RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Obama’s Surrender Monkey Moment?

(bumped up from the morning)

It ain’t exactly a “3 A.M. phone call” but it is a decisive moment that will shape perception. Somali pirates have thrown down and the world will now watch and wait to see how Commander-in-Chief Obama responds. Reuter’s reports:

Somali pirates hijacked a U.S.-flagged, Danish-owned container ship on Wednesday with 20 American crew on board in a major escalation in attacks at sea off the Horn of Africa nation, officials said.

Andrew Mwangura, coordinator of the Mombasa-based East African Seafarers’ Assistance Program, told Reuters the 17,000 ton Maersk Alabama had been seized off Mogadishu far out in the Indian Ocean, but all its crew were believed to be unharmed.

If you are expecting a Steven Seagal-commando spectacle like Under Seige, forget about it.

U.S. authorities met a few weeks ago with the owners of Maersk to discuss this very scenario and were politely told to “fuck off.” It seems that the Maersk folks would have to pay more insurance if they put armed personnel on board their ships to prevent hijackings. They have concluded that they are better off paying ransom.

The U.S. is not in a good position in terms of naval assets in the area for cobbling together a quick military response. I am told by a knowledgeable source that a U.S. naval vessel cannot be on scene until late Thursday morning (edt). And when it arrives it is not carrying a Navy SEAL assault team capable of retaking the ship. There is some good news, however. There are only four pirates holding a crew of 20. Mother nature takes over at some point–everyone needs to sleep, eat, shit and piss. There always is the possibility the crew can take matters into its hands and retake the ship (and there are now reports that may be happening).

Those are the realities. But there is another reality. American citizens are being held hostage. Jimmy Carter anyone? The good news for Barack Obama is that the pirates do not have ready access to TV cameras and will not be parading blindfolded, helpless crew members before a hungry press. However, the story of Americans being held hostage will linger. If (or when) they are finally ransomed then this will add to the perception that America is surrendering to pirates and terrorists. The White House will talk tough and maybe (probably?) the media will burnish Obama’s image as a tough guy. But military action of any type is unlikely. What happens when the pirates speed away with bags of cash? At that point President Obama risks becoming just another French surrender monkey.

Did I mention weather? I also have been told that the season of calmer seas has come to the region off the coast of Somalia and Kenya and we should expect more such attacks. This problem is not going away. What remains to be seen is what kind of policy response the Obama team will put together. I suspect it will be muddled and feckless until an American is killed. At that point the damage to Obama’s reputation will be done.

So what should be done. Let’s deal with the immediate problem first. Freeing the ship and crew. I do not give a damn what the company wants to do, piracy is a violation of international law. We cannot and should not just look the other way. We should string out negotiations and move a SEAL assault team to the site. One thing should be clear, however, NO RANSOM.

Here’s the international law, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation states:

Article 3

1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:

(a) seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or

(b) performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

(c) destroys a ship or causes damage to a ship or to its cargo which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

(d) places or causes to be placed on a ship, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that ship, or cause damage to that ship or its cargo which endangers or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

(e) destroys or seriously damages maritime navigational facilities or seriously interferes with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship; or

(f) communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safe navigation of a ship; or

(g) injures or kills any person, in connection with the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offences set forth in subparagraphs (a) to (f).

2. Any person also commits an offence if that person:

(a) attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1; or

(b) abets the commission of any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1 perpetrated by any person or is otherwise an accomplice of a person who commits such an offence; or

(c) threatens, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, aimed at compelling a physical or juridical person to do or refrain from doing any act, to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (b), (c) and (e), if that threat is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship in question.

Article 4

1. This Convention applies if the ship is navigating or is scheduled to navigate into, through or from waters beyond the outer limit of the territorial sea of a single State, or the lateral limits of its territorial sea with adjacent States.

2. In cases where the Convention does not apply pursuant to paragraph 1, it nevertheless applies when the offender or the alleged offender is found in the territory of a State Party other than the State referred to in paragraph 1.

Article 5

Each State Party shall mkae the offences set forth in article 3 punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of those offences.

Article 6

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 3 when the offence is committed:

(a) against or on board a ship flying the flag of the State at the time the offence is committed; or

(b) in the territory of that State, including its territorial sea; or

(c) by a national of that State.

2. A State Party may also establish its jurisdiction over any such offence when:

(a) it is committed by a stateless person whose habitual residence is in that State; or

(b) during its commission a national of that State is seized, threatened, injured or killed; or

(c) it is committed in an attempt to compel that State to do or abstain from doing any act.

The pirates are breaking the law. The notion that no one can prosecute these jokers is ridiculous and ignorant. The people carrying out these attacks should be killed or, if captured, tried and imprisoned. Do nothing or paying protection money is a recipe for escalating violence and a culture of weakness.

We also need to put together a coordinated international naval escort operation. The U.S. 5th Fleet is not large enough to take on the mission alone. The rules of engagement need to be clearly spelled out–boats approaching ships without permission will be fired on. Individuals who attempt or carry out acts of piracy will be killed or apprehended and prosecuted.

