Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: History, Media, Pirates, WORLD POLITICS — Rick Moran @ 7:01 am

So Captain Phillips is free and unharmed and the pirates are killed or captured. Good news all around, although I think Michael Shear of WaPo gave new meaning to the phrase “gushing coverage:”

It was one of the earliest tests of the new American president — a small military operation off the coast of a Third World nation. But as President Bill Clinton found out in October 1993, even minor failures can have long-lasting consequences.

Clinton’s efforts to land a small contingent of troops in Haiti were rebuffed, for the world to see, by a few hundred gun-toting Haitians. As the USS Harlan County retreated, so did the president’s reputation.

For President Obama, last week’s confrontation with Somali pirates posed similar political risks to a young commander in chief who had yet to prove himself to his generals or his public.

But the result — a dramatic and successful rescue operation by U.S. Special Operations forces — left Obama with an early victory that could help build confidence in his ability to direct military actions abroad.

Some victory. The US Navy against 4 pirates in 15 foot launch. And by all accounts, the Navy SEAL’s acted in response to the Captain trying to escape - brave felow, him. He no doubt realized once he was clear that the pirates would be toast.

The significance here is not a “victory” but rather that the president proved he can pull the trigger. By authorizing the use of force not once, but twice, the president showed that when American lives are threatened, he will act. That should bolster his reputation somewhat with a suspicious military:

The operation pales in scope and complexity to the wars underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Obama’s adversaries are unlikely to be mollified by his performance in a four-day hostage drama.

Nonetheless, it may help to quell criticism leveled at Obama that he came to office as a Democratic antiwar candidate who could prove unwilling or unable to harness military might when necessary.

And as Obama’s Democratic predecessors can attest, a victory — no matter how small — is better than a failure.

Obama’s two Democratic predecessors were notorious for their seeming inability to pull the trigger on military action at times. The question of whether Clinton could have killed Bin Laden will haunt this country for many years while his Haiti operation, where US troops were prevented from landing by a couple of hundred armed irregulars, was seen at the time as an embarrassment. The Kosovo operation suffered from a lack of will to commit ground troops and end the conflict swiftly. For Clinton, a man who headed an administration that Buzz Patterson found first hand to have nothing but contempt for soldiers in uniform (Patterson and other military personnel assigned to the White House were ordered not to wear their uniforms), the inability to give the “go” signal was the result of a Viet Nam era distrust and disgust of the mlitary.

Carter was just plain inept - a dithering, hand wringing Commander in Chief who surrounded himself with pacifists - and his inability to come to a decision about the hostage rescue (it was an on again, off again operation) while previously assisting anti-regime forces in Iran and Nicaraugua to overthrow American allies, emboldened the Soviets at the time to expand their influence dramatically around the world, not to mention invade Afghanistan. The Communists figured correctly they had nothing to fear from Carter.

So our friends on the left will excuse us if we have our doubts about Mr. Obama’s ability to act decisively when the chips are down and American lives are at stake. The manner in which he handled the hostage situation is a good start toward allaying those fears.

Now, however, comes the hard part. It is time for the United States to take the lead and mount a military operation that will wipe out the scourge of piracy. If no one will help, we should do it ourselves although I think it likely that most nations are ready for such a move. And such an operation cannot be simply a raid; from what I’ve read from experts, it must be a sustained campaign that involves not only the navies of the world but also special forces to infliltrate the towns and villages along the coast where the pirates live and destroy their ability to cause trouble. This means destroying their boats, the docks, the gasoline dumps, interdict and confiscate weapons, and take other actions against targets that allow the pirates to operate.

But this situation is not as easy as simply going after terrorists or high seas criminals. Alas, our president will no doubt see the other side of the coin as well; that the pirates are simply acting in “self defense” or responding to unbearable provocations from western fishing trawlers:

This from Crooks and Liars:

I wonder which principled member of our corporate media will point out that, in the big picture, the Somali pirates are acting in self-defense?

Yes - a VERY big picture, fer sure. Meanwhile, the author quotes from a story in The Independent that gives a pass to the pirates due to (wait for it) western imperialism:

In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country’s food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Coud this be true? Der Spiegel tells it a little differently:

Somali fishermen have another problem: toxic waste. Initially dumped on land, toxic waste was increasingly dumped at sea after the collapse of the regime of former President Siad Barre in 1991. Because the country has no coast guard, for the past 20 years the Somali coastline has had no protection against European ships dumping waste at sea. Although hard evidence was rare, there have been periodic and mysterious incidents. In early 2002, tens of thousands of dead fish washed ashore at Merca, south of Mogadishu. The causes remain unclear.

