Senator Obama is coming across as someone very presidential. He is showing Americans he has good judgement and good leadership ability to turn a positive new chapter in American history.

Stop whining about the date and ask some tough questions, Professor.

Oh, thats right.., terrorism is not related to the war in Iraq for the dems. No, no relation here…

Hey Obama, try telling that to our boys in uniform while their dodging Al Qaeda in Iraq's terror strikes. (eyes rolling)

Is there any wonder why this guy will never be trusted with America's security?? (eyes still rolling)

Of course that is what the Bush administration is trying to do. They will do anything to link 9/11 to Iraq. Glad Obama is starting to say things that not everyone wants to hear.

The more I hear from this guy the more I like him. He seems to have a realistic view - certainly something that is lacking in the current administration.

Stop whining about the date and ask some tough questions, Professor.

Posted By Jeff Spangler, Arlington, VA : September 11, 2007 4:25 pm

Maybe he did. You just won't know it from reading CNN.

He's right! I still having trouble how is Sep. 11 connected to the Iraq war that had to do with greed about money and oil.

I think that the congress is the one that set the meeting date and time. I mean it is a congressional haring, isn't it? Democrats are in charge of congress, so Barack seems to be compaining about the wrong people.

Obama is really no different from any other 'top tier' politician, republican or democrat. His plan is to just back up and let them fight it out, while still maintaining a presence in the middle east… which is the exact reason why suicide terrorism exists: occupation! We need to seriously rethink our foreign policy and move to a position of non-interventionsim. This radical idea of pre-emptive war needs to be changed…its unconstitutional and unamerican. Vote for Ron Paul in '08, not Obama, who is truly a "washington insider."

This administration is up to it's old tactics,"fear", which they successfully always used. 9/11 victims and families need much more respect than to be used for political gain. I agree with Mr. Obama on this one, and thanks for speaking out.

Our great nation lost both its innocence and innocent American lives on September 11 2001 and to this day continues to lose innocent lives…we are in Iraq as a result. SHAME on you Mr. Obama for trying to make the hearings one more political issue.

One proactive question remains to be put forth: What happens if -in the best case senario - a year or two down the line, Iraq is free enough from sectarian strife for the U.S to significantly "draw down?" It will then (as now) take only a very small band of mal-contented Sunnis, Shia or Islamists to bomb another mosque, murder civilians or even criticize the other side, and the Iraqi conflagration starts anew. There IS no plausible "end game."

WOW, THIS MAN HAS IT ALL! HE IS CLEAR, FOCUSED, ARTICULATE, AND COMMANDING.

I agree that the hearings held can definitely be seen as associated with the 9/11 attacks. Even Bush himself admitted that there was not real connection and Petraeus said after he hearings that he does not believe the United States is any safer after the effort in Iraq.

What a great question to ask. Iraq has nothing to do with 911. Bush, Clinton and Chenny wants the world to think Obama always impresses me with his leadership. Obama 08!

Well, at least I was not the only person who noticed the strange timing of this event. Thanks Barack.

Obama says, "This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake. "

Riiight. And nuking Pakistan would be the SMART approach to getting OBL, Mr Obama? Perhaps you need another cigarette to take the pressure off.

Professorial? yes…the class won't booth him out.
Senatorial? hm…not quite yet…too rough for seasoned experts.
Presidential? Well…I am not so sure that any heads of state will like the lecturing.

Hey James, Obama never said anything about nuking Pakistan. Those were the words put into his mouth by Republican spinsters, just like you're doing now. Way to have them think for you and choose your words for you.

umm James from Phoenix I dont know what news you listen to but I believe Obama was AGAINST nuking Pakistan, to which Miss Clinton replied that it was "naive" to make blanket statements about; because bombing Pakistan is a GREAT option. (sarcasm) Obama is the only candidate who makes sense and thats that, I have never cared about another presidential candidate in my life. WAKE UP AMERICA and vote Obama 08! Oh and CNN could we please get more stories on this man not just cut up tidbits, I'm starting to believe those Clinton News Network rumors.

So its September 11th again.

Six years ago today, I drove myself insane, too literally for comfort, due to some extraordinary circumstances.

I knew my accountant was on a United flight to San Francisco that morning. It crashed over a lonely field thanks to a handful of determined Saudi criminals.

My roommate emailed me from the Borders Books at the World Trade Center the night before, saying he'd be back in the building at 7 AM to get an email address he needed from me on the computer he was paying to use there. He and his mom were on vacation.

That next Sept. 11 morning I heard a radio report of fire inside Borders, where trapped people beat helplessly against reinforced glass walls. I was on my way to a friends. I had to pull over.

Another best friend of years had called me at three a.m. on September 11th, 2001, less than four hours before the massive tower directly outside his window would fall and turn his apartment into ash and glass strewn rubble.

He lived in the October Films apartment across the way from the WTC and was up late writing a script. He called to talk shop and said, at the end of the call, that he'd crash for sure until noon the next day and nobody or nothing would wake him up.

My neighbor across the hall banged on my door shortly after the Pentagon was hit. Her eyes gleamed with tears and she was trembling. Her husband worked at the Pentagon, in the section hit. I sat consoling the woman on my couch as we watched it burn. Actually we consoled each other.