In fairness to Obama, George W. Bush would be in the exact same position if this ship had been taken under his watch. But W ain’t President no more. This turd is in Obama’s punch bowl. We will see what Barack does to confront piracy. My bet? Not much.

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post103 Comments »

Comment by Gerard McNedich | 2009-04-08 11:35:37

this has got to be an all time low for America…

Obama is going to be more pathetic than Carter…

how sad for us all…

Comment by Peggy Sue | 2009-04-08 11:55:46

I was afraid right from the start that Obama would be Jimmy Carter on steroids. I don’t expect him to do much of anything but “hope” it all goes away. We just rapped the N. Koreans on the knuckles and reported them to the principal [the UN]. Everyone saw how well that worked.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda!

Fox just had a preliminary report that the Americans have managed to take the ship back.

So, we’ll see. But I agree, this probably won’t be the last crisis at sea.

 

Comment by FLDemFem | 2009-04-08 13:51:37

The crew has taken back the ship and captured one of the pirates, or so the Pentagon says. Here is the story from CNN..
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/08/ship.hijacked/index.html

American crew members have regained control of their U.S.-flagged ship from pirates who seized it off the coast of Somalia, a Pentagon official said Wednesday. Four hijackers boarded the Maersk Alabama earlier in the day and one is in custody, according to Pentagon officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The three others tried to escape, and their status is unknown, they said.

The company that owns the ship won’t confirm that it has been taken back from the pirates.

But the chief executive officer of the company that owns the Maersk Alabama played down the report that the vessel has been retaken by U.S. crew members, who are unarmed.

“We have no facts that confirm the ship has been retaken,” John Reinhart, CEO and president of Norfolk, Virginia-based Maersk Line Ltd., said at a news conference 12 hours after the hijacking.

He warned against speculation.

“I believe it’s premature to comment on that, and I don’t think it’s in the best interest of the safety of the crew to comment on that at this time,” Reinhart said.

God help the Pentagon if they put that story out for a publicity stunt. If anyone is harmed due to a fake story, there will be hell to pay. I just hope everyone comes out of it ok, and the pirates get what is coming to them.

Comment by FLDemFem | 2009-04-08 16:48:18

Latest thing off CNN is that the captain is being held hostage by pirates. The crew got the ship back but the pirates reneged on an agreement to swap the captured pirate for the captain. Anyone think Obummer will negotiate with the pirates for that captain’s life?

Comment by rw | 2009-04-08 21:09:50

Yes, I think he will negotiate. And, I’ll add sarcasm: he’ll do it in his Somali garb, like in the picture that surfaced during the primaries.

 
 
 
 

Comment by Mary Cusack | 2009-04-08 11:56:00

I am ashamed to be an american. whereever I travel I proudly show my IRISH passport and am thankful I have dual citizenship. Obama will make me hate America someday for what we are doing to it. He is sending us down the river and what are we doing about it. Worshiping his destruction that’’s what.

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-08 12:20:58

Mary, I too am completely ashamed to be American at this point, and am applying for dual citizenship with Italy. I can’t stand what these Anti-American scum are doing to us, and I want to show a passport of a country with at least some dignity remaining.

Comment by felizarte | 2009-04-08 12:58:44

Obama is not America! I am ashamed of him, but still proud to be an American because of the ideals of 1776 which will be again. There are still enough Americans to restore them.

Comment by C.S. | 2009-04-08 13:28:22

I’m ashamed of what our elected officials have done to help Soertoro/Obama stay in power but I am not ashamed of my country; only its present leaders.

And unlike you and Mr. Soertoro(Indonesian)/Obama (Kenyan), I do not have another passport other than USA. I can’t even dig around to find an ancient ancestor because they all predate the United States of America.

But then, since Soertoro/Obama’s loyalty lies with Saudi Kings and the Muslim world of terrorists rather than the U.S. Constitution, he only shames us if we chose to be his version of “good Germans” in this land where “patriotic Americans” have lost all reason.

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-08 13:31:50

C.S. My country voted for Obama. That’s my shame. That people were so uneducated, lazy and unwilling to hear the truth, that they put this country in the biggest danger in our history. My country did that, and my fellow countrymen. I no longer recognize my country. I didn’t choose this, and I continue to do what I can to fight it. I am also willing to fight it no matter how far it escalate. Please don’t try to imply that we are unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, the shame I feel is warranted IMO. We the People means ALL of us and look what our fellow countrymen did to us, and continue to support.

Comment by C.S. | 2009-04-08 14:29:35

I do not think the majority of People voted for Soertoro/Obama; they voted for Senator Clinton in the primaries and the nomination process was stopped by the VIP members of the Democratic convention and given to the Obama candidate by acclimation.

The votes did not show a landslide for the man they call Obama but only a 7.2% difference in his favor, about the same as some polls + or – reliability. So, considering the disenfranchisement of two states, and the democratic party seizing delegates from Clinton and other voters to give to Soertoro/Obama, few voters are to blame for this mess. I was not implying that those of us still trying to rectify this mistake aren’t patriotic, but those who enable Soertoro/Obama are unpatriotic. But I did not vote for this man just as I did not vote for George W. Bush. I do not approve of either one and refuse to feel shame or guilt over what they have done and what I, as an individual, could not change.