In the spring of 2004, fishermen spotted two large containers floating in the water near Bosaso. Whether they were deliberately tossed overboard or accidentally fell of a container ship in rough seas is unclear. The Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004, which also reached the African coast, unearthed dozens of containers of toxic waste and deposited the waste along the Somali coast. According to a United Nations report, many coastal residents suffered “acute respiratory infections, heavy coughing, bleeding gums and mouth, abdominal haemorrhages, unusual skin rashes, and even death.”

Experts and environmentalists have long been aware of the problem. In 2006, a team of specialists sent to the region to investigate discovered nine toxic waste sites along 700 kilometers (435 miles) of coastline in southern Somalia.

The UN envoy to Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, said last October that the UN has “reliable information that European and Asian companies are dumping toxic waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coastline.”

Clearly, there’s problem here and it’s not western imperialism or even grasping capitalism; Somalia has no government. The jackals of the world take advantage of that. And the UN - even though they are aware of the problem - do nothing. And when something newsworthy comes out of all of that, wake me up.

Rapacious businessmen are taking advantage of the chaos in Somalia by bullying the few Somalis who try and make a living as fishermen and dumping toxic waste - including some low level nuclear waste - along the shore where there was already a problem thanks to the Somalis themselves dumping waste on land. There is some evidence that the Mafia are making a killing by contracting with firms to dump their waste off the Somali coast.

Now just to set the record straight, there is absolutely no evidence that 300 Somalis have died of exposure to nuclear waste nor has their been a clear link established between the dumping of any toxic waste and the death of any Somali.

Here’s a Greenpeace scientist:

A senior scientist with Greenpeace Research Laboratories in Great Britain, David Santillo, says while it would be difficult to prove that exposure to industrial waste is the sole cause of such health problems, he believes there is a link.

“It could well be that some of those health effects are a result of exposure to radioactive material and in that case, for some people, regrettably, the prognosis could be very devastating,” he explained. “There could be people who simply would not recover.”

Obviously, the key to ending piracy and the illegal dumping is for Somalia to form some kind of government - a task that has been beyond their capabilities for going on two decades. The UN is in its usual throwing-its-hands-in-the-air- mode of doing nothing and spending a lot of money showing it. If ever there was evidence needed that the UN is not only a useless organization but one that actually makes matters worse, the situation in Somalia is it.

Meanwhile, our intrepid Somali pirates know they have western liberals on their side as long as they can show that the reason they board ships, terrorize people, take crew members hostage, kill with impunity, and barter for ransom is because they are only acting in “self defense” against rancid capitalists and western governments who allow the practice of dumping and illegal fishing with a wink and a nod. This appeals to many on the left who will now see the problem as a question of “fairness” and will agitate that the president forgoe knocking the stuffing out of pirate infrastructure in favor of a “negotiated” solution. Piracy will continue, hostages will still be taken, governments and businesses will still be forced to pay ransom - but liberals will feel better about the whole thing.

Sure, let’s negotiate; just as soon as their isn’t a ship, a dock, or a boathouse left standing in those villages and towns that assist the pirates in their lawlessness. And capturing and hanging a few pirates wouldn’t hurt either.

Does the president have the judgement to pull the trigger on this, a much more problematic operation where civilians are likely to be killed and the loss of American life is probable? That will be Obama’s first real “test” and not some quick thinking by a brave captain and the dead eye marksmanship of our SEAL’s.


Once again, the fusion of great minds is evident as Ed Morrissey agrees with me:

This should actually be the next mission for the US Navy after freeing Phillips. We don’t need a quarantine and inspection to identify some of the boats and ports in question; I’d bet dollars to donuts we’ve already identified most of them. Our next step after killing the pirates on the lifeboat is torpedoing their ships in their home ports without inspections or even warnings. Somalia’s failed state can’t impose order on these areas, but if the pirates become a liability rather than an asset to these facilities, they’ll get the heave-ho soon enough.

In the future, we don’t need the lawyers and the FBI negotiators, and we especially don’t need to legitimize Somali “elders”, either. Iklé has that right; piracy is not a bank robbery. The entire point of piracy is to capture ships in territory where no nation can claim sovereignty and therefore work outside the civil law. The proper response to that is military, not some notion of cops and robbers. When pirates find out we’re serious, and when enough of them wind up at the bottom of the ocean, they’ll think twice about seizing American or Western shipping.

