[varina davis]

Do we now allow terrorists to fire on the U.S. military with no return fire?

[Boiling Pots]

I wonder how they’re going to deliver their mildly tersely worded letter?

[Flavius]

They are not *censored*

[Frantzie]

Someone named Hussein is running your country.

Where are all the people who called me a “birther” here?

The Somalis are a protected class.

[Palladin]

Well at least they’re making the Somali terrorits use up all their ammo.

[Skooz]

Do we now allow terrorists to fire on the U.S. military with no return fire?

Apparently, that has been policy since January 20, 2009. The day our Republic died.

[Cementjungle]

Do we now allow terrorists to fire on the U.S. military with no return fire?

That appears to be the case.

[Right Wing Assault]

Do we now allow terrorists to fire on the U.S. military with no return fire?

Possible obie orders: rescue the captain, but shooting and guns not allowed. Don't hurt anyone. Please.

[Typical_Whitey]

Milquetoast Obama does.... The ROE have obviously changed... but amazingly there is no outcry from Republican politicians on this so the American people continue to be lulled to sleep by the insane policies of BHO.

[Redcloak]

Do we now allow terrorists to fire on the U.S. military with no return fire?

We do now. (Perhaps if we got permission from King Abdullah first...)

[Munz]

>>Do we now allow terrorists to fire on the U.S. military with no return fire?<<

Obama doesn’t want to spark any hostilities by return fire you know.

[DoorGunner]

>> “Do we now allow terrorists to fire on the U.S. military with no return fire?”

ANALYSIS: Consider 3 apparently anomalous facts:

1. When Phillips jumped in the water, AFAIK, the Navy ship did not fire on the pirates — even though it would have rescued Phillips, and finished the pirates.

2. When the Navy sent the RHIB, they did so openly. The Pirates heard/saw it coming, and fired on it, with no response from the Navy.

3. It was said that their orders were not to fire unless Phillips was in “imminent danger,” although he was constantly in “imminent danger.”

Now, consider the nature of the Pres__ent: does it not seem likely that he ORDERED the Navy not to fire unless fired upon? That would explain not intervening in Phillips escape attempt. It would also explain the “botched” RHIB probe. No one (with any sense) could criticize a warship returning fire, after it had been “attacked” on the high seas. All they did was “return fire” at a later time, when Phillips was in “imminent danger.” (Actually, when all available pirates showed themselves.)

IOW, all these anomalies were the POTUS covering his sorry backside. AND, if anything had gone wrong, it would be blamed on the local commander.

DG