This is a true story, and it did indeed drive me nuts, but at this point is not where the story ended, it is only where it began…

I wrote emails until my fingernails bled all day Sept. 11, 2001, typing perhaps a hundred words a minute for hours on end to various people, writing letters to friends to ensure they were safe and to ensure them I was as well, since I often travelled to New York.
Good news came shortly, when my neighbor's wife and I learned her husband called in sick that day and was safe afterall. Tears of pain became those of joy.

After frantically calling for hours I finally reached my roommate, who was also lucky. He and his mom were late catching the subway to the WTC and watched the buildings go down with mouths agape outside their relative's front door, across the water in New Jersey. He has a fearsome picture he snapped of what looks like half of Manhattan going up in a cloud.

As for my writer friend in the October Films Apartment across the street from WTC… his girlfriend reached him by phone after trying repeatedly before the first Tower's collapse. He thought she was joking and stumbled down the stairs in his pajamas. At the front doorway he looked up at the sky falling on him, literally. It was just then that the tower fell. He ran for his life as the concussion hit, throwing some around him down, never to get up.

Three hours later, after a gruelling jog through the city, he reached me via IM at a friends he'd made it to.

As for my accountant on Flight United 93, the plane that crashed before it could hit the White House… I learned that night that she wasn't on it. She'd been in line at the airport to get her ticket when her husband, who works on the East Coast and whom she'd come to visit, had suggested she take a later flight so they could visit and have lunch.

Yes, I was justifiably crazy that first day, as we all were. But it was not my friends' close encounters with death that drove me nuts in the days to follow, it was the knowledge that our entire country lay in the balance, our freedoms, our ideals, everything.

I did not let up my email writing campaign. But my words became an advocacy for calm, writing to every editor I could think of, writing posts to every site I could find. Within a few days I'd made contacts in four different countries. I said over and over, the time had come not to lash out blindly, not to hate universally, not to give in to the fear we all felt, but to breathe, to take a deep breath and not lose the sense of justice and reason and strength our country was famous for.

The people I knew were lucky, others were not. When I watched George Bush pronounce, "I hear you." to the WTC workers at ground zero that first morning, I knew a lot of other people around the world would hear from him too, and not be lucky either.

What George Bush heard was our rage, our bitterness, and our despair. He drank it up like wine and he's been drunk ever since. Mr. Bush had just found the rallying cry he needed to do pretty damn well whatever he wanted just as dictators for centuries have done.

What he did not hear, however, what he was deaf, dumb and blind to, was the call of any great leader, to bring his country together and unite in time of crisis. Instead, over the following months he chose to divide and conquer, just as literally as I first feared. He chose to use the powerful emotional tool he had been handed as a club to his own people, and he still beats away at it even today, by having the Congressional hearings with General Petraus on the state of Iraq on this of all days, by releasing the Bin Laden tapes he's kept under wraps for weeks on this of all days.

Can it really be that he still insists on suggesting that Iraq had something to do with 911, even though we, and he, know its not the case.

He does it because the only tool he has left to him is emotional, right or wrong and he chooses the basest, most pornographic bloody emotions he can drudge from the human soul to suit his needs instead of our own.

I advocated then, and I still do now, to keep common sense and courage, to not give in to the temporary security and loss of freedoms George Bush would subscribe on Sept. 11, 2001 and has been embracing ever since.

The Patriot Act was passed within days, before most of the Senators admittedly had a chance to even read the whole damndable thing. They would not speak out because of fear of persecution while our Constitution was sacrificed via Cliff Notes.

It takes strength not only to strike in a horrible situation like that of 911, but also to show restraint, to show common sense and level headed justice instead of unrestrained rage. It takes strength to speak against popular wishes and justified outrage when it is not politically expedient, as State Senator Barack Obama did when he called Iraq the politically suicidal term, "dumb war."

That night, of September 11, 2001, I walked out of my little apartment in Sherman Oaks and up the main drag on Venture Blvd. There, I found many, many other strangers all doing the same thing. There was such an overwhelming need for community and comfort that night. It was like anything was possible. We'd all come together as a nation and we all looked to our leaders to lead wisely, to show us a way that would stem the flow of blood that we'd just endured.

It was not something George Bush could accomplish in a million years. I prayed for a leader who could see beyond the red haze of hatred, and I hoped I wasn't alone.

But even in the soothing presence of so many that were in need of answers, in need of justice just like myself, I could not shake my unease. I stood next to a storefront on Ventura blvd. all decked out with gory Halloween skulls, along with blasted apart limbs exposing grissle and bone beneath latex.

Dangling and mangled feet hung from one window in particular that I could not stop staring in at.

In the window's reflection I could see many cars with screaming people hanging out, honking, waving American Flags as they passed as if to say "you cannot keep us down." There was a traffic jam and it had become an impromptu parade.

It was then I noticed a local news crew. They were interviewing people about their opinions. The question they asked repeatedly; "Should we go to war?"

The answer, again and again, was "yes." At that point, nobody knew who did it or where they were from. All we knew was that we wanted blood, we wanted body parts in windows for all to see, just like in that macabre display behind me.

But as I tell my three year old, what we want is not always what we need. And we all came to learn that the hard way.
I noticed the guy being interviewed on camera was a man I knew. I'd seen him at parties in the area and he was a producer for CNBC, a recent AFI grad.

