely from the same people who blindly support President Obama and spout talking points instead of thinking.
You for example, Levi.
Still going to ignore that by your own standards you’ve called the president an idiot?
Comment by The_Livewire — April 11, 2009 @ 8:58 pm - April 11, 2009
Again, they are adrift in a boat with no motor or supplies that is surrounded by American warships.
So, Levi is pretending that this is an isolated incident and needs only an isolated response. That also isolates his Dear Leader Who Must Never Be Criticized from having to adopt a strategic approach to eliminating the pirate menace.
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 9:47 pm - April 11, 2009
The Obama Inaction Figure.
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - April 11, 2009
See? Even supporters of this blog are being chased off by this sort of overblown, nonsensical hyperventilating.
And Levi inadvertently demonstrates the basic principle of leftist behavior; don’t do anything if people might not like it.
This is why Levi and Barack Obama opposed removing Saddam Hussein; the fact that he was a genocidal murderer who was responsible for the death of millions, practicing widescale state-sanctioned torture and imprisonment, and outright ecocide was secondary to the fact that his removal would upset the European leftists and UN bureaucrats who he was bribing with billions of dollars in oil.
But why should Levi care about millions of people, when he’s more concerned about being liked? Similarly, why would we expect Obama to take action when Obama himself blames the United States for all of the world’s problems, insists that everything we do is wrong, and besides, would be rescuing a white American? Given Obama’s racist beliefs, I don’t expect him to lift a finger, and indeed he hasn’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - April 11, 2009
Fox News (AP): FBI agents planned to interview the crew of a U.S. cargo ship Saturday as the bureau began building a criminal case against Somali pirates who attacked the ship and took the captain hostage.
After the FBI gathers evidence, a US attorney can present it to a grand jury and get indictments (all Mohammed Does). Then the Somali government (whatever that is) will certainly extradite them to the US for trial.
Doesn’t this sound ridiculous?
BTW: Not all the Euros are impressed:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/04/10/barack_obama_president_pantywaist__new_surrender_monkey_on_the_block
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 11, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - April 11, 2009
Likely from the same people who blindly support President Obama and spout talking points instead of thinking.
You for example, Levi.
Still going to ignore that by your own standards you’ve called the president an idiot?
Please walk me through that formulation. I’ll bet you’re going to tell me that the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard anyone say about anything was Obama saying he’d been to 57 states, right? And that compared to the dignified performance of Sarah Palin in the face of brutal, unfair questioning by the hopelessly biased Katie Couric, Obama looks like a slobbering idiot? Is that about right?
If that’s what you believe, well, you’re entitled. Why don’t you run her in 4 years!
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 10:44 pm - April 11, 2009
And Levi inadvertently demonstrates the basic principle of leftist behavior; don’t do anything if people might not like it.
This is why Levi and Barack Obama opposed removing Saddam Hussein; the fact that he was a genocidal murderer who was responsible for the death of millions, practicing widescale state-sanctioned torture and imprisonment, and outright ecocide was secondary to the fact that his removal would upset the European leftists and UN bureaucrats who he was bribing with billions of dollars in oil.
But why should Levi care about millions of people, when he’s more concerned about being liked? Similarly, why would we expect Obama to take action when Obama himself blames the United States for all of the world’s problems, insists that everything we do is wrong, and besides, would be rescuing a white American? Given Obama’s racist beliefs, I don’t expect him to lift a finger, and indeed he hasn’t.
Save it. One think I have no tolerance for is Republicans parading around taking credit for saving millions of Iraqis. Like that’s why we started the war. If you and I could go back in time six years, we could watch you and your President describe in detail the imminent chemical, biological, and nuclear threat that Saddam posed to the U.S., western civilization, and all of humanity. You guys found your humanitarian streak after it was revealed that every last thing you were so sure about turned out to be totally false, so spare me the lecture about how many people you saved.
Our invasion has killed, displaced, and maimed millions of Iraqis, it’s one of the most destructive times in the history of that country. They’re hardly appreciative, they want us gone and they George Bush.
Nice touch there, accusing the black President of not wanting to help a white man. I’d advise you to make that suggestion in public as frequently as possible, say, at a tea party.
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 11:00 pm - April 11, 2009
And Levi inadvertently demonstrates the basic principle of leftist behavior; don’t do anything if people might not like it.
