The tip that led to the death of Osama Bin Laden came from a Gitmo detainee:
Sunday afternoon’s raid by U.S. forces that killed Osama bin Laden was the “culmination of years of careful and highly advanced intelligence work,” senior administration officials said in a conference call, describing the genesis of an operation that sounded like it was right out of a “Mission Impossible” movie.
Some time after Sept. 11, detainees held by the U.S. told interrogators about a man believed to work as a courier for bin Laden, senior administration officials said. The man was described by detainees as a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and “one of the few Al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin laden.”
Initially, intelligence officials only had the man’s nickname, but they discovered his real name four years ago.
Two years ago, intelligence officials began to identify areas of Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated, and the great security precautions the two men took aroused U.S. suspicions.
Although it cannot be denied that this is a victory shared by Barack Obama, you’d never know anyone other than Obama gathered the intelligence or participated in the remarkable raid.
“I directed Leon Pannetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority”
“I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden”
“I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden”
“I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorized an operation to get Usama bin Laden and bring him to justice”
“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad Pakistan”
“I have made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam; bin Laden was not a Muslim leader”
Had Obama been President at the time of the 9/11 attacks, the US would never have found Bin Laden. Obama gave an order that terrorist detainees be read their Miranda rights.
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
It was in 2007 that the courier’s name was identified.
As in Gitmo. As in President George Bush. As in Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.
Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.
Barack Obama was going shut down Gitmo and afford detainees all kids of protections given to US citizens. Under Obama KSM would have been taken to New York and he would have clammed up. And we would not have learned the name of the courier. But don’t expect to hear that from Obama. I suspect that Obama is trying to paint over the facts as much as possible before the truth is sorted out. Karl Rove was on Fox News and offered Obama and Hillary much praise. George Bush congratulated Obama.
Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude. This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.
Obama couldn’t even tip his hat to Bush for creating the tools Obama used to get Bin Laden. Not even a cup of coffee.
And it has to be said again- the US military is nothing less than fantastic.
God bless America.
Why should we be surprised by Obama’s acceptance of more credit than is his due for the US military finally getting Osama?
When every policy oil Obama has set forward himself has cut the amount of oil we will obtain domestically, Obama still took credit for the higher productivity of domestic oil we still get under Bush’s older policies.
Obama’s damage to our oil production hasn’t all kicked in yet.
@DrJohn:
As stated in your quote:
But there’s more to the story than that, to wit:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42863247/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
In other words, Larry… you give no value to the nom de guerre, which began this thread of intel to fruition.
Figures…
I give credit where credit is due… President Obama does get kudos for the go ahead to get Bin Laden. Our MILITARY gets MORE KUDO’S for risking their lives and doing their job flawlessly.. .. A HUGE THANK YOU !! And Thank You President George Bush for standing up to terrorists, and keeping the Hunt for Bin Laden alive…
And yes, Obama really does have some kind of disorder where the spot light ‘must’ be on him perhaps he has a “complex” that does come through — a lot… He needs to be more humble and “spread the credit around” – it really doesn’t [cost much ] to do that…
I still want to see PHOTO’S as Gruesome as that may sound… can’t be any more gruesome than the photos found on English Al Jazzeera…
I want to see the long form death certificate
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, you would make a poor lawyer.
@FAITH7:
I think that’s important, Faith.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
@John (#6):
You say:
Thank you. I take that as a compliment!
P.S. re: photos: I just read a story that said he was hit above his left eye and it blew away part of his skull.
- Larry W/HB
Larry, perhaps the most ironical thing to be said about the entire matter is that had the Democrats gotten their way, there would not have been a ‘war’ on terror, there would been a ‘capitulation.’ Now a man who voted against the war every time he had the chance is now taking credit for taking Obama, but it is unfortunately his ‘credit’ as it’s on his watch, but try to refrain from lecturing us on how to grovel a little more as they do in Britain when the royals make an appearance.
Those preening Democrats have no shame, but this is entirely nothing new.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
The autopsy photos of Kennedy were Kennedy and identifying him by casual observer was immediate.
Why not Osama?
And yes, let’s extend a very hearty THANK YOU to George Bush!
It’s only fitting that a dem was on duty when OBL got killed. After all, thanks to a dem OBL was left free to plan and help carry out 9/11. If he’d been killed/captured sooner thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 might still be alive.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
If we’d done it the way libs wanted to, we would have gotten NO information at all and probably half would have been acquited in civilian criminal hearings despite being guilty as sin.
So, the Bush admin set in motion the interrogations that gave us the intel. The intel network built by the Bush admin pursued it. Obama green lighted the operation planned and directed by actual experts (not obama), but obama deserves most of the credit? Ummmmm, yeah keep thinking that libs.
If anything it shows our way of doing things worked.
Oh and Larry…
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/22/obamas-dni-reminds-obama-that-enhanced-interrogation-worked/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228157/yes-harsh-interrogations-work/rich-lowry
1. U S A !!!!!!!!!!
2. God Bless our military!!!!!
More importantly,,,,,,Thank you President Bush. I Miss YOU!!!!!!!!!
Ok,,,,I have this sneaky suspicion that as more of the wikileaks documents start pouring out, we will find out what this administration really knew about OBL than what is being reported right now? And the media is going to have to get out the BIG paint brushes to gloss it over!!! I am more concerned with what is going on in the other hand??
Israel is still surrounded and this article made me pause and think about what pressures the regime is putting on them?? http://www.debka.com/article/20898/
I can’t begin to tell you how much I want to celebrate this moment. But knowing what this administration is capable of,,,,I can’t let my guard down. Just what could’ve happened if Holder had been allowed to trot KSM around the circus tent? There’s a great deal of heartache coming for us in this country, and this crapweasel in the WH has got a lot to answer for. I expect him for the next few days to do his victory lap and high fiving as many as he can. And for the next few days I won’t be able to watch TV because of him doing just that!!!!!!
And could someone please explain the REAL difference between this now dead dirtbag, and the one we’re chasing around Libya?? Why the two different military campaigns?? Really,,,,I’m trying to understand.
In a single word, Spartan, “politics”.
Mission Accomplished.
I will hope against hope that, in the personal phone call, he did that. But certainly not in his me me me speech.
@Steve Parker… meaning, good to leave Afghanistan now, Steve?
Our family thanks both Bush and Obama. I never thought I would thank Obama for anything. But he gave the order to have Bin Laden killed. The man who gave the order to have our son killed. Bush set in place all the operations, and Obama just gave the word to use those operations to take out one of the most evil men that has lived. Bush made plenty of mistakes as well at first too. He refused to push Saleh of Yemen to to let the FBI talk directly with the Cole bombers, so the Cole investigation went cold. Not unitl the day after 9/11 did Bush tell Saleh of Yemen that he would cooperate, or else. Bush even sent Cheny over to Yemen to tell Saleh that he would be attacked if he did not cooperate. But it was too late by then. So I hold all of our politicians responsible for the Cole attack, and 9/11. Regardless of their party. Even the FBI admit that if “only our presidents had pushed Saleh” 9/11 could have been averted. But that topic is like the elephant in the living room. Even now. So yes, Obama does deserve some of the credit. He could have said NO. And history would have been differnet. I am just glad that Bin Laden is DEAD! It gives me the greatest satisfaction to say, and type those words. And I would have done alot worse to all of them than just waterboarding.
I wrote Bush at the end of May 2001, that Bin Laden would attack America proper if we did not respond back to his attacks on our people. That his latest attack was a probe to see how, and if we would respond. (Military 101) I told him that I agreed with the few in his administration that believed that Bin laden needed to go before he could kill more Americans. Bush was kind enough to write me back, and told me not to worry. That basically my fears were unfounded. We all know how that turned out. But once Bush got started he ran with it to his credit, and even took out a couple of the Cole bombers with missiles. I just don’t want people thinking that I am picking on Bush.
AS AN ASIDE_ CONSERVATIVE STEPHEN HARPER WINS MAJORITY GOVERNMENT IN CANADA!
OUTSTANDING !!!!!!!!!!
Larry, in an argument we had over a year ago, you wanted the US military out of over seas bases. You could not understand the reasons we were there. I told you we needed to be there to maintain intel sources at a minimum. This operation would never have happened if we did not have military forces in Afghanistan.
Dr, J,
Hilarious. How hard was it to come up with something to attack Obama about today? I applaud you for your creativity in parsing his usage of the word “I”, but you should talk to your agent about that contract if you couldn’t duck the daily rigmarole just this once. Congratulation on being the most bitter American of 5/02/11!
Given… That a Guantanamo detainee began giving up details on the courier in 2006-2007, google “Al Qaeda high ranking captured” and look for that time range.
Here’s the first one that pops up. A high ranking Al Qaeda who was in Saddam Hussein’s regime.
“The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.
Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein’s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the “high-value detainee programme” at Guantanamo Bay.”
Gary Swenchonis, welcome back to FA. It’s been too long. For those of you who don’t remember, Gary – the father of a USS Cole fallen sailor, – penned a letter to Yemen’s President Saleh and posted it here on FA as a reader’s post back in Oct of 2008. Today, it’s worthy of yet another read. And, as usual, Gary has a realistic handle on the events, sans the politics, and all of those who contributed to the Seals’ mission in Pakistan.
I hope you find some solace in UBL’s demise. I am only sorry that it does not return your son, or his shipmates on the USS Cole that were murdered in Yemen’s harbor. And I most certainly hope you pen another readers’ post for us on the latest events.
@oil guy from Alberta:
Congrats on that.
I just read that the Liberal party dropped more than 40 seats to a humiliating third place finish. It is the first time in Canadian history that the Liberal party did not finish either first or second.
All this is preliminary.
I hope it holds.
Nan, gun control is now history. Abortions are now severely controlled. Huge money for the military. Taxes slashed and we pay debt which is at half a trillion. As conservatives we have to expand our military dramatically.
We don’t have an elected senate and Harper has been pushing this for years Huge mandate. Much more and Harper now has 5 years to do it.
@MataHarley:
And isn’t that what matters? I know that Bush would have been far more gracious.
@Tom:
I had nothing to say right up to the moment I learned that this all grew out of a detainee tip. There is no question that Obama used to framework Bush established to get Bin Laden. Obama has abandoned his pledge to handle terrorists in accordance with US law:
ST6 was sent to kill Bin Laden, not capture him. I do not lament Bin Laden’s death. As good as the news is, I find this episode one more example of Barack Obama’s rank hypocrisy.