I’m not so sure the townsfolk have the strength to give the pirates the “heave ho” which is why I recommend taking Ed’s idea and expanding it by sinking all boats, destroying every dock, every business that caters to the pirates. Yes, it is horrible that we would be destroying very poor people’s ability to make a living. Spreading some green as compensation for legitimate boat and business owners would help there. But it has to hit home to everyone in those towns and villages that the pirates are more than a liability.


  1. “So our friends on the left will excuse us if we have our doubts about Mr. Obama’s ability to act decisively when the chips are down and American lives are at stake. The manner in which he handled the hostage situation is a good start toward allaying those fears.”

    The Carter ineptitude, in particular, seems to be much on people’s minds. Embarrassing times, those were. OTOH, there seem to be an awful lot of people on the right today (and yesterday) who are stubbornly fixed in those years — so much so that they’re still unable (or refuse) to see any difference.

    “Clearly, there’s [a] problem here and it’s not western imperialism or even grasping capitalism; Somalia has no government.”

    Exactly right.

    Comment by Polimom — 4/13/2009 @ 7:57 am

  2. The pirates were in the wrong, and they were punished. Did it mean they had to be killed?
    Not saying that.
    The punishment has to fit the crime. Luckily in the military that rule still holds true. Once the pirates made it look like they were going to kill the Captain, they were taken care of…
    We talked to them, we played nice…and with some people that works, others it does not.

    Now we already have people upset because we made the other pirates mad. Now they are going to kill Americans next time they capture them.
    To the common liberal, now their behavior is our fault.
    They don’t think about the fact the pirates are doing something wrong, that they are the ones killing innocent people or capturing ships.
    Nope, blame the big bad USA.
    Its a stark contrast between common sense and liberalism.
    Same happens everywhere.
    Liberal thought:
    “We have to understand why terrorist hate us”

    Lets see how the comments go the next few days.
    Will liberals be happy the right thing is done, and call for the end of the pirate behavior all together, or will we get them being who they are: Blaming America first and want to know why the pirates do what they do. It doesn’t matter if what the pirates do is wrong, just that it is our fault.

    Comment by the Game — 4/13/2009 @ 8:09 am

  3. This wasn’t Obama’s first trigger-pulling: Predator attacks continue in Af-Pak.

    While some of the media may have fawned, Obama himself did not rush to the nearest microphone — as some Commanders in Chief of recent memory did — to play the hero. He gave credit to the Captain and to the Navy and took none for himself.

    This is appropriate modesty on Obama’s part. If this was a test it was a pretty easy one.

    The White House played down Obama’s involvement in the situation until it resolved itself favorably. Then they were all over the press patting themselvese on the back.

    Yeah - real modest.


    Comment by michael reynolds — 4/13/2009 @ 8:19 am

  4. The White House played down Obama’s involvement in the situation until it resolved itself favorably. Then they were all over the press patting themselvese on the back.

    Yeah - real modest.

    C’mon Rick. Everybody was going nuts wondering what went on and whether Obama was actively engaged in the situation. Speculation was rampant, and the “ZOMG he’s another CARTER!!!” was pretty over the top.

    Is there some spin in the aftermath? No doubt. But it’s really hard to complain with a straight face that they’re “all over the press patting themselves on the back” in a negative way, when the situation ended so well.

    Just trying to put a damper on some of Michael’s gushiness. The situation calls for an “attaboy, well done” and not much more. As I say in the piece, the challenge now is to strike at the pirate’s infraustructure while putting some kind of international agreement to try and stop the dumping - but only after the pirates are smashed.