I can’t be ashamed to show my passport because I have no other, I am an American and I must live as an American. I must remember all the good my country has done and try my best to make the Obama regime a blip in time and not the total of what America stands for.

Members of my family have fought and died for our Constitution since before this country had a name and I can be angry and regret what the people controlling it at this moment have done in our name. However, most of us chose different ways of protest – staying home, voting 3rd party, voting Republican – so you can only be ashamed of the 52.92% who voted for him and that leaves 45.66% voting Republican. No, it doesn’t add up to 100% but then numbers in the 2008 election never did. And they don’t tell you how many voted for a 3rd party anymore but in the past it was usually about 10%. These people do not deserve to be lumped in with the 52.92% of people who supposedly voted for him.

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-08 17:13:30

I’m sorry…I’m just angry. My father fought for this country in WWII and my family is full of others who also fought for us. I am sooo pissed that even one person would vote for this moron. Much less thinking that 60 Million were conned. Ughhh…I love my country more than life itself, like everyone here does. But it kinda doesn’t resemble America much anymore.

Comment by tminu | 2009-04-09 00:02:13

66% of all voters voted in 2008
52% voted for Obama

so only 34.7% of all voters voted for the fraud

This means the vast majority of voters DID NOT vote for the illegal usurper

 
 

Comment by JozefAL | 2009-04-08 23:11:37

You’re wrong about the “usually 10%” part. There haven’t been that many cases since WWII where a third party or even ALL third parties combined have scored more than 5% of the total.
“They don’t tell you how many voted for a 3rd party anymore.” Well, the simple fact is “they” rarely did except in 1992 when Ross Perot won some 19 million votes and in 1996 when Perot won about 8 million votes. (Nader’s vote in 2000, amounting to a little more than 2% of the total vote was only mentioned because of the overall controversy.) It’s very easy to look up the votes for any Presidential election online and find how the votes went.
Looking at Wikipedia, here’s the percentage breakdown since 1948:
1948: D-49.6; R-45.1; Dixiecrat-2.4; Prog-2.4; Soc-0.3; Prohibition-0.2; Others- <0.1 (Only the first three received electoral votes–in order, 303, 189, 39–even though the Progressives received a similar vote to the Dixiecrats.)
1952: R-55.2; D-44.3; Others-0.5 (The other parties combined for less than 320,000 votes, with the Progressives alone comprising 44% of that vote.)
1956: R-57.4; D-42.0; StRts-0.2; UnpD-0.3; Others-0.2 (UnpD refers to slates of “Unpledged Democrats” in several Southern States. They could technically be added with the D count but they didn’t support the Party’s official candidate.)
1960: D-49.7; R-49.6; UnpD-0.4; Others-0.4 (This is actually harder since voters in Alabama and Georgia didn’t actually vote for a President, but rather electors and the states’ “total votes” for each party usually represent the largest number won by any of the various electors. The UnpD, again, could be included with the regular D.)
1964: D-61.0; R-38.5; UnpD-0.3; Others-0.3
1968: R-43.4; D-42.7; AmInd-13.5; Others-0.4
1972: R-60.7; D-37.5; AmInd-1.4; Others-0.4
1976: D-50.1; R-48.0; Others-1.9 (This year, there were 5 candidates who received between 0.1% and 0.9%.)
1980: R-50.7; D-41.0; Anderson/Ind-6.6; Lib-1.1; Others-0.6
1984: R-58.8; D-40.6; Lib-0.25; Others-0.35
1988: R-53.4; D-45.6; Lib-0.5; Others-0.5
1992: D-43.0; R-37.4; Perot/Ind-18.9; Lib-0.3; Others-0.4
1996: D-49.2; R-40.7; Reform-8.4; Grn-0.7; Lib-0.5; Others-0.5
2000: R-47.87; D-48.38; Grn-2.74; Reform-0.43; Lib-0.36; Others-0.22
2004: R-50.7; D-48.3; Nader/Ind-0.4; Lib-0.3; Others-0.3
2008: D-52.9; R-45.7; Nader/Ind-0.6; Lib-0.4; Others-0.4
Overall, since 1948, there’ve only been 5 elections where 3rd parties have won more than 5% of the total vote (in 2000, the combined total for 3rd parties amounted to less than 4%) and in only 3 of those elections did 3rd parties pull in a combined total of more than 10% (with only 1968 and 1992 having a single 3rd party candidate pull in more than 10% on his own)and in those three instances, a single candidate accounted for more than 80% of all 3rd party votes (additionally, in 1980, one candidate was responsible for nearly 80% of all 3rd party votes).

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-09 01:40:13

Why don’t we do this…You morons who keep barking about Bush…Keep it up. I will come back in 30 years and listen to your BS crap all over again. For the people who love America, can we vote out the trash regardless of party? I have finally figured out the AGENDA of the hard left nuts here…it’s okay if Congress and the White House are all hard left, but it’s just these particular nuts that aren’t blowing people’s skirts up. In other words, according to the nuts here, no GOP person should ever show up again. Nice try. The reason America works, when it DOES, is BALANCE.