No Gary, we don’t think you are bashing Bush. We here understand he made mistakes and wasn’t perfect and have said as much. Thank you for your post.
Bin Laden was unarmed:
To steal and modify a quote:
Well, if he was going plot an attack like 9/11 on the U.S. as he did, he should have armed himself.
The MSM will set everything straight. Last night I had the “pleasure” of catching part of an NBC news (if you want to call it that) special about what has transpired in Afghanistan etc. Peter Williams and whatever the other guy’s name was, Fogel or something like that, were doing a segment on Iraq. They presented opinion as fact, lied, distorted facts, left out facts, and of course had just enough of Bush in there to make him look bad. No doubt the underlying objective was to cut down Bush in order to prop up Obama without mentioning him by name. The NAZI’s and communists turned propaganda into an an art form. Our MSM is working on perfecting it into a science.
I’ve seen a lot of photos of George Bush, shaking hands and thanking veterans for their service, even in his retirement. Perhaps he was not the president people in the media wanted him to be. I’ve never seen a picture of BHO with a military guy, except ether Petreaus or McCristal. Not to say there isn’t any but most of BHOs leisure pictures are party and golf.
You will have to go up to the 2 minute mark to see President GWBush shaking hands with returning troops at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport in 2010.
But, if you do, you will notice that he isn’t empty-handed when he shakes each hand.
He is giving each returning soldier a coin.
He is giving them each a ”Challenge Coin.”
I hope you realize that holding a presidential challenge coin would make them highest coin holder in any group.
I only know of a few Challenge Coins given out by Obama: all to dead soldiers.
Obama usually assigns Michelle to do their interacting with the military.
But, if anyone has a published account of Obama giving a living soldier a Challenge Coin, I’d love to read about it.
Indeed, Drj… Bush would have been more gracious. But then the notable difference between Bush and this POTUS is that today’s temporary steward of the WH requires and voraciously feeds on public accolades and the spotlight. Bush did not. He was a man who accepted public demonization, but was comfortable with his decisions because he felt they were best for the nation.
So if you were to ask me if I thought Bush was upset that Obama didn’t slather public praise on him and the decisions of his admin – all of which Obama opposed and were campaign slogans for this temporary WH occupant – I’d say no. From his past behavior, I’d say that Dubya was simply happy that UBL was dead, and rested content in the knowledge that his actions and policies enabled that.
@Zac: Having served under all 6 presidents from Carter to Obama, I’d say GW Bush was probably my favorite CiC, although I didn’t dig some of his domestic policies. His father and Reagan were great CiC’s as well. The other three, not so good to varying degrees. It would be interesting to see how the other Vets who post here who served under multiple CiC’s feel.
@MataHarley: I agree, Mata. I think W is content knowing the truth within himself. It’s commendable and it emphasizes how more more class he has than Obama will ever have.
OOOOOOOOoooooooooooo…………..
Apparently not.
(Thank George Bush, from the White House, that is.)
I just half-heard Obama spokesman Carney say something (Looking for transcript.) about how they give no credit to anything old AND/OR anything gained from enhanced (torture) techniques!
CSPAN does not have the whole transcript.
Still looking.
@Hard Right:
Love the modified qu0te, love the movie. Unforgiven is one of my all-time favorites.
@Nan G:
Because President Obama accelerated the war in AfPak. He dramatically poured in the resources and assets, thus resulting in the death of UBL.
@Hard Right:
I’m sorry, didn’t 9/11 happen on President Bush’s watch, some 9 months into his administration? Does that mean the fault of 9/11 lie with the Clinton Administration? When is cut-off date for “fault/blame/responsibility”?
Hard Right, don’t you agree that Condi was an unmitigated DISASTER of the first degree as NSA?
@Spartan
Spartan, Why don’t you thank President Obama for the death of UBL? Honestly, Bush has been out of office for nearly 3 years so his responsibility is very minimal.
Obama is and always will be a punk in my eyes, but the level of partisanship displayed here is frightening! The death of UBL was a great AMERICAN moment, not one that should be turned into a “Well Bush did it!” moment.
Ivan, do go play catch up with the news and various threads. Kinda embarrassing to wander in here, johnny-come-lately, with such an obtuse observation.
Here’s your homework.
1: Where did the original leads for the nom de guerre of the contact come from, and when?
2: Where were those detainees located?
3: Was the facility that held those detainees still in place, and was the intel used the same intel that would have been thrown out in a US federal court?
4: Were some of those detainees also held in other locations, and not subject to the US interrogation ROEs?
“…Bush has been out of office for nearly 3 years so his responsibility is very minimal”
duh
@Ivan@ #41:
Ivan, when Obama BLAMES Bush for every sundry thing going on presently, may I quote you back to him?
LOL!
@MataHarley:
Is this your idea of civility? This is what I’m talking about, Mata. I come here, disagree in a polite manner with the man’s statement about Bush being responsible for the capture of Bin Laden, and you then rip into me by talking down to me.
It took a lot for me to apologize to you, Mata. The very least you could do, or be if that is possible, is civil and not talk down to me.
Shall we try again, Dear? Or once again, are you the injured party in your attack on me? (Rolls my eyes to heaven).
@Nan G:
We know he’s a punk, but he deserves kudos for pouring-and I mean pouring-resources into the Afpak theater.
What I keep seeing on Republican blogs is what can only be termed as “sour grapes” and it makes us look petty and trite.
@Ivan:
Ivan I agree with you that Obama, to the extent he does exactly what George W. Bush had been doing, is deserving of kudos.
Like, today, Obama’s administration admitted that, although Obama was dragged, kicking and screaming, into extending the BUSH-ERA Tax Cuts, those cuts resulted in an unexpected $150 BILLION more in tax revenues than planned for.
Now the Congress can dither for a few more weeks before tackling the debt ceiling.
Obama ought to get and wear a ”WWGWBD?” bracelet.
You know: What Would George W. Bush Do?
@Nan G:
Agreed and I’m glad to see you’re taking the high-road on this one. I wish all of us could and would take the high road and remember, even if it is just for 24 hours, we’re all Americans in this fight together.
This “Obama is a scum-sucking bandit” WHEN HE DOES SOMETHING GOOD hurts our cause.
Oh stop whining, Ivan sweetie. There was nothing “uncivil” about my comment to you. But I’m genuinely sorry that I pointed out… evidently in a way that annoyed you.. that you are way behind the threads of the intel, the timeline, and the whole FA debate going on as to why we’re offended at Obama’s statement. But you pop in here with such a statement, and it makes me think you’ve been hanging out on a remote island, without the benefit of any sort of news outlet… Internet or cable. Makes the rest of us think we have to start all over and repeat ourselves… especially since how that timeline, the policies, the controversies, are all well documented in this single thread.
So let me ask you this… did you even read the prior comments in this thread that explain the relevance of shared and acknowledged contributions to this event? Or did you just pick a single comment that caught your eye?
And perhaps you’ll explain to all of us how the intel obtained four years ago, in facilities that Obama didn’t support keeping open, and by interrogation methods Obama opposed, conducted on detainees picked up on battlefields Obama opposed makes those events and policies “very minimal” contribution?
Here is a soundbite from the Carney Press Briefing that I had semi-caught earlier.
See what you think…..
whole transcript
{{{{I think he used the word,”strains” rather than ”strange.”}}}}
You were condescending and you know it.
And I’m not “behind the thread”. Obama kept the Bush policies in place, I understand that. But for the love of God, he did the right thing. Why is that so very hard to understand?
This entire thread has the ring of “sour grapes” and “urinate on Obama” to it and it makes us look petty and trite.
I notice President Bush was man enough to congratulate President Obama. Something I see lacking here (without the clarifications that is).
No one said he *didn’t* do the right thing, Ivan. The only thing we debate is the amount of glory that Obama assigned to himself with his statement and the ensuing media press.
However note the subject matter of the thread…. should it, or should it not be politicized?
And since when you care about the GOP looking “petty and trite”? Didn’t bother you with the Chump.
@MataHarley:
Okay, Mata, you don’t see it and I do. Let’s disagree on the appearance of the sour grapes, shall we?
“Mission Accomplished”. Bush politicized his victory of that POS Saddam to the hilt, and bravo to him as he deserved it.
So what if Obama takes a victory lap? He went AGAINST HIS BASE, which wanted him out of AfPak, and joined with Republicans in 2009 to produce another surge-and it worked. Good on him for doing the right thing.
“Chump”? Well, I know if I say anything about the “fertility Goddess” I get an earful about it! Donald TRUMP is calling it like it is and your changing the subject.
Why would you want to go off-topic? Getting a little hot in here for you?
;->
oil guy from ALBERTA good news I’m happy and I know you are too.
all the best to STEVEN HARPER
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0511/no_thanks_578d0b74-d901-469e-afa6-b3ab9fe13f42.html
Well, how very interesting. It seems President Obama invited President Bush to the Ground Zero Commemoration.
Sign me vindicated.
@MataHarley:
Tis appears you spoke too soon. Please see post #54 for today’s lesson in humility.
;->
Hardly speaking too soon, since our commentary has been focused around Obama’s Sunday official WH statement on this and the “Politicize or not Politicize” thread.
But since you say you read the threads, but apparently really didn’t, I’ll point out @my comment #16.
ooops… did you speak too soon, Ivan?
All that’s left to say now is that I’m glad that Obama is, indeed, sharing the moment… even if not acknowledging the Bush policy accomplishments. Or perhaps this is his quiet way in doing so, without doing a public mea culpa. So some extra kudos to Obama.
ADDED: I see Dubya refused. Considering how Obama has treated him publicly… accusing him of “neglecting” Bin Laden and Afghanistan… and also taking into consideration how Obama deliberately set up Ryan and the GOP for public humiliation on his budget speech, Dubya may indeed prefer to stay out of the spotlight. Or perhaps he realizes this could be yet another of Obama’s political set ups.
@Ivan???????
The Afghanistan surge resulted in the UBL death???
Oh, do elaborate for us, puleeeeeze.
@MataHarley:
No, my love, you’re the one who shoots first and asks questions later.