    Comment by Polimom — 4/13/2009 @ 8:40 am

  5. I’ve been hearing the excuses you cite for the last two days on C-SPAN. It was the first time any of this had been brought up. Leave it to the Brits to excuse barbaric behavior.
    Captain Phillips and all crew members are free and they are unharmed. That is more than can be said for the 200 or more currently being held hostage in Somalia or for the hostage killed in the French raid. We should not give Obama short shrift here. However he reached his decisions, the end result was a victory for the US and a defeat for the pirates.
    At first I thought the sharpshooters had missed the fourth terrorist but now it turns out he was brought aboard the naval ship for treatment of injuries sustained during Phillips’ abduction. They were threatening to kill an American and we were treating their injuries!
    Somalia has to go through its own Lebanon experience. Most westerners left Beirut when they were no longer safe or welcome. We will hear about the many “innocent” Somalis who are also being “terrorized” by the pirates/terrorists. We shouldn’t give in to their hard-luck tales. Somalia is their country. If they want Somalia to be free, they are the ones who will have to fight for it. We should not be pressed into doing their fighting for them. You know that the first time an “innocent” Somali dies in an attack on a pirate village, the American serviceman will be denounced as an international criminal and the world will call for his head on a platter. We don’t need any more of that. The West didn’t destroy Somalia. Somalis did. We can’t give them a government. We can’t do their fighting for them. They have to decide what they want. As long as they are willing to live with the pirates then they deserve them.

    Comment by pmk — 4/13/2009 @ 9:09 am

  6. I know some of the Somali pirates (in phoners with the AP, who seem to have all these nefarious folks on speed-dial) have said this will mean more trouble for American ships.

    But if you’re choosing targets, which do you pick? The one with Old Glory (let’s see, 3 dead pirates, no $$$), or some other country’s flag, a country that won’t protect their ship?

    It’s like a Dirty Harry movie, which shows an excellent example of self-interest at work. There are 7 bad guys, and only 6 bullets in the gun. But do you want to take your chances that you’ll be guy #7? Probably not. In fact, the mere presence of the gun makes it harder for you to initiate violence.

    Comment by Lightduty — 4/13/2009 @ 9:38 am

  7. So our friends on the left will excuse us if we have our doubts about Mr. Obama’s ability to act decisively when the chips are down and American lives are at stake.

    Actually, we won’t forgive you. We will call you what you really are: A bunch of sniveling wingnut freaks who won’t even take yes for an answer. Now you want “follow through.” What, another trillion-dollar war? I don’t think so.

    Comment by Magic Dog — 4/13/2009 @ 12:52 pm

  8. p.s.: There’s a reason why the Republican Party’s identification is at the lowest point in more than 20 years, and why overwhelming majorities give poor marks to your failure-seeking freaks. Keep doing what you’re doing, poor wingnuts. I don’t know about you, but I am eagerly looking forward to the 2010 elections. Three strikes, and you’re gonna be out for quite a while. Bring it on, baby.

    I’m sorry but I am going to have to insist that you not comment any more on this site. We are an adult website and only allow those over the age of 12 to post comments.

    Come back in a few years when you grow up and you will be more than welcome to comment.


    Comment by Magic Dog — 4/13/2009 @ 12:55 pm

  9. Before the Pirates had been killed I was trying to distinguish the legalities, and moralities, of the pirates vs terrorists, say the accused terrorists at Gitmo, with a friend. I’m personally fine with the kill shots on the pirates but why should pirates, primarily interested in money and not violence, be taken out while terrorists are metaphorically read miranda rights and given the comfy chair? Terrorists who have a goal of killing innocents for political ends should be better protected than thieves (armed and dangerous theives but still thieves)?

    And I hope I’m just missing the ‘if Bush did it’ blog posts and media stories. Why do I think that the Crooks and Liars snip won’t be driven up the MSM flagpole? Why do I think that if Bush had given the order it would have (and generated an Olbermann short bus special comment)? Why do I think that somebody would have written ‘at least with Katrina, Bush let the hurricaine kill the black people he hates so much instead of shooting them like he did with the Somalis’? Why wouldn’t ANYBODY think this?

    Comment by EBJ — 4/13/2009 @ 12:58 pm

  10. Rick - no offense, but this is sort of a silly post from you.

    This was the first time Obama “pulled the trigger” (hey, tuff macho words).

    The day after he was innaugurated he launched attacks in Pakistan.

    For ideological reasons, many of you folks like to forget the actual war on terror exists in Pakistan.

    As far as a “suspicious military.” I know conservative bloggers have all sorts of notions (and little military experience), but Obama won clear majorities among enlisted ranks in many units in Iraq.

    I know the excuse conservatives make when they hear this, but military (suspicious or not) does not necessarily mean white protestant officer from the south.

    1. “Suspicious military” is I believe a quote from the gushing Shear article. Not mine.

    2. Don’t lecture me on where the war in terror is taking place. I’ve been writing about Pakistan for 4 years. And I’m so glad that its not taking place anywhere else like Yemen, or Iraq, or Somalia, or any one of a half dozen other places where al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood not to mention Hezbullah and all their imitators have set up shop.