This is why Levi and Barack Obama opposed removing Saddam Hussein; the fact that he was a genocidal murderer who was responsible for the death of millions, practicing widescale state-sanctioned torture and imprisonment, and outright ecocide was secondary to the fact that his removal would upset the European leftists and UN bureaucrats who he was bribing with billions of dollars in oil.
But why should Levi care about millions of people, when he’s more concerned about being liked? Similarly, why would we expect Obama to take action when Obama himself blames the United States for all of the world’s problems, insists that everything we do is wrong, and besides, would be rescuing a white American? Given Obama’s racist beliefs, I don’t expect him to lift a finger, and indeed he hasn’t.
Save it. One think I have no tolerance for is Republicans parading around taking credit for saving millions of Iraqis. Like that’s why we started the war. If you and I could go back in time six years, we could watch you and your President describe in detail the imminent chemical, biological, and nuclear threat that Saddam posed to the U.S., western civilization, and all of humanity. You guys found your humanitarian streak after it was revealed that every last thing you were so sure about turned out to be totally false, so spare me the lecture about how many people you saved.
Our invasion has killed, displaced, and maimed millions of Iraqis, it’s one of the most destructive times in the history of that country. They’re hardly appreciative, they want us gone and they George Bush.
Nice touch there, accusing the black President of not wanting to help a white man. I’d advise you to make that suggestion in public as frequently as possible, say, at a tea party.
THIS FILTER SUCKS
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 11:00 pm - April 11, 2009
Of course, Al Qaeda thinks our so cvalled President is weak!!!
PatriotMom, who really knows what Al Qaeda thinks of Obama. It’s not going to stop them from trying to continue their terror.
If that’s what you believe, well, you’re entitled. Why don’t you run her in 4 years!
‘Taint going to happen in 2012 or 2016, for that matter.
It’s not like we don’t know why he did what he did — someone convinced him that the big, scary government was going to take his weapons. I wonder where he got such an idea?
Levi, I am far from being a fan of Limbaugh. Even if the PA nut heard Limbaugh say the shtick about guns, I do not fault Limbaugh in any way. He is entitled to his opinion without being responsible for someone who may construe it to mean that he should murder people because of it.
Comment by Pat — April 11, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - April 11, 2009
Everyone knew, everyone talked about the young inexperienced President being challenges and tested by evil forces. How’s he doing passing these tests? N Korea’s missle launch. Pirates holding Americans hostage. Union demands for card check. Unions avoiding give backs to save GM. Eliminating ear marks. All evils to our society. Obamateleprompters failing em all. Nice.
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — April 11, 2009 @ 11:36 pm - April 11, 2009
It’s especially true when you eliminate ships in our fleet including an entire carrier group.
Let’s see, our sweet lord BJ increased taxes and gutted the military and prevented their capabilities to have necessary equipment like up-armored Hum-Vees and balistic vests like the liberals incessantly wailed about.
Meanwhile Bush cut taxes and increased spending on the military and got them equipped. Il Douche has promissed to raise taxes and cut spending on new military equipment.
Guess which one I’d prefer.
Nope. I don’t mind you making yourself out to be a dirty, lying SOB. That’s your problem.
It’s my understanding, from liberal talking points, that ALL of our military is in Iraq and Afghanistan and that our ENTIRE navy is patrolling their deserts.
Maybe because the majority of gun control advocates are liberals? Maybe because after a shooting rampage the news is saturated for days with liberals who want to restrict our rights?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2009 @ 12:10 am - April 12, 2009
Levi – the point is simple: weakness is provocative.
The reason many are concerned with Obama is that he’s demonstrating indecisiveness and weakness – early and often. Joe Biden said Obama would be tested – and he was right.
I’m not picking on Obama here – there’s plenty of blame to go round. The US, the world’s “hyperpower”, is being shown up as little more than a paper tiger. There are a lot of wingnuts willing to fill the power vacuum.
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 12, 2009 @ 12:22 am - April 12, 2009
No Levi, the 57 states was just the tip of the iceberg, as I noted here. That’s in the past week or so. You’re just too much of a coward to look at the president you helped elect.
Personally I think Levi can’t stand Sarah Palin because she’s hotter than him, smarter than him, and has done more with her life than spout bile on a blog. Keep whistling in the dark Levi. Keep telling youself that a change in the withholding schedule is a ‘tax cut’ Keep telling yourself that removing conscience excpetions is ‘choice’. Keep telling yourself that you’re special and doggonit, people like you. The adults will be doing what’s needed to keep a country where you can spread your bile.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 12, 2009 @ 12:26 am - April 12, 2009
That awesome socialist Sarah Palin:
“we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.â€
Privatize the roads but socialize the oil. Got it.