Previously I'd thought of him as a sober, analytical type. But that night he was wearing a Red White and Blue bandanna, an American Flag tie, and an American Flag jacket. He was irate on camera, screaming about how we should be bombing someone for what had been done to us.

I did not blame him. In fact, I felt like hugging him. Yet, in his eyes, I saw everything in that Halloween display come to life. I saw the exact circumstances of the death of liberty, reason and respect. Here was a horrible wish from a good man, who was only human, and was hurt, as we all were.

Next, the reporter interviewed me, and I told him that I thought it absurd to be calling for some nation or another to be bombed simply because, without knowing if we faced an acto of war or a criminal act like what happened via Timothy McVeigh. Was it a nation responsible or a group of criminals? Who knew? I told him to look around at the justified outrage. It was great people were coming together, but was it a rush to answers, or madness?

He responded, "Wow, you're the only person we've interviewed tonight that feels we shouldn't immediately be at war."

I responded, "With whom?" and then I went home.

I went home and I cried. I cried because I could not be sure it wouldn't have been me screaming had some of my best friends not made it out of the situation alive as they just had. It is human nature to take revenge after all.
A good leader should be of a higher nature, and to know that's not what we had, worried me all the more.

As I witnessed the events of the last six years since, I've often thought back to the outrage and community on display that night of September 11th. I've often thought of the macabre window where bodyparts were so glamourously displayed.

I've often thought of how we all were marketed that bitter cold meal to follow and how so many ate wholeheartedly of it.

Ever since that night, I've waited. I've waited for someone, anyone of public note to start making sense, to start talking logically again. I've waited for someone to rise above the bickering and fear to take a stand.
In 2004, when I heard Barak Obama speak at the Democratic National Convention, I realized immediately I'd found such a man.

Here was someone that could unite us to fight instead of dividing us to do it. Here is someone who can play to our emotions for good instead of ill, in ways and circumstances George W. Bush never has imagined were possible.

The moment I heard Barack Obama's words I knew they were for me, that he understood the anger, the tragedy, the manipulation of emotion and fear, and that he understood exactly how certain other politicians had used it for their own gain. I understood that he, unlike Bush, knew how to diffuse it. He knew how to bring us back to our senses and out of the realm of senseless violence and fear we'd become so comfortable in.
I believed then at that moment, as I do now, that he would one day soon be President of The United States.

The next time a horrible crime like 911 occurs, we will have a leader that is able to look at the situation not as a tool, or a campaign tactic, or as a call to a fictional global war to benefit a greedy few, but as what it is, a national emergency to be dealt with using level headed strength, integrity and the swiftness that comes only from immense character and good judgement.

If only President Obama had been there so few years ago, what a different world we would have today.

I thought I had lost my sense of hope and imagination for this country in the months since. As time passed I thought we may be doomed to a hell filled with fear, loathing and war without end. I no longer think that. Not a bit. I've regained my fragile sanity at last.

I have regained my innocence through Barack Obama. I have regained my sense that I am not alone in the world with my thoughts, trapped on a body part strewn street corner for all buyers to beware, watching as a great tide overturns all reason and hope.

The tide has turned. We're turning it now, and we'll keep doing so in honor of all those, in the air and on the ground, in New York, Washington, Afganistan and Iraq and across this whole nation and world, that have given their lives and their limbs so that we can get to where we are, which is the most pivotal point in United States History to date. So that we can get to the place that is called change.

The planes missed not just my friends that day, but us all. Fate gave us another opportunity to make a future where planes will never fall from the sky again.

Take it.

God I love this guy. He is a gift to American, I hope we as a nation grab this opportunity. It may not come again.

The facts are what they are and the date of delivery is immaterial. The democratic congress (Obama included) should be able to draw their own conclusions from the testimony (as if they hadn't already).

Can't believe you folks can't see this for what it is…is classic campaign exposure rhetoric.

James from AZ - perhaps you should do some research before perpetuating false information as you've done here. Senator Obama said he would be willing to take action on Mr. Bin Laden in the northern region of Pakistan if his exact location was known, as would most any President. However, he clearly stated that he would NOT use nuclear weapons to this effect. Please take the time to learn about the candidates' true positions before making claims on this forum.

OBAMA 08

I saw in Obama the qualities of a Commander-in-Chief, good judgement and a man capable of facing the issue without making it a partisan issue.
All he said is focus on the problem before laying the tactical strategies.

Oh give it up Obama, it doesn't help at all to make a mundane statement like this about timing. Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!

Obama's plan to deal with Iraq from his website: "The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008."

Bit late for that, isn't it? Of course, his plan is the same as all other plans that all other candidates have articulated, get it out and have Iraq fall on someone else's watch. Not a one of them has the guts to pull US troops out of Iraq and let it collapse into anarchy on his own watch. Look around, they all have plans to have troops withdrawn UNDER THE CURRRENT ADMINISTRATION! That's right, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, they all have it conveniantly mapped out that someone else will take that dirty little step long before that ball is in their hands. What happens if Bush doesn't oblige? What happens if we still have current US troop levels in Iraq on innaugeration day 2009? Not a one of them says what will happen. That's so they have enough wiggle room to not have to bite the bullet on their own watch. Mark me, Obama will not pull out of Iraq if we're still there where he takes office.