So you guys didn’t give Obama ten seconds to bask in his moment, shame. He did the right, honorable thing and those who complained about that lack of immediate, instantaneous acknowledgment by Obama now look, as I predicted, petty and trite.
@MataHarley:
Sure, let me connect the dots for you, my love!
When Obama came in office, during his first year, he dramatically increased assets and money-that means CIA, drones, etc., in the AfPak region.
For example, Obama did more drone strikes in 2009 than all of Bush’s presidency.
I clear that up for you?
Ivan, you’re being an insulting dolt again… and I say that with as much affection as I can muster. How could I possibly “shoot first” when the invite had not been extended. Please note my #16 comment was yesterday at 6:57 pm. The invite was not reported until today, and I didn’t see it until your link.
And oh, BTW, you may want to read my “ADDED” comment after reading the Politico. Somehow that budget speech and the Ryan humiliation comes to mind. Obama has demonstrated no respect for his predecessor in the past. Why would any of us believe he would do so now?
I think Bush was wise not to accept. And I’m less than convinced at the genuine intents of this POTUS based on very recent events. Perhaps he and his handlers are getting wind of the “hey, it ain’t just you” press that’s getting some steam.
And those predator drones and increased NATO troops have exactly what to do with intel that was first achieved from detainees years ago? Of which most of those detainees involved came from Iraq and not Afghanistan?
INRE Obama and GZ… I’ll tell you what. I’ll leave that open. You seem to have a new respect for what you believe is an Obama who’s turned over a new leaf and demonstrates humility. Why don’t we leave this one open until his GZ speech, and see how much he acknowledges efforts of the past admin officials, policies and the mission executed by the intel world and military? I would welcome a genuinely humble and bipartisan Obama… even if only for a long winded photo op.
@MataHarley: Thanks for the kind words Mata for my family, and myself. I have been attemtping to write something about Bin Ladens non-to-soon demise. His death has brought back many memories on our long journey that we begun on the day that I was getting ready to leave for work and heard Brit on fox news talking about the USS Cole being attacked. Walking out of the bathroom and seeing the Cole with smoke pouring from it, and my stomach doing a flip, as my knees began to shake. And my first thought, “What will I tell his mother?.” Who was at work. But writing it has been much more difficult than I thought it would be. I am asked sometimes why I bring up the mistakes Clinton, and Bush made after all these years. My wife demanded that we had to do something to spare other families from the same thing happening again to other parents if possible. That Bin Laden had to be stopped. So we set out to try and do just that. I wonder sometimes if we would have had leaders who would have taken Bin laden out after the Cole attack, and or if our FBI would have been allowed access to the Cole terrorists before 9/11. Would 9/11 happened? Would all those young soldiers who have been killed in the past years still be with us, and their families? Everytime I see a wounded soldier, without a leg, arm, etcc.. I think of that. But then again “what ifs” are a dime a dozen are they not? Thanks for your offer to write something. I didn’t mean to get so longwinded!
@MataHarley:
Damn right Bush was wise not to accept. Obama has a history of inviting people to events and then ripping into them, i.e. Ryan, Cantor and SCOTUS. Bush is too intelligent for that.
Obama is an a**hole.
@Ivan:
Sign you Alzheimered. See #63.
I have told you over and over than liberals have zero long term memory. I guess you forgot.
Obama is NEVER gracious. He is NEVER humble.
Gary, I don’t think there is a citizen in the US that doesn’t see flaws in every POTUS, and how he handles his CiC tasks. So there is no need for you to apologize for any personal criticism. The only difference between some of us in the nation is that some take it to partisan extremes.
What you and your wife ponder is something that crosses many of our minds. But none of us has a window to the parallel universe. For you and your family to willingly embark down that road is, I suggest, undue agony. Personal “what if’s” just don’t fit into the overall scheme of life. Things seem to happen as they are supposed to happen, and the targeted victims sometimes seems cruel and misdirected. Your loss has been more than enough when it comes to contributing to our nation and our security. And our nation has been blessed by the presence of your son, as well as so many countless others like him.
Please… we would so welcome any post and thoughts you would care to share. I told you once, after a few posts, that you continually hit them out of the ballpark. I have little doubts you would do the same now, because you write from the heart, and with a soul that’s pure. I know Curt would say the same. We would be honored to have your thoughts on the subject.
@drjohn:
How sweet, I treat you guys nicely, humanely and all you guys can do is engage in ad hominem attacks.
@drjohn:
Yes, he is, and you just lowered yourself to the level of the left by putting that up here.
Let’s take the high road on this issue, shall we?
@MataHarley: Mata is right Gary. Share your thoughts!
@mata (#51):
Let’s talk about “assigning glory” and self-aggrandizement for battlefield results emanating from White House decisions.
Let’s not even consider the “Mission Accomplished” banner. Let’s remember the cheap stunt itself.
Let’s also remember that this (the Abraham Lincoln) was a returning-from-theater vessel which was sent back out to sea (at how many extra dollars in expense and for how many hours delaying the return home of servicemen who had been in said theater), simply so that the TV shots of the Big Event didn’t show buildings or trees or bridges or mountains in the backdrop.
And you — frankly — have the chutzpah to complain about the likes of “I ordered” and/or “I directed” or whatever.
George W Bush, strong but humble CIC, who never sought to glorify himself or take personal credit for successful military operations. Is that how you really remember it?
Do you also remember that, the same day as the carrier landing, Rumsfeld also announced “the end of major combat operations” in Afghanistan, which ostensibly freed up American assets to concentrate on Iraq, where the Mission proved to be not quite yet Accomplished.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Ivan:
Not to worry, Ivan. You’ll forget it all shortly.
YVAN,you didn’t loose your ARROGANCE, which was the culprit before,
we cannot change your personality, but we want to have the side of it that we like,
without the ARROGANCE, CAN YOU DO IT?
I KNOW YOU LIKE FA, DO IT FOR FA, OKAY?
MATA, I would like to remind who is quick to critic THE FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH,
that he was also dealing with a MAJORITY DEMOCRATS WHO WHERE CONSTANTLY
DEMONYSE HIM AND SNEAKING THEIR OWN BILLS UNDER THE BUSH PILES TO BE PASS LIKE MANY HYPOCRITES DO TO MAKE HIM LOOK BAD, YES THEY CONTINUE DURING THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WITH THE HELP OF THEIR OWN MEDIA, THE ONE WITH TINGLES ON THEIR LEGS FOR OBAMA ADORATION, AND STILL DEMONYSE HIM TILL TODAY, SO AS GRACEFULL AS BUSH WAS, HE NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT, HE HAD TO MUCH CLASS FOR PLAYING THEIR DIRTY GAMES,
AND WAS PLEGED WITH THE TERRORISTS ACTIONS OF 9/11 AND MORE OF.
SO HE KEPT FOCUSSING ON WHAT HIS NEXT MOVE TO GIVE A LESSON TO THE ANTI AMERICANS COUNTRYS, AND HE DID WHAT HE HAD TO DO, have the free WORLD JOINING TO HELP HIM,
AND THEY BELIEVED HIM AND JOINED, AS IT IS NOT THE CASE TODAY AS WE OBSERVED
THAT BIG DIVIDE IN NATO FORCES HAS HAPPENNED SINCE BUSH LEFT, THAT IS GIVING AMERICA THE ANSWER RIGHT THERE ON OTHER ISSUES THAT WENT WRONG ALSO.
LET ME ALSO POINT OUT THAT AMERICANS ARE LUCKY AND SHOULD APPRECIATE THAT MR BUSH WAS ELECTED OVER ALL GORE, can you imagine what we would have been subject too?
instead
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Been through that Larry
“Mission Accomplished”…..Again
Who was responsible for the “Mission Accomplished” banner?
and
Here
Larry, you really are annoying in your constant rewrites and miscommunication of my comments here. Please reread my comment #52 in the “to politicize or not” thread.
I don’t take the “I’s” and “me’s” in context alone, but the entire focus of the speech. I also take into consideration just how much time is spent on those that actually gathered the intel, planned and executed the mission. I can say this until I’m blue in the face, but it apparently doesn’t want to sink in with you. I’m quite happy to give Obama the credit he is due. I am not willing to give him undue credit. He placed himself on a pedestal way too high, and I think it should be cropped down to the proper size in relation to those who risked more than “political” favor to do the deed.
In addition to Curt, having to remind you of facts that have been pointed out every time one of you brings up the same old predictable talking points… and yes, you are spouting talking points… you are incorrect on the following:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The carrier was enroute to their first stateside docking port, San Diego… one of my old station stops… when they received the honor of the CiC aboard to address the nation. They had arrived at Pearl Harbor April 26th, put into port, then sailed on towards San Diego. Bush’s speech was May 1st, and they docked at San Diego May 2nd…. PROUDLY FLYING THEIR MISSION ACCOMPLISHED BANNER!
The “Mission Accomplished” was their banner and their mission that was accomplished. Bush’s message was the official end to the combat mission to depose Saddam. Yes, we all agree that the road to Iraq’s new government was fraught with more fighting and violence from all those terrorists in the country that you believed weren’t there, and the ones that joined them coming from other nations and fleeing Afghanistan at that time. We will also agree that some of the military strategists underestimated the abhorrent Muslim on Muslim violence that the global Islamic jihad movements would stoop to in that process. But Bush, by no means, thought the work was done. In that same carrier speech, he said:
He, as the POTUS, kept that promise, leaving a binding SOFA with Iraq in place before leaving office. A SOFA that, to Obama’s credit, has still been honored. And perhaps you need a reminder that Obama declared an end to combat in Iraq back in August, 2010. We still have over 47,000 troops there, 82 have died, and private contractors have been dropping like flies. Why? Because, just as Zawahiri promised, they were waiting for the US to back down so they could take on the new Iraq government and military, sans US firepower.
But back to your revisionist history about the USS Abraham Lincoln. Following the speech and visit, they docked at San Diego, then traveled north to their homebase in Everett, WA. The delay of that carrier by a few hours, to host the CIC may be a convenient piece of desperate propaganda for you, but it is unlikely to be an issue to the crew. Obviously you have never been a member of the military, or in a military family. The chance to host the CiC on their ship, and get personal honors for their particular deployment history, is the chance of a lifetime for any military member. Your suggestion it was an inconvenience is beyond offensive, and is telling from one who has obviously never served this country, or been a part of a family who has.
