The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


Primary Source

Obama: 'It's a Day to Act'

President-elect Barack Obama issued a statement honoring Martin Luther King Day today, and calling Americans to service:

Today, we celebrate the life of a preacher who, more than forty-five years ago, stood on our national mall in the shadow of Lincoln and shared his dream for our nation. His was a vision that all Americans might share the freedom to make of our lives what we will; that our children might climb higher than we would.

Dr. Martin Luther King's was a life lived in loving service to others. As we honor that legacy, it's not a day just to pause and reflect -- it's a day to act. Today, ordinary citizens will gather together all across the country to participate in the more than eleven thousand service projects they've created using And I ask the American people to turn today's efforts into an ongoing commitment to enriching the lives of others in their communities, their cities, and their country.

Tomorrow, we will come together as one people on the same mall where Dr. King's dream echoes still. As we do, we recognize that here in America, our destinies are inextricably linked. We resolve that as we walk, we must walk together. And as we go forward in the work of renewing the promise of this nation, let's remember King's lesson -- that our separate dreams are really one.

Posted at 11:14 AM ET on Jan 19, 2009  | Category:  Primary Source
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Obama Looks Ahead | Next: Bush Homeland Security Officials to Stay on Till Weds.

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

My "original post" (yesterday at 12:29 PM) asked whether it was O.K. to golf. I "defend" on the grounds that I enjoy golfing, want to "stimulate" the local economy, and honestly did not know the proper protocol for golfing on the "Day to Act". Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2009 5:51 PM

Defend your original post. Nothing else you have posted can be defended - it's already been proven false, not that it was ever part of the discussion for my part.

The NIE (National Intelligence Estimate, dated October 2002) has been shown to overstate or not support the underlying intelligence reporting used to substantiate this war). The NIE is a document coordinating the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment of a specific national-security issue.

But I am sure you knew this already.

Posted by: spqr2k | January 20, 2009 3:28 PM

My original statment was actually a question (yesterday at 12:29 PM). I thereafter claimed that NO American intelligence agency told Bush, before the war, that Saddam did not have WMD. You haven't identified an agency that did, yet you still claim that Bush "based a war on a statement he knew to be false". I dispute your assertion (and not so quietly either). It's no surprise that you refuse to answer my question, while claiming twice you have answered the question.

Now, what exactly are you trying to get me to defend?

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2009 2:39 PM

I've answered yours twice now. Everyone else who has posted sees your obfuscation but you.

By now, it's common knowledge that every timeline indicates any original assumption of Iraq posessing WMD's was incorrect. Not only is this assertion not challenged, but our former President still based a war on a statement he knew to be false, and still can't bring himself to admit the mistake which cost us over 4000 lives.

Your silence regarding your ORIGINAL and indefensible statement is deafening.

Posted by: spqr2k | January 20, 2009 2:08 PM


When did you ask THAT question? My question was asked yesterday at 6:05 PM after you claimed: "his own intelligence agency told him it was untrue" at 5:48 PM. I will be more than happy to answer your question(s) just as soon as you answer mine.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2009 1:45 PM

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2009 1:42 PM

Which agency? The one that works for him, the one that he ignored, and the one who had an agent 'outed' because of politically motivated revenge against a diplomat who disagreed with him. This question has been answered, and by smarter, more connected people than you or I.

Yet you still refuse to answer my question - Why do you so despise our "pResident-Evil" because of his middle name, cast aspersions on his linage, doubt his legitimate citizenship and make light of a holiday named for a man who died for a cause you feel is properly celebrated by playing golf???

Posted by: spqr2k | January 20, 2009 1:36 PM

My question still stands: "Which U.S. intelligence agency told Bush with 100% certainty that Saddam did not have WMD?"

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2009 1:13 PM

What exactly is the issue with his middle name, anyway? Would you take some issue with those of us who have the name 'Adolf' also?

Posted by: spqr2k | January 20, 2009 10:39 AM

Well stated rooster, but the point here was not to discuss GWB and his failings.
My intent was to point out the baseless nature of the attack made against our new president. I think the author made my point for me, and then tried to change the subject to confuse the true issue.

Posted by: spqr2k | January 20, 2009 10:36 AM

Jake D-
We can't say "with absolute certainty" that YOU don't possess WMDs either, but we're not stupid enough to attack you.

Hans Blix was much more qualified than Bush to make the call with regard to Saddam, and Blix was right. Bush was wrong. Bush coveted Iraq's O.I.L. (Remember "Operation Iraqi Liberation"?), and he bore false witness to try and get it. I know you don't consider him a liar, because he believed his own grandiose mythology. Bush has a lot to answer for. He has a millstone around his neck that he put there himself. Maybe he has partially atoned for his sins by doing some great things to help HIV victims in Africa. I hope God forgives him, but some genuine contrition on his part, as well as on his supporters' part, would be a big step in the right direction to make that happen. We can't raise the dead who were killed by his foolishness, and we can't grow new limbs to replace those severed by shrapnel. This is a grave matter, and our silly debates don't do it justice.

His actions have also led to further radicalization of Islamic extremists. It's a lose-lose legacy for everyone.

The Republican party has been taken over by greed, and fear mongering so, of course, it has failed us miserably. Even the Wall Street Journal knew in the 90's that executive excesses were going to hurt the country's economy. It's insane the way we under-compensate the real productivity of deserving workers while lavishing worthless CEO's with more than they deserve, or could possibly need.

