More on the Pirate Hostage Rescue . . . and Obama's Pathetic Attempt to Claim Credit After the Fact

Hmmm -- Riehl World View picks up on the fact that the ship's captain held hostage was relieving himself over the side of the lifeboat when Navy snipers saw their chance and took out the three Somali pirates onboard.

Meanwhile,  Beldar writes (via Patterico):

If you're wondering why I've been so churlish in not extending even a nod of appreciation to our Commander in Chief, read this paragraph tucked away near the end of the New York Times' account of the rescue:

The Defense Department twice asked Mr. Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently late on Friday night, senior defense officials said. On Saturday morning, the president agreed to permit action, they said, but only if it appeared that the captain’s life was in imminent danger.

Then tell me: When, exactly, during this entire episode was Captain Phillips' life not in imminent danger? Why did Barack Obama have to sleep on the decision whether to permit our military commanders on the scene to use their own judgment as to whether to kill pirates who had attacked an American vessel and were holding its captain hostage? If this paragraph from the NYT is correct, then even if our forces had clear shots at all of the pirates simultaneously prior to Saturday morning, they lacked Obama's permission to take them. And that is outrageous and, on the part of our nominal Commander in Chief, pathetic.

Yes, I suppose Obama could have been more pathetic — he could have refused permission altogether. But Obama obviously thinks he's our Defense Lawyer in Chief, maybe Defense Lawyer for the World. And that's not the job he's in — that's emphatically not the oath he took last January, and there are times, including this one, when it could be inconsistent with the oath he took last January. Obama's operating under a delusion that is very dangerous for America and the rest of the free world. Color me unsurprised but still disappointed.

. . . .

UPDATE (Mon Apr 13 @ 2:45am): Someone is re-writing the first draft of history. The paragraph I quoted above from the NYT now reads (at the same URL, but with no acknowledgment of having been stealth edited)(additions in red, deletions in strikeout):

The Defense Department twice sought asked Mr. Obama’s for permission to use military force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently late on Friday night, senior defense officials said. On Saturday morning, the president agreed to permit action, they said, but only if it appeared that the captain’s life was in imminent danger.

The other changes are minor, but the phrase "but only" has completely disappeared, which changes the emphasis significantly to make Pres. Obama seem less squeamish.

And in the Politico.com version, you can almost hear the chorus singing "Brave, Brave Sir Robin" in the background as they, umm, associate the POTUS' valor with that of the SEALs and Captain Phillips:

President Barack Obama issued a standing order to use force against pirates holding an American captain hostage — including giving a Navy commander the authority to act if he believed the captain’s life was in danger, two senior defense officials said Sunday night.

Aha. Now it's a "standing order." (¿Quien es mas macho: Barack Obama, Jack Lord, o Lloyd Bridges?) If, as the NYT insisted, Obama's permission was conditioned on the danger to Captain Phillips' life having been "imminent," Politico.com's reporters can't find the bandwidth to mention that. As for when the go-ahead was actually given, Politico.com, contra what the NYT still says, insists that "A timeline provided by the White House showed he issued the orders to use force at 8 p.m. Friday, and again at 9:20 a.m. Saturday, after new Navy forces moved on to the scene." Which would make the re-issued Saturday morning order sort of, ya know, redundant if the first order were both given on Friday night and really a "standing order." (This takes to new extremes — something under 14 hours — Jim Geraghty's frequent observation to the effect that every statement made by Barack Obama comes with an expiration date, because "standing orders" now have to be repeated at least twice a day.)

Keep in mind, friends and neighbors, that this was a five-day standoff. Whether we credit the NYT's version of events or Politico.com's, our military apparently only had shoot-to-kill authority for something under the last 24 hours of it. And that, I repeat, is simply pathetic.

Look, any objective observer can see what happened here.  Barack Obama did not take a public stand before the outcome of events.  He did not put himself on the record.  He waited to see what would happen, and then took the credit for an excellent result brought about by the U.S. Navy.  If the rescue operation had failed, Obama had left no "fingerprints."

One more thing:  If the Navy took out the pirates when Captain Phillips was merely relieving himself rather than in immediate danger of being shot by the pirates, then the Navy may have overstepped the limit that Obama intended to set.  If so, it certainly had reasonable cause and a defensible justification, since negotiations had stalled, night was falling, and time was not on the hostage's side.  

If it had gone badly, I have no doubt that Obama would be distancing himself from the Navy at this hour, and probably calling for someone's head on a platter.

Update:  The Political Inquirer has more perspective on the inevitable media attempt to spin this as a "military" victory for the weak-kneed Obama:

Analysis: Obama scores win on pirate crisis
His administration passes its first critical national security test

…against 4 lightly armed pirates in an out-of-gas lifeboat with a single hostage, taking 4 days to pass.

… as a bit player who issued a general instruction on force that he had to clarify the next day and even that was stretched unbelievably to carry out a successful rescue by the line officers.

The MSM (especially MSNBC) certainly have dumbed down the ‘testing’, haven’t they?

First off, let me say that Obama did not give in to his most liberal tendencies and refuse to allow force and for that I- and all involved at the scene- are grateful.  Next, I like to commend the line officers involved and am just in awe of the Navy SEALS.  Three simultaneous headshots- one through a glass portal- against a bobbing boat?  Just, WOW! And last but certainly not least, Capt. Phillips who took care of 95% of the ’security test’ on his own without a Harvard degree or legions of ‘experts’. The good Captain just oozes courage and leadership.

A ‘national security test’ for Obama? Please!  His instruction was to ‘use force if the hostage is in imminent danger’   Well, Duh!  And the actual events- had they gone the least bit wrong- would have led to calls for court-marshals.  The instant response to what was ‘imminent danger’?  He had an AK-47 pointed at his head.  As if that hadn’t happened a lot over the previous 4 days!  One of the pirate thugs was negotiating, they were being towed in the direction they wished to go, and they had a single hostage; two of the pirates had their heads stuck out to catch some breeze, while the other covered the hostage.  Very little ‘imminent danger’ at that point.  It was an act of opportunity and the right action was carried out flawlessly; but Obama had little to do with it.  The Imperial News media will have the Big O all but pulling the trigger, though.

Comments

[ron rose]

ha...did you just call yourself an "objective observer"- i wonder if you really believe yourself?