    3. Obama signing off on a Predator strike - continuing a policy established by his predecessor - is a helluva lot different than pulling the trigger (Oh me! I am so MACHO!) or, lest I offend your gentle nature, giving the go ahead for military action where American lives are at stake. Are you a member of the Predator Rights Committee? Are we now to treat the drones as sensate creatures? If not, recognize the difference between launching a drone and authorizing deadly force where actual, like, you know, American citizens might get killed.

    4. For ideological reasons, you are incapable of thinking clearly. But I chalk that up to your being a liberal.


    Comment by Comment — 4/13/2009 @ 2:00 pm

  11. why should pirates, primarily interested in money and not violence, be taken out while terrorists are metaphorically read miranda rights and given the comfy chair?

    First off, terrorists weren’t given the comfy chair. Clinton found the WTC bombers, put ‘em on trial, and now they’re rotting in SuperMax in Colorado. McVeigh, the right-wing terrorist, was executed. Real comfy.

    The issues with the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are two. First, most of them were never “terrorists” to begin with. They were literally sold off for bounties offered by the U.S. military. Second, your drunken wingnut of a president, George W., ordered that they be tortured.

    Torture is not just against several treaties that the U.S. has signed, and which have co-equal status with the Constitution (it’s amazing how many wingnuts have never read Article VI), but it’s sharply at variance with American policy going all the way back to George Washington’s order that British prisoners in the Revolutionary War be treated humanely even though the Brits were torturing American captives.

    Wingnuts like you have no understanding of this country, and no confidence in it. In America, we don’t countenance the torture of criminals or criminal suspects. We put them on trial, and if found guilty, we apply the penalty imposed by law.

    Not that you people or your phony president EVER really believed in the “rule of law.”

    Comment by Magic Dog — 4/13/2009 @ 2:04 pm

  12. Sounds like “Magic Mutt” could use a spay job…..might calm him down.

    Comment by Ad rem — 4/13/2009 @ 2:35 pm

  13. Oh, yes. Time for the blockade of all of Somalia. Mountian, meet molehill. Any other alternative will be surrender monkeying. The best strategy is to always let a handful of other people define your foreign policy. Rule-by-daiper.

    The Fluffersphere is clearly beside itself with the good Capt not getting killed and proving Obama a [commie|socialist|nazi|Chamberlin|pansy|whatever].

    All this while Somalia is a libertarian and true “conservatives” wet dream. No government, no taxes, and now y’all want to bomb it. Why do you hate freedom?

    I have a much better solution. Get the National Review to have another one of their cruises, and y’all can take all yer guns and do personal battle.

    Strange. Could have sworn there was a comment somewhere in there but for the life of me, I can’t find it.


    Comment by srv — 4/13/2009 @ 2:36 pm

  14. So this is what happens with 24 withdrawal as Jack is held in FBI headquarters. Makes the fans want to go out and just kill all the pirates.

    At least that’s better than all the snipping.

    Comment by cedarhill — 4/13/2009 @ 2:43 pm

  15. Seems to point rather clearly to the need for the Somalis to get organized and form a government. But would they do that? Not likely. It just plain too much fun living in anarchy. This every man for himself thing obviously appeals to them; they have stayed with it for quite a while now. This seems to be cultural, and that suggest strongly that it cannot be changed by outside “aid” or other help.

    Comment by Dr.D — 4/13/2009 @ 3:24 pm

  16. >For Clinton, a man who headed an administration that Buzz Patterson found first hand to have nothing but contempt for soldiers in uniform (Patterson and other military personnel assigned to the White House were ordered not to wear their uniforms), the inability to give the “go” signal was the result of a Viet Nam era distrust and disgust of the mlitary.<

    So much horseshit packed into one sentence. Buzz Fricking Patterson???

    Comment by CAPT Mike — 4/13/2009 @ 3:30 pm

  17. “And by all accounts, the Navy SEAL’s acted in response to the Captain trying to escape - brave felow, him.”

    ??? “Two of the captors had poked their heads out of a rear hatch of the lifeboat, exposing themselves to clear shots, and the third could be seen through a window in the bow, pointing an automatic rifle at the captain, who was tied up inside the 18-foot lifeboat, senior Navy officials said.”
    I haven’t sean any accounts detailing it as a 2nd escape attempt — the first was over 24 hours prior to the rescue. Any links for more information?

