Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Hostage Rescue Email Bogus?

MSNBC reports that the SEAL email that I posted on a few days ago has been "officially debunked" by the White House.

The Email detailed how the commander on the scene essentially sat on his duff under White House handcuffs as the orders were awaited... and then exceeded orders in ordering the rescue, which the White House then took full credit for.

I did, ahem, warn that the post must be taken on a caveat emptor basis, but say that the post appeared internally consistent and that I trusted (and still trust) my intermediate source.

The White House says however that it is BS.

Two senior military officials who talked to NBC about this both said essentially they have no reason to carry President Obama's water on this, but that he and the White House responded quickly and positively to the military's request. Given some of the details included in the email, military officials say it could very well have come from a "disgruntled" Navy SEAL who had no idea what the White House and senior commanders were planning or executing.

In addition, the email was originally passed around by a former admiral who retired in 1982 who told Navy officials he doesn't know any Navy SEALS and has no idea where the original email came from.

An "alternative timeline" is given in the story as well, which is inconsistent with the text of the email I posted.

And of course, neither of the "senior military officials who talked to NBC" were identified.

Like I said, buyer beware. However, I don't consider the letters "officially debunked," merely "presidentially denied." Much as one of Mr. Obama's more obscure predecessors "never had sex with That Woman." IOW, that's his story and he's stickin' to it.

I'm reserving judgment on this "White House denial" AND on the Email. Awaiting more information.

= = = = = = =

Comments on the above story include THIS little gem:

why not chastise the republican operators for trying to politicize the military it was just a minor thing when Obama was just a Senator but now he is C-I-C and to undermine him is actually a threat to the security of the nation...

Oh really? To dissent from THIS White House occupant is "a threat to the security of the nation" but to dissent from the last one was patriotic duty?

Repeat of basic message:

It's gonna be a looong four years.


  1. Loser!

    You lost, so stop the whinning and name calling!

    The vast majority of Americans, and we number in the hundreds of millions, have spoken and we want Obama.

    You got a problem with that?

  2. He is my president. For the next three years and ten months.

    And I shall do everything within my lawful power, under the constitution and laws of the United States, to oppose his will and thwart him in every way possible available to me as a member of the political opposition... to precisely the same extent that those who lawfully opposed President Bush did to him.

    Don't like it? Too bad.

    And, btw, only 69 million voted for your guy, v. 59 million for mine. That's not "hundreds of millions." But then, Democrats can't count, particularly the votes of absentee military voters.

    We live in a republic, not a democracy. You got a problem with *that*?

  3. PS. I must say I've heard of the "tyranny of the majority," but rarely met a "tyrant of the majority." It is... intersting.


Keep it clean for gene.