 
 

Comment by Senneth | 2009-04-09 01:46:17

Bravo, C.S. I will never be ashamed to be an American. I am very angry so many people drank the kool-aid and literally became “Moonies” for That One. But our great nation will survive.

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by beebop | 2009-04-08 20:38:15

I’m ASHAMED that American voters are so easily had!

 

Comment by TeakwoodKite | 2009-04-09 01:20:09

Hey wait a fine second!

I am NOT Ashamed to be an American, ever!
I am ashamed that BO isn’t.

 
 
 

Comment by SusanUnPC | 2009-04-08 11:58:48

What a story, Larry. And what a treat to have your perspective — the perspective of an insider who knows what’s what, including the law and the possibilities.

Do you think that Obama will be taken to the SitRoom, and told about the option of sending in a SEAL team?

We really need a fly on the wall in that SitRoom. Or in the Joint Chiefs’ meetings … ohhhh … can you imagine what’s really going through their heads as they try to explain things to Obama, who has about a kindergartner’s comprehension compared to your own knowledge, Larry.

 

Comment by Docelder | 2009-04-08 12:08:29

I like the “surrender monkey” moniker. It suits him quite well… too well unfortunately. No ransom, for sure is the only way long term. Wink-wink ransoms are only going to endanger more people by encouraging future piracy. For crying out loud, this isn’t the 17th century so why are we treating these pirates like it is? I guess the same reason we have been rewarding North Korea and their bad behavior with concessions buy buying their cooperation. Just dressed down piracy in another form. No Ransom. End this once and for all by dealing with these pirates with prejudice. Then, force these shipping companies to hire armed guards and make them assume any cost that comes from it. It has to be less than the cost of staging a military rescue of the ship and crew. Force this by charging them exorbitantly for any military rescue needed because they did not adequately protect their crew and cargo. What is the cost insurance wise for these companies when crew members start to die? This must stop now.

 

Comment by Karma | 2009-04-08 12:09:11

Thanks for the common sense.

When hearing the media talk about these other shipping companies paying ransom. They make it sound like since there is a failed state there is nothing they can do….but pay.

Clearly, it just inspires more pirates if there is no risk of death. At this point, it looks like the biggest threat to the pirates was when they sunk with their money.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/01/11/7985841-sun.html

Obama meet Carter….sigh.

Comment by felizarte | 2009-04-08 13:01:21

Why do you suppose Carter supported him?

 
 

Comment by Hope Change and Unicorns | 2009-04-08 12:11:51

While Obama was assessing a course of action
Crew regains control of ship for themselves.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97ECKC80&show_article=1

Comment by termo | 2009-04-08 13:10:22

Obama will take credit for it I am sure.

 

Comment by Karma | 2009-04-08 13:17:33

So today’s message from Obama is….’Save yourselves!”

Sad thing is…..NQ debated and joked about him needing time to come up with his position during any situation.

Since he would no longer have anyone’s campaign platform or debate answers to cheat off of in the WH…a crisis would reveal him.

He might have lucked out on this one, with the crew fighting back.

Comment by Hope Change and Unicorns | 2009-04-08 13:48:34

Yes it is like the Bank of Scotland commercials. the crew didn’t have time for endlessly to “access the situation” have town hall meetings or to beg the King of Saudi Arabia to intervene.

 
 

Comment by foxyladi14 | 2009-04-08 18:13:12

i was betting on the crew..these pirates need to be stopped..ASAP…

 
 

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 12:12:31

Taking from the best internet plays on Obama’s name:

Borerack Insane Oblahblah is making Jimmy Carter look like an action hero. Everything is devolving in America.

Turning on Fox now to see if the reports are true about Americans taking back the ship.

 

Comment by beachnan | 2009-04-08 12:17:19

Why isn’t MSM all over this story? Obviously, it’s more important for them to showcase one of Obama’s worthless speeches or do a story on Michelle’s arms then to cover a story like this. Can you imagine the distress the family members of these American citizens must be feeling? Apparently, unless the story can be sensationalized, ala Natalie Holloway, then why bother. Unless it becomes sensationlized, then I can’t see the Obama administration making this a priority. Unless there’s a good photo op involved, don’t bother the Prez.

Comment by Boxer Mum 06 | 2009-04-08 12:30:50

Have you not heard? The Obamas are busy preparing for the new first dog. Apparently, they met the dog a few Sundays ago and he has been in training before his arrival to the WH this weekend.

Barry has the day off – don’t bug him about some damn pirates. Isn’t Jack Sparrow around to handle this for him?

Comment by PainkillerJayne | 2009-04-08 18:52:33

Thanks for the laugh Boxer Mum……..Jack Sparrow…omg I am dying here.

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 19:32:08

Jack Sparrow would be a better president.

Comment by PainkillerJayne | 2009-04-08 20:42:42

I believe Jack would be the better man.