Comment by Chuck In Del — April 12, 2009 @ 12:59 am - April 12, 2009
“Somali pirates hijacked an Italian-flagged tugboat with 16 crew Saturday…….The ship is owned by an Italian maritime services company, Micoperi.”
According to the article linked to your statement that “Due to the non-response of America and NATO, another US-owned vessel is taken by Somali pirates”, the vessel was a US-owned vessel. But your linked article says it was Italian owned. Also, you say there has been no response by the US government. Whether we like the response or not, there has been a response. Right or wrong, they have responded. We conservatives need to be honest in what we say or loose the respect and support of the majority of the American voters.
Comment by Cecil — April 12, 2009 @ 2:25 am - April 12, 2009
Bill Clinton was responsible for the appointment of Mistress of Disaster Jamie Gorelick, who made it A CRIME for the FBI and the CIA to talk to each other. Works great when you have criminals in the US and terrorists outside the US; but, breaks down completely when you have terrorists already inside the US as the 9-11 hijackers were.
Somalia, on the other hand, is a failed state. It is NOT A SECRET that it is a failed state. It failed how many years before Barack took office? It currently holds how many hostages taken before Barack took office? Barack had how many months to prepare a strategic action plan for the region? President Bush facilitated a smooth transfer of power for his successor unlike Bill Clinton and his Ws missing off the keyboard kindergartners.
Comment by Adriane — April 12, 2009 @ 5:09 am - April 12, 2009
The Teleprompter-in-Chief has sprung into action, now, and is sending a strongly-worded letter to the NorK’s from the UN. Ooh, I bet Kim Jong-Il is quaking in his Gucci boots now!
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2009 @ 8:28 am - April 12, 2009
someone convinced him that the big, scary government was going to take his weapons. I wonder where he got such an idea?
House Bill HR 45, the most Draconian Anti-2nd Amendment legislation ever introduced in Congress, by Obama’s Chicago Black Panther buddy Bobby Rush.
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2009 @ 8:32 am - April 12, 2009
someone convinced him that the big, scary government was going to take his weapons. I wonder where he got such an idea?
House Bill HR 45, the most restrictive Anti-2nd Amendment legislation ever introduced in Congress, by Obama’s Chicago Black Panther buddy Bobby Rush.
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2009 @ 8:33 am - April 12, 2009
And Levi, still fleeing from his own words, now throws the ‘racist’ card into it. Funny how he didn’t condemn the ‘Bush hates black people’ meme from his side of the isle.
It’s always amusing watching the conspiracy theorist spin and spin, but never gets dizzy.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 12, 2009 @ 10:03 am - April 12, 2009
Uhh, wasn’t it NDT that said obama was a racist?
Comment by Scottland — April 12, 2009 @ 10:09 am - April 12, 2009
Chuck,
Yes, the state owns the mineral rights. Most of the land isn’t owned by private people. But she’s not talking about the state developing it. She’s talking about when the state is allowed to tap those resouces and not constrained by the federal government the fees paid by those what private companies are fed back into the state.
As to NDT’s comments, Obama’s associations with terrorists and racists is well documented. Levi’s problem is when this is pointed out he cries racist, but doesn’t even challenge the lie of ‘Bush hates black people’ because that wouldn’t confirm the narritive he’s so desperate to believe.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 12, 2009 @ 10:24 am - April 12, 2009
Levi – the point is simple: weakness is provocative.
The reason many are concerned with Obama is that he’s demonstrating indecisiveness and weakness – early and often. Joe Biden said Obama would be tested – and he was right.
I’m not picking on Obama here – there’s plenty of blame to go round. The US, the world’s “hyperpowerâ€, is being shown up as little more than a paper tiger. There are a lot of wingnuts willing to fill the power vacuum.
I’ve seen no such demonstrations of weakness. Are you actually suggesting that these pirates took a hostage because they perceived Obama to be weak?
By the way, you know what else is provocative? Stupidity.
Comment by Levi — April 12, 2009 @ 10:32 am - April 12, 2009
As to NDT’s comments, Obama’s associations with terrorists and racists is well documented. Levi’s problem is when this is pointed out he cries racist, but doesn’t even challenge the lie of ‘Bush hates black people’ because that wouldn’t confirm the narritive he’s so desperate to believe.
So you’re agreeing with the assessment that our black President isn’t doing anything about the hostage situation because it’s a white guy, is that right?