Yes, Bush was strong. He was humble. He did not seek the spotlight. He did not do a lot of face time. He was villified for the bulk of his terms by those like you. And the credit for success in military operations was always generously shared, and indeed emphasized, on to the troops who served under his command.
You may idolize this cold fish, inept CiC. As a former military wife, I would be begging my spouse to retire for a few years until he was gone. He is, to me, the ultimate embarrassment.
@MataHarley:
RE:
Our newest neighbors next door to our condo complex are a nice family.
The husband has quit the military (Navy, I think).
I wonder why he did it? (wink at your comment)
He’s not old.
Just did it.
Amazing also that they were able, in this supposedly down economy, to each get decent jobs right away.
@MataHarley:
I’m quite disappointed that for as long as Larry’s been here at FA, he still pushes that liberal talking point.
Bush’s speech happened on May 1st, huh?
@mata and @curt @word:
Firstly, I pointedly omitted the “Mission Accomplished” banner in my criticism of that utterly classless, cheap stunt of gathering the news media to show and report the landing on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln and then to emerge from the cockpit of a plane labeled “Commander in Chief” wearing a flight suit and helmet. The ship did head back out to sea to avoid photos of land in the background (as if the CIC couldn’t have met the ship in port, arriving in the usual under the radar fashion and given the speech on the deck, after docking). What on earth was the purpose of having him fly out to meet it, other than to grub for the greatest amount of favorable Commander in Chief publicity, precisely 1 1/2 years prior to the election, when a bevy of potential Presidential election opponents were hammering him on the economy (do you see the exact parallels?). And I wasn’t wrong in stating that this whole affair delayed the arrival by a matter of some hours, including both the sailing back out to sea and the landing and tailhooking and on and off loading all the assembled press and Presidential entourage. And that it cost the taxpayers (and not his re-election campaign) a bundle to choreograph it and pull it off.
To the extent that Bush was “humble” thereafter, it is entirely obvious that this was the result of a painful lesson learned as a result of richly-deserved blowback from the most contrived publicity stunt involving a Commander in Chief, in his role of Commander in Chief, of my lifetime.
Second place goes to flying POTUS around the world to get the photo op of him delivering the turkey to a select cohort of the troops on a particular Thanksgiving Day.
And you guys have the chutzpah — the unmitigated chutzpah — to rain on America’s parade because you are offended by “I ordered” and “at my direction.”
I don’t generally get mad about stuff that goes on here, but this one frankly takes the cake.
It’s hypocrisy.
P.S.
Regarding the comparison between the Obama speech, immediately after the operation, and the Bush speech (the only linked speech I could find — to which Mata was alluding — was the one linked about by Aqua — the Abraham Lincoln speech) — it’s an apples and oranges comparison. Obama’s speech was given immediately after the operation. It was crafted in haste. Bush’s speech, like the entire elaborate production, was written, rehearsed, and choreographed far in advance. In addition, Obama’s speech was directed to a faceless audience, out there in TV land. Bush’s speech was delivered to the assembled multitude of servicemen on deck.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, I have heard of ”Platoons,” of ”Companies,” of ”Divisions,” of troops.
But what is the size of a ”Cohort” of troops?
LOL!
You are starting to become quite adept at peppering your comments with connotative speech, Larry.
Wow, Larry…..BDS on full-on display. And you still consider yourself reasonably moderate?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
The banner is emblematic for the rest of what you cared not to omit from your little rant.
Whether it’s specifically the banner or the rest of your criticism, what’s the difference? It’s all based on partisan derangement.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Dude, chill out. The vast majority of Americans LOVED that moment. Most AMERICANS like their Commander-in-Cheif to look like a tough-guy/warrior, not some whimp who gets a busted lip playing basket-ball with the Secret Service.
You’re just one of the lefties who has a bad case of the AZZ because the US, under President Bush, won a war that idiot Clinton-who’s code name was “Blow Job”- refused to fight.
get over it already.
So that’s your lies, and you’re sticking to ‘em, eh Larry? You make up deployment and docking schedules, and find it destestable that a CiC spends one of the first holidays with the troops in the middle of a battlefield. But by gosh, you probably think it’s the cat’s meow for this brave and courageous POTUS to show up at GZ for a photo op. Tell me, is that necessary for NYC to celebrate the death of UBL? And by what demented standards can you place that on an equal plane with a CiC who flys into the battle zone to surprise the troops for a holiday?
You’ve got some seriously mental priority problems, dude. And thank you for the most offensive comment you’ve ever contributed, and a closer look into that soul of yours.
@Nan #78:
Please tell me what you would label the group of troops on hand in the mess hall who were on the receiving end of the CIC’s turkey day delivery. It was a bunch of guys in a mess hall. I’ve got no idea if it was a squad, platoon, company, whatever. It was simply a group of soldiers. “Cohort” is a synonym for “group.”
@Word:
To the best of my recollection, I’ve never labeled myself as a “moderate.” I’m liberal in some areas. Conservative in others. Unclassifiable in still others. But I’m deeply offended by the gratuitous and frankly hypocritical gutter-sniping, in some cases presented as left-handed compliments, immediately qualified by “yes/buts,” innuendo, and odious comparisons with the previous CIC.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Mata: Please tell me precisely what “lies” you refer to in #82.
And, btw, Bush stood on the rubble of Ground Zero with a megaphone. That’s because a lot of people died there, including Port Authority workers and firemen who were every bit as courageous as the troops who fought in Iraq.
Obama is memorializing and honoring those people, no less than was George W Bush. Obama is telling the families of those people that the nation still remembers them and that this particular military operation was dedicated especially to them.
The photo op turkey delivery wasn’t as wretched a self-serving publicity stunt as the tailhook carrier landing in a flight suit, and it simply isn’t comparable to what President Obama will do at Ground Zero.
- Larry W
@MataHarley:
It’s called hypocrisy.
Has Larry weighed in with heavy-handed criticism of Obama’s photo-ops at tax-payer expense? Surprise visits to troops? Or is it only a photo-op when it’s George W. Bush doing it? You know, the guy who is known to visit wounded soldiers more often without cameras and media present than visit with.
@Mata @Word:
Look at what Ivan wrote in #81 (in directly criticizing my point of view):
Can you not see the hypocrisy?
And when did I “make up deployment and docking schedules?” People who read that will just think that that’s what I did. I did no such thing. I said that sending the ship back out to sea for a ceremony complete with tailhook landing and assembled press corps which could have taken place when the ship was docked added some unknown hours and expense to what was clearly an event staged for maximum political advantage. You even agreed that the ceremony did add some unknown hours to the deployment.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
What hypocrisy are you talking about?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
On the heels of 9/11, your point being….? That apples and oranges are both fruit? Okaaaay…
That trip had enormous risks for the president, you know. Do you think Bush did this with selfish intent or is he someone who sincerely cares about our military men and women?
As far as your 2nd drumming mention of “in a flight suit”…get a grip.
@word (#85): I’ve never, to my knowledge, criticized Bush for seeking publicity, except in the context of this present discussion. I didn’t start this whole thing. I don’t begrudge politicians the right to practice their craft, in the course of doing good things for the nation. I’m merely responding to what you guys started here. I’m pointing out that, no, by goodness, George W Bush was not holier than Barack Obama with regard to obtaining maximum political advantage from an ostensibly successful military operation.
@word (addendum): Of course, if he’s flying in a military jet, he’ll be wearing a flight suit. But what on earth was he doing in a military jet? The whole thing was designed to showcase him as an engaged Commander in Chief, at the beginning of difficult political campaign, at a time when his economic activity was under attack. It’s no different (only far more overt and elaborate and calculated) than was the current CIC’s impromptu speech, immediately (just hours) following the military operation.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
That would be fair enough if it was simply about pointing out equivalence and consistency of reasoning beyond the “R” and the “D” next to the name. But your post #77 wasn’t that, was it? It didn’t say, “What if I felt this way”. It stated, “I feel this way…”
Am I mistaken?
@word (2nd addendum; they wouldn’t let me add this to the preceding comment (“you do not have permission to edit this comment”):
Bush’s appearance at Ground Zero with a megaphone was entirely appropriate. Obama’s appearance at Ground Zero is equally appropriate, as a bookend tribute to the people who gave their lives there and as a strong message to the survivors and families of the fallen that the nation did not forget and that bringing Osama bin Laden to justice was carried out in the name of the fallen.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, cA
@word: I just re-read #77 and I honestly couldn’t find any hidden meaning or ulterior motive behind anything I said. I was just reacting and telling you how all this has made me feel. At this point, I’ll just conclude by saying that I think that you guys provided an asymmetric response, in your assessments of the actions of the two different CICs under consideration.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
That’s fair enough. I’m not one of those on my side who is criticizing the President on this count.
I do think you are not seeing a difference though in what Mata and I were pointing out in the politicize or not to politicize thread (linked for lurkers present and latecomers future who don’t know to what I refer) in regards to what amounts to more than simply the number of times the word “I” or “me” were used in a speech.
USS Abraham deployment schedule is your first lie. The Naval Source dot org documents many US naval vessels history in pictorials. They have the photos of the USS Abraham Lincoln entering Pearl Harbor on the 26th of April. They have two photos of it still out at sea on May 1st, receiving the CiC, and the photos of it arriving in San Diego a day later for it’s FIRST… not second… docking there. They left on May 5th for their Everett, WA base and arrived on May 6th or 7th.
I don’t know if you are aware how long it takes for a naval ship of this size, or even those smaller, to dock… and to prepare to make way. But I assure you, there are few instances where they are putting into port, and immediately steaming back out. And, as a naval wife, standing on the docks waiting for the tugs to manuever this ships into place, I can tell you it’s hours for them to make their way into port, have the tugs manuever them into position to secure the lines, and even more time after that before anyone can deboard.
It’s 2274 nautical miles between Pearl Harbor and San Diego…. more than twice the distance between SD and Everett. You think they put into port, after over 9 months deployment, and didn’t give the crew any shore leave? pffft…. No, they didn’t. They departed Pearl Harbor on April 28th, and arrived in San Diego on May 2nd… a day after the Mission Accomplished carrier speech.
