Why didn't U.S.blow up captured drone?

[cbelt3]

Jimmy... I merely put your wisdom into my own words. I shoulda put the Poo trademark on my comments. :biggrin:

[rjmacs]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]I doubt that the Commander in Chief would have OK'd a mission destined to leave this much egg on his face.

I never understand this kind of thinking. How does a President end up with egg on his face because equipment fails? I mean, I don't understand it whenever it happens, through all the years. It never made sense to me, since the last time I checked the Presidents don't design the equipment. Shouldn't this be egg on the face of the designers/suppliers? Who will no doubt continue to have lucrative contracts despite any and all screw ups.
How? Because a national security failure always lands on the doorstep of the Commander in Chief. You're quite right that President Obama had nothing to do - technically or operationally - with this failure. But the system that failed was under his command, on his watch, during a mission that he presumably approved. If the system isn't reliable enough to work properly, he's the guy who should know and should nix the operation. Plus, it's a bit humiliating to announce that you have requested the return of your spy plane from the people on whom you were spying.

[RgrF]

If he wants credit for Bin Laden, he's got to suck it up about screw-ups.