Dear Adam,

I was making several distinctions which I will summarize. First the on scene commander's rules of engagement (ROE) would have allowed him to shoot someone about to murder a US citizen. It is an extension of the self defense doctrine that is included in the ROE. You are correct that the President authorized this explicitly and they were operating under that authority when the action happened. But this simply raised the level of approval it did not create a new and previously non-existent authority.

Second he did not, as press accounts have stated, authorize an active rescue. That would have been a major escalation and it did not happen. He simply reinforced the standing order that if the on scene commander believed the hostage was in imminent danger, they could act to save him.

Cordially,

Uncle J

I also wanted to give you kudos for your reasonable and accurate closing statement.

"The high profile nature and visibility of this event may have meant that the White House wanted to be more directly involved. I'd say in general though, it's probably a mistake to assign a great deal of credit to the President either way--I think it's clear that those who carried out the operation deserve the plaudits."

Cordially,

Uncle J

Who cares?

In the scheme of things, this whole incident is just not very important (except, obviously, for those directly involved). Some of the details were dramatic, that's all.

Please:
It's very clear to me that if the situation had turned out in a negative manner, i.e. no clear opportunity to rescue, the person being killed, a ransom being paid, etc. the conservative commentariat from right-wingistan would have had no problem blaming Obama for his 'weakness' or some such psycho-babble.

In the event, with the President reaffirming the existing ROE (i.e. kill the f*cks if you can), with their usual 'integrity' the right rushes to pooh-pooh it now - when it was WWIII overthe weekend and they felt they coul dmake political hay out of it.

PS> YOUR CAPTCHA'S ARE THE MOST ANNOYING EVER. IMPOSSIBLE TO READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Uncle Jimbo" is apparently a military lawyer (or more likely a grunt that thinks he is).

Either way, it's lawyerly slick language to minimize the chain of command after eight years of the right wing talking like the private American citizenry were somehow subservient to a Commander in Chief.

How do you commentators look at yourselves in the mirror and not wince at your hypocrisy? If this operation had failed you people would have blamed Obama to the high heavens, and now that it's blown up in your face and resolved successfully you play it down. You people have no credibility whatsoever. Completely bankrupt. Your credibility is in foreclosure.

Now that war has solved something, what's next?

I don't think the right was waiting for Obama to fail. That is ludicrous, especially coming from folks who clearly wanted Bush to fail in Iraq, consequences be damned. I think the right is actually enjoying the puffed out chests of lefties who seem to like their man drawing a little 3rd world blood. Us right-wing nut jobs are actually quite stoked that the SEALs got to prove their skills. And we're mighty glad that you lefties are into this bloodthirsty revenge kick some a** mentality. Admit it - kind of fun aint it? Don't you feel like issuing a challenge to the next group of pirates - I don't know, something like "Bring it on"? Yeehaw!

Why was The Messiah even involved? The commanders in the field SHOULD have already had all the authority they needed without the CIC getting involved in this kind of operational decision. Had it been me my response would have been 'deal with it, let me know what happens.'

The problem is that we've conditioned our military that if there is any possible controversy they better phone home otherwise if they act they are going to get criticized and abused by the Democrats and their handmaidens in the press.

But this has the advantage of allowing the Boy President to pretend to know what he's doing.

Putz.

raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee

Europe's largest bank, HSBC Holdings,

confirmed on Monday it was considering selling three of its major office buildings and said it
had received interest from potential buyers.

HSBC, which recently raised nearly $19 billion in a rights issue, said it may sell and lease-back office buildings in New York, Paris and London, including its headquarters at Canary Wharf.

London's Sunday Telegraph reported that HSBC was considering selling three of its biggest office buildings to raise 2.7 billion pounds ($3.98 billion).

"We are taking a look at the market, yes," spokesman David Hall said in Hong Kong.

"There are people interested in buying at an appropriate price," Hall said.

He declined to give further details.

HSBC bought back its building at Canary Wharf for 838 million pounds from ailing Spanish property firm Metrovacesa at the end of last year after the Spanish firm failed to refinance a loan secured on the building.

Globally, banks battered by the financial crisis have been looking to shed non-core assets in order to raise capital and improve their balance sheets.

"HSBC has just raised funds from a rights issue and the possible sale of offices could further boost its cash level and thus benefit the bank in its future acquisitions," said Alex Tang, head of research at Core Pacific-Yamaichi International.

The bank, which planned to shut most of its U.S. consumer lending business, said last month that it was ready for acquisitions in its traditional stronghold of Asia where many banks are pulling out to focus on core markets.

I did not vote for Obama and support policies a good but more hawkish than those followed by Bush. If the actions to rescue Cpt. Phillips had failed, I would have praised Obama for trying and suggested that we raze the pirate port cities in Somalia. That is the right policy now even after it the rescue has succeeded.
BTW, News Ref, Uncle Jimbo is retired Special forces, I believe. But whatever his military achievements your use of grunt as a derogatory slur reveals you to be as classless as anyone using the n-word as a racial slur.

raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee

BA BANK KRITIK

Die Bank of America hatte sich im vergangenen Herbst am Blitzkauf der Investmentbank Merrill Lynch verhoben. Im Zuge der Finanzkrise hatte sie zuvor bereits die Hypothekenfirma Countrywide übernommen, die als mitverantwortlich für die Kreditkrise gilt. Der Staat griff der Bank bisher mit allein 45 Milliarden Dollar an direkten Hilfen unter die Arme.

Merrill Lynch habe im ersten Quartal ohne Berücksichtigung von Kosten der Übernahme zum Gewinn 3,7 Milliarden Dollar beigetragen, so die Bank. Die Erlöse verdoppelten sich zum Jahresauftakt auf rund 36 Milliarden Dollar, die Vorjahreszahlen beinhalteten aber Merrill Lynch und Countrywide noch nicht und sind daher kaum vergleichbar.

In den vergangenen Tagen hatten unter anderem J.P. Morgan Chase und Goldman Sachs Milliardengewinne vorgelegt. Selbst die zu den größten Krisenverlierern zählende Citigroup hatte ihr Ergebnis klar verbessert und vor Dividendenzahlungen sogar wieder schwarzen Zahlen geschrieben. Analysten warnen trotz des positiven Trends jedoch, dass eine endgültige Erholung der Finanzbranche noch nicht sicher sei.