Yet facts and dates get in the way of your stubborness. You disregard all, and think they steamed from Hawaii to San Diego, turned around and went back out, all by May 1st. Additionally, the Naval site specifically states that the USS Abraham returned to port in early May. That would be May 2nd, as the photo history and the Global Security chronology shows. Instead, you continue to lie, insisting they steamed into port, docked, and immediately steamed right back out to the Pacific Ocean to receive Bush.
You’re delusional, and your talking points don’t match the naval deployment records. And I’ll thank you to stop spreading blatant lies.
Your second lie was your repeated mischaracterization of our comments:
No one is “raining on America’s parade”, and we have stated that it’s more than “I ordered” and “at my direction”. But you’re like a bulldog with your talking points. And extremist that disregards what we say, and rewrite it to match your own personal interpretations.
And yes.. those speeches are apples and oranges. Not because of the reasons you give, but because of the content and delivery… which was our point to begin with.
@word: I totally agree that the speech trended toward self-aggrandizement. But, number one, he did deserve to take some credit. Number two, it was written (mostly by himself, if reports are true) in some haste and delivered before the adrenalin had even had a chance to settle. Number three, I do agree that he’s got a streak of narcissism — not that this is an unusual nor even totally undesirable trait in a national leader.
But making him out to be a devil, in this regard, while his predecessor is viewed in reverential terms, CIC style-wise, is simply not fair. And the criticisms were most definitely of the picky, picky, picky variety. I mean, he’s a politician, for goodness sake. You’ve got to grant all of them their divine right to be political, when it suits their interest.
I think that a better “test” will be what he says in the Ground Zero speech, which he’ll have the time to prepare and upon which to reflect.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Which he’s been given.
What struck me was that he seems to feel the need to bring attention to credit he automatically will receive. No need to underscore and highlight. The spotlight’s his.
Which would make it all the more “damning” wouldn’t you say, in regards to his narcissistic personality trait? A more carefully crafted speech would have eliminated the need to draw so much attention to himself.
Self-confidence is one thing. Arrogance another.
I agree. Keep in mind that FA is, after all, a partisan site.
I disagree though that Mata or myself were being “picky”.
I actually think it will probably be a good speech. If I remember, his 9/11/10 speech was good. And since it’s not delivered in haste, perhaps he or his team will scrub out undue drawing of attention to himself in the way it’s writ.
I was so excited the other day all I could say was Yee Haww! But since I have had a chance to calm down I am truly Proud of both President Bush, and President Obama for this outstanding acheivement.
I have the utmost respect for President Bush trying to stay out of the limelight and let Obama take the credit, even though he (BUSH) deserves the credit for laying the groundwork for ANY future President to catch, kill, or capture Bin Hidin.
It happened on Obama’s watch and that is awsome. I think we all need to give Bush the credit for laying the groundwork for the eventual kill, but also Obama for carrying out President Bush’s policy’s.
Yes Thank You, President Bush, and President Obama both for bringing this maniac to Justice.
President Bush 43- 2001: Wether we bring our enemies to Justice or Justice to our enemies, Justice will be done!
GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND ESPECIALLY OUR TROOPS
sigh… finally, at last, exactly what we’ve been trying to say. To the latter, that’s exactly what I said in my comment #61. You should have stopped there instead of piling on with further aggrandizing and mischaracterizations.
@MariesTwoCents:
The fact that you say this, takes away from President Bush’s small contribution to the capture. Take the high road, not the low road.
You have this “What about me!” tone in this post and it’s beneath us as Republicans to try to get in the lime-light. Bush did the right thing by not going to Ground Zero with Obama, emulate him.
@Ivan:
If you got the President you voted for, Bin Laden is still at large. You voted for Obama, you got Bush.
@Wordsmith:
I’m not 100% sure if he means Obama or Bush, but I think this writer means Bush has chosen not to speak but will be in attendance:
@MataHarley:
I wish I had been here to set him straight on the hearsay and lies about Bush, and his “Mission Accomplished” day. As a former Navy nuclear tech who spent quite a bit of time onboard the U.S.S. Enterprise, I know firsthand everything you mentioned. Thank you for telling it straight to him.
@JohnGalt:
I was born and raised in a time when calling someone a “liar” was a very serious thing. Back in my day, we didn’t accuse people of telling “lies,” unless such a charge was demonstrably true. I can’t think of any greater libel or slander than accusing someone of “lying,” if the accusation is demonstrably false, as it is in this case.
You made the accusation. Now please take responsibility for this accusation. Kindly point out the “lies” on which Mata ostensibly “set [me] straight,” in your post #102. Alternatively, man up and take back the accusation.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
you would have to also retract what you implied to all who gave you the best
of their knowledge , by just discarding it , in my book this is calling all of them liars
Larry, in your @comment #69, you gave erroneous information INRE the USS Abraham Lincoln’s deployment schedule. I did not call you a liar then, and instead corrected your information in @my comment #74.
You decided to ignore that information and, instead, expound further into misinformation in @your far more heated comment #77.
At that point, since you chose to ignore facts over talking points, I asked you if you intended to stick with lies in comment #82.
In #86, you then tried to backtrack after twice insisting that the carrier had docked, and rededployed in order to avoid background scenes of shore, by saying:
Really? You “said no such thing”? In your comment #69 you said, verbatim:
Your #77 comment, verbatim:
I then gave you more information, pointing out that your stubborn insistence to stick with your story was simply a lie a second time in my comment #94.
You made an error in information. You refused to be corrected multiple times, despite deployment documentation that proved otherwise. One time? An error…
Continue repeating it after proof contrary, it becomes a lie.
Then you pile on the lie where you declared you said “no such thing”.
Consider your lies obstensibly pointed out.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Did you not post this;
And did Mata not show that you were wrong, in your assertions, which happened to be your opinions?
By that very definition of a lie, you told one in your post, that Mata corrected you on, as I, myself, would have done, not only knowing the particulars of Naval vessel docking, and undocking, from my previous experience on board a U.S. Navy Carrier, the U.S.S. Enterprise, but also from the word of several friends of mine, who were on board that particular vessel, at that particular time.
Yes, Larry, you lied. And I won’t retract my words simply because your feelings, and/or, your sensibilities, are hurt. That you are simply parroting the oft-themed tripe, from liberal hacks, is beside the point. Is one who spreads lies, even if they did not originate them, also a liar? Words have meanings, Larry, and sometimes it is painful to acknowledge them truthfully. You conveyed a false image of that particular Bush speech, regarding the actions you stated that went on in order to “choreograph it and pull it off ” (your words, post #77). Per the definition, again, that is a lie, as evidenced by the information presented within Mata’s post, as well as my own personal knowledge.
Now, you can either acknowledge it as an intentional lie, which I don’t believe it was, as I my respect for you and our discussions on other issues won’t allow me to believe, OR, you can acknowledge that you presented the lies of the liberals, regarding that particular action, as truth, and have since been corrected.
You’re more tolerant than I, johngalt. As I said, make that error once, it is indeed just an error that was obtained from whatever MSM decided to concoct such a story in the fact of opposing facts.
But to run with the same narrative twice? After it’s been pointed out with facts to be incorrect? Sorry… moves into the “deliberate” lie stage to me. This isn’t some lofty, philosophical nuance bit. This is an on/off switch, a yes/no determination. The ship did not leave SD for a photo op. They had not yet reached the SD Naval Base.
@mata; @Johngalt (#s 105, 106, 107)
First, to make one thing perfectly clear, I NEVER said (or meant or implied) that the USS Lincoln sailed into San Diego Harbor, docked, and then went out again. What I said was that it “went back out to sea,” meaning than it altered its course to position itself for the President’s arrival.
Here’s a long quotation from History Commons, with sources. History Commons is a non-political, academic historical website.
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=military_analysts_tmln&military_analysts_tmln_general_events=military_analysts_tmln__mission_accomplished_
I’d like to ask the two of you a question.
What Obama did was to self-compose a speech to the nation, just hours after a very tense and dramatic, high stakes special ops operation. On this blog site, there have been more words (I believe) devoted to criticizing the President’s short speech than to discussing the implications of the operation, itself. The theme is that Obama tried to take undue credit for the success of the mission.
My question is this: Let’s say that it was Obama who was President, back in 2003. He was the one who flew in on the jet labeled Commander in Chief and he gave that speech on the flight deck, rather than allowing the ship to steam directly into port, tie up, and then give the speech on the deck. What would have been your reaction? And do you not think that the attempted self-aggrandizement would have at least risen to the level of the President’s current “I ordered” and “at my direction?”
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Again, I tried to slightly edit my previous comment, only to get a “you don’t have permission to edit” message. I don’t ever remember getting these messages before. Is it a software problem?
- Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I haven’t gotten that message….yet.
But, for the first time since posting here, I am told my comments are awaiting moderation before they show up as posted.
So, something technical has changed today.
Thanks, Nan. Here’s the edit I was trying to make. A more accurate description of “History Commons.”
After all this brouhaha, I’m going to purchase the Unger book (a major source for the History Commons article) and determine Unger’s original sources.
Additional post-script:
>>In addition, Pentagon officials told the Washington Post that after the president’s speech, the Lincoln waited offshore for hours while he slept rather than heading into port after its 10-month voyage.<<
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml
As I wrote before, I personally don't begrudge politicians (and Presidents, in particular) their divine right to practice politics. I just didn't like the perceived double standard.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim, #109:
I’ve received the “you don’t have permission to edit” message a number of times over the past months. I assume it’s some obscure but recurring software glitch.
openid.aol.com/runnswim, I had that message done to me but not now, it was quite a while before,
and It happened a few times but not often.
I have to prove I am human before I can respond…..:-)
History Commons a “non political, academic historical website”? groan…
They are another glorified “wikipedia” info source, Larry. Any joe blow can submit or edit content. “non political” my butt…
pfffft
Simple math comes into play here. 2274 nautical miles between Pearl Harbor and San Diego. johngalt was stationed on the USS Enterprise, the fastest carrier from 0 dead stop to top speed. Stats say her top speed is 33 knots, tho I’d bet she moves quicker than that when necessary. The USS Abraham Lincoln is a Nimitz class carrier… rated a bit lower top speed at 30 knots.