This administration and its supporters have tried to link 9/11 and the current war, but no links have been proven and it is just propaganda. At least Obama calls them on this without fear of backlash from whomever. Barack would make a great president and his vision could change alot of the negatives about this country. Another 4-8 years of Clinton is just not needed right now. The country should move away from division and corruption and towards cohesiveness and at least common respect of all people. I believe Obama can make this happen.

Obama says, "This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake. "

Riiight. And nuking Pakistan would be the SMART approach to getting OBL, Mr Obama? Perhaps you need another cigarette to take the pressure off.

Posted By James, Phoenix AZ : September 11, 2007 5:35 pm

Actually Obama wants to take the Nukes off the table. Some people in this country really have no idea on anything. See thats the problem with media spin, they dont fully read the article just the headline or skim through the article. Then come up with there own conclusion and come up with comments like that. You people really have the wrong impression on Obama and im starting to question if it really has to deal with more then his "experience" hey thanks CNN for doing such a great job with that speach back then. Two thumbs up

One proactive question remains to be put forth: What happens if -in the best case senario - a year or two down the line, Iraq is free enough from sectarian strife for the U.S to significantly "draw down?" It will then (as now) take only a very small band of mal-contented Sunnis, Shia or Islamists to bomb another mosque, murder civilians or even criticize the other side, and the Iraqi conflagration starts anew. There IS no plausible "end game."

I dont know if you know this but AMERICA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVER A MILLION IRAQI DEATHS. A MILLION IRAQIS HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF OUR LEADERS THIRST FOR OIL. THE HUMANITY SIDE OF THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN A "WELL WE BROKE IT LETS FIX IT BS" WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO ALLOW THOSE PEOPLE THERE FREEDOMS AND BY US STAYING THERE ONLY DELAYS THAT. WE NEED TO GET OFF OF OUR HIGH HORSE AND LET THOSE PEOPLE LIVE. MY GOODNESS STOP BEING SO ARROGANT!

Oh give it up Obama, it doesn't help at all to make a mundane statement like this about timing. Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!

And what if he's right? That’s probably why he is where he is and you are where you are? I would take his word over yours any day. For people to just sit there, just blind themselves over facts, and just refuse to take a man for his word and knowledge is just sick. But the majority of the people on these blogs voted for bush who is the dumbest president ever. Let me repeat that BUSH IS THE DUMBEST PRESIDENT EVER. But you question Obama? Please take off the clothing and just come out and say how you feel about the man!

" Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!"

Posted By Grace D. - Kansas City, Mo. : September 11, 2007 7:08 pm

He has been, Grace. You're not hearing him because he is missing half of the right protocol for most Americans.

Nothing he will say will be good enough for too many of you.

Oh, thats right.., terrorism is not related to the war in Iraq for the dems. No, no relation here…

Is there any wonder why this guy will never be trusted with America's security?? (eyes still rolling)
Posted By spinstopper : September 11, 2007 4:32 pm
the war on terror had nothing to do with iraq. al qaida was not even in iraq until we went there. we brought the terror to that region. and you can't trust obama with America's Security, but you can trust Bush, Cheney, Patreus, and the likes?

Oh give it up Obama, it doesn't help at all to make a mundane statement like this about timing. Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!
Posted By Grace D. - Kansas City, Mo. : September 11, 2007 7:08 pm
he does, every single day, you just need to pull your blinders off.

After watching that clip, I can honestly reaffirm my belief that Obama is totally ready for the Presidency. He is intelligent, sane, rational, and he offers a stable and truthful recognition of reality in regards to the Iraq War.

Please, let's give this guy the White House.

Paul from CA,

Move to a position of non-interventionism? Where do you think we were before 9/11? We certainly weren't invading countries. Second of all, how is a preemptive strike non-constitutional? I believe the Constitution was created for Americans and to protect Americans, not other countries who are about to attck us.

Paul from CA,

Move to a position of non-interventionism? Where do you think we were before 9/11? We certainly weren't invading countries. Second of all, how is a preemptive strike non-constitutional? I believe the Constitution was created for Americans and to protect Americans, not other countries who are about to attck us.
Posted By Kirsten, VA : September 11, 2007 9:52 pm
who was about to attack us? yeah, we got attacked on 9/11, by terrorists, not by a country, but really, who was about to attack us? iraq? don't make me laugh.

Presidential? Well…I am not so sure that any heads of state will like the lecturing. — pl. at the UN

ie.. We’re don't listen very well. Typical UN philosophy.

CNN, why does Sen. Obama get his own story on the Political Ticker for wasting the vast majority of his time lecuring Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker on his opinion before asking a question that another senator had already asked? This question was asked just before his time ran out. After Amb. Crocker told him he'd already responded and it was pointed out to him that he was out of time, Sen. Obama asked him to answer again anyways. This is not a campaign stop, Senator. Don't waste your time repeating your talking points on the Iraq war when you can be asking the hard questions to the man who is leading it on the ground. CNN, why not post a Political Ticker story about how Sen. Biden presided over the hearing with great poise and wisdom? Senator Biden asked pointed questions and guided the hearings very well.

obama, you're all wet.

what barack and a lot of dum dems dont get is that we're not targeting or interested in war with any particular country, but most of the terrorists are in Irq, Iran, syria.

