[...] utter failure to intercede in a timely fashion to save Captain Richard Phillips from the Muslim Somali terrorists in the Maersk Alabama [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] tip to Flopping Aces first here and then [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] following stuff came across this designated conservative’s RSS feed this morning, courtesy of Atlas Shrugs, floppingaces.net, something called baylorfans, and exlibhollywood. [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

First of all before jumping on this bandwagon, don’t you think a SOURCE should be identified other than the opening line, “Talking to some SEALS….”

For all we know this was some schizophrenic on St. Paul Alaska island, talking to real frikkin seals!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley

Not according to Bill – he claims the Navy made the call ‘in spite’ of the instructions were given. Therefore that brings up the question why didn’t they make that call earlier. I’m not blaming the Navy myself – as I believe they did the right thing within instructions. It was the right call with the right result.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Gaffa, did you miss previous conversations/posts about this? Since this could escalate into a major int’l incident, the US military wanted confirmation from the top on every by-the-book procedure. The Navy did not “go against instructions” when it acted. It made sure that when it acted, it fit the absolute parameters of “the instructions”.

They could have acted sooner were those “instructions” not so binding, and the CIC given them the blessing to follow traditional ROE already in place. That’s all they were asking in the beginning. However when the CIC and his underlings started micromanaging with additional caveats, they had to wait until everything fit the Obama bill.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Bill

Gaffa, you’re missing the whole point. The Navy made the call IN SPITE OF the ‘instructions’ they were given

So you are saying it was the Navy that spent 5 days dithering until they decided to go against instructions – when they could of taken out the kidnappers before then?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The email’s author names himself “Buddy Wellborn, USNA ’59″, who (if true) presumably would be Captain Raymond B. “Buddy” Wellborn USN-Ret (who scored three touchdowns against Notre Dame in ’58!). More to the point, CAPT Wellborn was a career submariner, which raises at least the strong likelihood of his having been concerned in SEAL ops. It claims to be based on info from a contact at DEVGRU, with a fairly complete timeline of the Team SIX det’s mission from departure Norfolk until the shoot. The claim of four rounds fired is corroborated independently by the young FN aboard Boxer who says he heard four reports (That email, at least, reads “clean;” in other words it’s exactly what one would expect to read from a junior sailor who only saw the peripherals)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2235870/posts?page=1

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Bill,
i don’t have any inside info on this. i was only assuming. are u saying that email only suspects that another shooter was used or is it from one of the players involved? it makes sense to me…

i also misunderstood the Bainbridge ship’s company. i thought it was still the flagship of the task force there. apparently it isn’t now but it was, and they rotate flagship designations – and crew compliment. usually only a designated flagship would have the Scout Sniper team. my bad.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Reeko:

What you’re saying makes sense; another e-mail circulating which claims to be the “straight poop” indicates that there were four shooters, and the first one punched out the window with a wadcutter round.

But USMC Scout Snipers as part of Bainbridge’ ship’s company? If so, that’s new since I was in the Canoe Club- and putting a pair on every surface combatant would mean well over 200 highly trained elite grads of the Scout Sniper course floating around the world’s oceans. Surely we don’t have enough of them for that, do we?

(Still no reliable word on the rifles used: Mk 11, M40, M82?)

Like or Dislike: 0  0