I appreciate your inability to support candidates who are pro-choice. You have lived up to your principles by voting against them, so I'm sure you're off the hook with God and your conscience. I'm pretty sure you won't go to hell for deciding to wish the new administration well though. Since you can't punish people for abortions after they're done, and can't be undone, maybe you can join us Christians who want to do all we can to help people not to want them (or feel like they need them) in the first place.

Posted by: rooster54 | January 19, 2009 10:50 PM

Which U.S. intelligence agency told Bush with 100% certainty that Saddam did not have WMD?

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2009 6:05 PM

his own intelligence agency told him it was untrue - he just chose not to listen, which was quite possibly the biggest failing of his administration. Then he advanced his own agenda by forcing a lie on the unsuspecting public.

Posted by: spqr2k | January 19, 2009 5:48 PM

Every intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam had WMD, so that wasn't a "lie".

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2009 5:11 PM

So, does the power of foresight give you the ability to pronounce his administration a failure the day before it begins?
Thanks to the 'failure' of past administrations, all eyes are on his actions already. Why not give him a year in office before we start finding fault with his performance?
As for the greatest liar in history - let's start with the man who swore proof of WMD's or even the one who said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Either of those two whoppers will be hard to beat.

Posted by: spqr2k | January 19, 2009 3:54 PM


Barack Obama is the greatest liar in history (no wonder he is an excellent lawyer!) During his campaign, he told lots of hope in future for America if he was elected, but now he warns Americans of oncoming darker economy and not to put too much hope in his promises. He promises a big plan to reduce budget deficit but his inauguration ceremony this January will be the most costly in history (50 millions) while the nation is in deep depression, as well as his presidential campaign (600 millions), which was far more than his opponent John McCain's. He swears to clean up Washington DC, but he failed to first clean up his homestate Illinois, one of the most corrupt state with the scandal of Governor Rod Blagojevich, who greatly helped Obama to win his state senate seat in 1996, 1998, and 2002. And his favorite slogan is "Yes, we CAN", yet he himself CANNOT quit smoking at all !!!

Posted by: TIMNGUYEN1 | January 19, 2009 3:39 PM

And the kool Aid keeps flowing

Posted by: whiteja55801 | January 19, 2009 3:02 PM


You must be thinking of someone else -- there's also been plenty of fake JakeD posts -- the primary reason I voted against Obama was because he is pro-choice. I would have gladly voted for a pro-life African-American. That certainly does not make me hateful or a racist.

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2009 2:39 PM

your internet postings tell a different story.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 19, 2009 2:19 PM

don't worry about Rush "give me a four Percocettes right now" Limbaugh.
He no longer has any creditability.
He's addicted to "downers" and walks around like a zombie---much less talking intelligently.

It's a bit mind-blowing to see and witness how some people are so against this Presidency. It's as if they suddenly discovered --- "hate".
Fill yourself with hate and prejudice because Barack won.

Are you prejudice because an African American won?
Are you hateful because your party didn't win?

Tell me why there is hate and prejudice towards our new President.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 19, 2009 2:17 PM

I don't "hate" Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Jr. (that IS is given name).

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2009 2:15 PM

Proof was asked for and has been given. Nothing illegal will happen on that podium tomorrow, you can be assured.

His middle name is pointless to the situation, but shows the nature of the attack made against him.

The comments twisting the term 'president' and questioning his paternity are yours alone, not mine, and do indeed indicate the kind of hatred that anger can disguise.

Posted by: spqr2k | January 19, 2009 2:08 PM


Using his middle name or asking for definitive proof that he is a "natural born" citizen (as required under the U.S. Constitution) is "ugly, hate-filled ... xenophobic, racist, name-calling"? Better be careful, because I understand that he will be using his OWN middle name for his (illegal) oath tomorrow.

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2009 1:22 PM

Sure, go ahead and play golf today. Just remember the man who gave his life so that a day like tomorrow would even be possible.
In the mean time, the rest of us will turn the other cheek and satisfy ourselves that the election turned out the way it did because of ugly, hate-filled commentary like yours and spewed by the opposition.
It's really nothing more than xenophobic, racist, name-calling - and thankfully we did not fall for it this time. THAT is change we can believe in.

Posted by: spqr2k | January 19, 2009 1:09 PM

Rush Limbaugh said today that Barack was elected by irresponsible people who want to keep on being irresponsible. He said that Barack supporters can't do anything for themselves and expect 'responsible people like me" (Limbaugh) to do it for them.
This is typical of the kind of alternate reality in which today's so-called conservative lives. This comment comes from a guy who admits to being no more than a professional "entertainer". What kind of work is that? Unfortunately, too many people think of him as a legitimate information source. He's really just one more angry clown in a bad minstrel show.

Furthermore, I can think of no other group who expects to maintain a lifestyle that requires no real contribution of goods and useful services on their part than Rush's ilk. He is the most spongy, fat, lazy, entitled, rage filled, welfare queen on the planet! He obviously knows how to eat, but I don't think that bozo is even capable of making a sandwich.

He's a lazy, fat hypocrite who helped destroy countless lives with his delusional ideas. Good thing he's so gluttonous. On day he'll have to eat his own putrid words.

Posted by: rooster54 | January 19, 2009 12:54 PM

My question to pResident-Evil Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Jr. (assuming that Sr. was even his real father): is it O.K. to golf today?

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2009 12:29 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company