Kristen from VA,

Iraq had no intention of attacking us, first of all. Secondly, there are three main reasons why we were attacked, which are not only backed up by the 9/11 comission report, but also our own CIA…. and they all have to do with meddling in the affairs of other countries (aka intervention). The first is our military presence in the Arabian peninsula, home of the two holy sites Mecca and Medina. Second, We support Israel, a country that acknowledgingly oppresses Palestinians. And third, we have been bombing and imposing sanctions on Iraq for the ten years (even after the gulf war). Those are the precise reasons why the middle east hates us…not because we are rich, free and nice people.

Next, you think that America has been non interventionist? In 1953 our CIA overthrew the Iranian democratically elected leader over oil interests and installed the Shah, who was a brutal dictator. After the Iranian Revolution in the 70's, the CIA was scared that there would be blowback from our installation of the Shah, so we supported SADDAM HUSSEIN to fight the Iraq-Iran War. We actually gave Iraq their weapons of mass destruction.

I'm not even going to get into the details of other interventions, including: nicaragua (contras), el salvador, chili, yemen, vietnam, korea, pakistan, syria, UAE, Lebanon, saudi arabia, afghanistan (during which bin laden worked for the CIA to fight the soviets), and the list goes on…

We have not been non-interventionalist since the WWII. We need to stop policing the world, mind our business, and be friendly and trade with other countries. But that will never happen until we drastically change our foreign policy.

I love comments like "Go tell the boys in uniform who are fighting for this country that." Well guess what? Your darn straight I would tell them. I would tell them that the terrorism that they thought they were fighting has changed fronts. That they are now fighting in a failed attempt to uphold some sort of government under the guise of democracy with the real intentions of gaining a large foothold on the oil there. I would tell them that all this stuff about eliminating terrorism as a result of 9/11 is all smoke and mirrors now and that our president has placed their lives, american lives, at stake and without even a good cause.

Obama is a straight shooter. He knows what's going on and hes putting it out there. The mans honesty is something to be admired as well since he stated the facts all too well that the only decision is to decide between bad and worse at this point. But to sit around with that whole "don't change horses in midstream" is preposterous!

To Matt in Houston:
Obama's annoyance about the timing of today's hearing was leveled at the Democratic Leadership. I watched it on CSPAN, and Obama said "WE should not have allowed this hearing to be scheduled today."

To Grace: You want Obama to use today's hearing on Iraq to "tell Americans why they should vote for him."? So you think the hearing was the appropriate place for Obama to give a campaign speech? Don't be absurd.

To James in Phoenix: My friend, don't be intellectually dishonest. Obama never said anything about nuking Pakistan…as a matter of fact, he specifically said nukes were off the table (and of course Hillary attacked him for that, even though SHE had said the same thing in 2006…but I digress). As someone who is obviously interested in our current political climate and the candidates, why not get the facts about Obama before posting such inaccurate statements?
Incidentally, last week, John Edwards gave a major foreign policy speech, and he said EXACTLY rhe same thing that Obama said last month in his speech regarding acting on intel on Al Qaeda inside Pakistan IF Musharraff refused to act. Funny thing is….Obama was lambasted by the media as "naive" and "inexperienced" for his speech, but John Edwards was applauded.

Go figure.

Obama made me laugh when he said wrong date/time of presentation! Common, we Americann's are not that stupid. Obama you better find something else to say than this to look like a candidate for president of the USA. Same on Obama for what he said!!!!!

Abiut all the terrorists on9/11 came from Saudi Arabia……..why aren't we fighting there?

It is amazing what people choose to believe. Republicans just refuse to admit that they are dead wrong. I know it is tough to admit but Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9-11. There was no imminent threat from Saddam. He had no WMDs. No matter how you dress up a general, he is still not allowed to criticize the administration because it is against the law. And…the surge is not working. Why do you think Bush landed and stayed out in the middle of nowhere.

You racist and jealous hearted people might as well get over yourselves b/c Obama will be our next POTUS

Well said Obama! I couldn't agree more.

/***
Oh, thats right.., terrorism is not related to the war in Iraq for the dems. No, no relation here…
***/

Spinstarter: I know this is tough for you, but try and keep up: 9-11 <=== do you actually comprehend "9-11″ - NOT terrorism in jail - is not related to the war in Iraq.

Glad to see you're in typical inarticulate form.

/***
SHAME on you Mr. Obama for trying to make the hearings one more political issue.
***/

Quit smoking that PCP, Eduardo, you old kidder you.

Obama was merely pointing out how the Bushies was, as usual, trying to confuse the American people - it sure worked with you, Eduardo - into thinking the war in Iraq has anything at all to do with 9-11.

Hopefully, this clears things up for you.

/***
Oh give it up Obama, it doesn't help at all to make a mundane statement like this about timing. Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!
***/

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Obama, with that question, is showing Americans *exactly* why we should vote for him.

Pay attention.

James from Phoenix…you were laughing when you wrote:

"Obama wants to nuke Pakistan"

weren't you? Because I know I was definitely laughing at that obscenely false statement! Good job you provided me with my entertainment for the night James! Keep it up.

I do agree on the timing of these hearings, very obvious they were scheduled to have the best impact on those that believe that somehow Iraq had something to do with 9/11. However the main issue I am hearing is the same sad state of affairs, everyone is voting for someone else in order that another person not get elected, the lesser of evils. How sad, why is it we cannot find someone to run for president that gets our votes for their platform rather than as the lesser of two evils. Has our democracy become so corrupt that this is our only choice? Are we doomed from now on to vote for someone in order to make sure another does not become president?

good judgement…. good judgement would have meant that he would have spent his precious 7 minutes asking questions, not giving a speech he could give at any time. Obama wasted his time, and ours by not asking the general any questions. Its a shame that such a brilliant mind could not think of a question. The article is completely misleading, Obama gave a speech, and did not question the general at all, even as Biden reminded the senator to ask a question.

Oh, thats right.., terrorism is not related to the war in Iraq for the dems. No, no relation here…

Hey Obama, try telling that to our boys in uniform while their dodging Al Qaeda in Iraq's terror strikes. (eyes rolling)

Is there any wonder why this guy will never be trusted with America's security?? (eyes still rolling)

Posted By spinstopper
***************************************
***************************************
IT'S A WONDER TO ME HOW SOME PEOPLES COMMENTS ARE REALLY, REALLY OBTUSE. WHAT SENATOR OBAMA SAID WAS THAT THE INITIAL REASON WE WENT INTO IRAG HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERROR THE U.S., WENT TO WAR FOR. REMEMBER, THE TALIBAN WAS HORBORING AL QAEDA IN AFGANISTAN. THAT'S ONE ISLAMIC COUNTRY, WHO AT THE TIME, SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVADED, BECAUSE THEY WERE HORBORING THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACKS ON 9/11. BUT, BUSH, AND HIS ADMINISTRATIVE CRONNIES, PUT IRAQ ON THE BUTCHERS TABLE, BECAUSE OF SO CALLED WMD'S, THE 2ND ISLAMIC COUNTRY. THIS ONE HAD NO TIES TO THE ATTACKS ON 9/11, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE U.S. WANTED TO GET SADDAAM, SO WE COULD GET THE OIL. AND, THE ADMINISTRATION, AND OUR MILITARY HAS STILL TO CAPTURE BIN LADIN, THE GRAND MASTER OF THE DISASTER THAT TOOK PLACE 09/11/2001. SO, THE ONLY REASON YOU WOULD SAY WHAT YOU'VE STATED IS BECAUSE OBAMA'S BLACK, AND YOU DON'T THINK A BLACK MAN/WOMAN COULD ENSURE OUR SECURITY…HAS BUSH. H**L NO ! REMEMBER 9/11. THEY KNEW ABOUT THE TREAT BEFORE IT HAPPENED AND DID NOTHING TO 'TRY' TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING. SO, IF YOU ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT SECURITY, WHY AREN'T YOU ASKING BUSH WHY DIDN'T HE AND HIS COHORTS ACT ON THE INTELL THEY HAD PRETAINING TO AL QAEDA AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE, WHO ARE DEAD AS A RESULT OF FLYING THE PLANES INTO THE TWIN TOWERS. YOU WHAT TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE ? GET TO CRITICIZING YOUR PRESIDENT!!!!

It is amazing to me how the rightwing lemmings comment on these blogs. Parroting whatever they have heard from thier favorite hate jock and acting as though they have somehow had an original thought. The general was not ordered to appear before congress and that means he and the administration decides when he will be available and of course they picked 9/11 to try the same old warmed over mental tiein on thier flock. It worked of course, Bell rings, right salivates.

Our great nation lost both its innocence and innocent American lives on September 11 2001 and to this day continues to lose innocent lives…we are in Iraq as a result. SHAME on you Mr. Obama for trying to make the hearings one more political issue.

Posted By Eduardo
******************************************************************************

HELLO ? EDUARDO, HE'S SUPPOSED TO MAKE IT AN ISSUE. THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGE IS ABOUT 'ISSUES'. DAH! AND, WHO'S FAULT IS IT THAT INNOCENT MEM AND WOMAN DIED ON 9/11, AND CONTINUE TO DIE IN AFGANISTAN AND IRAQ ? WHO MADE THESE ISSUES ? OUR GROVERMENT DID. INSTEAD OF POLICING OUR OWN COUNTRY (MEANING ITS BORDERS). WE'RE OFF IN A FAR-AWAY PART OF THE WORLD POLICING SOMEONE ELSES BACK YARD. AND, WE SHOULDN'T BE! THE REASON WE'RE OVER THERE (MIDDLE EAST), IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ISRAEL KEEPS THE UPPER HAND MILITARIALY IN THE REGION, FOR OIL, AND BECAUSE IT WAS AN ISLAMIC STATE. EVERYONE, IN THE ADMINISTRATION, ESPECIALLY BUSH, HAS STATED IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM. YEAH, RIGHT ! AND, PEARL HARBOR HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT IT WAS JAPANESE MEN WHO FLOW THE PLANES THAT ATTACKED PEARL, AND SUBSEQUENTLY MADE THE U.S. DECIDE TO DROP NOT ONE, BUT TWO ATOMIC BOMBS ON JAPAN. MUSLIMS-AMERICANS TODAY ARE GOING THROUGH THE SAME NATIONAL/ETHNO BULL-JUNK JAPANESE-AMERICANS WENT THROUGH RIGHT AFTER THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR.

THIS COUNTRY OF OURS NEEDS TO STOP THINKING IT RULES THE WORLD, AND THEREFORE, NEED TO POLICE IT AS WELL.

what barack and a lot of dum dems dont get is that we're not targeting or interested in war with any particular country, but most of the terrorists are in Irq, Iran, syria.
Posted By larry, phoenix, az : September 11, 2007 10:45 pm
we brought the terrorists to iraq larry. and most of them aren't in iraq, or iran, but saudi arabia, pakistan, and afghanistan.

PAUL FROM, CA
Move to a position of non-interventionism? Where do you think we were before 9/11? We certainly weren't invading countries. Second of all, how is a preemptive strike non-constitutional? I believe the Constitution was created for Americans and to protect Americans, not other countries who are about to attck us.
Posted By Kirsten, VA : September 11, 2007 9:52 pm**************************

YO PAUL ! DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT INTERVENTIONISM IS ? FIRST, IT IS NOT ABOUT INVADING ANOTHER COUNTRY. WHAT WE WERE DOING BEFORE 9/11, AND ALL THE YEARS SINCE JAPAN IS POLICING THE WORLD. WE NEED TO STOP INTERVENING IN OTHER COUNTRIES BUSINESS, AND HANDLE OUR OWN BUSINESS. LIKE THE BUSINESS OF MAKING OUR ECONOMY STRONGER, AND CARING FOR THE NEEDS OF OUR POOR. JUST STAY OUT OF OTHER COUNTRIES BUSINESS AND WE'LL BE ALRIGHT. WHITE AIN'T ALWAYS RIGHT ! IT CAN BE WRONG TOO. I MEAN, LOOK AT THE IRAQ ISSUE ! BUSH AND HIS COHORTS JUKED US (THE AMERICAN PEOPLE), IN SUPPORTING HIS DECISION TO MOVE ON IRAQ, BASED ON WRONG INTELL.
SO, BEFORE YOU START THROWING WORDS OUT THERE MAKE SURE YOU FIRST KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD, BEFORE UTILIZING IT.

The more I hear from this guy, the more I DONT like him. I was set to support a new comer and that man who spoke at the last Democratic convention. But the more he opens his mouth, the more he shows his inexperience. Stop sweating the small stuff and start tending to the large issues at hand. Obama sounds like a spoiled arrogant child, not a President.

what barack and a lot of dum dems dont get is that we're not targeting or interested in war with any particular country, but most of the terrorists are in Irq, Iran, syria.

Too bad terrorists were not in Iraq until we bombed innocent people. Come on put the shoe on the other foot? If China decided to bomb us because we couldn’t pay our debts to them, then invaded us and occupied our country, what would you do? Hell Americans are so hypercritical we let the French help and aide us against the British! We used Gorilla war tactics against the British as well. Hell we invented that and you mean to tell me the Iraqi's don’t have the right to defend there country? We are not the liberators your president and his administration say and think we are. We have become the most hated country on the planet. And that comes from the people around the world not the politicians who become politicians for the money. Once money comes into play we the people don’t matter.

Neo-cons will insist that Hussein's Iraq was responsible for 9/11 because that is what they choose to believe. That this has no grounding in fact doesn't matter to them. Did al Quaeda have a presence in Iraq BEFORE we invaded, "spinnstopper"?

Kirsten, were you unaware that we were bombing Iraq during Clinton's administration? Were you unaware that the US and the UN had economic sanctions against Iraq that led to the deaths of half a million children during the years of the Clinton presidency (Lesley Stahl — "60 minutes")? Remember Madelaine Albright's comment that Iraqi civilian casualties were "collateral damage" that was "worth it?"

Bush and Clinton — two neo-con look-alikes. Don't be fooled. They both stink.

I think Obama is making a very balanced common sense point. He compliments the military and both men. He points out the mission of the military is difficult and we don't have infinite money to last in Iraq forever. He does complain that with the emotions so high on 9/11 it might not be the best backdrop for hearings. I see from several posts that a few people are talking emotionally, rather than with their more rational, calm, logical voices.

He is making the political point that Bush made a bad decision in invading Iraq. Al Qaeda wasn't there before the invasion - now we are there because Al Qaeda is there?

He summarized previous testimony by Petraeus that the progress was political in Anbar not primarily due to American military missions in Anbar.

Most Senators started out their questioning honoring the military but criticizing aspects of the war policy delivered by Bush and Rumsfeld. Obama is not different from anyone else in that regard.

Several of the posts here state things I disagree with, such as, we're in Iraq to fight the terrorists. Iraq didn't have radical Islamic terrorism before we invaded. Saddam was very good at crushing the radicals.

James of Phoenix AZ said that Obama said we should nuke Pakistan. What kind of medication is James on? That couldn't be more opposite of Obama's stated position. It is a good definition of how emotion and ignorance take the place of intelligent discourse.

People just don't seem to have the patience for discussion and debate. There are surely two sides to the issue.

The Republicans aren't much happier about what's going on in Iraq than the Democrats. There isn't so much of a huge fight as I see it. Why would a Republican OR Democrat want to spend $2 billion every week in Iraq, when that could be a tax cut? Why would a Democrat OR Republican prefer to spend $2 billion a week in Iraq when those of us who buy health insurance have to pay huge premiums to cover the high charges of hospitals because they have to provide unreimbursed medical care to 43 million people who don't have insurance and don't pay?

Every week the Iraqi government doesn't get its act together it costs me more money. I'm all for helping Iraq learn how to defend itself - but a huge welfare state for the Iraqi people, managed by on a huge government bureaucracy created by the Republicans isn't the best solution.

Republicans = big bureaucracy, big spenders. That's my complaint.

"Oh give it up Obama, it doesn't help at all to make a mundane statement like this about timing. Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!"
Posted By Grace D. - Kansas City, Mo. : September 11, 2007 7:08 pm

Grace,

If you have ever watched a Senate committee hearing, most of it is about making statements. Also, if you had ever watched one, you would know that it is not the campaign trail. Why would he be telling the general and ambassador why America should be voting for him. Get real.

The more he talks, the less Presidential he appears. Hillary's got the Dem nomination in the bag. Congradulations are in order, again for the Republicans..

AA:

YOUR POSTINGS ARE FULL OF ERRORS…MANY ARE ON SUBSTANCE (THEY'RE JUST PARTY TALKING POINTS), BUT MOST ARE ON GRAMMAR AND SPELLING. PRESENTATION IS EVERYTHING WHEN YOU WANT SOMEONE TO PAY ATTENTION TO YOU.

Posting things in all caps doesn't make your opinion any more relevant. And for God's sake, proofread your comments.

Obama says, "This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake. "

Riiight. And nuking Pakistan would be the SMART approach to getting OBL, Mr Obama? Perhaps you need another cigarette to take the pressure off.

Posted By James, Phoenix AZ : September 11, 2007 5:35 pm

~~~~~~~~~~~~

LMAO,, you are a true idiot james,.. he never said anything about nuking pakistan. You spun your own cnn media spin.

Obama is the only intelligent person in the room who will speak his mind, and has anything to say….he is the only one to point out the spins continuing to be perpetuated from the White House, we have already lost the war since there is no win on "terror", and THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9/11 AND THERE WERE NO WMDs IN IRAQ!!!!WHY ARE WE THERE?????

Do people who comment realize "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a term WE made up to justify our occupation while people were still falling for the notion the two were related, which further shows our idiacy…the fact that a citizen of a sovereign country should defend their homeland from a foreign UNWANTED UNINVITED invader is a SURPRISE??? Iraqis KNOW why we are there…and it is NOT to free anybody, it is to do what we always do, keep them fighting each other, divide and conquer, i.e. Korea, Vietnam, etc. etc.

We term any group we do not like as "rebel" or "infidel" and groups we do like such as in Nicaragua or wherever "freedom fighter" does ANYBODY pay attention to ANYTHING anymore? you cannot be apathetic in independent thought and still try to make a coherent defense, all you can do is regurgitate the neocon propaganda, we have already heard it…the fact is GW and Co. are indefensible!!!!if you drive a huge SUV and live in HUGE unaffordable house then it is OBVIOUS why you support the war effort……don't disguise it as some idealist argument such as "defend freedom", we don't have many freedoms left here, IF you are paying attention, which I know MANY are not…

what Obama said was purposely misconstrued, when was the last time you heard GW admit anything???ever???Pakistan's Musharaff is an illegally ruling dictator, he is president and commanding the military at the same time, he is impeding democracy when 90% of population want him gone, but he is an unwitting American puppet, letting us use airspace, and doing whatever he needs to to not have America bomb his country….GW will not threaten him, so Musharraf does very little to go after terrorists in his country, because really Pakistanis don't like us either….they should be happy at this point that he is a stooge or they would be next to be bombed….go America!!! people here who don't like that Obama because he has guts and conscience, yet they vote for our current idiot in command who has no conscience, has probably never spoken the truth, doesn't have to because at least in his mind, he is "the decider", is anyone else worried that we have someone who could destroy all of us with "delusions of grandeur" in charge….instead you want to attack someone with new ideas who wants to actually progress, not regress, our country….and repair the rift GW has created with the rest of the world…vote for Rudy then, he is another coward who somehow spun his cowardly 9/11 response into HIS WHOLE campaign platform…..I am amazed actually someone intelligent like Obama would want to stoop to compete with these other two-faced crooked liars and thieves….Obama would bring integrity back, but America could not handle that, most likely….since the President is supposed to represent the majority, if enough citizens are crooked, then logically they will not elect an honorable man….

[...] on television (while the sandbagged Chairman Biden demonstrated is pique and read a newspaper). Here is what the conniving Senator said: “I think we should not have had this discussion on 9/11, or 9/10, or 9/12, because I think it [...]

He only answer to God, citizen who elected him and his wife!

Come on Barack, If you really had a problem with the date of this hearing why did you not mention a word of this till now. The date of the hearings and the report has been scheduled for over 6 months.

And your acting shocked that that it happens to fall on and near the 9-11 anniversary.

Not all Americans are as stupid and ignorant as most Democrats want us to be.

Too little to late. If you really and truely objected to this why did you say nothing till now. It easily could have been delayed a week months ago if you felt strongly about it.

If I wanted to hear from the back seat drivers I'll listen to Hillary's speaches.