Enemy in the White House; BHO Blocked Navy from Rescuing Captain

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • 4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA
    Enemy in the White House; BHO Blocked Navy from Rescuing Captain

    And they are giving the Mansourian President credit for the save. The question one must ask oneself is, who was Hussein secretly rooting for in this stand off?
    President Obama Restricted Navy SEALs From Rescuing Ship Captain With Force (hat tip Larwyn)

    Now this is interesting if true, and not surprising in the least. (h/t Ex-Liberal In Hollywood)
    Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

    1. BHO wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

    2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger

    3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction

    4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

    5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.

    6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies

    7. BHO immediately claims credit for his “daring and decisive” behaviour. As usual with him, it’s BS.

    So per our last email thread, I’m downgrading Oohbaby’s performace to D-. Only reason it’s not an F is that the hostage survived.

    Read the following accurate account.

    Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.

    The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.
    The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.

    After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he’d had enough.

    Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

    Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.
    There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

    Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

    Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

    What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
    Shocking! Not…..
     

    citizenvain

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 1, 2009
    154
    16
    Indianapolis
    Since I'm sure I'm already on the "list", yeah, I totally see this as being what happend. Call me a consipiracy theorist or nut job, but I find it odd that the Obama administration had no comment (even when pressed) about the pirate situation during it, but then after the SEALS resolved it, the mainstream media couldn't give Obama credit quick enough.

    We are in interesting times where every tidbit of information is more marketing than news.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,043
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    cit, the Media sold their souls for Clinton's Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, but Obama is one of THEM. They will do anything, legal or not, to protect him.

    As to these claims, if true, they merit impeachment.

    As for me, I never attribute to malice what can be attributed to good, old human stupidity.

    In this White House, there is plenty of stupidity.
     

    r3126

    Sharpshooter
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   0
    Dec 3, 2008
    709
    63
    Indy westside
    I was told essentially the same story by a friend (retired senior naval officer) who lives in the Virginia Beach area and who has maintaind ties with the active duty community. A "clusterf#*k averted by an on-scene commander willing to take some responsibility.

    Without appearing as a know-it-all: ROE are Rules of Engagement and RIB is a rigid inflatable boat.
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    So, he DID Carter it, after all. The only reason it wasn't a Desert One type fiasco is that it was at the beginning of Obamy's term rather than the end like Carter. He hasn't yet had the opportunity to destroy the military ala Carter. He's working on it though, in 3 years this kind of rescue will be unlikely.
     

    4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA
    need-to-know

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Security Clearance Process for State[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [SIZE=+1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and Local Law Enforcement[/FONT][/SIZE]


    It is the policy of the FBI to share with law enforcement personnel pertinent information regarding terrorism. In the past, the primary mechanism for such information sharing was the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). In response to the terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001, the FBI established the State and Local Law Enforcement Executives and Elected Officials Security Clearance Initiative. This program was initiated to brief officials with an established "need-to-know" on classified information that would or could affect their area of jurisdiction.
    Most information needed by state or local law enforcement can be shared at an unclassified level. In those instances where it is necessary to share classified information, it can usually be accomplished at the Secret level. This brochure describes when security clearances are necessary and the notable differences between clearance levels. It also describes the process involved in applying and being considered for a clearance.
    State and local officials who require access to classified material must apply for a security clearance through their local FBI Field Office. The candidate should obtain from their local FBI Field Office a Standard Form 86 (SF 86), Questionnaire for National Security Positions; and two FD-258 (FBI applicant fingerprint cards). One of two levels of security clearance, Secret or Top Secret, may be appropriate.
    The background investigation and records checks for Secret and Top Secret security clearance are mandated by Presidential Executive Order (EO). The EO requires these procedures in order for a security clearance to be granted; the FBI does not have the ability to waive them.
    Secret Clearances


