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.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@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.
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.
@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?
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!
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.
@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.
@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
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.
@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
@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
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.
@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.
@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
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.
@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.
@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
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.
@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 🙂
@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
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.
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.
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.
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…..:-)