Let’s assume a full speed sail for the Abraham Lincoln from Pearl to SD. It’s just shy of 76 hours, or over three days. That doesn’t include the hours for the tugs to bring them into, or out of port, and readying to make way. They suckers don’t push off a dock, spin on a dime and hit the gas and underway in a half an hour, ya know.
They left on April 28th… assuming they were at full speed at even noon that day, they are only two days – 48 hours – into a three day – 76 hour – cruise at noon on the 30th of April. The ship was about 40 miles offshore when they stopped to become “Navy One” and receive the CiC the next day (May 1st) …. all of which jives with the ships speed performance and the nautical distance.
So much for them being on “hold” at sea for 24 hours….
Originally the fighter jet was lined up because they thought it would be further out to meet for the scheduled speech, and out of range of the chopper. Since the carrier made good time, the chopper could have worked, but they had the fighter jet lined up and Bush, a former pilot… and the Commander in Chief… opted to go with the fighter jet. Hey… understandable to me. You don’t get to relive those moments often. You want to complain about that, have at it. But it’s a far cry from what you’re projecting.
Your timing and delays are still wrong, wrong, wrong. And I’m not even going to address your first paragraph. I think the excerpt quotes I put in my comment above, using your own words, makes it abundantly clear you’re furiously practicing the backstroke.
Nan G and Larry… Actually, I’ve been trying to do online work, but have to keep monitoring FA. Spam is landing in the moderation filter instead of the spam bin, as well as many comments by you all. Hang, I’m logged in as an author, and I had to bail myself out of the moderation filter. So I’ve been busy trying to keep the spam under control, and whatever else comes up. I’ve also emailed Curt on this, but he may be out in the field.
Something is a bit different, and it may be an update or plug in somewhere affecting these other features that Curt will have to address. In the meantime, for as long as I’m working online, I’ll try to stay ahead of it. And sorry for the inconvenience.
@MataHarley:
Thanks for the explanation, Mata.
So much of what happens via my computer is a mystery to me.
It was not even an inconvenience, just something I noticed.
@mata (#115): I tried to correct the description of the source. The software wouldn’t let me. I’ve already ordered Unger’s book from Amazon.
I am NOT doing the “backstroke.” This whole thing is getting to be pure, unadulterated crap. Everything I wrote was factually correct. There was no “lie” and not even any exaggeration. The ship was 48 or whatever miles off the coast when the President’s jet landed. By your data, that’s an hour and a half’s worth of steaming. What I stated was two things: (1) the carrier headed back out to sea, rather than steaming straight into port. I never meant to say and I never said that it docked and then went back out. That’s what you said I said. It’s not what I said or meant. For goodness sake, I owned a 30 foot sailboat for 30 years (once actually sailing it into San Diego Harbor myself — from Long Beach). I probably used the phrase “we’ve got time to go back out again,” or whatever scores of times. That’s what you say on a boat. “Back out to sea” means turning around and going back away from land. It doesn’t imply that you’ve actually docked in port. During the recent tsunami, some ships which had been headed into port just turned around and went back out to sea.
I was factually correct. There was no “lie.” There is no “backstroking.” Why can’t you simply argue the case at hand without putting in all that crap. It’s pure low class crap.
I’m suddenly very interested in getting to the bottom of the details of this. Like the alleged 24 hour delay. I didn’t cite this initially, but now I intend to look into it. Perhaps the USS Lincoln was held in port in Hawaii an additional 24 hours? And what about the alleged Presidential 3 hour nap, with the ship only 1.5 hours from port?
If you can dig up any factual information, please share it. But in the meantime, I’m on the case.
And you didn’t answer my question. If Obama and his administrative help mates had been the ones to pull off that stunt, what would have been your likely reaction? And why couldn’t he have just let the ship steam into port and have the welcome home ceremony at the dock? It’s because he wanted to look like a military Commander in Chief, as opposed to looking like some civilian dignitary.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Oh, and following a speech? A POTUS catching up on sleep? No clue to that. He also may have been hanging around with the crew, as that POTUS liked to hobknob with the troops. Another “non political” claim by your wiki-style source? If you think they are non political, Larry, you might want to check out a few of the stuff that comes out of there.
Timing getting back into the port. Well now… this takes a lot of factors into consideration, doesn’t it? They are about two hours of sail time, and the hours it takes to dock and secure. The ship has been away from home for over 10 months. I was one of those wives that met the ships as they came in… both for my husband, and with friends for their husbands and mutual friends. You think they weren’t planning on lining to docs to meet their loved ones, Larry?
I’m not sure if the Bush speech was late morning or mid afternoon. But what I can say is that if they took off immediate after the POTUS left… not to say they couldn’t have him leave while underway… at what time would they be arriving at the docks for family and friends? And don’t forget, I said it takes an hour or two after they secure the lines before the crew can deboard.
Perhaps they should have planned for a 10 or 11pm arrival for the families? Of course not. Especially since they were proudly flying their banner. They would delayed to have a daylight arrival.
Esdraelon, oh oh, that is hard to prove in the ciber,
haven’t you been program properly by,
if you question any of your programs, that tell me that you are human
I have to enter a spam keyword(s) to move the comment through. First time, did it four or five times after each time I received a response telling me the keyword was mistyped though I knew it was not. Out of frustration, I hit the ‘back’ key to go back to the comments and there was my response, even though it was indicated otherwise.
Next time I simply entered the keyword, hit ‘post comment’ on next page, and hit ‘back’ key to return to comments when the ‘mistyped keyword’ page comes up, and the comment is actually posted though the former page indicates otherwise…..:-)
Probably, it’s me, I did not have to do that process to enter this comment…I guess sometimes my comments are a little testy…..:-)
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Bee, LOL! You just have to type in those ‘keywords’…..:-)
@mata (#119): My last point was this: to the extent that President Bush adopted a less self-aggrandizing attitude, following the USS Lincoln affair in the Spring of 2003, I think that this was very likely a lesson learned from the blowback. Hubris gone wrong breeds humbleness, in its place.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, try a little math… even if the USS Abraham Lincoln sailed straight thru for 76 hours from Pearl to SD… forgetting port maneuver/tug time… and assuming an April 28th 10AM Pearl departure (1pm Pacific time) , they would arrive in the SD port until 76 hours later, Pacific time… That would be 2pm May 1st Hawaii time, or 5pm May 1st Pacific time. WITHOUT STOPPING. The POTUS arriving on the carrier is somewhere between late morning and early afternoon… just when did you think this ship had time to “turn around and go back out”? Your math is really deplorable, and your insistence to stick to a talking point beyond annoying.
Again, your personal yachting experiences have nothing to do with naval ships. Bringing about what is tantamount to a dingy and an aircraft carrier are two entirely different matters. Nothing in the time allow for them to “go back out to sea” and supposedly draining the national treasury to do so.
Why would I answer your question? First of all, it wasn’t a “stunt”. Altho I’d be quite nauseated to see Obama in any military uniform… since he’s never served anything but his own self interests. But if he chose to make his speech off an aircraft carrier, my reaction would be no different. Bush paved a logical path.. meet the carrier WHILE ENROUTE IN, and do the deed. The crew loves it when the POTUS is aboard. Doesn’t happen often.
Nor do you have a clue as to what happens when a naval ship returns to port. Families are waiting and the docks are cram packed full of impatient families, holding babies, waiting to grab their loved ones. As one who’s been there, done that, for years in my life, I’d prefer the speech was made while at sea, and not making it difficult for families to be on the docks because of Presidential security details, and extra delays while the speech is going on, and the crew is lining the perimeter in plain sight. So close, yet so far. It’s bad enough just waiting for the usual time for them to be able to disembark.
@MataHarley:
Mata! You rock!
As I wrote, Mata, I do intend to get to the bottom of this. I’ll share what I learn.
I’ll take you at your word that you wouldn’t consider Obama making a tailhook landing and giving that speech on the flight deck at sea a cheap stunt, designed to burnish his Commander in Chief image.
- LW/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I would be highly impressed if Obama ever made a tailhook landing, Larry.
Going from 150 mph in a jet to a full stop in 2 seconds has to be quite the rush!
Don’t forget, the jet is running at full throttle all during the landing, so, if there’s a problem, it can take back off.
My doctor served on an aircraft carrier and said it was the most stressful place he has ever been.
Accidents, fatal ones, happened all too often.
Not sure why you’d want to bring a tailhook landing into it, Larry. I’m sure the closest Obama’s ever gotten to flying a fighter jet was with a video game…. if he even plays them. If Bush landed that jet, more power to him. At least he’s flown them before in the service of this nation. Don’t care. The man earned the right to return to a cockpit.
Your continued snide snipes and cheap shots are continually noticed. Thank you for yet another look into your soul.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Jeez, Larry! Some people call your BS, I simply call it tedious………………………….
darn, there goes than BS, er spam filter again…yeah, its ME…..
@MataHarley, #128:
Actually Obama rather likes this one, which runs on biofuel. Someone has apparently informed him that coal and natural gas-fueled jet aircraft aren’t a viable future option.
@mata:
I have no response to this. It is neither discussion nor debate.
Lawdy, Larry… don’t you even read the links I provide? Arrived in Pearl April 26th. Sailed out of Pearl April 28th. The crew had been aboard for 10 months. Think it may have been a tad cruel not to allow even 24 hours of shore leave instead of keeping them cooped up on the ship for a next day sail?
As far as your alleged “presidential nap”… hey, you’re the one that picked some “unbiased” source for that little ditty. Frankly I’d find it surprising. But then, I don’t know his schedule either. But as I said, when you’re a 40 miles out, then have tugs bring you into the harbor, manuever you to the docks to secure, another hour or so for the crew to get off, it wouldn’t be a friendly time for a meet and greet with family and/or friends who came to see them, would it? Why would they want to arrive, *proudly* flying their “Mission Accomplished” banner, under the cover of night?
Search for your conspiracies to support what you believe is a “cheap stunt” all you want, but it’s quite likely to be as plainly laid out as the facts and deployment schedule shows.
And it is the “cheap stunts” and venomous #77 comment of yours – a tone with which you continue – that prompts my “snide snipes” observation. That look into your soul does reveal a Bush “birther” attitude.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: #123
Geez, Larry, we just went over what that was all about.
AGAIN.