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 22:43:39

Absolutely, PK Jayne, absolutely.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Comment by pm317 | 2009-04-08 12:20:42

What remains to be seen is what kind of policy response the Obama team will put together. I suspect it will be muddled and feckless until an American is killed. At that point the damage to Obama’s reputation will be done.

I won’t hold my breath. There were Americans killed in Mumbai attack but what has Obama done to Pakistan and its terrorist groups? Media will hide the details and how many here will know that these things even happened.

Comment by Baba Rum Raisin | 2009-04-08 13:22:54

Anybody remember the SS MAYAGUEZ?

Proof positive that a government run by agenda-driven idealogues who are too dumb to teach school and too lazy to paint houses can fuck up an anvil?

And, until one has a grasp of Maritime insurance (like knowing what a PANDI club is) and the US Maritime laws regarding USe of Deadly Force, one might wish to Engage Brain and Ears Before Putting Mouth Into Gear.

Comment by Docelder | 2009-04-08 14:06:38

I am just curious what any unique insurance requirements of maritime vessels has to do with the appropriate response to incidents like this? When we have hostages in commercial buildings here nobody calls the property insurer to ask what they think. If we had an air hijacking nobody considers the planes insurers at all. Why are these different from a ship? Is it just the international waters? Does America not have some right if not a moral obligation to do whatever may be necessary to protect it’s citizens even if they are on board a pirated ship?

Comment by Baba Rum Raisin | 2009-04-08 16:28:28

>>> I am just curious what any unique insurance requirements…ship?

Apart from a few years’ experience in the industry, these issues are addressed in two semesters at King’s Point, Mass Maritime or one solid course in Maritime Law at nearly any half-assed (or better) law school.

Which is why Maritime Lawyers get The Big Bucks, and have for 300 years or so.

(Bill Clinton taught ML at Yale.)

>>> Does America not have some right if not a moral obligation to do whatever may be necessary to protect it’s citizens even if they are on board a pirated ship?

Survivors of the dead mariners aboard the USNS LIBERTY have been asking that question since 1967.

IN GENERAL: If you are a US citizen aboard a ship NOT carrying a DoD cargo and your ship is jacked by pirates, the best advice is:

Kiss Your Ass Good-Bye.

Your skipper’s instructions are to, “Give ‘em the damned ship.”

Pirates have been jacking and boarding US-flag ships in the Straits of Malaccca, certain choke points in the Phillipines and off the African coasts (both of them) for years.

You might read these links:

http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=12

http://www.marad.dot.gov/news_room_landing_page/horn_of_africa_piracy/horn_of_africa_piracy.htm

http://www.marisec.org/piracy/

I am a licensed US Merchant Marine Officer since 1990 (Desert Storm) and have been boarded by pirates once (in the Phillipines – they got the $55K from the Master’s safe and our larger mooring lines) and “attacked” by pirates off Africa twice. We dropped concrete blocks on those scumbags when they attached their grapples, causing the boats to sheer off, leaving a couple of assholes hanging on a rope until we gave them a taste of the fire hose.

Hopefully, the screws got them or they otherwise became shark shit. No skin off my nose. Live by the sword, etc.

Although it is romantic to think of Uncle Sam as having whole battalions of multi-talented killers just standing around, waiting to play Snuff The Toads, the reality is that the last time a government showed me any shit was at Entebbe in 1976.

Comment by boonies | 2009-04-08 20:44:02

Baba Rum Raisin…

I believe ‘catch and release ‘ only works with gamefish, NOT vermin….Why cant a boatload or two of these grinning vermin disappear in the ocean as a deterrent to these men?
How hard is it to , say, equip a vessel with a 4 man fire team from the various UN members (Canada, French Legion,etc) and a 50-cal. chain gun? Plenty of firepower , mobile and more range than any RPG.And let the shipper pay the cost for the boys.OR…
Tell Egypt it is time for us to avoid the Suez and take the long route around the Cape(along with our transit fees) if they dont come south and help out maybe onshore where the port of origin is located?
Just asking…

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by andrew191 | 2009-04-08 12:24:24

It takes time for the love, appeasment, and submissiveness that maharishi 0bama is spreading to reach all the unenlightened pockets of the world. Instead of tea parties on the 15th, perhaps an international day of hugs and hand holding will convince all the bad people in the world that it’s no longer popular to be naughty.

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-08 12:46:07

As far as the teaparties, the big news is that those criminals from ACORN are going to be showing up undercover to get signatures of people, so they can let the Fraud know who doesn’t agree with his disastrous economic BS. So, there are emails going around telling people to just sign as “John Galt.” ROFLMAO.

Comment by Ashy1 | 2009-04-08 14:05:54

Thanks for the warning. I’m devising my signature now. I’m thinking about “Goanna F. Uzelf”:)

 

Comment by athena | 2009-04-08 14:16:31

Good plan or Dabney Taggert….

 
 

Comment by Baba Rum Raisin | 2009-04-08 19:21:31

>>> It takes time for the love, appeasment, and submissiveness…it’s no longer popular to be naughty.