Comment by Levi — April 12, 2009 @ 10:50 am - April 12, 2009
Problem is, Levi, you just won’t admit that what Barack Obama supports and gives millions of dollars to have taught in public schools is racist, will you?
Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent “ice people,†in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black “sun people.†The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin. Jeffries also blames Jews for financing the slave trade. Carruthers defends Jeffries and excoriates the prestigious black academics Carruthers views as traitorous for denouncing their African brother, Jeffries. Carruthers’s vision of the superior and peaceful Kemetic philosophy of Ptahhotep triumphing over Greco-Euro-American-white culture obviously parallels Jeffries’ opposition between ice people and sun people.
More of Carruthers’s education philosophy can be found in his newsletter, The Kemetic Voice. In 1997, for example, at the same time Carruthers was advising SSAVC on how to set up an African-centered curriculum, he praised the decision of New Orleans’ School Board to remove the name of George Washington from an elementary school. Apparently, some officials in New Orleans had decided that nobody who held slaves should have a school named after him. Carruthers touted the name-change as proof that his African-centered perspective was finally having an effect on public policy. At the demise of George Washington School, Carruthers crowed: “These events remind us of how vast the gulf is that separates the Defenders of Western Civilization from the Champions of African Civilization.â€
According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey….†These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide†and “genocide†at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.â€
Go ahead, Levi. Explain why you and your Barack Obama believe that children should be taught that people who have less melanin in their skin are evil. Spin for us some more.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 11:14 am - April 12, 2009
And let’s see the behavior by those who Barack Obama and the Obama Party fully endorse and support.
White said he rang the door bell and told a man who opened the door he was looking for Bobby Ferguson. The man told White he was Ferguson’s brother and Ferguson wasn’t there, the detective said.
At that point, White said, Kilpatrick charged through the door, swore at him, told him to get off the porch and shoved him.
“The defendant charged at me,” White said. “He grabbed me with both hands on my shoulder. … At that point, I hit investigator Kinney. I was thrown into her.”
White and Kinney both testified Kilpatrick used the F-word in describing them while urging his security detail to get them off the porch. They said the mayor also made racial remarks about her and White.
“You’re a black woman,” Kinney quoted the mayor as telling her. “You should be ashamed of yourself being with a man with the last name white. You should not be a part of this.”
White is white. Kinney and Kilpatrick are black. “He was very, very angry,” Kinney told the court.
But according to leftist Levi and Barack Obama, that behavior isn’t racist. Black people should be ashamed to ride in cars with white people. Black people should obstruct any attempt to prosecute black criminals. White people should be physically attacked. It’s the Obama Party way, it’s the Levi way, and it’s the Barack Obama way.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 11:21 am - April 12, 2009
Save it. One think I have no tolerance for is Republicans parading around taking credit for saving millions of Iraqis.
Of course you don’t; it demonstrates quite nicely how racist you and your Obama Party are for wanting to leave them under Saddam Hussein so that you could continue to curry favor with the leftist governments and UN bureaucrats he was bribing. Hence why you’re screaming and wetting yourself, and in the process making a fool of yourself with your screaming claims that Saddam never built banned weapons, that Saddam never broke any UN resolutions, and that Saddam wasn’t committing murder, torture, imprisonment, genocide, and ecocide against millions of people. You scream about Halliburton, but you say nothing about leftists taking billions of dollars in bribes from Saddam. You’re a hypocrite, just as you continue to demonstrate with your refusal to call for Obama’s impeachment and trial on war crimes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 11:26 am - April 12, 2009
Re: bullet point #3… the tug-boat is Italian, not US-flagged, with 10 of 16 crew Italian. Not sure about the other 6, but evidently not American (otherwise I’m sure Fox News would have mentioned it).
Comment by CR — April 12, 2009 @ 11:53 am - April 12, 2009
If you are referring to the Italian tugboat that was hijacked, it is Italian owned, not American owned.
Comment by Cecil — April 12, 2009 @ 12:15 pm - April 12, 2009
I think I have this figured out; Obama is out buying puppy treats! He’ll be back in a few years.
Comment by Wayne — April 12, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - April 12, 2009
Over now, pirates dead, captain freed. you can all stop peeing your pants now, can’t you?
Grow up, Children.