@mata:
1. The source for this was a CBS News story, quoting a Pentagon official. I provided a link.
2. The ship was only 30 miles offshore.
3. The home port was Everett, WA and not San Diego. I don’t know how many crew families went to San Diego, versus waiting 4 more days for the arrival in home port.
4. I continue to believe that everything I wrote, prior to being called a liar by JohnGalt, was factually correct.
As I stated, I’m going to research this as thoroughly as I can and then report back. If I find that I was in error on any of my statements on this thread, I will acknowledge these.
5. I continue to believe that the carrier landing extravaganza was a cheap stunt, designed to cast POTUS in the role of General Patton, Operation Iraqi Freedom-wise. By comparison, the Obama speech, hastily cobbled together in the immediate aftermath of the Seals mission, was downright self-deprecatory. This later (#5) is opinion.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Oh good heavens, Larry…. seek thee conspiracy theories. I don’t care if the POTUS had a nap, or not. As I said, the schedule for arriving at port was inconvenient.
And then you roll on with the home port. I’ve actually been wondering when you, who’s not been a military family subject to deployment separation, would enter that field. Right… Hubby gone for 10 months. Putting into port a few hours plane ride away with a couple of days of shore leave. Ummmm… should I wait?
Hell no. Traveled to other ports, and in fact across the nation, to catch him when he had a few days we could call our own. But I’m sure you probably think the USS Abraham Lincoln came into port with few to no greeters, family or friends.
And you can let johngalt off the hook. It was I who called you the liar first. As I said.. your first time saying it was believing misinformation. However your continued insistance to run with the same horse manure makes it a lie.
BTW, why don’t you tell us that, even if the ship had the time to “turn around”, as you continually suggest (and not supported by your own CBS link), how that would have cost the nation so much $s?
We know you think this is a cheap stunt. And I still find your relentless snide sniping unbearably offensive.
@mata:
I never previously sniped at Bush for stuff like this. As I wrote, I don’t begrudge politicians their divine right to do political things. I’m merely responding to all the guttersniping on this blog, directed against President Obama, for perceived self-aggrandizement, while you are all so willing to overlook what I consider to be far more egregious self-aggrandizement on the part of his predecessor.
Pardon me, but you called me a liar (I’d forgotten who started this unfortunate character assassination). I have the right to research this further, to substantiate the specific allegations which led you to use — repeatedly — this outrageous descriptor. Or else to admit to an inadvertent error. One way or another, I do intend to see what can be documented or at least sourced.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, I don’t care if you research it further. If it seems more important to you to defend your cry of “cheap stunt” than to focus on your more worthwhile daily job, go for it. My suggest is you don’t waste much time with that laughably unbiased source you quoted from History Commons. If you can reread that excerpt, and still declare to me – with a straight cyber face – that it’s an “non-political” source, then you’ve lost all sense of objectivity. So if it’s Unger’s book you choose to use, as opposed to the documentation of the ship’s actual movements in that period as document, then talk to the hand. I’m not interested.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Number one, Larry, I can guarantee you that after Bush’s speech, that they were more than 3 hours away from port. Navy ships do not run at Ahead Flank speed unless absolutely necessary, and no ship’s captain, coming into port, is going to consider it ‘necessary’ to go that speed. At best, I’d say that they steamed along at Ahead 2/3, which corresponds to roughly 15-18 Knots. Now, they don’t steam straight into port, either. It’s usually to within a few miles from the mouth of the harbor, and a harbor pilot comes aboard, in this case, another Navy officer, who takes control of the ship, and the accompanying tugs, til it gets to the pier, which is usually nearly another hour. And, until it gets to the point that the harbor pilot comes aboard, they still have the ability to launch and receive helicopters, but no fixed wing aircraft.
What does all that mean? That it is simply an outrageous claim that the Lincoln was held out from port for however long that source you quoted says. And, as I stated, I had, and still have, friends who were aboard that ship, and none of them stated anything about Bush’s speech, and visit, that remotely resembles your claims. I’ve heard my info from people with direct knowledge, who experienced it. What’s your source?
And believe me, I don’t care what some writer tells you in some book. My friends aren’t the type to lie to me, so I trust their info more than anyone else’s on the subject. You should have saved your money.
Good luck with logic and reality, johngalt. Tried all the stats, the math, the distance, the time… even NOT including all the time it takes to depart or enter a harbor… all of which lines up and coincides with the documented deployment schedule perfectly… in @my comment #115.
Brick wall, this one is.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Not to nitpick here, Larry, but Mata called you a liar first. And after reading the relevant posts, by both you and Mata, I concluded that after being corrected, the first time, that you continued to present your “facts” as the truth, and that is what made you a liar. I don’t call people liars lightly, but such was the case with your comments. My comment to Mata was meant to reinforce EXACTLY what she presented to you, as my own Navy experience, and that of my friends, with first hand knowledge, back up her comments.
You can choose not to believe me, as that is your right, and frankly, I don’t care. Just know that most of us never believe anything from CBS news, nor any of the MSM, and the information I’ve gathered from my friends, who were aboard the Lincoln at the time, only reinforce that opinion.
The facts are, that you are of the belief that Bush’s speech was production on a grand scale, and that that fact is what makes it self-aggrandizement. Meanwhile, Obama’s continual use of first person word use is overlooked, and taken as “downright self-deprecatory”. Hardly so, but that is my judgment. And on the flip side, regarding Bush, the man has always shown admiration and appreciation for our troops, those with boots on the ground, and salt in their hair, so I tend to think of his “Mission Accomplished” speech as nothing more than a big thank you to the sailors and Marines aboard the Lincoln. We can beg to differ on the opinions regarding each occasion, but we cannot differ on the facts, and as mine are from first-hand accounts, from friends I trust, I know what I’m choosing to believe.
For whatever it’s worth:
http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Bush_-_Mission_Accomplished
@MataHarley:
The truth is, that I respect Larry, and enjoy the discussions that I have with him, even when I believe that he is wrong. This little spat doesn’t necessarily lower my opinion of him. I still like Larry. I just cannot sit by while “facts” are presented that are false, especially in light of my own first-hand knowledge.
Apparently, not worth much in the way of accuracy, Greg. Nice photo of Bush tho.
@JohnGalt:
Can you tell me precisely what you were told by your friends?
These are the points of contention:
1. Was the Lincoln diverted from its course to pause for the Bush extravaganza? Did they slow down or come to a virtual halt to wait, and for how long?
2. Did the ship ever change direction — to go further from port than a previously arrived at position (which would support my statement that the ship went back out to sea)?
3. What time did the “Navy 1″ land and Bush disembark?
4. What time was the speech given? When was the speech over?
5. When did they arrive in Port in San Diego?
6. How long after they docked did they have before they were allowed to go on shore leave?
I believe this it should be possible for me to obtain this information, and I intend to try. But it would help save time if you — with your first person eyewitnesses — could do so.
I know that the above is of no interest to anyone here, but I assure you that it is of intense interest to me. I was the one who was called a “liar,” remember. I think that this is a term which gets tossed around in all too cavalier a manner. Were I an anonymous pseudonym, I wouldn’t care. But I’m a real person, and I do care — very much.
That’s what makes it worth my time.
- LW/HB
openid.aol.com/runnswim
I wonder what it is about you all DEMOCRATS TO ALWAYS TRY TO PIN THE FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH IN ORDER TO COVER UP THE ARROGANCE OF THIS LEADER ? YES I see the importance for you,
but can’t you realyse that MR BUSH is not in the present government affairs that are giving a lot to say about their actions to the AMERICANS , I know, they got elected on the BASHING BUSH EFFECT symdrone and many like you got hooked BY THEM AND THEIR OWN MEDIA, OTHER WISE THEY WHERE NOT COMPETANT ENOUGH TO HAVE WON
THEIR ELECTION WITHOUT DEMONYSING THE PRESIDENT BUSH,
can’t you get over it? and trying to push the issue here doesn’t make you look good no matter how your friends are trying to help
@bees:
You don’t understand. As I’ve repeatedly said, I wasn’t all bent out of shape about the Bush tailhook landing. I figure he’s a politician and it made for great political theater and that’s just what Presidents do — that take advantage of positive situations which develop to burnish their own images. They all do that. They love looking “Presidential” and who doesn’t want to appear to be a heroic Commander in Chief?
The thing that bothered me was — in the wake of the best news in the war on terror — EVERRRR — so many people here immediately tried to find bad news (for Obama) in the middle of the good news. Rather than all of us just basking in some sort of All American, bipartisan glow and dissecting the mission and speculating on what it means for the future, so much of the discussion was on finding fault with a perfectly reasonable speech, prepared in haste, in the immediate aftermath of the mission.
I am merely pointing out that self-aggrandizement is not a trait unique to Obama. As I also wrote, to the extent that Bush later became less self-aggrandizing, it was almost certainly owing to the blowback from the tailhook extravaganza.
There is early evidence that Obama has learned a similar lesson. I expect to see less self-aggrandizement in his future appearances as Commander in Chief, as well.
I’d just like people to be fair and balanced in their criticism, that’s all.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
IT’s the ever comparison you all are used to make from one now in power to the FORMER VERY CLASSY AND TROOPS LOVING COMMANDER IN CHIEF, to bring comments that make him look bad ;
for your need to excuse the one you protect, yes you felt the need to bring BUSH action in comparison that was not accepted here, because It has been done so many time,
Larry, I honestly believe you mischaracterize most of our opinions here. (surprise surprise…). We were not “trying to find bad news”. In fact, we were delighted UBL no longer walks the planet. What was disappointing was the tone this POTUS decided to take, and his lack of gracious acknowledgement of all of those who made it possible.
But just saying that sent the lib/prog world into a tizzy, coming up with accusations as you, yourself, have just made. Then you decided to demean Bush INRE the carrier speech… in quite a vicious attack to boot…. and the rest is pretty much old news and a spiral down from there. Hey, guy… you brung it up. And with embellishment and exaggerations. I even pointed out to you that I wouldn’t object to Obama doing the same… flying out to meet a carrier, giving a speech, and the crew a treat to host the POTUS. Especially a crew who had a record long deployment. That’s quite an honor. But no… that’s not enough for you. “Cheap stunt! Cheap stunt! Cheap stunt!” You were a broken record here in your venom.
