Posted by
Maudie in Mandeville on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:36:06 PM
"(T)he president showed that he will not hesitate to use force when necessary to safeguard American lives." So writes Jacob Laksin of Frontpagemag.com. To use that standard, even Jimmy Carter passed. During the Iran hostage crisis, no one was in imminent danger, per se, they were just hostages. Ditto Captain Phillips.
What would Obama have done if the pirates had laid their guns down (at the ready) and never 'pointed' one at him. Would this have gone on for 444 days? The Navy was quick to point out that one of the Seals saw one of the teenagers point his gun toward Phillips.
Let's be clear, the authorization was never to rescue him, rather to use deadly force only if Phillips' life was in imminent danger, in other words tied to a post, provided a last cigarette, then blindfolded. Laksin is also impressed "Beginning with Secretary of State Clinton’s demand for forceful action to “end the scourge of piracy". Would that Jacob have provided an example of when "Secretary of State Clinton’s demand(s) for forceful action" meant anything? Letting the hostage languish is not "boldness" if you can take out the pirates, but that was not the authorization. Entebbe was boldness. It seems the Navy commander or the Seals showed boldness in devising a plan to circumvent the lack of will shown by Obama to rescue the hostage by using deadly force when the occasion arose.
"Imminent danger, Commander!" Blam, blam, blam. (Wink wink) Let's not get silly trying to look bipartisan.