    A Secret security clearance may be granted to those persons that have a "need-to-know" national security information, classified at the Confidential or Secret level. It is generally the most appropriate security clearance for state and local law enforcement officials that do not routinely work on an FBI Task Force or in an FBI facility. A Secret security clearance takes the least amount of time to process and allows for escorted access to FBI facilities. The procedure is as follows:
    • FBI performs record checks with various Federal agencies and local law enforcement, as well as, a review of credit history.
    • Candidate completes forms SF-86 and FD-258. Once favorably adjudicated for a Secret security clearance, the candidate will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement.
    Top Secret Clearances
    A Top Secret clearance may be granted to those persons who have a "need-to-know" national security information, classified up to the Top Secret level, and who need unescorted access to FBI facilities, when necessary. This type of clearance will most often be appropriate for law enforcement officers assigned to FBI Task Forces housed in FBI facilities.
    In addition to all the requirements at the Secret level, a background investigation, covering a 10-year time period, is required.
    Once favorably adjudicated for a Top Secret security clearance, the candidate will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement.
    Questions and Answers (Q&A):
    Q: Who should apply for a security clearance?
    A: State or local officials whose duties require that they have access to classified information, and who are willing to undergo a mandatory background investigation.
    Q: What is the purpose of a background investigation?
    A: The scope of the investigation varies with the level of the clearance being sought. It is designed to allow the government to assess whether a candidate is sufficiently trustworthy to be granted access to classified information. Applicants must meet certain criteria, relating to their honesty, character, integrity, reliability, judgement, mental health, and association with undesirable persons or foreign nationals.
    Q: If an individual occupies an executive position with a law enforcement agency, must he or she still undergo a background investigation in order to access classified information?
    A: An Executive Order (EO), issued by the President, requires background investigations for all persons entrusted with access to classified information. The provisions of the EO are mandatory, cannot be waived, and apply equally to all federal, state, and local law enforcement officers. This is true of both Secret and Top Secret security clearances.
    Q: How long does it normally take to obtain a Secret security clearance?
    A: It is the goal of the FBI to complete the processing for Secret security clearances within 45 to 60 days, once a completed application is submitted. The processing time for each individual case will vary depending upon its complexity.
    Q: How long does it normally take to obtain a Top Secret security clearance?
    A: It is the goal of the FBI to complete the processing for Top Secret security clearances within 6 to 9 months, once a completed application is submitted. The processing time for each individual case will vary depending upon its complexity
    Q: What kind of inquiries will the FBI make into my background?
    A: Credit and criminal history checks will be conducted on all applicants. For a Top Secret security clearance, the background investigation includes additional record checks which can verify citizenship for the applicant and family members, verification of birth, education, employment history, and military history. Additionally, interviews will be conducted of persons who know the candidate, and of any spouse divorced within the past ten years. Additional interviews will be conducted, as needed, to resolve any inconsistencies. Residences will be confirmed, neighbors interviewed, and public records queried for information about bankruptcies, divorces, and criminal or civil litigation. The background investigation may be expanded if an applicant has resided abroad, or has a history of mental disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse. A personal interview will be conducted of the candidate.
    Q: If I have a poor credit history or other issues in my background, will this prevent me from getting a security clearance?
    A: A poor credit history, or other issues, will not necessarily disqualify a candidate from receiving a clearance, but resolution of the issues will likely take additional time. If the issues are significant, they may prevent a clearance from being approved.
    Q: If I choose not to apply for a security clearance, will I still be informed about counterterrorism issues important to my jurisdiction?
    A: Absolutely. If the FBI receives information relevant to terrorism which may impact your jurisdiction, you will be informed by your local Field Office, through the Law Enforcement Online network, via NLETS, and through other available mechanisms which are approved for the transmission of unclassified information. Most terrorism-related information can be provided in an unclassified form.
    Q: Are there any other advantages or disadvantages to receiving unclassified or classified terrorism-related information?
    A: An additional advantage of receiving unclassified terrorism-related information is that there may be fewer restrictions on your ability to further disseminate it within your jurisdiction. Classified information may only be disseminated to other cleared persons, who also have a need-to-know.
    Q: What is the difference between an interim and a full security clearance? A: Interim clearances are granted in exceptional circumstances where official functions must be performed before completion of the investigative and adjudicative processes associated with the security clearance procedure. There is no difference between an interim and a full security clearance as it relates to access to classified information. However, when such access is granted, the background investigation must be expedited, and, if unfavorable information is developed at anytime, the interim securityclearance may be withdrawn. If you have any additional questions, and/or wish to apply for a security clearance, please contact your local FBI field office.
     

    kedie

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Jun 5, 2008
    2,036
    38
    Southeast of disorder.
    Obama gets no credit for the rescue from me. Even if he authorized the use of force from the first second of the incident. Barack Obama hasn't dedicated his life to defending our country. Barack Obama hasn't spent weeks, months, and years away from his family to defend our country. Barack Obama hasn't put in thousands of hours and gallons of sweat training to defend our country. Finally, Barack Obama didn't pull the trigger on a single one of those weapons that the SEALs used to save that captian. The US Navy gets 100% of the credit for this one.:twocents:
     

    fire1035

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 30, 2008
    124
    16
    So then the last president gets no credit for taking us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, deposing an oppressive regime in one and a dictator in the other? As well as maintaining a foreign policy for keeping us all safe from further attacks on our soil since September 11th?
     

    kedie

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Jun 5, 2008
    2,036
    38
    Southeast of disorder.
    So then the last president gets no credit for taking us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, deposing an oppressive regime in one and a dictator in the other? As well as maintaining a foreign policy for keeping us all safe from further attacks on our soil since September 11th?