“Grab Them by the Balls! Their Hearts and Minds Will Follow!” GYSGT R. van Delender, 1969

 
 

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 12:45:47

Well, Hurray for the Americans taking the ship back. It’s just what the country needed in light of the Peace, Love, Dope Tour Reverend Borerack Insane Oblahblah just completed.

Americans being Americans despite the non-response of the Oblahblah Sadministration is a thing of beauty. Doing the right thing despite the insult Oblahblah levied against America last week is a source of national pride.

 

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-08 12:48:02

Yes but the MSM will come in and state that the Fraud came to the rescue…he actually was flown to the site by his Helicopter, stripped off his fancy suit down to his skivvies, grabbed a few automatic weapons, and single-handedly retrieved our ship.

 

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 12:56:09

The MSM can do that but it’s already been on the wires that the Obama Sadministration had no response this morning.

Those that are following the situation will know it’s just smoke and mirrors once again! LOL!

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-08 12:58:15

“The Obama Sadministration?”

LMAO. Buzz you kill me.

 
 

Comment by Baba Rum Raisin | 2009-04-08 13:25:05

Anybody seen this one?

Tacky, but suggests that not everyone wants to ride the Unnity Unicorn to the Rainbow…

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da8_1239137290

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-08 13:48:21

Buzz, I don’t get this one. Mainly because I don’t speak the language. Can you ’splain please Lucy?

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 14:05:09

The video posted above?

The turkish newscaster has black make-up on or blackface in American parlance. It is considered an insult to African Americans, therefore an insult to America and Obama, apparently.

I don’t speak Turkish or believe that Obama’s World Tour has made any more friends.

Comment by Brian H | 2009-04-08 17:40:41

For Arabs and Muslims, blacks are actually the lowest of the low. They are the original slavers, and it’s a booming business to this day. That America actually elected one POTUS is considered a sure sign of complete debasement and stupidity.

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-08 17:51:16

Whatever color Obama is…doesn’t matter…it IS a total sign of debasement and stupidity all over the world that we elected him, and he got zero respect on that America Sucks World Tour, regardless of how the MSM lies about it.

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by SAINTIXE56 | 2009-04-08 13:34:16

thet are free, any comment now…
some people really got excited
much ado about nothing

Comment by Karma | 2009-04-08 13:46:37

Psst…The pirates don’t quit because one got away.

They should be dealt with and issue resolved. Or is hijacking a ship no big deal in your mind?

Did you happened to forget about the Ukrainian ship they seized with 33 tanks on board?

Much ado about nothing huh? Lawlessness and weapons….no biggie.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1844914,00.html

 
 

Comment by Patrick Walker | 2009-04-08 13:43:04

It’s really intersting that now only after Somalis have resorted to piracy the world pays attention.

Europeans were dumping medical waste just off the Somali coast, the Spanish were overfishing, and the US funded an illegal Ethiopian invasion of the country.

Sorry, I’m not sure I can blame the Somalis here.

Comment by Hope Change and Unicorns | 2009-04-08 14:08:39

No, I am sure you don’t. I am sure they were just going to borrow the ship to pick up medical waste.

 

Comment by Peggy Sue | 2009-04-08 16:01:08

Of course. Let’s not blame the pirates. Poor souls, they’re merely misunderstood Robin Hoods because I’m sure they’re sharing their misbegotten goods and cash with fellow Somalis to improve life conditions for everyone. And while we’re at it, let’s blame the West, particularly the United States and this big, bad ship loaded with African aide materials–you know, food, medical supplies, silly stuff like that.

And whenever you’re sure who to blame, please turn your finger at America. Why not? Everyone else does.

Pathetic!

Comment by Peggy Sue | 2009-04-08 16:03:11

Make that “not” sure.

 

Comment by politicalidentitycrisis | 2009-04-08 23:33:49

Gee Peggy Sue, that kind of sounds like how Obama wants to redistribute the wealth.

Pirate Obama it is!

 
 
 

Comment by dst | 2009-04-08 14:07:28

Captain still being held.

 

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 14:14:59

So the somalis wrong is somehow a right? Not sure the logic holds up. It’s okay to condone criminal behavior because the somalis have been picked on?

Sounds like liberal cheerleading at best.

With that kind of thinking we have an eye for an eye situation which is the thinking of, wait for it, Sharia Law.

 

Comment by Advocationist | 2009-04-08 14:28:52

Comment by Docelder | 2009-04-08 14:42:38

From the article:

the last pirate attack of an American vessel by African pirates was reported in 1804

Now we can’t say that anymore. I wonder how many things we aren’t going to be able to soon say anymore?

Comment by KintheNorthwest | 2009-04-08 14:47:45

That the US dollar is worth the paper its printed on…

 
 

Comment by Andy | 2009-04-08 18:43:54

And took the captain hostage with them?

 
 

Comment by mel | 2009-04-08 14:37:10

U.S. authorities met a few weeks ago with the owners of Maersk to discuss this very scenario and were politely told to “fuck off.” It seems that the Maersk folks would have to pay more insurance if they put armed personnel on board their ships to prevent hijackings. They have concluded that they are better off paying ransom.

