« Obama ‘Disarmament Lesson’ Annoys French Officials: Le Figaro, France
“Pirates”: They Were Teenagers, and The Elders Too Often Asleep »
Thoughts On The Rescue
As I have been following coverage of the rescue of Capt. Phillips and the reaction from various political site I find some of the reactions less than sincere.
Let me make my own views clear from the start. I think the Navy Seals as well as all of their comrades deserve a major pat on the back. I also think that everyone in the Obama adminstration from the President on down deserve praise for their very effective handling of this crisis.
To that end I am disturbed by some right leaning sites like RedState taking a ‘we can’t give Obama credit for this’ attitude. The fact of the matter is that he is the man in charge, he gave the right orders and he has properly earned some praise.
For any blogger, commentator, etc to state otherwise just because they don’t happen to like Obama is wrong, plain and simple. In this area I agree totally with the left leaning sites.
However I also think those sites are a bit lacking in sincerity when they make the critical comments about Redstate. I would respectfully ask sites like Daily Kos or Huffington Post how they would react if the circumstances were the same but the President was named Bush or McCain ?
I rather suspect they would react just as Red State has, except they would accuse Bush/McCain of being war mongers, murderers, etc. If you look over the prior 8 years you would find that they never gave Bush credit for anything, so for them to condemn the other side for doing the same with Obama is hardly fair.
Fortunately the vast majority of liberals and conservatives are far more sensible that these sites and are able to recognize that right is right and good is good regardless of party.
Well Done Mr. President.
11 Responses to “Thoughts On The Rescue”
Please name the things that you think bush should be praised for.
I don't think you ever heard any democrat call for bush to fail, we wanted bush impeached for good and just reasons. When any body questioned any of the bush decisions about the war, we were told we were traitors to our country.
So, please tell me what we should be thankful for except that his time is over.
AIDS funding and the homeless. Those were two rare bright spots for Bush.
As for Pat's point, I agree that the left would have given McCain little credit. But I don't think the left would have accused McCain of being a wimp before the action was finished either.
America loves small-scale victories like Grenada and Panama. Clinton hoped Haiti would be his too. Begrudging them is usually a fool's errand.
America loves small-scale victories like Grenada and Panama.
This may be why we accepted Iraq and Afghan at the start. We think these two would turn out the same, but G & P were just small police actions, not medium size wars.
First of all, I think mgardner is living in a fantasy world. I was one of those people out in the streets protesting the Iraq war before it began, and I can assure you that in the years to follow I heard many of Bush's detractors wanted him to fail, wanted him impeached, imprisoned, etc. and they never gave him credit for anything good nor failed to blame him for anything wrong. That was both on the intertubes and in real life. This is the nature of partisan, political cheerleading.
In addition to elrod's naming of AIDS funding and homeless relief, I would add the invasion of Afghanistan. It was regrettable, as is all war, but necessary. He may have botched the follow-up, but the initial decision was the right one and he was able to form a broad, international coalition of support for the effort as a result, unlike the disastrous choice to invade Iraq. And I say this as somebody who was as far from a GW Bush supporter as you can get. I have been called a “Bush hater” on more occasions than I can count, but I recognize that he did some things right and we never wanted to give him credit for them and were all too often ready to assign blame for every last thing that happened, warranted or not.
The situation with Obama is nothing but the sad and totally predictable reverse. When something goes wrong, he will get all the blame from his Right wing detractors and when something goes right, credit will be deflected from him to somebody else and blame will be assigned regarding “how he should have done it better” or questioning his motives for acting correctly. To think anything else was going to happen during this presidency different than the last, was a pipe dream and nothing more.
I have to agree with Jazz that the partisan sniping is predictable, although that's a sad state of affairs.
And I don't want this to be taken the wrong way because I don't think it excuses the criticisms (when praise is due) but I do think they should be understood in the context of reaction to overhype on the other side of the spectrum. In that sense, I think there's an apt comparison to the Bush “Mission Accomplished” banner- with some conservatives not reacting to the action of Obama in authorizing the strikes but reacting to those on the left who attempted to portray this as even more than it was (including one MSM source that ran a headline about this being an early military victory for Obama.)
I don't think that Obama's political opposition should allow that to cloud their judgement of the act itself, which is still praiseworthy, and the result for our country which should trigger celebration. But I didn't think that those who complained about Bush grabbing credit for the Iraq mission were saying that they thought the deposing of Saddam wasn't worthy of some celebration- they were just turned off by the President seeming to use it for personal, political gain- and I think that some on the right are reacting to this in the same way.
Now there's obviously room for differences of opinion on whether or not those two things are analogous- but nonetheless, I think those who find it inexplicable for some conservatives to be griping should look at it in that context.
Glad you mention that “the others did it, too,” is no excuse…
Absolutely it's not. But I think that the kind of 'warring kingdom' mentality that Jazz so aptly described in his post this morning really does distract from the ability of conservatives and liberals to have any rational discussions of policies or events, and I think it's necessary for the people who currently have their 'king' on the throne to realize that those who are out of power are now rejecting the actions of that king out of hand in the same fashion that they rejected the 'red king', reflexively.
Neither group is/was justified in doing that, and both harm the interests of the 'whole kingdom'.
OK, I am late to the party (travel hell day yesterday), but to me it is simple:
Pirates took prisoner
President displayed initial caution on use of pro-active deadly force (nothing wrong with that)
President issues OK formal OK for pro-active use of force if 'imminent danger' (typical, and proper, cautionary authorization. That way President didn't order a 'shoot to kill' directive, but really did, because the whole situation really fell under the umbrella of 'imminent danger')
On-site Commander understands orders given, waits for opportunity to take out pirates with minimal risk to hostage, and when the situation allowed, gives orders
Three Navy SEAL snipers pull off one hell of a coordinated attack
All win (except dead pirates, but that is the risk you take when you hijack ships, and don't surrender when the opportunity was given)
So, I have absolutely no patience for anyone, Left or Right, who is criticizing this action, or the Presidents comments. And there has been criticism from both sides, BTW. We only seemed focused on the Right critisim, which is indefensible IMO.
But the Left is starting to say 'these were just boys, the on-site Commander exceeded his authority because the Captain wasn't in imminent danger, so it was murder', etc.
They were not 'boys' that were killed; they were armed men. They were 17 – 19, the same age as a huge percentage of the enlistees to OUR armed forces (as I can attest to – my 19 year-old daughter left for Navy boot camp on Easter Sunday).
As for the decision to shoot, that was indeed the pirates fault. They started the situation, had ample opportunities to surrender, and payed the price for their crimes. High seas piracy has historically been one of the most serious crimes in the minds of all seafaring countries, and until very recently, summary execution by a ship's captain was authorized by most countries.
So, I say again, everyone involved, from the President down to the snipers, to the crew that fought off most of the hijackers, all deserve thanks for a job well done.
For once (maybe more than just once), I agree with you AR
“But the Left is starting to say 'these were just boys, the on-site Commander exceeded his authority because the Captain wasn't in imminent danger, so it was murder', etc.”
Do you have links? Cuz I have all kinds of problems with that train of thought.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/du…
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-captain-rescu… (comments)
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2228193/posts
http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/general-politi… (comments)