    The last POTUS gets credit for taking us into the wars. Credit for actually deposing of Saddam and the Taliban goes to the military. Bush should also get the credit for maintaining his policies, but credit for actually keeping us safe goes to CIA, FBI, NSA, Border Patrol, LEO's, ect.

    Obama should get credit for the decision to, or not to, use force on the pirates. I've heard people say he is directly responsible for the rescue, and to me, that's a slap in the face to the people that actually rescued this guy.
     

    fire1035

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 30, 2008
    124
    16
    Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the new guy I'm just saying credit is due where credit is due. If he has balls enough to authorize the use of force to rescue an American citizen then good on him. I have given him credit for two decisions thus far, this one and telling GM and Chrysler to go pound sand. The rest of his decisions, including the photo of him and Chavez shaking hands that made throw up in my mouth, are ******** and misguided at best.
     

    bullet293

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 22, 2009
    171
    16
    OMOKOK
    LOL. IF OBAMA SAVES THE WORLD SOME OF YOU WOULD STILL BE BIT#@*NG ABOUT HIM. HE IS NOT MY SAVIOR EITHER BUT GIVE HIM A BREAK. ITS GONNA TAKE A LOT TO GET US OUT OF THIS HELL G.W. AND DICK C GOT US INTO. WHAT HES BEEN ON THE JOB 90 DAYS? DON'T FORGET BUSH THREATENED MARTIAL LAW IF HE DIDN'T GET THE WALL STREET BAIL OUT. DID YOU GUYS RAG BUSH WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE? WHATS BAD SO FAR? LOWER TAXES IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN $250000, STOP THE SPYING ON AMERICANS? NO NEW GUN BAN? DIPLOMANCY WITH THE WORLD? TORTURE? OR IS IT BECAUSE HE IS A NEGRO? THE WORST THING SO FAR IS THAT HES NOT GONNA HAVE GW AND DICK HUNG FOR BEING TRAITORS. THOSE TWO DILDOS DID EVERYTHING BUT PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. I HOPE YOU ALL SPEND AS MUCH TIME WRITING YOU REPS. AS YOU DO WHINING ON HERE ABOUT LOSING THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. THANK GOD PALIN AND MCCAIN WERE IDIOTS. RON PAUL WAS THE ONLY DECENT CHOICE WE HAD AND DIDNT EVEN MAKE IT ON THE BALLOT.
     

    4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA
    obama_head_up_ass.jpg
     

    El Cazador

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 17, 2009
    1,100
    36
    NW Hendricks CO

    I'm not even going to quote your ranting to give it any wisp of legitimacy. Want to try and back up any of it, especially the racist stupidity?

    And a Ron Paul supporter. Why don't you explain why Rep. Paul would pick popular bills to add lots of his own earmarks into, then vote against the bill to claim "I don't vote for earmarks" when he knew the bill would still pass with his "nay" vote.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 17, 2008
    3,121
    36
    NE Indiana
    LOL. IF OBAMA SAVES THE WORLD SOME OF YOU WOULD STILL BE BIT#@*NG ABOUT HIM. HE IS NOT MY SAVIOR EITHER BUT GIVE HIM A BREAK.

    This is where you and I must differ. I don't believe that he will save us. I think he is, and will continue, to compound our financial problems.

    ITS GONNA TAKE A LOT TO GET US OUT OF THIS HELL G.W. AND DICK C GOT US INTO. WHAT HES BEEN ON THE JOB 90 DAYS? DON'T FORGET BUSH THREATENED MARTIAL LAW IF HE DIDN'T GET THE WALL STREET BAIL OUT.

    Yes, it will. The deeper we dig our financial hole then the higher we have to climb to work out way out of said hole.

    I don't know you so may be you are just having a bad day today. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Obama has been in the job of President for roughly 100 days, but what was his job before that? Yeah... A Senator that voted for the same legislation under Bush that helped contribute to our woes of today. "O" didn't start into politics 100 days ago, he had his seat reserved on this train.

    My personal feeling about this is that Bush had us in a big Lincoln Town Car heading for the cliff of economic despair. "O" has now dropped our country into a Porsche running in top gear and the RPM gauge pegged toward that same cliff. Does that make Bush better than "O" in my eyes? No, it doesn't. But "O" is quickly running out of time to blame things on the prior administration and is fast approaching the point where he will have to accept the consequences for what his own policies are doing to us.