Lesson on international shipping that Maersk did not mention and US authorities overlooked on this one. Maritime rules are that any unforseen expense or cost on any ship becomes a liability of every shipper who has goods aboard said vessel. Example, Ship Captain makes a mistake and hits rocks at low tide, destroying the ships propellers, the cost is divided up and charge to each container aboard the ship, refusal to pay forfits the contain.

So if the pirates demand and recieve a ransom payment, Maersk loses nothing, but the companies with goods onboard pay dearly.

Is this fair, not in the least to the companies, since Maersk can get broad insurance coverage and increase costs slightly on all shipments worldwide, instead they gamble and screw those who are onboard the vessel that is hijacked only. Figure a $3 million ranson on a vessel with 1000 containers on it, puts a burden on the companies with containers aboard paying an additional $3000/20 ft container (alomost double for a 40 ft container) to get their goods from Maersk or forfit their goods. Sometimes that is the entire profit the company makes off the container they ship with Maersk.

This again proves that Obama’s government runs from big business like letting the banks tell him what is what instead of demanding that the banks and now Maersk install safeguards to protect the benefit of the little folks, customers and eventually the consumers (meaning the American people)!

Comment by Docelder | 2009-04-08 14:51:01

When you think about it, it sounds like the perfect way for terrorist organizations to raise money. What are a small group of Somali’s going to do with three million dollars to begin with? What? Buy up the coastline real estate?

Comment by pm317 | 2009-04-08 15:52:26

“Buy up the coastline real estate?”

In fact yes, there are thriving towns mushrooming from this ransom-based economy (don’t have links but there are news stories about this.)

 
 
 

Comment by OxyCon | 2009-04-08 14:41:33

Obama’s thoughtless and reckless rhetoric has just made America weaker in Pakistan:

Report: Pakistan rejects U.S. plan, wants drones

Dawn newspaper reported that Pakistan also asked the U.S. to turn over the unmanned drone missions over the territory to them, saying that the drone strikes were fueling extremism.

And The Independent published an interview with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday in which he said Pakistan would go after high-value targets on their own if the U.S. would hand over its drone technology and intelligence.

“President Obama once said that he would act if we weren’t willing and able,” Zardari said. “We certainly are willing and with international support we will become even more able.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/report-pakistan-rejects-u.s.-plan-wants-drones-2009-04-08.html

Comment by dst | 2009-04-08 15:01:10

If we were so stupid to do as above, how long would it take before the first one was shot down over India?

 

Comment by WMCB | 2009-04-08 15:23:46

This is what we get for having a clueless rube in the whitehouse, who does not seem to understand that presidents can’t just say whatever pops into their head, not even if they think it’s true.

International relations is a machiavellian dance, and the idiot-in-chief is SO out of his league.

 
 

Comment by Peggy Sue | 2009-04-08 15:17:44

Well, on the pirating issue, we now find out the Captain and one crew member have been taken hostage by the pirates. US warships are headed to the scene [not sure how far away they are].

So, this whole thing goes up another notch.

Comment by Docelder | 2009-04-08 15:37:18

Seems I read the closest ship was 300 miles away when it happened. It has probably been headed that way since the start. No doubt the pirates are over matched, provided the Navy is allowed to respond as necessary. Piracy, terrorism, lawlessness whatever it is called can’t be tolerated. A clear line needs to be drawn. This is the first hijacking of an American flagged vessel by African pirates since 1804… 205 years ago since the last time is happened. Like it or not, the response to this incident telegraphs a message.

 

Comment by Hope Change and Unicorns | 2009-04-08 16:15:03

0bama has every chance to be a hero right now. this is a total softball. Send the navy prove that your the man and won’t bow down to pirates just Saudi Kings. (who likes pirates?) We can call it “War on Piracy” since we have given up on The War on Terror..

 
 

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 15:28:11

Obama is looking more and more like a horse’s patootie. No matter how this thing ends up, Obama looks weak.

Send good vibes, prayers and what have you to the Americans in the mess. It’s obvious Obama doesn’t know what to do.

Is he being derelict in his duties?

 

Comment by Lisabona | 2009-04-08 16:25:21

There are people who drink ICE TEA – Kool Aid- 0bamaboots and those of us, who drink the real tea, the HOT one, which are the real TEA PARTY ” drinkers”.

 

Comment by ziggy | 2009-04-08 16:39:17

The US currently heads the Combined Maritime Forces, an anti-piracy fleet in the Gulf of Aden that includes the warships of 20 different nations. The pirates are simply working around it. Once a hijacking has occurred, it comes down to the question of whether you want to pay ransom, or lose innocent lives and incur financial damages that vastly exceed the demanded ransom. You could put capturing or killing any particular pirates involved in any particular incident at the top of the international priority list, but those remaining afterward would still be as numerous as swarming cockroaches. The problem is that they have the support of the population in their safe havens ashore, which are widely dispersed. Basically the international community has to deal with the entire situation in Somalia to get meaningful results.

So far as open confrontation goes, I think a far more effective strategy would be the introduction of heavily armed and armored decoy ships that would travel alone and appear as highly inviting and vulnerable targets. They could be documented before departure with falsified cargo manifests and falsified insurance data. Pirates go out, but they don’t come back. After a while things would change.