Comment by Articuno — April 12, 2009 @ 2:15 pm - April 12, 2009
Now, this is what I call “dialogue” and why I enjoy this blog so very much.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — April 12, 2009 @ 2:29 pm - April 12, 2009
Oh, look at that, they’re all dead or in custody, and the captain is free. Short, sharp, a defeat for al qaeda, if this post is to be believed! Got a terrorist as a prisoner now, maybe if you waterboard him he’ll tell you where the gold is!!
But, of course, that is a woefully simplistic approach to what’s actually happening and what needs to be done going forward. Just as the initial post, in it’s rush to piss on Obama, made broad unqualified assertions as to the nature of the piracy problem and the international response to it.
Comment by Scottland — April 12, 2009 @ 2:30 pm - April 12, 2009
Hurray!! The captain has been rescued!! According to MSNBC and FOX.
Comment by Chuck In Del — April 12, 2009 @ 2:46 pm - April 12, 2009
Excuses for the weak American government. Today Obama was sending Hillary out in a rowboat to negitiate with the pirates. Picture that. But the Navy stepped in and rescued the catain this morning by shooting 3 of 4 pirates. Obamateleprompter is having the AG investigate the actions of the US Navy. More to follow.
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — April 12, 2009 @ 2:47 pm - April 12, 2009
I thought Obamateleprompter wanted the world to come together and address the pirate problem. Once again it is the forward use of American power to solve a problem. I’d like to thank the men and women of the US Navy for helping out our President and saving him from furthur embarassment.
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — April 12, 2009 @ 2:49 pm - April 12, 2009
Congratulations to the Navy for a job well done and to Obama as Commander in Chief. All of us should be thankful that the freighter captain is safe and that none of our guys were hurt.
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 12, 2009 @ 3:21 pm - April 12, 2009
Ref Comment #49: “why would we expect Obama to take action when Obama himself blames the United States for all of the world’s problems, insists that everything we do is wrong, and besides, would be rescuing a white American? Given Obama’s racist beliefs, I don’t expect him to lift a finger, and indeed he hasn’t.” Here NDT is a towell. Please wipe the egg off your face.
Comment by Cecil — April 12, 2009 @ 8:37 pm - April 12, 2009
LOL….fortunately, Cecil, our troops were smarter than their leftist “commander” and, when they saw a fellow American in direct danger, simply returned fire. Effectively.
Here’s hoping they have the weapons and ammunition to do so in the future.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2009 @ 8:53 pm - April 12, 2009
ND30, like all gay-sex conservatives, is wrong.
Wrong on this, wrong on all other issues, and wrong regarding the future of our nation.
BTW, ND30, since you recently directed me to knowledge of the “long-distance relationship” that took you out to San Fran back in 2005, I myself want to take a moment to ask how the happy gay couple is doing in 2009.
What’s that you say?
Not in that relationship anymore, you say?
Still critical of other committed gay couples but (like all gay-sex conservatives) incapable of monogamy yourself?
That’s what I thought.
Ergo: enjoy being a single gay man on your 40th birthday in a few years. According to other gay-sex conservatives who’ve been through that experience, you *can* actually get through it sanely (and still have time for a Craiglist hook-up later that night).
Comment by JR — April 12, 2009 @ 9:52 pm - April 12, 2009
NDT #81 “Here’s hoping they have the weapons and ammunition to do so in the future.”
On this we can agree!!!
Comment by Cecil — April 12, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - April 12, 2009
Re: my post at #70 and the ownership of the Tug… Actually, the article is inconsistent. Bruce is correct that the title of the article says the tug is US-owned, but the body of the article says it is owned by an Italian corporation and flew an Italian flag. Weird.
Comment by CR — April 12, 2009 @ 10:34 pm - April 12, 2009
Not in that relationship anymore, you say?
Nope, still there, and quite content, thank you. You can ask GPW if you like; he’s met my partner. Several other of the regular commentors here know me and know about him.
You can say what you like, JR; gay-sex liberals usually do. But as most things that come out of their mouths are, all you’re doing is demonstrating your own ignorance of reality in favor of your gay-sex liberal ideology. That in and of itself is good reason to discriminate against you; why should delusional leftists who simply make things up and constantly tell lies be given jobs, children, or marriage?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 13, 2009 @ 2:00 am - April 13, 2009
Better yet, we can delay doing anything about the pirates while we sort out our top national security priority:
Unionizing the TSA.
That, or maybe Biden could follow Algore’s model. He could create a security plan for the shipping companies and then bury it when they cough up $half a mil to the DNC.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 13, 2009 @ 6:10 am - April 13, 2009