2 May

Thank George Bush [Reader Post]

                                       

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.

About DrJohn

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.
This entry was posted in 9/11, American Exceptionalism, American Intelligence, Barack Obama, Bush 43, Bush Derangement Syndrome, CIA interrogation program, Freedom, Middle East, Military, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics, propaganda bureau, True Heroes, War On Terror and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, May 2nd, 2011 at 2:59 pm
| 1,443 views

174 Responses to Thank George Bush [Reader Post]

  1. Wordsmith says: 101

    @Wordsmith:

    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.

    I actually think it will probably be a good speech.

    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:

    * Obama invited former President George W. Bush to attend a wreath-laying ceremony at Ground Zero tomorrow (Bush declined) and took a pass on making remarks at the event — even though he will spend several hours at the site.

    ReplyReply
  2. johngalt says: 102

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  3. @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

    ReplyReply
  4. 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

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 105

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: 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.

    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:

    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.

    Really? You “said no such thing”? In your comment #69 you said, verbatim:

    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.

    Your #77 comment, verbatim:

    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?).

    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.

    ReplyReply
  6. johngalt says: 106

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Did you not post this;

    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 did Mata not show that you were wrong, in your assertions, which happened to be your opinions?

    lie 2 (l)
    n.
    1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
    2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
    v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
    v.intr.
    1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
    2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

    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.

    ReplyReply
  7. MataHarley says: 107

    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.

    ReplyReply
  8. @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_

    Perfectly Staged – The presentation itself is a triumph of stage-managed spectacle. The Lincoln, only 39 miles offshore, is held out at sea for an additional 24 hours, forcing the crew to wait another day to see their families after their lengthy sea tour. The carrier shifts position several times to ensure that the television cameras only film expanses of ocean as backdrop for Bush, and not the Southern California skyline. Bush’s handlers decide not to have the president fly in by helicopter—standard procedure for such a visit—but instead opt for a far more dramatic flight in a fighter jet making a high-speed tailhook landing. The jet is renamed “Navy One” and Bush is designated co-pilot. [UNGER, 2007, PP. 304-305] The Secret Service balks at allowing Bush to fly in “one of the sexier fighter jets,” but eventually relents enough to allow Bush to “pilot” a four-seat S-3B Viking (specially dubbed “Navy One” and with the legend “George W. Bush, Commander-in-Chief” stenciled on the cockpit). [RICH, 2006, PP. 88-90] The crew wears uniforms color-coordinated with the banner and other props the White House public relations staff have deployed. [RICH, 2006, PP. 88-90] Bush makes a dramatic exit from the fighter jet wearing, not civilian clothes, but a flight suit. As he greets the crew, he shouts in response to a reporter’s question: “Yes, I flew it! Of course I liked it!” The idea that Bush, whose time in fighter planes was strictly limited and 30 years out of date, would have been allowed to fly a state-of-the-art fighter jet without training or certification is absurd on its face, but by and large the press swallows Bush’s claim without question. Three hours later, Bush emerges from below decks, this time wearing a business suit. His entrance is timed to coincide with the California sunset, called by Hollywood cinematographers the “magic hour” for the lovely, glowing low light it bathes upon its subject. The huge “Misson Accomplished” banner, produced by Bush public relations staffers and designed to match other event banners and graphics, stretches high above Bush’s head. (One of the chief producers of the event, former ABC producer Scott Sforza, had boarded the Lincoln days before to ensure that production values were met. Sforza made sure that the banner would be visible to the cameras during Bush’s speech.) [UNGER, 2007, PP. 304-305]

    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

    ReplyReply
  9. 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

    ReplyReply
  10. Nan G says: 110

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  11. Thanks, Nan. Here’s the edit I was trying to make. A more accurate description of “History Commons.”

    From wikipedia:

    Nature and Purpose

    According to the History Commons “About” page, “The Web site is a tool for open-content participatory journalism. It allows people to investigate important issues by providing a space where people can collaborate on the documentation of past and current events, as well as the entities associated with those events. The Web site can be used to investigate topics at the local, regional, or global level. The data is displayed on the Web site in the form of dynamic timelines and entity profiles, and is exportable into XML so it can be shared with others for non-commercial purposes.” [3]

    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

    ReplyReply
  12. Greg says: 112

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  13. 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.

    ReplyReply
  14. Esdraelon says: 114

    I have to prove I am human before I can respond…..:-)

    ReplyReply
  15. MataHarley says: 115

    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…

    Who creates the content?
    Anyone who registers on the website and becomes a member of a timeline project can submit content. Membership is free. Once a user becomes a member, s/he can edit existing event summaries by clicking the edit link that is next to that event (the user must be logged in to see the edit link). In addition to editing existing events, users can also add new ones to the database. Registered users who add content are called “contributors.” Since the project is still beta, and since we do not have enough editors at this time, membership is restricted to a relatively small group of users.

    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.

    ReplyReply
  16. MataHarley says: 116

    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.

    ReplyReply
  17. Nan G says: 117

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  18. @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

    ReplyReply
  19. MataHarley says: 119

    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.

    ReplyReply
  20. 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

    ReplyReply
  21. Esdraelon says: 121

    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…..:-)

    ReplyReply
  22. Esdraelon says: 122

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Bee, LOL! You just have to type in those ‘keywords’…..:-)

    ReplyReply
  23. @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

    ReplyReply
  24. MataHarley says: 124

    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.

    ReplyReply
  25. Esdraelon says: 125

    @MataHarley:

    Mata! You rock!

    ReplyReply
  26. 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

    ReplyReply
  27. Nan G says: 127

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  28. MataHarley says: 128

    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.

    ReplyReply
  29. Esdraelon says: 129

    @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…..

    ReplyReply
  30. Greg says: 130

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  31. @mata:

    Your continued snide snipes and cheap shots are continually noticed. Thank you for yet another look into your soul.

    I have no response to this. It is neither discussion nor debate.

    ReplyReply
  32. MataHarley says: 132

    Larry: 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?

    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.

    ReplyReply
  33. DrJohn says: 133

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: #123

    Geez, Larry, we just went over what that was all about.

    AGAIN.

    ReplyReply
  34. @mata:

    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.

    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

    ReplyReply
  35. MataHarley says: 135

    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.

    ReplyReply
  36. @mata:

    And I still find your relentless snide sniping unbearably offensive

    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

    ReplyReply
  37. MataHarley says: 137

    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.

    ReplyReply
  38. johngalt says: 138

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  39. MataHarley says: 139

    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.

    ReplyReply
  40. johngalt says: 140

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    4. I continue to believe that everything I wrote, prior to being called a liar by JohnGalt, was factually correct.

    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.

    1. The source for this was a CBS News story, quoting a Pentagon official. I provided a link.

    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.

    ReplyReply
  41. johngalt says: 142

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  42. MataHarley says: 143

    Apparently, not worth much in the way of accuracy, Greg. Nice photo of Bush tho.

    ReplyReply
  43. @JohnGalt:

    the information I’ve gathered from my friends, who were aboard the Lincoln at the time, only reinforce that opinion.

    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

    ReplyReply
  44. 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

    ReplyReply
  45. @bees:

    can’t you get over it?

    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

    ReplyReply
  46. 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,

    ReplyReply
  47. MataHarley says: 148

    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.

    ReplyReply
  48. Missy says: 149

    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.

    Commander in chief’s visit sets aircraft carrier’s crew abuzz
    By M.L. LYKE, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
    Published 10:00 p.m., Thursday, May 1, 2003

    ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN — Stephanie Baroni skipped like a schoolgirl yesterday across a hangar bay where packing crates had replaced bomb farms, cars handed out as prizes to crew had replaced jet fighters and some 15,000 pounds of cameras, tripods, cables, microphones and other media gear were spread across an area the size of a small apartment.

    “Oh my God! I’m going to cry! He shook my hand two times!” blurted Baroni, an operations specialist seaman working for ship’s admiral. Baroni, who had been too excited to sleep the past three days, spent hours yesterday tracking President Bush’s movements around the 1,092-foot-long aircraft carrier, finally coming face-to-face with a sweaty commander-in-chief in T-shirt and shorts as he left a workout room onboard.

    “He’s real! He’s real!” said Baroni, a smile as big as Texas spread across her face.

    The president arrived aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, some 30 miles off the coast of San Diego, riding shotgun aboard a four-seat S-3 Viking, the fueling tanker nicknamed “The Hoover” for the vacuumlike noise it makes. The plane had a freshly painted, rocket-packing, evil-smiling wolf on its tail, and “NAVY 1″ newly emblazoned on its side.

    Bush is reportedly the first sitting president in history to make an arrested landing on an aircraft carrier, an always-daring act in which pilots hook their aircraft onto cables that screech planes from 130 to 0 mph in a few heart-thumping seconds.

    The Viking’s pilot, Skip “Loose” Lussier, took a ribbing from other pilots for almost missing the fourth wire, the last of the long arresting cables that pull planes to a halt on the 4.5-acre flight deck. “I thought it was going to be an OK three, but it was an almost four,” said Lussier, still beaming from his time in the sky with the president.

    “We were just rapping, like flight school buds,” Lussier said.

    Bush, a former aviator in the National Guard, took control of the aircraft for almost 15 minutes, flying formations in the California skies.

    The president had an aviator’s swagger as he walked off the plane in full flight suit, carrying his cranial helmet, wearing a go-guy grin on a flight deck scented with the kerosene burn of jet fuel.

    He greeted the ship’s brass, and moved easily among the crew, shaking hands, patting backs, giving the thumbs-up and posing for photo op after photo op.

    He wasn’t the only White House staff still smiling after “taking the trap,” the ship’s name for arrested landings. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice also flew aboard yesterday, but arrived in the less glamorous C-2 Greyhound, the carrier-onboard-delivery plane that seats passengers backwards in a dark interior, to be jolted unexpectedly aboard.

    Rice was unfazed. “It’s my second time,” she said. “The weather was better this time.”

    Bush, who’ll take an early-morning flight today off the carrier aboard a Marine 1 helicopter, spent yesterday touring the ship, with Secret Service clearing passageways and an estimated 120 journalists onboard vying for a photo or a quote from him.

    As crewmen below decks packed up heavy boxes of goods to be hauled off the ship today in San Diego, he watched the carrier’s fleet of super-sleek fighter jet Hornets and Super Hornets roar off to family and friends in Lemoore, Calif., visited the captain’s bridge, worked out and, everywhere, greeted sailors, thanking them for their efforts in the Iraqi conflict, and wishing them a good trip home.

    The Lincoln has been at sea for almost 10 months. It was steaming home in December when the call came to turn around and head back to the Persian Gulf. It had one stop in Australia before hitting the war theater, then another last week as it headed home. It will arrive in home port Everett on Tuesday, for what promises to be a raucous, tearful homecoming.

    Deployed 285 days today, the carrier has set the record for the longest naval deployment by a nuclear-powered carrier.

    At 6 p.m., the crew of 5,300 stood at attention, arms stiff, shoulders held back, hands fisted, as the president began his expected war-is-over speech. A banner strung behind his head proclaimed: “Missions accomplished.”

    In suit and tie, he told the Lincoln’s crew that the conflict had ended, that, because of them, the nation was more secure, the tyrant had fallen and Iraq was free. His speech was interrupted constantly with applause and cheers. But it was his comments about the ship heading home that drew the most sustained whoops and clapping.

    Heading home has eased the stress of an overlong stay at sea, excitement and worries about what awaits sailors after they return and an invasion of media. Yesterday, the ship boasted all the major networks, the White House press staff, seven California stations, four Northwest newspapers and 20 public affairs officers to manage the hordes, some of whom come with odd expectations.

    “I had one guy who came in here and said, ” ‘I’d like to order now,’ ” said Shady Dawn Bourgeois, a 19-year-old food service attendant in an officers’ dining area. “I’m like, ‘The line’s over there.’ He says, ‘Oh, I have to get in a line?’ ”

    After the president’s speech, many of the crew mulled on the deck, seeing Point Loma off in the distance. Most were buoyed by Bush’s words.

    Josh Vogel, a 22-year-old helicopter rescue crewman, said the speech put the crew’s efforts into perspective on a ship where one day can seem exactly like the last. “I liked the part when he said that it’s an honor to be your commander in chief. We don’t hear that enough,” said Vogel.

    “It gives you an overwhelming sense of accomplishment.”

    One Lincoln airman who couldn’t believe his good luck yesterday — or the bad luck the day before — was Lt. j.g. Bryan Taylor, an electronics countermeasure officer with the Whidbey-Island based Cougars squadron, which flies the EA-6B Prowler.

    Taylor was onboard a Prowler bound for home Wednesday when he discovered his harness was loose. With his wife waiting in Oak Harbor, he had to get off the plane and watch it fly off for home.

    “It was a huge disappointment,” said Taylor.

    But yesterday, as he sat in a pilots’ briefing next to President Bush chitchatting and watching footage of the air fleet in action, he wondered if someone wasn’t looking out for him after all.

    “It was a wonderful experience — almost surreal,” said Taylor, who described the president as very relaxed and down-to-earth.

    “Talk about a rollercoaster of emotions,” he said. “I’m flying high!”

    Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Commander-in-chief-s-visit-sets-aircraft-1113821.php#ixzz1Lfp00fQn

    ReplyReply
  49. Missy says: 150

    @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!

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>