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-04-08 20:12:02

Thus spoke the arm-chair warrior.

LMAO at Zippy the Pinhead.

 
 

Comment by getfitnow | 2009-04-08 16:49:03

O/T but is there an update on the 2 reporters, from Al Gore’s tv station, captured in N Korea?

 

Comment by skinny malinky | 2009-04-08 17:36:10

So the president should have known where the pirates were going to attack (even though this is in a different place than where they’ve been attacking) and have the navy there (the navy was in the area where the attacks were happening) and be able, instantaneously, to send in a SEAL team since he would have had all necessary information and recon right away to know exactly what the risks were and be able to make an informed decision?

And you say Obama supporters think he’s the messiah; you’re expecting some pretty God-like behavior there.

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 20:00:07

Think what ever your pointy little obot head wants to, Skanky Malignancy.

You obots are the ones who tried to sell him as the messiah. How’s that working out for you?

Comment by skinny malinky | 2009-04-09 17:23:44

I never thought Obama was a messiah. The whole “Obama supporters think he’s the messiah” thing was a hyperbole used by those opposed to Obama to try and make his supporters look crazy, and also to try to raise expectations for Obama to an unreachable level. And then, when he shows himself not to be a messiah, you make it sound like his supporters must be so upset to learn he’s not a deity. You’re making up your own reality, then acting like the rest of us live in it.

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-09 17:25:40

Skanky Malanky…His supporters ARE crazy!

 
 
 
 

Comment by Desert Diva | 2009-04-08 18:16:26

Comment by Andy | 2009-04-08 18:42:32

Puh-leez… How old are you:

“but but… look.. look Bambi’s approval ratings…”

Carter had 65%-77% approval ratings at this stage …. So?

 

Comment by Buzz Latte | 2009-04-08 19:36:43

Hey Desert Driedup Dipshit,

Too bad Bloomberg doesn’t tell what the percentage of sampling was with those numbers. If they ask ten obots and 2 GOP guess what, Oblahblah is going to look pretty good.

Learn statistics.

 

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-04-08 19:42:15

So you run your life in accordance with polls. Who would have guessed that? I bet you bought the neatest new cell-phone, too, but are too mentally-challenged to use it since you’re so into the look but not so much the workings of it. Every business and shyster in the known Universe is waiting for you, toots. Good luck, drone.

 

Comment by WhatNow | 2009-04-09 03:43:24

‘Nough said, it’s a NYTimes Poll. That’s really credible.

 
 

Comment by LAUREN | 2009-04-08 19:18:41

Now Obama is BOWING to the Saudi king!

Comment by PainkillerJayne | 2009-04-08 20:35:52

Lauren that has been debunked…..The White House put out a press brief… he was shaking hands with someone who was shorter than he and had to bend over.

Oh the irony never ends…..and that was after about 4 days, I would think they could have come up with a better excuse than that!

Change is for Chumps

Comment by ziggy | 2009-04-08 21:20:21

Uh… I would like to accept that explanation, but it would seem to require us to believe that the Saudi King is only 3 feet tall.

Comment by WMCB | 2009-04-08 22:52:35

 
 
 
 

Comment by Collette | 2009-04-08 21:38:09

Well, we know Barack Hussein Obama hates America.

 

Comment by JS | 2009-04-08 22:22:44

“In fairness to Obama, George W. Bush would be in the exact same position if this ship had been taken under his watch”

Other than a nod to the eternal flame of PCness, I have no idea what would be the point of adding this line to the above story. And virtually everyone out there writing does it. Any and every president, muslim or not, would be in the same position. So what? “In fairness”? To a fellow who hates every damned thing about this country? Who bows to muslim leaders? Who spent 20 years in a racist “church”? Who sleeps better, knowing that newborns are being abandoned to die? Obama is actually an evil man. When, oh when are all of you going to stop with the massaging? Obama is a genuine enemy of America. A quisling. And it’s A-OK to actually say so.

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-09 00:07:52

JS…awesome.

 
 

Comment by TeakwoodKite | 2009-04-09 01:52:13

Mr. Johnson. Here is what I do not get.

This coast line.. and 250 miles out to sea are the “motherships” that launch these pirate skiffs and transports assasins. The same transportation model was used to attack India. Are you telling me that the Navy can’t set a screen /pick for boats that are more than just fishing boats? Seriously? Now it is a big ocean but with the recent collision in the straits of Hormuz, it would appear they can’t keep from bumping into each other.

How many carrier groups are stationed of Iran now? Brother can you spare some intergrated airborne radar platforms?

Comment by viking | 2009-04-09 02:10:46

You GO TeakwoodKite!

 
 

Comment by Hope Change and Unicorns | 2009-04-09 11:20:51

“Obama declines comment on US hostage crisis off Somalia”

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWBT01101720090409

What in the hell is going on?

Comment by KintheNorthwest | 2009-04-09 11:24:16

Obama probably lost the key to his Teleprompter

 
 

RSS Feed for This PostPost a Comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)