    DID YOU GUYS RAG BUSH WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE?

    I, personally, did, yes. If only you could talk to my wife and hear it from her how many times she threatened to ban me from my computer, from the television, from my newspapers. If I would have had the money to hop an airplane for Washington, D.C. to go meet Bush personally, or Pence or Lugar, I would STILL be in jail for trying to slap the back of their collective heads.

    WHATS BAD SO FAR? LOWER TAXES IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN $250000, STOP THE SPYING ON AMERICANS?

    Without disclosing my income, my taxes did not go down for a couple of reasons, none of which had anything to do with any kind of blessing from "O".

    And you do know that "O", after he got into office and was read in for his security clearance, is now DEFENDING the spying program and trying to have the various cases that are going to court thrown out using the very same arguments that Bush used while he was in office? For all the "hope and change", he is using many of the same tired, lame tactics that Bush used. I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two of them, so why should I give "O" a pass?

    NO NEW GUN BAN?

    Please read a few of the threads here on INGO that deal with this topic. Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid, "O", Emanuel... all have flip-flopped on this issue, and a couple of them have publicly stated that they "will pick the time and place" to address AWB legislation. The concensus, IMO, seems to be "not right now" Their words weren't taken out of context, the words weren't directed at other countries to tighten their laws. They were talking about you and I - or at least me because I don't know if you are a firearm owner or not.

    DIPLOMANCY WITH THE WORLD?

    You say diplomacy, I saw throwing more money at other countries to try to get them to back down off of their rhetoric.

    - U.S. donating money for abortions in other parts of the world
    - Giving Mexico helicopters, weapons and money to combat drug cartels
    - DREAM program for illegals in the U.S. TORTURE?
    - Mexican truck pilot program letting Mexican drivers come here with no safety inspections
    - Using the State Department to bring Cambodians here and setting them up with Medicaid, welfare and foodstamps with improper documentation
    - Many more, but you get the point.

    OR IS IT BECAUSE HE IS A NEGRO?

    And this has anything to do with what? I don't dislike the man, I dislike his policies and his agenda for where he would like for this country to be in 3 years and change. In this thread, no one has written a word about race until you brought it up. I take offense that you did. I like to think that members on INGO are above such petty strawman tactics.

    THE WORST THING SO FAR IS THAT HES NOT GONNA HAVE GW AND DICK HUNG FOR BEING TRAITORS. THOSE TWO DILDOS DID EVERYTHING BUT PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.

    While you're making up those two nooses you might want to buy a few more feet of rope and light a few candles because it is going to be a long night for you. You need another 535 nooses to hang all the Representatives and Senators that actively aided Bush and now "O" in this economic mess. With your quote above, do you honestly think that "O" has our best interests at heart with what he is doing to the deficit of not just my (gen X'er) generation, not just my son's generation, but my GRANDKID'S generation?

    Maybe you are different than I am and can follow "O's" advice of spend, spend, spend to stimulate the economy to jumpstart this process. I can't. I JUST CAN'T and face my son to look him in the eye and tell him that I did everything I could to be a responsible man, husband and father. I can't spend my way out of debt.

    I HOPE YOU ALL SPEND AS MUCH TIME WRITING YOU REPS. AS YOU DO WHINING ON HERE ABOUT LOSING THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.

    I write snail mail letters, I email, I telephone, I visit my state politicians in my home area and make regular trips down to Indy to visit them in their offices when it is warranted. I catch my U.S. politicians when they are in my home area to do the same with them. So, yeah, again I do my part as a man, as a husband and as a father.

    THANK GOD PALIN AND MCCAIN WERE IDIOTS. RON PAUL WAS THE ONLY DECENT CHOICE WE HAD AND DIDNT EVEN MAKE IT ON THE BALLOT.

    I actually like Palin because she was the answer to every feminist's dream. She is successful in her career, she is the primary breadwinner for her family, she literally puts the meat on the table by being a hunter and a conservationist, she is a working mother with a disabled child, she faced a personal decision in her life about abortion with whether to keep one of her own children or not, she is a mother dealing with a daughter's teen pregnancy... on and on and on.

    Her biggest problem was that she had to fight the Republican Party in addition to the Democratic Party in the election. She scared the tar out of the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans with the type of woman she is.

    And yep, then we have Ron Paul. My opinion is that third party candidates have little to no chance of winning a national election as it currently stands. After the Tea Parties on the 15th, we may be seeing a turnaround in people's opinions. I sure hope so because the last couple of decades have been rough on all of us.
     
    Top Bottom