    Shoot - I didn’t read anything today on it. Yesterday, the story was the Captain jumped overboard during negotiations and before the pirates could fire on them, waiting SEAL’s took them out. Will have to double check.


    Comment by busboy33 — 4/13/2009 @ 3:37 pm

  18. Is it just me but I don’t understand half the comments here. Maybe old age is setting in..

    Comment by funny man — 4/13/2009 @ 4:10 pm

  19. I suspect the “imminent execution” thing is a cover story. In other words, BS to make it seem we had a clear criminal justice sort of rationale for the shoot. Whatever, as the kids say.

    Dave Schuler at Outside the Beltway has a good round-up on various responses. There don’t seem to be a lot of good options. (Surprise!) The simple “blow their s**t up” option may be rather ineffective and harder to pull off than it seems at first blush.

    But I wonder about a “no-swim zone,” so to speak. Close down all shipping coming out of Somali ports. Harsh, particularly since it would probably result in blowing some innocent fishing boats out of the water, but within our capabilities in terms of resources.

    By the way, the take-away is: Don’t piss of SEALS. Three simultaneous shots, three bullseyes, from that distance off a moving ship, at a target that was bobbing around on the sea? Damn. Makes my performance winning a stuffed bear at a carnival shooting range look, um, not real impressive.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 4/13/2009 @ 4:11 pm

  20. Hey wingers, why don’t you just swallow real hard and admit that Obama handled it perfectly? Is it really that hard for you to cheer the success of a president and your own country?

    Comment by Magic Dog — 4/13/2009 @ 6:12 pm

  21. [...] Obama shows he can pull the trigger, now what? An excellent question posed over at Right Wing Nut House [...]

    Pingback by Obama shows he can pull the trigger, now what? « The Daley Gator — 4/13/2009 @ 7:24 pm

  22. This is the second time in two months that our country has produced a real hero; first Captain Sully and now Captain Phillips. I’m glad that Obama didn’t wimp but to me the real story is Captain Phillips and his quick thinking crew and the planning and clear thinking of our military. Special kudos to the Seals who seldom get credit for their missions.

    Though our Navy could easyily take out the Somalian coast and pirates, I have to ask, why at this point should we? Why shouldn’t the countries, whose ships and tankers are still being held, step up first.

    I agree, if another American ship is taken, we should go in and clean up but just for once I would like to see Western Europe take care of their own problems. The countries who have wanted to negotiate and pay ransome should bring up the first war ships.

    Comment by Gaia's Child — 4/13/2009 @ 9:06 pm

  23. I predict Obama will follow thru and hit the Somali coastline. Oh, by the way, all Rush and Hanitty did today was badmouth Obama, saying Obama was trying to hog all the credit. Typical of the neocon fringe. Nothing Obama does will ever be good enough in their eyes. Fine. There party can continue to get there asses handed to them in election after election.

    Comment by Joe — 4/13/2009 @ 9:35 pm

  24. “Now, however, comes the hard part. It is time for the United States to take the lead and mount a military operation that will wipe out the scourge of piracy.”

    Actually Rick the message has already been sent. Mission accomplished. If other nations fail to step up as we have, then why on earth should we carry their water?

    Find some other lead for your pencil.

    Comment by bobwire — 4/14/2009 @ 12:49 am

  25. [...] The Atlantic Politics Channel, Sister Toldjah, Wonkette, Associated Press, CBS News, Balloon Juice, Right Wing Nut House, Taylor Marsh, AMERICAblog News, Outside The Beltway, Macsmind, Political Punch, Althouse, New York [...]

    Pingback by President Teleprompter tries to take credit for Navy Seal rescue — 4/14/2009 @ 2:03 am

  26. Tuesday morning links…

    Legal scam or real problem? Chinese wallboard
    Is there a freedom not to buy medical insurance? Why does that question even need to be asked?
    Animal nutritionists at the National Zoo
    A "quick" bankruptcy for GM? Megan
    Nuclear dis…

    Trackback by Maggie's Farm — 4/14/2009 @ 4:05 am

  27. Devastating the Somali havens for pirates has a grand feeling to it, but:
    It is my understanding that the captured crews of the ships they have docked there are being held on those ships, which means the probable loss of some 230 crewmen or so, I believe, if we bomb the port and the ships.
    If we attack the port and other facilities of the pirates, I believe the pirates would set off explosives preplaced on the ships in retaliation. Hitting Somalia has some unknown consequences.

    Comment by mannning — 4/17/2009 @ 7:09 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress