Obama lands in Denver

Obama lands in Denver

There are 79 comments on the Newsday story from Aug 27, 2008, titled Obama lands in Denver. In it, Newsday reports that:

Barack Obama has landed in Denver, where he is set to spend much of the day refining his speech to the Democratic National Convention, scheduled for Thursday night.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
lbi

Water Mill, NY

#63 Aug 28, 2008
not to nitpick, but 126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives in the house voted against the resolution along with 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators.

only 7 of the 272 republican congress people voted against it.

as for charges of fabricating info:

*A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, declassified and released at the request of Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich), asserted that the claims of an operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, as put forth by a key Pentagon office in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, were based on dubious or unconfirmed reports.

*The Robb-Silberman Commission stated that the President's Daily Briefs from the intelligence community tended to repeat information in a misleading way. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress was more "nuanced" and less "alarmist" than information given to the President.

*The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers that had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time. Weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories, despite statements to the contrary by the Bush administration. Continuing these inspections was made impossible by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq which forced the U.N. inspectors out, ignoring their requests for more time.

*Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.

Shall I go on?
Pelosi Schmelosi

Tempe, AZ

#64 Aug 28, 2008
Ilene wrote:
To Good Vibrations - yeah, you said it pretty well. Sickos that write theis stuff. STUCK IN STUPID.
To Richard -- You're Stuck in Stupid, too. I can say the same thing about Bush and his idiots. I still don't know how he got to be president -- oh, yes, actually I do...we're still paying for that theft.
So I guess the Supreme Ct Justices are thieves? Talk about stupid.
Pelosi Schmelosi

Tempe, AZ

#65 Aug 28, 2008
lbi wrote:
<quoted text>
are you serious? who got us into this war? i do believe a large segment of the american population was behind going after terrorists in Afghanistan after 9/11. it was george bush, john mccain and the rest of the fear mongering GOP that got us into the Iraq mire and took the eye off the ball. if we had focused our attention on finishing the job in Afghanistan, we would already be out, our military home and the world a safer place.
Instead though, we have McCain advocated for 100 years in Iraq. The military building a base larger than Rome outside of Baghdad. for what? to bring your son home? stop the hysterical ranting and look at the facts. Obama and Biden want to focus on the REAL threats facing our country. Had the GOP not told Bill Clinton he was 'wagging the dog' when he first tried to deal with Al Queda, we never would have had this mess to begin with.
the ideals and strategies of the GOP have failed. McCain, once a maverick, has sold his sole to Rove and the GOP machine to get elected. We, this country, and YOUR CHILDREN, can't afford another 4 years of this.
You wouldn't know the facts if it hit you between the eyes. You think there aren't terrorists in Iraq because the liberal media calls them "insurgents"? Didn't Saddam invade two countries? Shoot missles at two others? Mustard gas his own people? Build a nuke plant? Are you advocating that we should have allowed terrorist training camps to destabilize the Middle East? Near the Saudi oil fields? And you talk as if no president ever lied except Bush?
If Bam and Joey Hair Plugs want to focus on the real threats, guess that means we'll be invading Iraq, N. Korea, Russia, Venezuela...
Like most libs, their angry disdain for the current administration blinds them to reality. And no I don't think Bush has done a good job either.
Pelosi Schmelosi

Tempe, AZ

#66 Aug 28, 2008
lbi wrote:
not to nitpick, but 126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives in the house voted against the resolution along with 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators.
only 7 of the 272 republican congress people voted against it.
as for charges of fabricating info:
*A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, declassified and released at the request of Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich), asserted that the claims of an operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, as put forth by a key Pentagon office in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, were based on dubious or unconfirmed reports.
*The Robb-Silberman Commission stated that the President's Daily Briefs from the intelligence community tended to repeat information in a misleading way. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress was more "nuanced" and less "alarmist" than information given to the President.
*The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers that had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time. Weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories, despite statements to the contrary by the Bush administration. Continuing these inspections was made impossible by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq which forced the U.N. inspectors out, ignoring their requests for more time.
*Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.
Shall I go on?
Please don't, you're boring the spit out of me.

“Eye Smell a Huckster in NH”

Since: May 08

Needham, MA

#67 Aug 28, 2008
lbi wrote:
*Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.
Shall I go on?
That is the argument and opinion of skeptics. From everything I have read, some of the intelligence was skewed. I don't mind nitpicking about the numbers, but why did the Democrats, especially Hillary, on the Senate Intelligence Committee, not know this?

Why did France, Germany, and Great Britain, and others reach the same conclusion, independently?

And it is known that he did have WMDs, since he used them previously. After the first Gulf War, he was in violation of many resolutions, and didnt' cooperate with arms inspectors.

It is not unreasonable for people to conclude that he still had WMDs, like Hillary and other Dems did. Now they are trying to explain it away, after the fact.

And to argue that they gave authorization but never expected Bush to use it, is ridiculous, I think.
lbi

Water Mill, NY

#68 Aug 28, 2008
@ Pelosi - I'm sorry if discussion based on fact bores you so. As for "terrorists" being in Iraq prior to our occupation, it's been proven time and again to be false. Bush himself has admitted it.

@ Wilhem - It's good to know that there's reasonable people who want to have reasonable discussions on this board. I'll concede that the prevailing political thought at the time was that WMD's existed in Iraq. Saddam was no doubt an evil man and his reign of power definitely deserved to come to an end.

That said, there's no denying that this was a war of choice and political realities had a lot to do with where anyone came down on the issue. The US climate at the time had anyone not agreeing with Bush as unpatriotic, at best, or a terrorist themself, at worst. It's politics, it's about getting re-elected and it definitely does our country a great disservice. Whether someone believed it or not became irrelevant as taking a stand against it at the time amounted to political suicide. that's just my take on it.

Anyone who knows politics and a little bit of history knew the whole Iraq thing was coming either way though. Project for a New American Century ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ) has been around since Bush I and when George W. surrounded himself with the folks he did, all they needed was an excuse. 9/11 served that purpose. Personally, if they had originally sold it for what it was (planting the seed of democracy), I think it would have been much less divisive for the country and the world...though probably would never have happened. Creating the excuse that Iraq was somehow tied to 9/11 though was nothing but fear mongering (about as unpatriotic as it gets) and a fabrication of intel to get what they wanted.
Jack Sommers

AOL

#69 Aug 28, 2008
Obama Boy better explain to Joey Boy the difference between a Brigade and a Battalion the next time he gives a speech about what's going on in the war in Iraq? But then again Obama Boy has know idea either.

Joey Boy made a big mistake in his acceptance speech last night.

I'm sure John McCain knows the difference.

“Eye Smell a Huckster in NH”

Since: May 08

Needham, MA

#70 Aug 28, 2008
lbi wrote:
@ Pelosi - I'm sorry if discussion based on fact bores you so. As for "terrorists" being in Iraq prior to our occupation, it's been proven time and again to be false. Bush himself has admitted it.
@ Wilhem - It's good to know that there's reasonable people who want to have reasonable discussions on this board. I'll concede that the prevailing political thought at the time was that WMD's existed in Iraq. Saddam was no doubt an evil man and his reign of power definitely deserved to come to an end.
That said, there's no denying that this was a war of choice and political realities had a lot to do with where anyone came down on the issue. The US climate at the time had anyone not agreeing with Bush as unpatriotic, at best, or a terrorist themself, at worst. It's politics, it's about getting re-elected and it definitely does our country a great disservice. Whether someone believed it or not became irrelevant as taking a stand against it at the time amounted to political suicide. that's just my take on it.
Anyone who knows politics and a little bit of history knew the whole Iraq thing was coming either way though. Project for a New American Century ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ) has been around since Bush I and when George W. surrounded himself with the folks he did, all they needed was an excuse. 9/11 served that purpose. Personally, if they had originally sold it for what it was (planting the seed of democracy), I think it would have been much less divisive for the country and the world...though probably would never have happened. Creating the excuse that Iraq was somehow tied to 9/11 though was nothing but fear mongering (about as unpatriotic as it gets) and a fabrication of intel to get what they wanted.
I would agree that Bush used 9/11 as a justification to raise the WMD argument. Only later did Bush change the argument to fighting terrorism.

I supported the war. In hindsight, we would have been better off with the containment strategy.

All that is irrelevant though now. We are where we are. I'm just happy that things have improved there since last summer, when it looked like a quagmire. I look forward to our troops coming home, having given the Iraqis their best shot at freedom and self determination.

I disagreed with Obama and the others who called for immediate withdrawal, though Obama has now reached a more reasonable position close to McCains, IMO.
lbi

Water Mill, NY

#71 Aug 28, 2008
Wilhelm Canaris Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree that Bush used 9/11 as a justification to raise the WMD argument. Only later did Bush change the argument to fighting terrorism.
I supported the war. In hindsight, we would have been better off with the containment strategy.
All that is irrelevant though now. We are where we are. I'm just happy that things have improved there since last summer, when it looked like a quagmire. I look forward to our troops coming home, having given the Iraqis their best shot at freedom and self determination.
I disagreed with Obama and the others who called for immediate withdrawal, though Obama has now reached a more reasonable position close to McCains, IMO.
i'm with you on just about everything ('cept i was against it from the beginning).

as for the thought that Obama came around to McCain's stance though, our takes diverge. Obama has always been about a timeline for withdrawl, though he seems to have pushed the date back a bit. McCain really did call that thinking 'cut and run' as little as two months ago. And he really did say he though the US should have a presence there for 100 years. It wasn't until about 2 weeks ago that both he and Bush came around to agreeing on a date for withdrawl...and that only after the Iraqi PM demanded it.

Either way though, it's good that it's finally going to happen and that we've hopefully avoided what really did look like a never ending quagmire.

“Eye Smell a Huckster in NH”

Since: May 08

Needham, MA

#72 Aug 28, 2008
lbi wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm with you on just about everything ('cept i was against it from the beginning).
as for the thought that Obama came around to McCain's stance though, our takes diverge. Obama has always been about a timeline for withdrawl, though he seems to have pushed the date back a bit. McCain really did call that thinking 'cut and run' as little as two months ago. And he really did say he though the US should have a presence there for 100 years. It wasn't until about 2 weeks ago that both he and Bush came around to agreeing on a date for withdrawl...and that only after the Iraqi PM demanded it.
Either way though, it's good that it's finally going to happen and that we've hopefully avoided what really did look like a never ending quagmire.
You are reasonable, so you must know that that "100 year" quote was taken entirely out of context. He was referring to continued US military presences in many countries, including Germany, S. Korea, etc. He certainly does not advocate 100 years of war.

Obama originally pushed for immediate withdrawal, McCain said it would be based on progress. Now, because there is clear progress, IMO, demonstrated just yesterday by the complete turnover of Anwar province to the Iraqi forces (unthinkable a year ago before the "surge"), a withdrawal becomes possible. Its good that only the details remain about the timing of the pullout.
lbi

Water Mill, NY

#73 Aug 28, 2008
yes yes yes...i said 'presence' and meant it. perhaps should have fleshed it out a little more. we're on the same page though. i'm off for the day. been a pleasure discussing with you. now if we could just get 300 million more people to engage in such dialog.

be well.
Pit Bull owner

Caldwell, NJ

#74 Aug 28, 2008
Steve wrote:
<quoted text>
And once the effect of the all night bong hits wear off, the above poster will get a bawling out from her mom for not yet cleaning her room...I guarantee it!
I can assure you my mother has not reprimanded me about cleaning my room for close to 30 years
besides Steve
you'll never be half the man your mother was
NewYorkLady

Huntington Station, NY

#75 Aug 28, 2008
Name callers. Today's editorial at Newsday.

Afghanistan: Iraq lite?
As the presidential candidates flex prospective muscle on foreign affairs, military escalation in Afghanistan has become a recurring campaign theme. The narrative that politicians are weaving suggests that in contrast to America's ugly entanglement in Iraq, Afghanistan is somehow the “right” war, because it would strike terrorist forces at their root.
Sen. Joe Biden's convention speech aimed to quell voter anxieties about national security by stressing Obama's wish to step up America's military presence in Afghanistan.
And a build-up is already on the horizon, as the military prepares to pump more than 12,000 new soldiers into its Afghanistan operations.
Yet the swelling of the U.S. military role is shadowed by continued violence, peaking with an especially lethal spasm last week: 90 civilians killed by a U.S.-led airstrike, as declared by the United Nations.
Meanwhile, in a parallel to diplomatic tensions in Iraq, Afghanistan is pressuring the United States to revise the skeletal regulations governing its military operations, in a push to avoid more destruction by foreign forces tasked with securing the region.
But Marine commandant Gen. James T. Conway still trumpeted the need for more troops in Afghanistan yesterday, hinting that the move would dovetail neatly with the recent move toward an Iraq military drawdown:
"Everyone seems to agree that additional forces are the ideal course of action for preventing a Taliban comeback, but just where they're going to come from is still up for discussion.”
Others want to see the discussion move beyond the premise of "more is better." Critics warn of another misguided, Iraq-like quagmire, and they say the problem is not where the war is being fought, but how and why.
At The Nation's Notion blog, Katrina vanden Heuvel challenges the paradigm driving the war on terror. Citing a recent RAND report recommending a more cooperative, flexible approach to national security, she says Democrats may be setting themselves up for more ill-informed military ventures that ignore geopolitical and social realities:
“If elected, Senator Obama has the possibility of re-engaging with a world repulsed by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. His election, allied with smart and more just policies, could turn a page on the reckless and destructive policies of mad men. But extricating the US from one disastrous war to head into another will endanger that possibility -- while posing grave risks to the domestic agenda he has laid out. Before the new Democratic ticket of Obama/ Biden make a commitment to this new war, consider the sobering fact--confirmed by the US mliitary--that attacks by militants against the US-led coalition in Afghanistan have risen 40 percent this year, compared with 2007.”
Within Afghanistan, too, some are trying to push the debate beyond the combat theater. Reuters reports that Afghan opposition leaders have called for a summit, with guidance from the United Nations, to discuss how to keep the ethnically fractious, strife-torn country from deteriorating further.
Fazel Sangcharaki, spokesman for the opposition coalition National Front, told reporters:
"We are at a very dangerous point and are in a very fragile state. We are very vulnerable.… For saving Afghanistan, for Afghanistan's expedience ... Afghans should sit together and have a serious dialogue,"
If that dialogue opens up, will the next commander in chief be at the table, and how will the hawkish rhetoric of the campaign speeches play before an international audience?

This time they will call it "Obama/Biden's War!"
Pelosi Schmelosi

Tempe, AZ

#76 Aug 28, 2008
lbi wrote:
as for charges of fabricating info:
*A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, declassified and released at the request of Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich), asserted that the claims of an operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, as put forth by a key Pentagon office in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, were based on dubious or unconfirmed reports.
*The Robb-Silberman Commission stated that the President's Daily Briefs from the intelligence community tended to repeat information in a misleading way. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress was more "nuanced" and less "alarmist" than information given to the President.
*The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers that had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time. Weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories, despite statements to the contrary by the Bush administration. Continuing these inspections was made impossible by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq which forced the U.N. inspectors out, ignoring their requests for more time.
*Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.
Shall I go on?
So the bits of intelligence you're mentioning here are more accurate than the other intelligence that you claim to be "dubious and unconfirmed" and "distorted". Glad you cleared that up for me. Hindsight truly is 20/20.
As for the UN, you must be kidding right? Americans are supposed to wait around for them, or have them dictate our foreign policy. Sorry, I don't think so and I don't think most other Americans would agree.
Pelosi Schmelosi

Tempe, AZ

#77 Aug 28, 2008
lbi wrote:
@ Pelosi - I'm sorry if discussion based on fact bores you so. As for "terrorists" being in Iraq prior to our occupation, it's been proven time and again to be false. Bush himself has admitted it.
@ Wilhem - It's good to know that there's reasonable people who want to have reasonable discussions on this board. I'll concede that the prevailing political thought at the time was that WMD's existed in Iraq. Saddam was no doubt an evil man and his reign of power definitely deserved to come to an end.
That said, there's no denying that this was a war of choice and political realities had a lot to do with where anyone came down on the issue. The US climate at the time had anyone not agreeing with Bush as unpatriotic, at best, or a terrorist themself, at worst. It's politics, it's about getting re-elected and it definitely does our country a great disservice. Whether someone believed it or not became irrelevant as taking a stand against it at the time amounted to political suicide. that's just my take on it.
Anyone who knows politics and a little bit of history knew the whole Iraq thing was coming either way though. Project for a New American Century ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ) has been around since Bush I and when George W. surrounded himself with the folks he did, all they needed was an excuse. 9/11 served that purpose. Personally, if they had originally sold it for what it was (planting the seed of democracy), I think it would have been much less divisive for the country and the world...though probably would never have happened. Creating the excuse that Iraq was somehow tied to 9/11 though was nothing but fear mongering (about as unpatriotic as it gets) and a fabrication of intel to get what they wanted.
Now Bush is "unpatriotic"?
Have we been attacked on our soil since 9/11?
Has a raft loaded with explosives smashed into one of our ships?
Have hundreds of our troops been killed in their own barracks while they were sleeping?
Would you prefer to fight terrorism on our soil or theres?
Is this really a political issue as you suggest?
Or is it about fighting a war, with people who swear to destroy our country and kill anyone, including my kids, if they get in the way?
As for the "intel" that says there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion, I don't remember hearing anything about that. Even I'm not perfect.
Bush has his faults but patriotism isn't one of them.
upstate bob

Norwich, NY

#78 Aug 29, 2008
tjrover wrote:
Luckily most of your kids are probably smarter than you. Obama will have the youth vote easily, because we understand Obama's views and the current dilemmas of international policy better than most of you gheezers.
I cannot believe how uninformed the people on this board are.
there is no h in geezers young fella.

“Eye Smell a Huckster in NH”

Since: May 08

Needham, MA

#79 Aug 29, 2008
Has anyone sent money into the George Hussein Obama charity fundraiser?

http://www.helpgeorgeobama.org/

I mean Barry (aka Barak) Hussein Obama has quoted scripture (Matthew) recently when he said the greatest thing wrong with this country is that we are not "our brothers' keepers," so I assume Barak and all of his supporters would have heeded the Words of the One, and sent money in.

“Eye Smell a Huckster in NH”

Since: May 08

Needham, MA

#80 Aug 29, 2008
Barak called his brother a "beautiful boy with a rounded head." After I heard that quote from The Spiritual Faith Healer, I can see why Joe Biden called him "clean, bright and articulate."
Diane

Medford, NY

#82 Sep 24, 2008
Obama was present when the Senate voted to renounce the Moveon.org full page ad attacking General Petrayus, but he refused to vote. Refusing to take a vote on that leads one to believe he argees with it and therefore we can question his patriotism.

Which party has members that have stated:
- Our troops are terrorizing & killing Iraqi civilians in the dead of night
- Our troops are targeting Afghan civilians
- Our troops are torturing prisoners at Gitmo (no proof) and compared this to the horrendous regime of Pol Pot
- General Petrayus was called a "liar" even before he spoke to Congress
- Our troops are Nazis
- That the surge has failed...even before it had began
- That the war was "lost" even before it was over

None of these statements have been refuted, denounced, or deemed offensive by the DNC.

Obama: as a state senator in Illinois he opposed a ban on the killing of fetuses born alive and opposed the federal ban on partial-birth abortions.[Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News On This Day: McCollum Memo Delivered (Feb '15) Jul '16 Cynthia 3
News Like Lincoln and FDR, Obama faces nation in cri... (Nov '08) Oct '14 yon 52
News Veteran projectionist still threading film at m... (Mar '13) Mar '13 Films 1
News Memos show U.S. hushed up Soviet crime (Sep '12) Sep '12 Pesky army 6
News Hmm. The 2012 Election Reminds Me Of Something (May '12) Jun '12 Le Jimbo 71
News Paul Broun on FDR (Sep '11) Sep '11 Brotha of the Unb... 1
News The Constitution and compassion, too (May '11) May '11 JERRY DEMING 6
More from around the web