INRE the timing, the Bush speech was an evening speech. The video of it below shows low lighting. If the speech were broadcast at 8pm eastern time, it’s 5pm in California. I don’t remember if it was a 9pm speech (6pm Pac time). That is likely to be the latest time of day of this event. They generally like to go earlier than that.
You’ll find several photos for May 1st and May 2nd of the USS Abraham here. The journey in a few pictures, and the lighting may give you an idea of approximate times.
Bush landing on the carrier May 1st. I’d guess midday by lighting… perhaps early afternoon. Slight shadow, nothing elongated.
May 2nd, carrier approaching SD harbor. Considering the shadows on the side of the ship, looks like early to mid morning.
Under harbor pilot control, coming in to SD port. Brings back memories of how magnificent it is for the crew to line the deck perimeters… and how dang long they have to stand there! Even when maneuvering to the dock to secure. We used to bring binoculars to try to spot everyone.
The photo of the banner I put in my comment above is also as she is coming into the SD port… and IMHO, worth repeating.
I’m sure this source isn’t anywhere near the….ahem, quality of History Commons, but, you do know there were real reporters onboard…..reporting the event. Doesn’t appear that anyone caught the CIC napping, caught him all sweaty in shorts and a t-shirt after a workout though. He did spend the night on the carrier, guess that could have been considered a nap.
If you like this report, Larry, perhaps you might want to share it with History Commons.
Sorry for wasting bandwidth Curt, haven’t been around for awhile so forgive, just using space I woulda. It’s a great report of the event.
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Commander-in-chief-s-visit-sets-aircraft-1113821.php#ixzz1Lfp00fQn
@MataHarley:
Wow! Looking back through all this “mission accomplished” stuff still give me a thrill after all these years seeing those sailors lined up brings tears to the old eyes. Thanks for sharing the photos, loved them all! Never experienced a welcome home like that, my son was flown overseas to meet his ship, when it came home we weren’t able to know when because it was leaving the Straits when the Vincennes shot down the airbus. They took a completely different route home that took a month longer because they feared retaliation because of the airbus and his ship had also bombed an oil platform. He called me after they docked in Virginia.
Breath taking photos!
MISSY, what a nice way to remember by bringing it to FA,
we missed your being around and give us your always repercuting comment that is the true fact,
all the time, which I bring in some bits in my own comments, quite a few times as they come in my mind to enforce my point across on many subjects I decide to take my chance on responding.
don’t stay away too long from FA, because your other work can wait, not us, bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
We’ve been painting our house, my son is here helping and he brought his big yellow lab, of course. Lots of cooking to do, the lab decided he would rather eat the food I have to cook for our dog, hard to keep up with both of them.
@Missy: @Missy: What no one on the left has understood on the “mission Accomplished” stuff with President Bush is that Bush didn’t do it. All of the things that Bush was accused of doing was done by the military to show their appreciation for a Commander in Chief that they appreciate because he treated them like real people! Something similar happened at every place President Bush visited. Larry gets bent out of shape because he can never see the appreciation we in the military felt toward President Bush. He was a real leader during a very difficult time.
You all remember Senator Kerry eating alone in the Embassy dining facility in the green zone? None of us would be caught dead eating with him. When he visited Camp Liberty, there was a FRAGO issued that required soldiers from Kerry’s state to meet with him! Many changed residency that day!
Randy, that is a good one for The PRESIDENT BUSH, WE need to know more of it, to counter balance the propagande put massivly bashing THE PRESIDENT BUSH, SINCE HE BECAME A PRESIDENT,
THEY HAVE DONE THE PROPAGANDE SO WELL THAT WE CAN STILL HEAR THE BASHING AT THIS TIME, and they convinced many people to hate him enough to try to rampage into the WHITE HOUSE WHEN HE WAS STILL INSIDE WITH HIS FAMILY, we saw it on FOX NEWS. that ‘s how good they where to promote HATE AND DIVISION, among AMERICANS, and still are to this day, targetting
other groups now also.
Let’s be honest. If George W. Bush were still President, the focus would not have been on capturing/killing Osama Bin Laden and he (OBL) would still be alive. It’s good that we put the focus BACK on getting Bin Laden and it’s a great day for ALL Americans.
Steve,
Are you kidding me? If President Bush had the shot he would have taken it as well.
Steve Parker, yes, THE PRESIDENT BUSH, realy cared for the troops, He probably was waiting
for a safe way for the troops to get BIN without putting his troops in harmway,
and the INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, WHERE CHECKING IT UP,
don’t think that he had given up on capturing BIN, BUT NOT , NO MATTER WHAT OR AT ANY PRICE FOR THE LOST OF LIFE FROM HIS TROOPS,
THEIRE LIFE WHERE MORE VALUABLE THAN BINLADEN
@Steve Parker: Bush never lost focus on going after bin Laden. True, he did play down the hunt. But that’s because the war was always bigger than simply going after one…two…nineteen or a 100 terrorists. It’s a whole network and movement. And as we know now, the end of bin Laden is not the end of al Qaeda and the jihad movement. bin Laden’s significance is in large part symbolically important. Operationally, I don’t think he’s been all that effective for the last 9 yrs of his life.
Missy, you’re like family here. It is always a welcome sight to see you post comments.
@Randy:
I also remember that story about the troops that had to dine with Hillary and some kind of secret hand signal. Here is another nice article about President Bush bicycling in the desert with our wounded veterans a couple of weeks ago. This paragraph tells it all the way I believe most of our troops feel about him as their CIC:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/27/bush-armstrong-join-wounded-vets-for-tx-bike-ride/
@Wordsmith:
Thank you so much Word, feel the same about you! Been working hard, got a sun burn and 16 more yards of mulch to shovel but, I can still do it.
There has been so much said, Bush didn’t care, Bush disbanded the OBL unit, yada, yada. The unit was disbanded by the CIA, they did not stop hunting bin Laden, they revised their strategy. They basically lost control of the OBL unit, so they moved the agents into different areas. And, judging from one of his last interviews in January of 08 that I read, he said they were still on the hunt and hoped they would find him before he left office.
Let’s look at facts.
Bush had 8 years to capture/kill Bin Laden. He didn’t do it.
Bush could have had Bin Laden in Tora Bora, but failed because he was afraid to commit troops, bombing instead.
Bush focused on Iraq when, if he wanted Bin Laden, he should have been focusing on Afghanistan.
Bush was briefed in the FIRST WEEK in office “Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the United States.”
“I don’t spend that much time worrying about him [Osama Bin Laden].” – George W. Bush
“Catching Osama Bin Laden is not a top priority use of American resources.” I guess Iraq must have been. No Bin Laden there.
If George W. Bush were still President, Osama Bin Laden would still be alive. It’s really just that simple.
@Steve Parker:
I realize you are a newbie here but, we do have archives that have debunked your talking points many times.
Actually, we have had since 1993 to capture/kill OBL, in all those years WE didn’t get him. Had Obama not had the tools that were left to him, WE still would not have him. WE are all thankful to everyone, past and present that contributed to taking this evil man out.
http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/obl-mission-agreed-in-secret-10-years-ago-by-us-pakistan/
http://floppingaces.net/2009/11/29/we-our-political-opponents-dropped-the-ball-on-tora-bora/#comment-257036
And, just where was it that they found OBL?
@Steve Parker:
Steve, I am going to call you on this first. I know this subject pretty darned well and I assert that you cannot prove this is a fact.
@Steve Parker: Steve, you need to know more than what you get from the lefty news channels and read in the lefty news papers. If you collect all of the news sources from the time of Tora Bora, you will find there was a terrorist attack in India that caused the Indian Army to accuse Pakistan and move to the Pakistan border with India. The Tora Bora campaign was a hammer and anvil operation with the US and Afghanistan allies the hammer and the Pakistan Army on the Afghanistan-Pakistan Border to prevent the escape of the terrorists to include OBL. When the terrorist attacked convienently happened in India as this critical operation was developing, Pakistan withdrew the troops from the Afghanistan border and moved them to the Indian border. That allowed the terrorists to escape in to Pakistan.
Was President Bush responsible for the terrorist attack in India that allowed OBL to escape? Hardly! I expect that OBL and some Pakistan help did that. (India had intel linking the attack to Pakistan government officials.) Maybe the same people who have been harboring OBL over the years planned and carried out the attack in India. When you make unsubstanciated statements here, you really need to think them our and not repeat all the garbage you hear in the MSM. You can check these facts. I had this through secure channels that likely is on Wikileaks now!
(India had intel linking the attack to Pakistan government officials)
The Pak ISI in particular to be honest.
Old Trooper 2,
that is good to know, that India mingle with our secret MISSION,
they could have get the SEALS ambushed and killed in there,
bye nice of you to come ,we have missed you,
@Steve Parker: Steve, your assumptions are foolish. You need to vet the sources of the info that you use to base them on. A few of Us know better. The Lefties would have screamed bloody murder if a few Op Plans to snuff OBL were carried out during the Bush Admin.
The Current Obama Regime used an old JSOC Op Plan that was modified and updated. Look at how many times the Libs attempted to cut funding for AFPAK and Iraq before you get carried away here. Your Dog just ain’t gonna hunt.
@llovebeeswarzone ilovebeeswarzone: Hey…Thats why We didn’t tell Em before the Raid.
http://youtu.be/DIpEwGmSsmM
http://i.imgur.com/jJkhS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1KF36.jpg
@Steve Parker: Steve
You realize that you’re providing a response to something other than to your initial assertion, right?
@Steve Parker:
You do realize the August 6, 2001 PDB in question was released by the White House in April of 2004, right? Have you bothered to read it? Any actionable intelligence there, buddy? Nothing in it even remotely suggests an imminent attack. Just background fodder: bin Laden has designs to attack the U.S. Well, duh!
@Wordsmith: Hey Word, did you know that August was Bush’s first week in office?
And the PDB says the more sensational claims could NOT be corroborated.
Steve ought to review the 4 Dec 1998 PDB. There’s loads of better material there. All of which makes one wonder why Clinton didn’t have OBL done away with at least once in the 8-10 opportunities Clinton had to get him. The Sudan wanted to hand over OBL to Clinton in 1995 and Clinton said no. He could have buried him at sea right then and there.
Just say “Thank you President Obama” and move on.
Old Trooper 2, you are still not telling us.
but this is lasting too long ,
you must come back to FA, SOON
PLEASE TAKE CARE